Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 4.8K All Categories
- 4.3K Life in Lusternia
- 453 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
(c) Iron Realms Entertainment 2012.
Comments
However i will gladly address and point out the flaw of the current envoy system and why the other 4 IRE games have opted for a more open, universal and democratic system im place. Perhaps tomorrow afternoon my time.
However i will gladly address and point out the flaw of the current envoy system and why the other 4 IRE games have opted for a more open, universal and democratic system im place. Perhaps tomorrow afternoon my time.
I just wanted to ask something of the people who weigh in on why the system is/isn't bad. If it's not breaking forum/game rules, would it be possible for the use of some form of evidence to back up your opinion? I'm certainly not saying that someone like @Hyrtakos (Sorry for using you but your comment is right above mine) should be calling out people, but an example of a time people biased the system for their own benefit, even without name naming would be useful for someone who's got little/no insight into it to decide which way they feel about it.
That's all. Please be nice to one another. Remember, we all have an enjoyment of Lusternia in common!
I was just using you as an example to make a general request of people who weigh in on this thread one way or the other because you had provided an insight/opinion, and your comment was literally right above mine as I was making my comment.
Here's one of my favorites from this year:
---
Arguing that our envoy system is "bad" or "failed" is, frankly speaking, so disingenuous and narrow-minded that I'm finding it difficult to rebutt it, because I simply cannot simulate how such a weak and unsustainable argument would flow, and therefore cannot predict a proper response to it. The best I could come up with was that our system has weaknesses which can do to be improved. But ideas of it being a failure is so far from the reality happening on the ground that I am loathe to even try and think of a response. Instead, I will approach this discussion from the stance that our system is working, and not just working at the minimum level, but at a competent level. Naturally, it is not perfect still, but it certainly has advantages over each of the different IREs.
I think it's important when we're starting such a discussion of "system failure" to first lay out the actual premise of the envoy system. In principle, the Lusternian envoy system is meant for a very specific goal: for the users of the combat meta-ecosystem to make changes to it. This is, of course, also the same principle that guides all the liaison, classlead and whatever names they are called in all the other IREs. The logic behind this premise is simple: it simply is not possible for a person who has been removed from the ecosystem (admins) to have a perspective at the same level of detail as the users. It is also what drove many accusations of "ivory tower" syndrome before players were allowed to give such feedback and suggestions and proposals through official channels in those early years when Achaea and, later, Aetolia were the only IRE games.
Seen in this light, there are two indispensable components of any envoy/liaison/classlead system, that buttresses the principles of such a system and which ensures such a system is functioning at its minimum level of objective fairness and effectiveness.
1) Input from players. Obviously, this is the premise of the system, and therefore must exist - without which the entire system is literally (not figuratively) missing the point.
2) Admin oversight.
Now, this second component is more nuanced. It is important to remember that while the so-called "ivory tower" syndrome causes problems in maintaining both a fun as well as balanced combat landscape, it is also a perspective that can provide a macro view of the same landscape which is just as important for balancing. There have been, in Lusternia alone, many examples of admin who have commanded this kind of perspective, and who have moderated the more on-the-ground perspectives and arguments of the players. Ieptix will be one of the current example of such an admin, who have more than just a cursory knowledge of the balance landscape as a whole, and whose opinions or decisions carry the weight that comes only with the authority of proper knowledge of facts and logic.
In short, the second component is there to temper and moderate the necessarily narrower viewpoints of each individual player contributor.
The two components are, in essence, almost completely opposed to each other: on one side representing players with actual experience of the system from the firsthand and with vested interests in their own enjoyment, and on the other side representing a top-down view of the system as a whole, and representing the interests of an administrative entity. These disparate viewpoints are so different that just by having them together within the system will ensure a minimum level of integrity and efficiency in such systems. As long as these two components are reasonably fulfilled, the system WILL function and work, whatever its permutations of setup or configurations of channels, due to the natural check and balance of the two components constantly pulling against each other in a tug-of-war for their own interests.
Of course, the minimum level is not quite enough for a healthy combatscape. At the minimum level, egregious and obvious imbalances will be corrected, but may take more time than it really should. Smaller, less visible details of imbalances may very well go for months, or even forever, without attention. At the minimum level, there is also the very real chance of biased decisions going uncaught by the checks that are supposed to prevent them and therefore actually being implemented. Of course, it is literally impossible to entirely eradicate such slippages, but a competent, decent system will be able to catch and prevent them more often than not.
Using the previous paragraph as a benchmark, our system is far above the minimum level. Egregious and obvious imbalances are corrected in a timely fashion, sometimes even outside the envoy system (for which there is an argument to be made for and against, of course) and there are more examples than can be counted of envoy reports that try to tackle imbalances at a very detailed and sometimes invisible level. These are healthy, and the efficiency of the system in implementing these changes play a very important part in the balance and fairness of the system. On top of all these, changes proposed in reports do require a proper justification and argument backing it, because they are examined by multiple people. Even assuming only the envoys and admin can see reports, that's at least around 20 people. At the same time, reports are also visible to the public for two weeks before they are locked and unable to be commented on. Of course, extending this window to "visible all the time" would be much better (as has been mentioned) and that ties in with my very first paragraph - that the system is hardly perfect and can be improved. And make no mistake, our system certainly isn't perfect, but it works, and not just at a minimum, just functioning level. It is robust, it allows, invites and encourages well-thought out debates, and it concludes, more often than not (though not always), with balanced results.
Now, it's always good for a system to not stop at just being decently good at what it's supposed to do. Looking for improvements to it is always something that should be on the table. And I would bring up the most recent example of Estarra taking into account player feedback on the system itself. After the whole pacts report where there was (quite rightly) the impression of admin bias and weaknesses in communication, Estarra came out and appointed Baelor to address something she acknowledged was (and I quote) "a failure of mine". Hardly a system that remains the same for the sake of remaining the same - of course, the change wasn't much, and it wasn't an infrastructural or mechanical change. Most importantly, it came late, in the aftermath of a big issue. Speaking from the perspective of a player who have ALWAYS been interested in the envoy reports (for the first few years after I got into combat, I read every single report the moment they were finalised, and was always in contact with Janalon about her reports) I can also attest to changes that have been happening in the way reports are handled. There was a period I clearly remember when the two words "solution 4" were very much dreaded and used in an almost disparaging manner of bullish admin disregard for envoy discussions during report commenting. And today? It's hardly a concept that is negative, nor commonly done enough to be widely known.
Having said that, what else can we improve on? Well, there have been calls for open, anyone-can-report style systems. I admire the Achaean and Aetolian system very much, by the way. I, too, love the way they are organised by skillsets and open to the users that use them. After all, look, it is the first component, after all. However, I also lived through the era when Aetolian liaison reports happened quarterly. That is to say, a handful of changes every three months. There was a period when classes lined up to receive their changes in that manner. In other words, if my class was fourth in line, my next changes (other than hotfixes outside the system) would be expected a real-life year down the road. (Hint: that system didn't last very long)
It comes down to a manpower crunch. It's fairly obvious which is the IRE cash cow, and it's fairly obvious which game receives the most corporate attention. It is also fairly obvious which game gets the most volunteers to free up coder time. And a hint, it's not Aetolia, or Imperian, or Lusternia. The considerations of efficiency and reasonable timeframes as well as reasonable effort required to be put in can, and do, affect the state of balance and fairness in a combat landscape. And if a system meant to push out player suggestions go too far down one rabbit hole, you can put your money on a combat landscape that is riddled with imbalances, not because they are ignored, or because of biased reports and approvals, but because they're forthcoming - sometime in the next decade, maybe.
I don't know about you, but I find our current system actually fairly well paced.
EDIT: Also, give the aeromancy manakill report a rest already. I know for a fact that @Shuyin supported it, or at least thought it was okay. I guess you can call it a failure of the envoy system because most of the whinier envoys weren't around to contest it?
EDIT: Whereas the Minstrelry + Dreamweaving report appears (whether rightly or wrongly) like a concerted effort to get Gaudiguch into the egokill business. But like, I'm not an envoy anymore, why am I arguing this!