Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 4.8K All Categories
- 4.3K Life in Lusternia
- 464 Announce Posts
- 75 Event Posts
- 1.7K Common Grounds
- 589 Q&A
- 83 Combat Overhaul
- 1.5K World Library
- 86 Combat Logs
- 870 Event Scrolls
- 403 Mechanic's Corner
- 329 Ideas
- 314 Last Chance Trading Post
- 478 Life Outside of Lusternia
- 9 Forum News
- 275 The Real World
- 94 Meet and Greet
- 37 The Funnies
- 63 Mafia Hideout
Discussion Regarding Reports
This discussion was created from comments split from: Tweets VIII: Knocks Me Off My Tweet.
0
(c) Iron Realms Entertainment 2012.
Comments
Can people please stop "unnecessary" on every report without trying make sense of them? It really stings on reports you've helped to make skills more usable. It's uncomfortable to see on reports that would buff people that are putting them down but they've refused to engage at all. It undermines the point of classleads systems.
It's really hostile when you do this with nothing else.
Who do you think as the winning side in the game right now? The fights I've seen have been even or slanted the other way.
Drama aside "unnecessary" wording being used on a number of reports, sometimes multiple times on the report by the same person which feels like piling on.
Look at report 335: comment 1 and 2 are just "this is unnecessary" with no elaboration or explanation of their position. Comment 3 asks for logs!!! Why are they asking for logs for??? Wager comment 4 is either someone who has commented the day before or someone who has been asked to comment on behalf of someone without knowing what they're saying.
I would understand people if there were reports not accepting feedback but that's not what's happening here, people just aren't giving feedback in the first place or engaging with the reports in a genuine way and its just rude.
Some of the comments just saying "unecessary" were removed so thank you admin for that. I've talked a little bit and I agree everyone should have their opinions but I don't think people who are just having tantrums , being contrarian or seeking attention should be given a platform to do it on in important disussions.
I've been through bad IRE classleads in the past but anonymity and the cheek of some of this is shocking. I'd rather be called a bitch in a heated argument to my face by someone who I know than led around by a troll who I don't.
2-5 minutes later in the time I took I was writing this post, there are 2 more comments now saying "unecessary" and not saying why!
#7, You can discuss this report in good faith, bring up reasonable points and explain your side of things or just show yourself the door. People are happy to collaborate and work with you, but it's impossible when Hallifax refuses to yield any ground at all on any issue as they have for years. Aeon has to go or aeon has to change. If not, you can expect to see reports that bring other skills in line with it. As a last resort, there'll have to be reports chipping away at the rest of Hallifax's skills to bring them into line with the extreme pressure they've benefited from while being handled with kid gloves for as long as they have. This isn't browbeating. Work with us, or keep yelling at a wall as we work around you.
The comment looks like it's saying to me "Work with us with good faith contributions or go sit in the corner." Is this unfair to say?
Then I'm sorry to say your conversation must not have been so fruitful as all you have to do is timewarp formulas to see they have near eight passive ticking timewarp, roomwide timewarp generation abilities and large burst without setup. Tessenchi crypticflux is just better for some reason as well as this which raised eyebrows.
One person can make a difference in a clash compared to games where you're 1 in 1000.
If the comment was an opening statement saying "Agree with all the statements in this report or we'll bully you" then yes you'd be right but it was in response to a comment that was not deemed to be useful to the conversation and asking people responding to work with them. Reports are supposed to be modified by conversation in the comments, no other solutions have been brought only objections. Maybe open conversations would be better for these discussions rather than through a medium only useful for sniping at people once a day.
"They were giving out 40+ timewarp in ONE passive tick." Yes, this is good and I'm glad you had some contribution to this. But that this was in the game probably means that institute was not designed from very strong foundations and in likliehood has a ways to go, or the special report they had knocked things in a bad way. Maybe there are more constructive ways of going about bringing these things into a alignment but people are using the methods they have to fix things they see as issues.
Balanced reports should be done when a particular synergy is at fault and there needs to be a two-pronged approach such as toning down a main offence, or the toning down is too drastic.
I do agree with reducing RNG in both researcher paths overall so they are more reliable for both parties and there is more consistency for researcher and victim for counterplay.
Special report for these two classes please! if only number tweaks or small changes.
It's own question:
I'm curious what class you think are underperforming and which are overperforming. Do you personally base this on who is winning fights or something else like raw numbers?
Is the aim of balance -in your opinion- to make up for a lack of skill in some organisations or allow lower population counts to be competitive with players putting more effort, time and investing more into getting involved?
I didn't want to start a multi-page argument on a tweet thread so I'm going to stop here but proper guidelines on reports and higher expectations for and from the community would be a nice thing for us all to have.
The idea you have to give to take or vice versa assumes all things were even to begin with. If you have a 1 second insta, we wouldn't say that is broken, let's make it 5 seconds but now it targets multiple people, you would just increase the timer.
EDIT: The problem comes when something is not an obvious problem. While you may not agree that X is an issue, it is clearly an issue to someone else, who then treats it as not needing a compensation. I wanted to make it clear there is wiggle, but part of that wiggle is people not seeing eye to eye to begin with on where something stands. Otherwise, I do actually suggest, when possible, trying to get a middle ground to soften the blow, if reasonable. Not saying every nerf needs a buff though.
A few of classes/skills do just need special reports due to datedness and the inability to fix them with one off little adjustments over time.
All players deserve to be heard. We've always said that outside a very few specific things, players should be able to report anything they want to report. We have guidelines for how to write reports and what is more likely to get a report accepted listed in HELP WRITING REPORTS.
The same goes for comments on reports. Players should feel like they can make their opinion heard. If they're commenting with inaccurate information or with 'bad faith' arguments (I don't know that many players actually are engaging in bad faith), it should be easy enough to correct them with proof. Though, your report should be explaining the details of the mechanics you're reporting enough to help combat those inaccuracies early (as per HELP WRITING REPORTS).
We also have stated that reporting skills/abilities that you fight against have a higher bar to gain acceptance than reporting your own skills. We encourage people to reach across the battlefield and work with those players to come to amicable changes. Doing so is more likely to result in a report getting accepted than trying to force changes upon them.
Report and comments have been anonymous so that players can focus on what the report is about rather than who posted the report. They are anonymous so they can focus on what the comment is saying rather than who is saying the comment. I've seen quite a few players make assumptions on who is saying what comments or who reported what that are entirely offbase and inaccurate. If you're concerned about who is saying something, you need to step back and re-evaluate how you are approaching reports. If you think something is wrong or in bad faith, it should be easy enough to debunk their reports/comments with substance rather than just dismissing them because of who you -think- said it. Again, you're probably wrong.
Lastly, the only time I'm going to get involved and remove comments or remove reports is when they have become insulting or disrespectful. It should be easy enough to get your point across without resorting to insults or saying things like 'this report is ridiculous' or 'this report is garbage' (both examples of comments I've deleted). As a PSA, I try to be as even-handed as possible when doing this but I'm human and probably don't catch everything so if you think a comment is really rude, insulting, or disrespectful, feel free to message me and I'll look at it and react accordingly. It usually has to be pretty obvious for me to remove it. I'm not going to remove comments that just say things like 'this isn't needed' etc as long as they are not resorting to insults etc.
Long ago, in the days of dinosaurs and dialup, we had the Envoys. Individually selected from each of the guilds by the admin were representatives that collaborated (FIERCLY, most times) about the state of Conflict™. Yes, terrible things sometimes came from this, but folks were genuinely engaging in dialogue in a clear and concise way... usually.
As much as I love for everyone to have an opinion, it might not be the best option presently. Players can hide behind anonymity and attempt to sway combat in their favor through meta manipulation and sliding in buffs in a cumulative fashion on top of nerfing their opponents without oversight by the other players. We can't see that Reporter 1 is Buffing the skill of Basketweaving while their buddy, Reporter 2 who is a well-known pocket pal of Report 1, is placing the big nerf of the Sack skillset. The anonymity being removed might create a more positive space while also allowing those of us more non-partisan to be able to call out extreme metagaming.
It can be painful to read some of the comments added, as bias reporting will always be the bane of our Balance. We should explore other avenues where we look at and address skills without having the larger audience dictate the change.
I've been approached by people who've spoken to me a lot on the culture behind reports here and on some examples I've raised with them. I know there are comments being made without the best intentions and there is a report up right now about an ability the report writer has clearly not even taken the time to AB or discuss with anyone nevermind the classes that use it. I'm unsure if they ever even seen the ability used.
There are still comments up on reports that do not engage but show that they've read and understand all the orevious comments and the problem. There is a smug overstepping of what is polite and it would be far less likely to have been made from not behind a mask. Not going to name shame or point to the report out of decency and the anonymity afforded by the current system.
I'd support cycles which does away with anonymity but allows people their voices still. I hope people would be more responsible and honest if they were placing their credibility on the line instead of just loading it up bait.
If that was reassured (or corrected if I am wrong), perhaps that would do away with some of the negativity people feel in posting and interacting with reports.
Particularly in the gaming space there are also so often arguments being made that are... implausible for players to talk to.
Last round there was a decent amount of comments along the lines of "this would take too long to code" for example. It might or might not, but to me the whole point of the envoy system though is to present change requests to the admin who can then make judgements about how long things would take to implement. It's not necessarily bad faith, but it's also an argument that can't really be resolved because the only people that can make the call and provide proof are the coders not players.
That's not the case. You are trying to convince the admin that your report (or reports you support) are beneficial to the game. It's not up to the players to decide if a report is necessary or not (they're all technically unnecessary) or to decide if it takes too long to code. It's up to us.
That's why I'm saying it should be easy to prove wrong/debunk. Because you're not trying to convince them.
Sure in an ideal world, we would do all rebalancing. But given that this is a part-time thing for us and there's a limit of available time, we have reports to give people a chance to make changes to things that they believe need changes that don't rely on us to devote time to. As it's now been made a report, we can see if players want us to allow this to happen still or if they just want to limit it to QoL reports. The reporting system is intended to be something beneficial. We can definitely do away with it if it's not being perceived that way.
Speaking personally, I would probably rather report cycles be -more- frequent, but in a smaller scope of size (like one report for a player). There's a feeling like all issues need to be brought up at once because it might be a year before another report cycle. More frequent cycles but with less reports each, allows a better mindset for incremental changes.
I've said my two cents here, I'm not likely to dip back into this thread again though.
I can see where you're coming from if F style was your point. We agreed something was a problem before a pure nerf, so it didn't have to be glaring, just unanimous.
For those unaware of Monkish and Project F: We did coordinated reports. Reports were discussed before submission so we had hashed out issues up front. We used this to improve options for classes, remove glaring issues, etc. Monkish dealt in monks, F was all. Those used old envoys though, so it was easier to manage reports. We could get 5 reports on one guild and be coordinated to make a noticeable shift. Monkish was a Ninjakari clan that invited all monks. F was a private clan (mine) that invited envoys and top combatants, specifically it omitted anyone believed to place reports in bad faith or who did not want to work in the F approach to pre hashed reporting. F resulted in twice the reports submitted, with myself handling wrangling the reports (aka getting people to appear and submit).
Edit: I am not usually on forums, so replying may not get me. Feel free to tell or message if you reply. I was linked in and responded.