The problem with the approach of "Can only report if you have the skillset" is that you are then hoping people are willing to give an actual critical look at their abilities and go, "Oh gosh, we're a tad overtuned!" and submit a report to fix themselves. That won't happen , in any skillset. Ideally people should be able to open a report on any skillset, list their issues and carry on with people who have experience going against the skillset and the users. In this case, it is up to the users to show why the reported problem isn't actually a problem, or if it is identified a problem, offer ways to improve the solution so that all are in agreement.
That is why I am not suggesting limiting reports on a skillset only to those who have it, because I agree that it can lead to nothing ever getting done. What we do need is something that actually enables "offering ways to improve the solution," which simply does not exist in a "this is my report and I do not care what anyone says" report meta. Unlock reports from being one person's Vision so we actually can attempt to work towards agreement.
Letting other players edit a report isn't going to solve the issue either. Simply put, it just adds to the partisan behavior as a group can just put a new solution and vote on it, even if it doesn't actually address anything. Suggestions are good, but if it isn't actively aiding the report then we also get what we currently have. Best case scenario is we get an actual workshop period where all the input comes in and the report writer decides from there the best solutions to list.
If someone tries to add a solution that is nothing but a trolly obfuscation, it should be blocked (not get added at all). As I also stated, new solutions should be reviewed to ensure they are not just being abused to push partisan mudslinging.
I simply don't see "report writer has sole control" as being best case under any scenario, though. With that being true, why would he/she pick the best solutions vs. his/her own preferred ones?
If a report is a cooperative effort you are required to cooperate. If it is not, you can do whatever you want.
Sometimes report writers take opinions into consideration and decide that they don't want to include commenters' changes or thoughts in their report. That's entirely their prerogative. If I walked into a Crow report of yours that tried to make carrion less awful (as an example) and commented "yeah I think sol <x> needs <y>" and you decide "no, I don't think that's appropriate", you shouldn't feel the need to compromise. This is without factoring in partisan opinions and all the other old problems we've spun through these past few years.
Either way, if you can't see what people are commenting, you won't be able to change or modify your solutions. I think that's okay. It will make people more careful about writing the report in the first place.
You won't need to "highball" solutions anymore like some haggler at some night market (i.e. ask for some values you know people won't like and "pretend" to compromise. All those kinds of behaviors can be abolished if the admin start taking more responsibility in report decisions.
Does that mean Orael will get more heat? Probably. The admin become a focal point for "this is why my skillsets are bad!". But that's way better than "some player is actively trying to keep my skills bad!".
I think you have identified the most glaring problem with reports as they exist: The notion that a report is "my report" or "your report." That is, by definition, partisan. In past iterations of reporting, things have been tried to attempt to alleviate this, such as "You cannot report on a skillset you don't have unless you make a good-faith effort to get buy-in from users of that skillset" or even just "If you're consistently being unproductive we will remove you from envoys." Obviously they were not perfect, but they were at least an attempt at a moderating influence, one which simply does not exist now. Anyone can write a report, regardless of how much or little they know, and can choose to "ask for values people won't like and not even pretend to "compromise").
If someone has an idea for improving carrion in a crow report, why the heck not let them add it? If it's a bad idea, it probably won't get support. If it's a good idea, then great! Either way it helps inform the final decision from the admin (who can also choose to reject bad solutions on their own) and hopefully moves things forward.
We need to kill this idea of report ownership. It does nothing but poison the process. Work together to make improvements, not against each other to tear each other apart.
Regardless of who spiritually "owns" a report, the person who writes it is also the person who crafts the solutions, the problem statement and the final product of the report.
Essentially what you're saying is "yeah let's compromise on this solution as much as possible! but not if I don't like it, or I determine by "popular consensus" that people don't like it." Because you're only using your own, biased opinion to filter what is good for the report and what isn't - and no one really knows who you're sampling from. Unless you want to write a dissertation every time you change a solution, or reject a suggestion, showing objectively why you chose to do what you did so that it can be safely cleared of partisan leanings and subjectivity. Which I don't think even you want to do.
So screw comments. Write a report that you think is appropriate, people will comment anonymously and the admin will take it from there. You don't have to worry about convincing anyone but the admin.
One flaw I see down the road is that the head coder might not always be Orael, who we know is strongly familiar with Lusternia combat and does a pretty good job at being unbiased.
Whoever may replace him and get the final decision on reports may not necessarily be as combat savvy, nor is it safe to assume that they will be as unbiased as Orael. But mainly, the first point is what should be considered (i.e. combat familiar coder vs non-familiar).
I believe we will go with the new system based on what I initially proposed and some of the suggestions in this thread.
With that in mind, the mage overhaul takes priority, so that'll be my main focus. I'll be working on reports that have already been approve or are up for adminreview and then adjusting the system. I'm going to leave the current reports up for two weeks. If you want to report anything, you have two weeks to get it up to consider stage. After two weeks, we'll close the submissions and let things move through the system as is. If you're having issues submitting something, please send me a message and I'll get it taken care of.
Again, my priority list at the moment is
1) Mages 2) The current rounds of reports that have been submitted. 3) New report system in place.
I like the intention of the new reporting system to reduce the unproductive arguments in current reports. Also, I appreciate the intention of the admin to put in more effort on finalizing the solutions themselves.
That said, I think that one comment per player may not be enough as there is often a lot of misunderstanding and ignorance especially when the commenter has never used the skill/skillset being talked about. That may also be attributed to lack of information in the writing of the report.
I suggest that the 1st phase be mostly a discussion on the problem statement first. At this point, the comment limit should be 2 max per person to smoothen any misunderstandings. Solutions should already be written by the writer but are hidden in this phase and edittable.
The 2nd phase should now be about the solutions and reveal the solutions of the writer. At this point, it should only be 1 comment because the final decision will be by admin anyway. Problem and solutions no longer edittable.
I'm okay with 2 or 3 report cycles a year, so that recently implemented solutions can still be re-evaluated and tweaked if needed.
Leave the solutions entirely in the hands of the admin.
No offense, but how about no.
This is giving the admin reason to institute a "Solution 4" to pretty much anything. Giving Celestines Shackles, anyone?
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
I believe we will go with the new system based on what I initially proposed and some of the suggestions in this thread.
With that in mind, the mage overhaul takes priority, so that'll be my main focus. I'll be working on reports that have already been approve or are up for adminreview and then adjusting the system. I'm going to leave the current reports up for two weeks. If you want to report anything, you have two weeks to get it up to consider stage. After two weeks, we'll close the submissions and let things move through the system as is. If you're having issues submitting something, please send me a message and I'll get it taken care of.
Again, my priority list at the moment is
1) Mages 2) The current rounds of reports that have been submitted. 3) New report system in place.
I meant to suggest this a few months ago and got sidetracked.
At this point why not just implement a web-based bug/feature system? Seems like a lot of reinventing of wheels here.
Further, a nice feature system might assist that great ideas for a system actually get implemented when a system actually gets tackled, rather than the ideas often getting lost in intervening years.
I meant to suggest this a few months ago and got sidetracked.
At this point why not just implement a web-based bug/feature system? Seems like a lot of reinventing of wheels here.
Further, a nice feature system might assist that great ideas for a system actually get implemented when a system actually gets tackled, rather than the ideas often getting lost in intervening years.
The limiters on envoy reports seem to be the main difference.
Without putting in more coding time to the single sign on it'd be open to basically anyone regardless of vote weight, level, etc. Beyond that, things like the limited opening times and number of reports aren't necessarily standard so that can make it harder to find an "off-the-shelf" solution.
This is probably too late, but I'd like to ask something about the proposed new report system.
Will it be designed to effectively support ideas NOT related to combat balancing to have a chance to bubble up over time as well, without being swamped by PK skill buffs/nerfs/reworks/changes?
Personally I keep coming back to Lusternia hoping that the Latest Big Combat Rework(TM) will be almost complete and there will finally be space for some sort of world improvement stuff to be the focus of discussion, improvement, ideas and coding effort. But inevitably there is now a new class or org that is not 100% equal in PK strategies to all the others, and we have to go back to the drawing board on standardizing some pk-only element or other so that we can further fine tune combat tactics, and that usually takes up all the oxygen as everyone weighs subtle details of my skillset options vs your skillset options.
I get PK is important, and proportionally it probably matters even more to the remaining players than it did before, but I'm really hoping this report system will still be viable for suggestions around flavour messages/descriptions, loyals, quest changes, tradeskill stuff, aetherspace mechanics, maybe even economy tweaks.
I have a few more questions about the report system generally -
1. Are there any things that will be off limits for these new reports? For example, business/promotion changes, new sale items, new systems, etc. I just don’t want to waste one of the slots!
2. What is the intended use case difference between reports and IDEA? Are the latter more for tiny or flavour-only changes? Do they not really get looked at unless the idea is amazingly awesome?
3. The syntax will be mostly the same for the new reporting system, right? So we can start creating some drafts using REPORT CREATE in advance of them actually being implemented fully next month?
There has to be a better off the shelf web-based solution to this problem. One that includes a 'feature request tracker' so that when some admin tackles problem four years from now they can call up all the 'oh if you ever touch this system how about adding x, y, and z?'
There has to be a better off the shelf web-based solution to this problem. One that includes a 'feature request tracker' so that when some admin tackles problem four years from now they can call up all the 'oh if you ever touch this system how about adding x, y, and z?'
We don't have control of the webservers for self-hosted solutions, and purchased solutions would need to be used throughout IRE which I'm sure you see the issue with. Then there's the following issues:
1) Which solution? You're right, there's so many solutions, and all of them do things slightly to majorly differently, some of them are as clunky as dirt. Even the ones that aren't don't fit our needs entirely. 2) OAuth. This would need to be integrated into the game's login somehow, which requires integrating into Irator's oauth solution, or into the website login. Irator has not conformed to OAuth very well for I don't know how many years now, and I don't see this going well. Even the forums use the website login, which has its own unique issues that most solutions will not support. 3) It is an outside service. There is a documented resistance from a large number of players to avoid using outside services, including even the forums, from the game. This suggestion would lock them out from contributing to the game's future direction unless they gave up their autonomy on that decision.
I don't deny it's an intriguing idea. It's one I've weighed myself. I just don't think it's a feasible one at this time, especially because of the third issue.
There has to be a better off the shelf web-based solution to this problem. One that includes a 'feature request tracker' so that when some admin tackles problem four years from now they can call up all the 'oh if you ever touch this system how about adding x, y, and z?'
We don't have control of the webservers for self-hosted solutions, and purchased solutions would need to be used throughout IRE which I'm sure you see the issue with. Then there's the following issues:
1) Which solution? You're right, there's so many solutions, and all of them do things slightly to majorly differently, some of them are as clunky as dirt. Even the ones that aren't don't fit our needs entirely. 2) OAuth. This would need to be integrated into the game's login somehow, which requires integrating into Irator's oauth solution, or into the website login. Irator has not conformed to OAuth very well for I don't know how many years now, and I don't see this going well. Even the forums use the website login, which has its own unique issues that most solutions will not support. 3) It is an outside service. There is a documented resistance from a large number of players to avoid using outside services, including even the forums, from the game. This suggestion would lock them out from contributing to the game's future direction unless they gave up their autonomy on that decision.
I don't deny it's an intriguing idea. It's one I've weighed myself. I just don't think it's a feasible one at this time, especially because of the third issue.
A wordpress plugin seems plausible, it'd just need the admin to have access to install plugins on the wordpress and the website already has oauth set up it also wouldn't have the concerns in 2.
Comments
With that in mind, the mage overhaul takes priority, so that'll be my main focus. I'll be working on reports that have already been approve or are up for adminreview and then adjusting the system. I'm going to leave the current reports up for two weeks. If you want to report anything, you have two weeks to get it up to consider stage. After two weeks, we'll close the submissions and let things move through the system as is. If you're having issues submitting something, please send me a message and I'll get it taken care of.
Again, my priority list at the moment is
1) Mages
2) The current rounds of reports that have been submitted.
3) New report system in place.
That said, I think that one comment per player may not be enough as there is often a lot of misunderstanding and ignorance especially when the commenter has never used the skill/skillset being talked about. That may also be attributed to lack of information in the writing of the report.
I suggest that the 1st phase be mostly a discussion on the problem statement first. At this point, the comment limit should be 2 max per person to smoothen any misunderstandings. Solutions should already be written by the writer but are hidden in this phase and edittable.
The 2nd phase should now be about the solutions and reveal the solutions of the writer. At this point, it should only be 1 comment because the final decision will be by admin anyway. Problem and solutions no longer edittable.
I'm okay with 2 or 3 report cycles a year, so that recently implemented solutions can still be re-evaluated and tweaked if needed.
This is giving the admin reason to institute a "Solution 4" to pretty much anything. Giving Celestines Shackles, anyone?
I meant to suggest this a few months ago and got sidetracked.
At this point why not just implement a web-based bug/feature system? Seems like a lot of reinventing of wheels here.
Further, a nice feature system might assist that great ideas for a system actually get implemented when a system actually gets tackled, rather than the ideas often getting lost in intervening years.
Without putting in more coding time to the single sign on it'd be open to basically anyone regardless of vote weight, level, etc.
Beyond that, things like the limited opening times and number of reports aren't necessarily standard so that can make it harder to find an "off-the-shelf" solution.
Will it be designed to effectively support ideas NOT related to combat balancing to have a chance to bubble up over time as well, without being swamped by PK skill buffs/nerfs/reworks/changes?
Personally I keep coming back to Lusternia hoping that the Latest Big Combat Rework(TM) will be almost complete and there will finally be space for some sort of world improvement stuff to be the focus of discussion, improvement, ideas and coding effort. But inevitably there is now a new class or org that is not 100% equal in PK strategies to all the others, and we have to go back to the drawing board on standardizing some pk-only element or other so that we can further fine tune combat tactics, and that usually takes up all the oxygen as everyone weighs subtle details of my skillset options vs your skillset options.
I get PK is important, and proportionally it probably matters even more to the remaining players than it did before, but I'm really hoping this report system will still be viable for suggestions around flavour messages/descriptions, loyals, quest changes, tradeskill stuff, aetherspace mechanics, maybe even economy tweaks.
Thanks!
1. Are there any things that will be off limits for these new reports? For example, business/promotion changes, new sale items, new systems, etc. I just don’t want to waste one of the slots!
2. What is the intended use case difference between reports and IDEA? Are the latter more for tiny or flavour-only changes? Do they not really get looked at unless the idea is amazingly awesome?
3. The syntax will be mostly the same for the new reporting system, right? So we can start creating some drafts using REPORT CREATE in advance of them actually being implemented fully next month?
In general, reports exist to make adjustments/fixes to existing issues. New mechanics, while not prohibited, are less likely to be passed through.
The syntaxes will be the same for creating reports, but the system should be closed until we get this next iteration implemented.
There has to be a better off the shelf web-based solution to this problem. One that includes a 'feature request tracker' so that when some admin tackles problem four years from now they can call up all the 'oh if you ever touch this system how about adding x, y, and z?'
1) Which solution? You're right, there's so many solutions, and all of them do things slightly to majorly differently, some of them are as clunky as dirt. Even the ones that aren't don't fit our needs entirely.
2) OAuth. This would need to be integrated into the game's login somehow, which requires integrating into Irator's oauth solution, or into the website login. Irator has not conformed to OAuth very well for I don't know how many years now, and I don't see this going well. Even the forums use the website login, which has its own unique issues that most solutions will not support.
3) It is an outside service. There is a documented resistance from a large number of players to avoid using outside services, including even the forums, from the game. This suggestion would lock them out from contributing to the game's future direction unless they gave up their autonomy on that decision.
I don't deny it's an intriguing idea. It's one I've weighed myself. I just don't think it's a feasible one at this time, especially because of the third issue.