Well Synkarin that's just rude and uncalled for. No i dont have someone as a 'puppet' to my whims of what to post, and frankly the attitude and lack of maturity shown by envoys like yourself further exemplifies why i find this to be such a flawed system.
Will opening the envoy system up solve all its problems? No, but it will go a loooong way towards dispelling the discrepancy and inconsistency of the system. Furthermore, it will remove the idea of selecting these candidates that are suppose to be doing the magical job of a neutral liason, and rather make the system actually seen for what it is: players submitting reports for their gaming experience. Finally, it will allow the addressing of much more problems that have been harboring in the game, as more players give more perspectives.
All the other IRE games opted for this type of system and saw amazing results. I do not see why it continues to be defended when it is clearer something mot benefiting as much ad it should.
Your "golden ones" rhetoric is pretty uncalled for and highly inflammatory, but then again, so was your "typical envoy" comment in the last thread. I guess I'm just not seeing why you continue to think you can preach to anyone about what is appropriate and mature, but that's neither here nor there.
You still haven't explained how this system addresses your concerns, yet there have been explanations as to how they do not. You're just kind of .....stating it like it's so...and clutching your pearls when people don't agree with the statement without supportive reasoning. How does more reports resolve bias? Quantity and personal bias aren't related concepts, they are not mutually exclusive by any stretch of reasoning. You can have a system open to everyone, and it still be rampant with bias. In fact, I'd argue that's exactly what would happen. It's as if you take issue with the title "envoy," and that it turns any player into a poor resource for reports. That's why it very much sounds like you take issue more with the system not including you than you do with the system itself.
I'm curious, what "amazing results," specifically, and how do these results directly correlate to their new system in a way that could not have occurred in our system?
I think, if you weren't so busy trying to make jabs at the envoys and admin, you'd realize none of the envoys are actually defending the system as the only possible system and really don't see any harm in considering changes. They might not like your idea, because of the few reasons that have been raised, but disagreeing with you isn't quite the same as "defending" anything.
Player bias will never be removed, yes, and Lusternia's system, just as every other IRE system, acknowledges and checks this with admin oversight. An envoy who would argue he comes from a completely objective perspective is one that simply does not understand the meaning of the word "bias".
It goes, of course, without saying that the admin have their biases too, and they, in turn, rely on the collective voices of the envoys point it out and make logical arguments that bias cannot argue against.
And here's the crux: the check and balance of bias is not number of contributors, but logic. Arguments with appeals to emotions or anecdotal evidence or maybe-shoudbe-couldbes have a tendency to be more biased, and are often called out for that to be justified with facts and numbers as additional evidence. Arguments that are based entirely on them have obvious holes to be debated down. Whether or not reports are based on logic is the sole vector that decides how biased the system operates.
Now, that's not to say numbers do not contribute to more objectivity. But numbers without logic is literally as good as having a small coterie run unchecked for bias. The more people you have looking at an argument, the higher the chances any illogical premise or flow of thought will be caught. But there is this concept called "diminishing returns". And this is the greatest problem of the open-report systems of the other IREs. Do any of you who have experience playing in those games ever read and evaluate and think about every single report that is generated in those systems? At the best, a handful of the players do. The rest pick and choose their fights, because there frankly is not enough time to do that every single time reports are open. This is, assuming, that every player has a channel to feedback their thoughts and criticisms - which most actually do not. Reports being open, but players have no outlet to comment on the reports: what's the use? The answer is that there is none.
As an envoy, I read every single report, every single cycle, and offer my support or arguments against to every single one as much as I can. At the maximum, there are 28 reports to read a month. Most of the time, the number is 15 or less. Those I am undecided on, I give myself time to think more. I am not afraid to leave them uncommented because I know other people, some with more experience than myself, are looking at them as well. Yet there is no such guarantee when the report list balloons to 50, or 80, or over 100. I have no guarantee that there will be people looking at this uncommented report, yet I need to cover my bases and examine the reports that concern me the most. What do I do? Well, I leave it to the admin as the safety net, that's what I'll do.
But do the admin have enough time to go through all of the 100s of reports as well? Achaea's probably does. Aetolia's doesn't, which is why they have liaisons to (mechanically) advance or shoot down reports before they reach the admin. What about Lusternia?
Ours is perhaps the only system where a pool of envoys go through all the reports, AND THEN the pool of admins go through all the reports. A two-check system that does not exist in the other IREs. I cannot see how an argument that we turn out more biased reports BECAUSE we have such a system can be sustainable. (And frankly, I feel like I have been suckered, to have spent the time to address this this most elementary of concepts.) But do you think this system is sustainable when everyone can make one report?
If not, where is the improvement in bias-checks?
2) Player competency
Competency is a hard to measure vector. Celina is competent in combat. But that doesn't translate to a competency in argument. The fact that she has a grasp on both is a plus, but not everyone is capable of that. As the saying goes, God gives with one hand, and takes away with the other. Celina has many shortcomings as well, which I hardly need to go into detail about. What measures competency, and what kinds of competency, or what combinations and permutations of competency, is required for envoy positions?
More importantly, who are any of us to set this criteria?
The admin have a right to make a decision on who they decide is competent enough, because this is their game. But as players? The admin have never advertised what goes into their choosing. But observations over the years certainly have pointed to some general guiding principles. These have been touched on in the posts above, so I'll just brush past them quickly. Support from the guild and civil conversation skills appear to be the bare minimum. There possibly are other criteria, but I don't know of them.
And this is fine. I don't see why we need to say, "you need to have completed 100 spars against 4 different classes" in order to qualify for envoy. And I don't think anyone is entitled to the position to point at anyone else and say they are unqualified to be an envoy. To put it bluntly, your arrogance is getting in your way. Janalon is my go-to example for this, and I will bring up her name until the end of time. She has never been a combatant, but I have nothing but the utmost respect for her ability to spend countless hours testing mechanics, asking people about how they work, and figuring out numbers. That is something that is beyond me, both physically (because I don't have the time) and mentally (because I don't have the patience). She was not always correct, as coming from someone who rarely fights, her perspective is skewed and "biased" in a way that is different from that of a combatant. But she was more than just a capable envoy. If she came back tomorrow and started figuring things out again, I'd tell Nocht to appoint her to envoy instead of me any day of the week.
If there's anyone that's not qualified to be an envoy, it would be those whose egos are bigger than their windscreens. Getting into their car would be signing a guarantee to be involved in a trainwreck. In short, thanks, but no thanks.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
@Lerad, I haven't really looked at the other envoy equivalents but I will just note my assumption about Lusternia, which is that it's not necessarily the envoy system itself but the greater system that can lead to the appearance of bias. That being that primarily skills are locked to an organisation or grouping, buffing them strengthens the org and potentially causes issues for those these skills will be used on.
This isn't to say that all envoys have this bias but then you have like... well the situations mentioned previously between Hallifax and Gaudi, even right now a quick glance at the... Stag and Stealth reports up at the moment seem to show partisan lines. Super not actually reading the reports, just looking at names and whether they're saying "supported" or "rejected", which... well when you notice everyone opposed to it is "your enemy" leads to the accusations.
I imagine this would have been different in say, Tears of Polaris where, almost, every skill was going to be available to everyone and as such all changes would affect everyone. It's not a thing that's going to change any time soon, though the idea moving envoy positions to organisational level would at least open up the possibility of removing blatantly biased envoys who only hold their position because they're in a microguild.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited September 2015
Saran's finally hit on the biggest issue of the envoy system! Though perhaps accidentally.
The biggest issue is the inherent fear envoys have of reporting sincere balance concerns because that balance concern may not be within their wheelhouse, aka the guild they are in. Though Baelor and Estarra have stated envoys can envoy skills of opposing guilds/orgs, envoys generally are exceedingly cautious to do so to the extent that no one actually does. To be more specific, an envoy must weigh the option of reporting a perceived issue from a guild they compete with, where the burden of proof to the admin is enormous, or reporting small, incremental changes to their own guild where the burden of proof is much smaller.
This has little to do with Arcanis's complaints about bias, and was, in fact, a reaction by the admin because of the bias and the "envoys wars," era. The admin are, slowly but surely, allowing the envoys to start reporting on a wider variety of issues. Most envoys, myself included, are just skittish about it because it means losing a possible buff to your org which could be a easy to get through for a much more difficult attempt at nerfing a skill in an org that you are not a part of. Even if the admin say it's allowed, the enhanced scrutiny such a report requires kind of scares us away.
As a note, Arcanis's solution doesn't address that major flaw either
The fact that skills are locked to orgs are not a problem in a system where logic and number based proof is the primary assessment of validity. The two reports you used as examples are not examples of partisanship, but rather, examples of shared or similar perspectives.
As a monk player, my perspective is neccesarily limited to coming from a monk user's, as a matter of course, I will be unable to incorporate everyone's point of view, whereas Enyalida's criticisms very clearly come from the perspective of a sap user - reading the comments show that clearly. Similarly, Enyalida's report was not.created with a Crow user's perspective, and the comments against it are clearly aimed at adding and providing that to the report.
What's wrong with that? That is exactly what the system is meant to do, ensure that multiple perspectives contribute to the reports, to provide the admin with the information they need to make an informed decision.
The fact that skills are locked to orgs are not a problem in a system where logic and number based proof is the primary assessment of validity. The two reports you used as examples are not examples of partisanship, but rather, examples of shared or similar perspectives.
As a monk player, my perspective is neccesarily limited to coming from a monk user's, as a matter of course, I will be unable to incorporate everyone's point of view, whereas Enyalida's criticisms very clearly come from the perspective of a sap user - reading the comments show that clearly. Similarly, Enyalida's report was not.created with a Crow user's perspective, and the comments against it are clearly aimed at adding and providing that to the report.
What's wrong with that? That is exactly what the system is meant to do, ensure that multiple perspectives contribute to the reports, to provide the admin with the information they need to make an informed decision.
Except that we are both lacking in numbers as well as experience in combat mechanics . Additionally, these envoys are not always active, nor is the patron of an org, which makes it even more difficult to get a voice back up. Lusternia envoy changes have a history of causing some disastrous results, and frankly that is expected, these arent analysts, these are players, people who werent even qualified to begin with.
You cant say perspectives from each org are given equally, because most of the time, one org will be far more active than the other and thus have a much bigger pool of active voices up in the envoys, which will likely result in focused buffs and changes around said org.
The reason why im suggesting opening the envoys to the masses is not only from lack of numbers, and certainly i dont think it will solve all the problems, but it would remove the barrier people feel is placed between their skills and the admin, since it seems they ade only listening to a select few. The idea that 'anyone can submit' breeds the notion that you, the player, in fact have a free voice in your skills and we, the admin, are listening. Additionally, this will open the board to more suggestions and input. It would also remove the current idea behind lack of voices as well as the toxicity that was 'envoy warring'.
The admin are, slowly but surely, allowing the envoys to start reporting on a wider variety of issues. Most envoys, myself included, are just skittish about it because it means losing a possible buff to your org which could be a easy to get through for a much more difficult attempt at nerfing a skill in an org that you are not a part of.
I want to take a moment to address this point specifically. This is my personal criteria to addressing any reports and whether I support or oppose them. There are other admin who also look over reports who may have their own methods, but I thought some insight may help.
1. Does this report address either a long term issue, immediate short term glaring imbalance error (though most of these are often bugs or coding that can be adjusted without a report) or is it a knee jerk reaction to a strategy or situation?
There are times players have taken abilities and utilised them in a new way. This has a very quick and visible success rate until players adapt to the new strategy, by which point it balances out. There are exceptions to this where players have creatively "broken" the game, but these are few and far between.
2. How does this report work in relation to other skills and abilities? Often abilities are envoyed and looked at purely in a bubble, without consideration as to how they will synergise with other skills (or intentionally to sneak in a stealth buff!)
Often this is picked up in the envoy comments, and while the discussion may have merit, it does not determine by itself if a report passes or fails. For example a report may be issued by an individual who lays out clear reasons and evidence may be shot down by several envoys who dislike the idea of x class getting a buff. This concern about envoy warring does not sway my personal approval or objection to a report. Reports and objections stand on their merit, not on how many people support or object it.
3. Is the intended outcome of this report balanced in terms of effort in execution vs results? Often skills are envoyed that are simply too easy to achieve rather powerful (or guaranteed fatal) consequences. I firmly oppose these, I don't believe players should feel the need to jump through hoops to achieve success. I am of the idea that abilities should be used in conjunction with others utilising some level of tactical planning where adjustments may need to be made as opponents aim to counter your strategy.
4. On the issue of envoying other guilds, the criteria of merit over any "bias" holds true. The large issue I find is many of the abilities players have an issue with are core components of a class, removing or changing them significantly can leave a class exceptionally weak. It may be that any adjustments might possibly need some compensation so that a class that leans on one or two core abilities is more well rounded and balanced. Anyone envoying other guild abilities should take this into consideration. It is certainly a bonus if said envoy works with the envoy of the class they are reporting, but not a necessity if the proposal is well thought out and presented, addressing concerns.
Furthermore throughout the process, I remain accessible as a Devil's Advocate or ear piece tl bounce concepts off, I hope this allays fears of people "wasting" a report.
@Arcanis - There are ways to get envoys appointed even if your Patron is MIA for awhile, you can always message @Ieptix or @Baelor I imagine and they can figure out how to get you an envoy.
Since you've now claimed that you don't have a envoy at your disposal, you can also suggest reports to that envoy and they can place reports for you! But those reports will be subjected to both the player and admin review that's currently seen. (I feel like you already know this, but it again disproves your 'failed envoy' arguments)
But again, you keep pointing out issues that aren't inherent of the envoy system, (lack of experience or patrons to appoint isn't evidence of the system itself being flawed, because those factors are outside the system).
I'd wager to say very few reports have really resulted in disastrous results. You keep mentioning this rhetoric but haven't backed it up with any actual evidence. You've mentioned Choke, which was more a result of 'complain for change' than logic and reasoning, kind of like your princess farewell forum rant months ago. and you've mentioned monks, which IIRC has only had one special report (and maybe something with the special envoy report Shuyin headed up) since I started playing Lusternia.
Personally, while I agree that the system sortof works, there are issues with it as well. Not precisely the ones that Arcanis described (with envoys being corrupt), but rather that envoys are, by their very nature, combat oriented. This means that a very large portion of the reports are combat oriented as well. This leaves the other systems somewhat behind, such as trades; it's rather rare to see trade skills being envoyed. Sure, it happens, but it's not exactly common. That, if anything, I'd love to see changed, whether it be through a specific trade envoy or another system.
Any "barrier" between the player and the admin is created solely by the envoy involved. If an envoy is not taking ideas, or not speaking to you, or ignoring you, or doing whatever else to block your opinions, you are free to withdraw your support for your envoy with a private message to your patron. I think it's pretty fair to say the admin do take into consideration who a guild wants to have as their envoy. The admin certainly do listen, and they have gone to extreme lengths, lengths you don't see in other corporate games, to convey that point. And this is not just in Lusternia, but all the other IREs as well, the admin have made it a point to make sure players know they are listening, on forums and in game. I really don't understand complaints of an "impression" that only a "select few" are being listened to.
The precise point of having only 1 envoy per guild is also very simple: to bottleneck and force guilds to submit only one report a month. If you say that there is an imbalance because a more active org has more active envoys than a less active org, can you imagine how many more reports will be generated by that more active org if everyone can make their own reports? The "focused buffs and changes" around an org will only be exacerbated. We're not talking about any actual scenario - I personally am unable to quote you any period of time when there have been a sustained set of buffs focused around one org. It has, to my knowledge, never happened, but I'm speaking anecdotally, of course, so don't take me for my word: I'd be happy to be presented with some numbers about when such a thing has happened. On theory, however, if this is indeed happening, then removing the envoys as the middle-men won't exactly alleviate the problem in any degree.
I don't believe a person needs to get a Master of Science in Lusternian Game Balance Analysis in order to be able to propose and suggest, or critique other people's suggestions and changes. I don't see why ANYONE in the envoy position right now is "not qualified". And even if that ridiculous logic is followed to its conclusion, then opening up reports to the public is literally going to be the last thing on the agenda. If the current envoys (and the envoy system) are somehow not qualified because they "are not analysts", then why would the solution of opening up reports be even on the table? I really don't understand.
Just to reiterate, however, none of the envoys right now are unqualified for the position. All an envoy needs to do is to voice out when one sees something illogical, and that alone is a precious contribution into a system meant specifically to give voice to that sort of opinion.
A thought just struck me: How about if everyone can submit reports to their guilds, and then the guild envoy would be able to either pick one of those to put forward, or write their own? The guild reports would last until either submitted or pulled (either through their submitter or the guild envoy). This would both increase the communication between guild an envoy, and would also still maintain the current system of bottlenecking the reports so that not one org gets ten reports while another gets two.
Majority of this topic looks like attempts at personal attacks and flaming, the opening of the thread was easily targeting someone and this thread should have been closed on that note.
Lerad, as usual, is genreally the only person replying who is not trying to attack someone and wants to expand on his arguments.
The major flaws in the envoy system to me are:
1) Envoys themselves are human. Some of them have openly admitted they have no interest in balance if they are losing the arms race. This makes sense. I can nerf myself to be subpar or I can buff to try to par to someone else. Fixing this would require having an acceptable mid ground and changing several skills at once to get to this goal. This is the single biggest problem, specially when a report doesn't sound bad.
2) Larger collective changes. Envoys are limited and changing around multiple things at once is unreliable. We did it with Monkish a couple times, but if at any point a report was nixed it would leave an OP or UP change in place and suddenly things no longer work properly.
3) Solution 4's and shut downs. Sometimes a solution 4 handles an issue well, in fact it offers the ability to handle things ideally. These are also at admin discretion though, so a misunderstanding or failure to think the same way as the envoy who wrote it (such as failing to explain it properly) can result in a worse solution.
Examples contrary to, or in support of, most things can be provided. Shuyin is one of my favorite envoys because he has a solid head on his shoulders, but this doesn't make him perfect.
( @Shuyin Hope you don't mind shu, not making any attempt to put you down, just show that envoys aren't perfect).
- Created the warrior overhaul setup. Something even I wasn't touching with a 10 foot pole. It is amazing considering the limitations imposed by afflictions. Though not sure about damagedliver, since that could end fights entirely.
- Badluck report once said what amounts to as a passive lock on curing. Every level of badluck would increase focus/herb bal 1s (so at higher level it was 4s or such to recover either balance). He wasn't aware that smoking coltsfoot used herb balance so he would make anorexia nuts. He changed the report when this was pointed out.
- At first glance Hekoskeri report looks great and is simple. Once you fight and realize it is almost 50% of a fight with doubled eq/bal, then we have an issue. Does not help them get a kill as the other options did, but is unfair to the target. This has still not been fixed, as I do not believe he feels this is a problem. It has no cure and cannot be fought, so it has a higher priority to me.
- Shuyin has shown the ability to use several guilds and classes, making him versed enough to show he knows his stuff.
Still the Shu, and he can be asked things (as can a few envoys), but even he isn't perfect.
I do not claim to be perfect myself, but I have also shown a willingness and desire to fix problem skills/designs when I have some ability to influence the outcome.
I am a bundle of random knowledge I will never use outside Lusternia >_<
Yet they expect us to trust them when things go south in practice...
excerpt from recent report:
---[Synkarin on 9/19 @ 00:02 writes]: ...Lerad's pretty explicitly explained his reasonings and at worst, it can be envoyed to be fixed if it really does turn out to be too much and you can stick your tongue out and say 'I told you so.'
A lot of people have come out with "I told you so" about hekoskeri, and nothing's come of it. Such hilarity. Very double standard, especially when you think about the outcry of the manakill meld...
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited September 2015
A report was created to address the mana meld issue, specifically with double haegl, and that report did not come from Hallifax. It's certainly odd that you'd voluntarily bring that up while trying to jab at the trustworthiness of envoys in opposing orgs.
That being said, I don't know why this has derailed into naming and shaming specific envoys.
edit: @Ssaliss, you can funnel trade ideas through me and I can send them up. I didn't even use a report this month.
Yeah, if there are specific ideas for trade change, there are lots of envoys to funnel stuff through. I'm not sure that all of it is really within the purview of envoys, but it's worth a shot.
Player Comments: ---[Vivet on 4/11 @ 02:59 writes]: Solution 1 ---[Shuyin on 4/11 @ 04:10 writes]: Solution 1 or 3 ---[Lerad on 4/11 @ 17:10 writes]: Solution 1 ---[Raeri on 4/11 @ 23:02 writes]: Maybe make the second haegl on a doublesling to apply succumb rather than drain? You know, so we don't have embeddable demesne succumb. That said, I feel Solution 1's parallel is better drawn with not being able to subtext catharsis in normal scenes, rather than climax. ---[Maligorn on 4/15 @ 17:09 writes]: Succumb-mesne doesn't sound too imbalancing to me. Go for 1 or 2. ---[Shuyin on 4/15 @ 17:59 writes]: Nah no thanks to meld succumb ---[Kaimanahi on 4/17 @ 17:37 writes]: Support solution 1 ---[Llandros on 4/19 @ 03:57 writes]: Solution 1 ---[Kierstin on 4/20 @ 13:51 writes]: Support Solution 1 ---[Enyalida on 4/20 @ 22:37 writes]: Solution 1. ---[Elanorwen on 4/27 @ 19:17 writes]: Solution 1 seems good. I'd add a caveat to change this for chem/woods with fused double haegls. ---[Yarith on 4/28 @ 08:39 writes]: Solution 1 or 3. Furies' Decision: Approved for solution 1.
The one that Hallifaxians supported? There's certainly no report for hekoskeri.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Player Comments: ---[Vivet on 4/11 @ 02:59 writes]: Solution 1 ---[Shuyin on 4/11 @ 04:10 writes]: Solution 1 or 3 ---[Lerad on 4/11 @ 17:10 writes]: Solution 1 ---[Raeri on 4/11 @ 23:02 writes]: Maybe make the second haegl on a doublesling to apply succumb rather than drain? You know, so we don't have embeddable demesne succumb. That said, I feel Solution 1's parallel is better drawn with not being able to subtext catharsis in normal scenes, rather than climax. ---[Maligorn on 4/15 @ 17:09 writes]: Succumb-mesne doesn't sound too imbalancing to me. Go for 1 or 2. ---[Shuyin on 4/15 @ 17:59 writes]: Nah no thanks to meld succumb ---[Kaimanahi on 4/17 @ 17:37 writes]: Support solution 1 ---[Llandros on 4/19 @ 03:57 writes]: Solution 1 ---[Kierstin on 4/20 @ 13:51 writes]: Support Solution 1 ---[Enyalida on 4/20 @ 22:37 writes]: Solution 1. ---[Elanorwen on 4/27 @ 19:17 writes]: Solution 1 seems good. I'd add a caveat to change this for chem/woods with fused double haegls. ---[Yarith on 4/28 @ 08:39 writes]: Solution 1 or 3. Furies' Decision: Approved for solution 1.
The one that Hallifaxians supported? There's certainly no report for hekoskeri.
#1280 c+ Skill: Runes - Haegl G: Pyromancers (12)
This was after, over the envoy channel, the envoys who so ferociously defended the Aero report stated they'd address haegl next. Then refused to do so. Specifically even mentioned when I deleted my haegl report, because I refused to be their mommy and clean up their mess. Luckily Viynain isn't as stubborn as I am.
I, ultimately, do not care to have a name and shame contest about the envoys. Everyone is trying, and spending their personal time helping the game. The point is that if you are going to live in a glass house, do not throw stones.
Yet they expect us to trust them when things go south in practice...
excerpt from recent report:
---[Synkarin on 9/19 @ 00:02 writes]: ...Lerad's pretty explicitly explained his reasonings and at worst, it can be envoyed to be fixed if it really does turn out to be too much and you can stick your tongue out and say 'I told you so.'
A lot of people have come out with "I told you so" about hekoskeri, and nothing's come of it. Such hilarity. Very double standard, especially when you think about the outcry of the manakill meld...
Lol takes one report comment out of context from me, and then throws it at Shuyin for not re-envoying heko? How does that even work? Lerad's pretty systemically dispelled any concerns that Enyalida has (except maybe the truss spamming for 9p) so I was trying to move on from that point. I don't really think it'll be re-envoyed, based off the explanations from Lerad.
Majority of this topic looks like attempts at personal attacks and flaming, the opening of the thread was easily targeting someone and this thread should have been closed on that note.
I have faith that this thread can be something productive and move away from just trying to name and shame certain envoys.
Yet they expect us to trust them when things go south in practice...
excerpt from recent report:
---[Synkarin on 9/19 @ 00:02 writes]: ...Lerad's pretty explicitly explained his reasonings and at worst, it can be envoyed to be fixed if it really does turn out to be too much and you can stick your tongue out and say 'I told you so.'
A lot of people have come out with "I told you so" about hekoskeri, and nothing's come of it. Such hilarity. Very double standard, especially when you think about the outcry of the manakill meld...
Lol takes one report comment out of context from me, and then throws it at Shuyin for not re-envoying heko? How does that even work? Lerad's pretty systemically dispelled any concerns that Enyalida has (except maybe the truss spamming for 9p) so I was trying to move on from that point. I don't really think it'll be re-envoyed, based off the explanations from Lerad.
Haegl report was a band-aid fix btw
Don't even act like you don't say "it can be envoyed later" all the time. I just picked a recent example. Shrug city man, I just expect better.
EDIT: Oh, and, double haegl has been imbalanced for a long, long time. It just took a manakill mage for people to "realize" it.
The intent wasn't to name and shame, but rather address vague accusations that @Arcanis was throwing out about how the system is failed, which it has certainly done.
No one has said it was perfect and there weren't improvements to made. No one has even tried to dispell the claim that envoys are bias and are looking to improve their own orgs over nerfing others. People can sit here and attempt to shame me, but I'll stand by comments and reports, which have certainly even evolved as the years have gone on and I've learned more.
Many of the concerns expressed by other people are valid, even most of @Malarious, Solution 4's, limited scope (one per month) etc. There will likely always be ways the system can improve, and ways each envoy can approve. None of these make it a 'flawed' system.
Edit @Maligorn again - Sure I say it, because it's been said to lots of people, and there are plenty of examples (even from myself) where things are too powerful and they've been envoyed. You're picking one example that doesn't really have a lot of weight behind it and can definitely be debated as to the severity (I've tried to stay away from skill specific arguments, like the manakill, my egokill, choke, etc, so I'll stay away from it here, but I disagree it's as severe as it's made out to be).
Yet they expect us to trust them when things go south in practice...
excerpt from recent report:
---[Synkarin on 9/19 @ 00:02 writes]: ...Lerad's pretty explicitly explained his reasonings and at worst, it can be envoyed to be fixed if it really does turn out to be too much and you can stick your tongue out and say 'I told you so.'
A lot of people have come out with "I told you so" about hekoskeri, and nothing's come of it. Such hilarity. Very double standard, especially when you think about the outcry of the manakill meld...
Lol takes one report comment out of context from me, and then throws it at Shuyin for not re-envoying heko? How does that even work? Lerad's pretty systemically dispelled any concerns that Enyalida has (except maybe the truss spamming for 9p) so I was trying to move on from that point. I don't really think it'll be re-envoyed, based off the explanations from Lerad.
Haegl report was a band-aid fix btw
Don't even act like you don't say "it can be envoyed later" all the time. I just picked a recent example. Shrug city man, I just expect better.
EDIT: Oh, and, double haegl has been imbalanced for a long, long time. It just took a manakill mage for people to "realize" it.
Wrong. No one realized anything new from the aeromancer report. There wasn't, and hasn't been, an active aeromancer that was skilled enough to really capitalize on the possibilities that report opened up. Opinions about double haegl were strong well before that report. Opinions about double haegl can be dated to even before the Nightshadeblues nerf, where it was heavily discussed. The only thing that changed was that Hallifax envoys created and then opened a new can of worms, promised to address it, then never did. AKA lied, which is why you should probably drop the whole trustworthiness crusade on Sidd.
We didn't make a report because Siam had already made one, pretty neatly, before we did. Which you deleted. Your problem, not ours. I guess I don't see the divide or "lie" between making the actual report and supporting a report that does the same exact thing. It's pretty vicious and disingenuous to call us liars after we supported a double haegl nerf report.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited September 2015
And point proven. Thanks for playing. I was the Shadowdancer envoy, not Hallifax's house nanny. I do not clean up after you just because you find it more convenient that way.
Except you just admitted that double haegl has been a problem for a long time, which means it wasn't really Hallifax's mess to clean up, etc etc...
It's okay to be mad about a report, but I think it's bad taste to delete a perfectly good report just out of spite or "righteous fury" or whatever went through your head.
edit: but this could go on forever. I'm willing to drop it.
edit 2: not a slight at anyone -- envoys aren't perfect. but they're usually pretty darn qualified, and the admin know this.
Comments
1) Player bias
Player bias will never be removed, yes, and Lusternia's system, just as every other IRE system, acknowledges and checks this with admin oversight. An envoy who would argue he comes from a completely objective perspective is one that simply does not understand the meaning of the word "bias".
It goes, of course, without saying that the admin have their biases too, and they, in turn, rely on the collective voices of the envoys point it out and make logical arguments that bias cannot argue against.
And here's the crux: the check and balance of bias is not number of contributors, but logic. Arguments with appeals to emotions or anecdotal evidence or maybe-shoudbe-couldbes have a tendency to be more biased, and are often called out for that to be justified with facts and numbers as additional evidence. Arguments that are based entirely on them have obvious holes to be debated down. Whether or not reports are based on logic is the sole vector that decides how biased the system operates.
Now, that's not to say numbers do not contribute to more objectivity. But numbers without logic is literally as good as having a small coterie run unchecked for bias. The more people you have looking at an argument, the higher the chances any illogical premise or flow of thought will be caught. But there is this concept called "diminishing returns". And this is the greatest problem of the open-report systems of the other IREs. Do any of you who have experience playing in those games ever read and evaluate and think about every single report that is generated in those systems? At the best, a handful of the players do. The rest pick and choose their fights, because there frankly is not enough time to do that every single time reports are open. This is, assuming, that every player has a channel to feedback their thoughts and criticisms - which most actually do not. Reports being open, but players have no outlet to comment on the reports: what's the use? The answer is that there is none.
As an envoy, I read every single report, every single cycle, and offer my support or arguments against to every single one as much as I can. At the maximum, there are 28 reports to read a month. Most of the time, the number is 15 or less. Those I am undecided on, I give myself time to think more. I am not afraid to leave them uncommented because I know other people, some with more experience than myself, are looking at them as well. Yet there is no such guarantee when the report list balloons to 50, or 80, or over 100. I have no guarantee that there will be people looking at this uncommented report, yet I need to cover my bases and examine the reports that concern me the most. What do I do? Well, I leave it to the admin as the safety net, that's what I'll do.
But do the admin have enough time to go through all of the 100s of reports as well? Achaea's probably does. Aetolia's doesn't, which is why they have liaisons to (mechanically) advance or shoot down reports before they reach the admin. What about Lusternia?
Ours is perhaps the only system where a pool of envoys go through all the reports, AND THEN the pool of admins go through all the reports. A two-check system that does not exist in the other IREs. I cannot see how an argument that we turn out more biased reports BECAUSE we have such a system can be sustainable. (And frankly, I feel like I have been suckered, to have spent the time to address this this most elementary of concepts.) But do you think this system is sustainable when everyone can make one report?
If not, where is the improvement in bias-checks?
2) Player competency
Competency is a hard to measure vector. Celina is competent in combat. But that doesn't translate to a competency in argument. The fact that she has a grasp on both is a plus, but not everyone is capable of that. As the saying goes, God gives with one hand, and takes away with the other. Celina has many shortcomings as well, which I hardly need to go into detail about. What measures competency, and what kinds of competency, or what combinations and permutations of competency, is required for envoy positions?
More importantly, who are any of us to set this criteria?
The admin have a right to make a decision on who they decide is competent enough, because this is their game. But as players? The admin have never advertised what goes into their choosing. But observations over the years certainly have pointed to some general guiding principles. These have been touched on in the posts above, so I'll just brush past them quickly. Support from the guild and civil conversation skills appear to be the bare minimum. There possibly are other criteria, but I don't know of them.
And this is fine. I don't see why we need to say, "you need to have completed 100 spars against 4 different classes" in order to qualify for envoy. And I don't think anyone is entitled to the position to point at anyone else and say they are unqualified to be an envoy. To put it bluntly, your arrogance is getting in your way. Janalon is my go-to example for this, and I will bring up her name until the end of time. She has never been a combatant, but I have nothing but the utmost respect for her ability to spend countless hours testing mechanics, asking people about how they work, and figuring out numbers. That is something that is beyond me, both physically (because I don't have the time) and mentally (because I don't have the patience). She was not always correct, as coming from someone who rarely fights, her perspective is skewed and "biased" in a way that is different from that of a combatant. But she was more than just a capable envoy. If she came back tomorrow and started figuring things out again, I'd tell Nocht to appoint her to envoy instead of me any day of the week.
If there's anyone that's not qualified to be an envoy, it would be those whose egos are bigger than their windscreens. Getting into their car would be signing a guarantee to be involved in a trainwreck. In short, thanks, but no thanks.
As a monk player, my perspective is neccesarily limited to coming from a monk user's, as a matter of course, I will be unable to incorporate everyone's point of view, whereas Enyalida's criticisms very clearly come from the perspective of a sap user - reading the comments show that clearly. Similarly, Enyalida's report was not.created with a Crow user's perspective, and the comments against it are clearly aimed at adding and providing that to the report.
What's wrong with that? That is exactly what the system is meant to do, ensure that multiple perspectives contribute to the reports, to provide the admin with the information they need to make an informed decision.
You cant say perspectives from each org are given equally, because most of the time, one org will be far more active than the other and thus have a much bigger pool of active voices up in the envoys, which will likely result in focused buffs and changes around said org.
I want to take a moment to address this point specifically. This is my personal criteria to addressing any reports and whether I support or oppose them. There are other admin who also look over reports who may have their own methods, but I thought some insight may help.
1. Does this report address either a long term issue, immediate short term glaring imbalance error (though most of these are often bugs or coding that can be adjusted without a report) or is it a knee jerk reaction to a strategy or situation?
There are times players have taken abilities and utilised them in a new way. This has a very quick and visible success rate until players adapt to the new strategy, by which point it balances out. There are exceptions to this where players have creatively "broken" the game, but these are few and far between.
2. How does this report work in relation to other skills and abilities? Often abilities are envoyed and looked at purely in a bubble, without consideration as to how they will synergise with other skills (or intentionally to sneak in a stealth buff!)
Often this is picked up in the envoy comments, and while the discussion may have merit, it does not determine by itself if a report passes or fails. For example a report may be issued by an individual who lays out clear reasons and evidence may be shot down by several envoys who dislike the idea of x class getting a buff. This concern about envoy warring does not sway my personal approval or objection to a report. Reports and objections stand on their merit, not on how many people support or object it.
3. Is the intended outcome of this report balanced in terms of effort in execution vs results? Often skills are envoyed that are simply too easy to achieve rather powerful (or guaranteed fatal) consequences. I firmly oppose these, I don't believe players should feel the need to jump through hoops to achieve success. I am of the idea that abilities should be used in conjunction with others utilising some level of tactical planning where adjustments may need to be made as opponents aim to counter your strategy.
4. On the issue of envoying other guilds, the criteria of merit over any "bias" holds true. The large issue I find is many of the abilities players have an issue with are core components of a class, removing or changing them significantly can leave a class exceptionally weak. It may be that any adjustments might possibly need some compensation so that a class that leans on one or two core abilities is more well rounded and balanced. Anyone envoying other guild abilities should take this into consideration. It is certainly a bonus if said envoy works with the envoy of the class they are reporting, but not a necessity if the proposal is well thought out and presented, addressing concerns.
Furthermore throughout the process, I remain accessible as a Devil's Advocate or ear piece tl bounce concepts off, I hope this allays fears of people "wasting" a report.
The precise point of having only 1 envoy per guild is also very simple: to bottleneck and force guilds to submit only one report a month. If you say that there is an imbalance because a more active org has more active envoys than a less active org, can you imagine how many more reports will be generated by that more active org if everyone can make their own reports? The "focused buffs and changes" around an org will only be exacerbated. We're not talking about any actual scenario - I personally am unable to quote you any period of time when there have been a sustained set of buffs focused around one org. It has, to my knowledge, never happened, but I'm speaking anecdotally, of course, so don't take me for my word: I'd be happy to be presented with some numbers about when such a thing has happened. On theory, however, if this is indeed happening, then removing the envoys as the middle-men won't exactly alleviate the problem in any degree.
I don't believe a person needs to get a Master of Science in Lusternian Game Balance Analysis in order to be able to propose and suggest, or critique other people's suggestions and changes. I don't see why ANYONE in the envoy position right now is "not qualified". And even if that ridiculous logic is followed to its conclusion, then opening up reports to the public is literally going to be the last thing on the agenda. If the current envoys (and the envoy system) are somehow not qualified because they "are not analysts", then why would the solution of opening up reports be even on the table? I really don't understand.
Just to reiterate, however, none of the envoys right now are unqualified for the position. All an envoy needs to do is to voice out when one sees something illogical, and that alone is a precious contribution into a system meant specifically to give voice to that sort of opinion.
-
I am a bundle of random knowledge I will never use outside Lusternia >_<
excerpt from recent report:
---[Synkarin on 9/19 @ 00:02 writes]:
...Lerad's pretty explicitly explained his reasonings and at worst, it can be envoyed to be fixed if it really does turn out to be too much and you can stick your tongue out and say 'I told you so.'
A lot of people have come out with "I told you so" about hekoskeri, and nothing's come of it. Such hilarity. Very double standard, especially when you think about the outcry of the manakill meld...
Player Comments:
---[Vivet on 4/11 @ 02:59 writes]:
Solution 1
---[Shuyin on 4/11 @ 04:10 writes]:
Solution 1 or 3
---[Lerad on 4/11 @ 17:10 writes]:
Solution 1
---[Raeri on 4/11 @ 23:02 writes]:
Maybe make the second haegl on a doublesling to apply succumb rather than drain? You know, so we
don't have embeddable demesne succumb. That said, I feel Solution 1's parallel is better drawn with
not being able to subtext catharsis in normal scenes, rather than climax.
---[Maligorn on 4/15 @ 17:09 writes]:
Succumb-mesne doesn't sound too imbalancing to me. Go for 1 or 2.
---[Shuyin on 4/15 @ 17:59 writes]:
Nah no thanks to meld succumb
---[Kaimanahi on 4/17 @ 17:37 writes]:
Support solution 1
---[Llandros on 4/19 @ 03:57 writes]:
Solution 1
---[Kierstin on 4/20 @ 13:51 writes]:
Support Solution 1
---[Enyalida on 4/20 @ 22:37 writes]:
Solution 1.
---[Elanorwen on 4/27 @ 19:17 writes]:
Solution 1 seems good. I'd add a caveat to change this for chem/woods with fused double haegls.
---[Yarith on 4/28 @ 08:39 writes]:
Solution 1 or 3.
Furies' Decision:
Approved for solution 1.
The one that Hallifaxians supported? There's certainly no report for hekoskeri.
EDIT: Oh, and, double haegl has been imbalanced for a long, long time. It just took a manakill mage for people to "realize" it.
It's okay to be mad about a report, but I think it's bad taste to delete a perfectly good report just out of spite or "righteous fury" or whatever went through your head.
edit: but this could go on forever. I'm willing to drop it.
edit 2: not a slight at anyone -- envoys aren't perfect. but they're usually pretty darn qualified, and the admin know this.