From here. Now in light of some recent Envoy changes (both skill and people) and reading what Aiakon wrote, I wondered the same darn thing. After hearing (true, for Celest sources so I might not have the whole, unbiased picture) about how trueheal's being changed and Malicia asking "well how does it compare to lich?" being met with dead silence until someone said "Well we have sacrifice", I thought about the player base who are envoys and the posibility that anyone can be unbiased enough to be trusted with making such changes (from any org!)

Why should envoys get a say in what actually gets implemented? Suggestion boxes sure, because envoys supposedly know their own skills and see how they interact with others and those suggestions can be made to the admins who are removed from such environments. But to actually be vetoing or passing the changes that go are submitted? Maybe it's time to re-examine how envoys are being used. I'd like to have a more detached assemblage evaluate the changes being made. I don't care how "unbiased" you claim to be, if you're playing then you're not unbiased. A group of admins will have a totally different objective (bringing in the dough, keeping people interested) rather than a group of players who might have tons of objectives (I have a grudge against X, I want X org to suffer, I want to show people all my wonderful ideas, etc.)

So let's talk.

If only GMs were able to change Envoys again and you didn't need an active god to have an Envoy.

edit: Admin don't know about skills and combat usage save on the theory and Mass testing level. Players can't actually veto anything or not, rather the Admin listen to weather or not all the envoys agree on something and their arguments for/against it.

So I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

How is trueheal being changed? It's saved my ass on more than one occasion.

This is my understanding of the process: Envoys have a slew of changes which they all either pass or veto. Depending on the numbers then, those that pass get up to the admins who evaluate the suggestion.

Now why have this middle man of the Envoys? If perchance a good majority veto something, supposedly the admin can take this change and implement it, disregarding the veto, but why would they? The players have spoken.

Why not simply have testers appointed by the admin to determine game balance, rather than a small group of players who are biased and can veto things for however many reason?

Another point, how can envoys veto or approve changes to skillsets they don't have when they don't use that skillset, they just see the side effects from their perception. Is there an abstain vote for envoys? If you don't really care about, say, changing trueheal must you pick a side? And might you pick the side that's winning just so you don't have to deal with it?

EDIT: And if I were to hear that the admins were nerfing my skill, then fine. I'd be cool with that cause they're the admins, they're the source of game balance and heck they're admins. Now if a playerbase is going around making decisions, I have someone in game to blame. Why deal with that?

Your understanding is tremendously flawed.

So you're not going to bother to correct it?

Uhh well why dontcha fill all of us in. Because I'm sure most people don't know, and it's something at least a few curious minds would like to know.

I don't know what the policy is on sharing information as an envoy, beyond the most minor. I don't know how transparent the process is supposed to be.

I'm a junior envoy.

I've got a long list of disciplinary problems.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't go rushing to spread information that it may or may not be my job to spread and in doing so avoid maligning my administrative reputation even further.

I don't think that the players are really making the decisions as much as giving ideas to the admins about what can be done to improve the game. Its not like if an envoy wants lich removed its gone the next day. I think of the envoys as more of a creative pool then as a group of decision makers, and without the envoys I don't think that the game would balance as well.

There exists a wiki that Envoys have access to. At monthly intervals, we all get 2 suggestions to put forth for inclusion into a "mini-report". Over the course of the month, the envoys argue the various suggestions and the merits and shortcomings of said suggestions.

Towards the end of the month, a "collector" puts together the 12 most pressing suggestions for submission to the administration. The administration receives this report and evaluates it. They opt to accept, alter, or reject any change within the report.

There is no voting during this process, except in the case of a veto. Each envoy has the ability to veto any proposed change, in which case it comes down to a lot of debate and people taking sides. There's no formal structure for determining (x) votes to overcome (y) vetoes. It's very organic.

The reason for envoys is quite simple. The admins have to much going on to sit and monitor every skill and its use in game to see what needs to be adjusted, tweaked, removed, or left as is. Envoys/Classleads whatever you choose to call them are a vital part of the IRE gaming experience as they are the ones who provide the admins with most bug reports, most skill adjustment needs. They are the ones each guild should be going to and saying 'There is a problem with this skill, do you think you can add it to your envoy report?" or "I have an idea for a skill can you add it to the envoy report?"

Are all envoys unbiased? Of course not, that would be just silly to think. However, they should be able to think objectively, and envoys that prove over and over they have no objectivety are quickly replaced.

Meh, I was going to comment, being a former envoy, but Visaeris and Charune already said most of what needed to be said.

Envoys are necessary, and I shudder to think what would happen if envoys were removed and all player suggestions went directly to the Admin. I remember reading an Ideas post for suggested skill changes/additions and visibly cringing at half of them.

Lately, I've actually felt that the Envoys have been doing a pretty good job, minus the vacant envoy positions in a few guilds. We not only argued ceaselessly over skills, but also spend a lot of time testing skills. As well, no single person can have a true 100% perfect grasp of the intricacies of lusternian combat, but I think the collective group of envoys together have as good a hold on it as any, since most of us are experts in our own disciplines.

There you have it... In my useless opinion, I reckon Envoys exist to point out flaws, bugs or even new ideas to the Admins, not to review how useful a skill is. If the Envoys were given the might to add, remove and edit skills at leisure, Lusternia would quite likely be a lot less fun in... Quick. There should be a well-defined line between Players and Staff, so Envoys just shouldn't be granted such might

I have little to no experience with guilds in Lusternia, so my opinion may be ill-informed, but I think the cooperation between envoys and staff shouldn't go beyond suggestions. I lost count of how often this was said before on this thread, but I'm humanoid hence incredibly skilled at stating the obvious By all means, envoys should remain in Lusternia for they make the admins' lives that much easier. However, my head starts hurting when thinking about Envoys getting control over what skills get implemented or editted and which don't.

Hope this post wasn't as useless as it looks now I read it over again...

Well you see, untill just a few days ago Glomdoring had no active gods. If by some freak chance Xenthos had gone missing when an envoy report was due, we would not have been able to replace him.

A similar thing happened when the Paladins didn't want Terentia as a patron, but they needed an Envoy.

They have some IC role as well, somehow.

I'm thrilled that my off-colour rantings have prompted a thread in their honour. I don't want to impugn the validity or interest-value of Neraka's argument, but I would state for the record that I hadn't intended to bash the envoys, so much as the many non-envoy players who demand implementation of their own ideas.

Much obliged. I hadn't interpreted your quote as bashing envoys. My whole point was to drag this into the open, maybe explain a few things, get some people thinking. I've found this thread useful so far. Being new and there be no information about this process, I was getting worried as my city leaders and friends were lamenting changes and the whole process. Thanks to Visaeris and Charune for responding.

Who's the "collector" who gathers the most pertinent issues, just curious?

In the past, the 'head' envoy collated the list of selections into the 12 most pertinent, and from there more debate goes on whether or not an issue belongs on the list. Generally, all the envoys have a significant say as to which issues are on the list.

However, sometimes there are prerogatives handed down from the divine as to what each month's report should focus on, say tracking, or knights, etc.

Envoys just suggest (trying to prove their proposals are correct and needed), administration makes the decisions (obviously).
If you don't trust they're able to determine which changes are for the best, why would you want them to just make detached decisions with no player consultation?
I must say though, I don't really understand the reasoning behind existance of envoy veto. There's a high chance that one person against eleven is just wrong (then again, twelve out of twelve might be wrong as well ).

Speak english!!

I understand most of what you say, but it took an hour with me, myself and my dictionary to get to that point... Wow, now I know why Shirath was awed by your intellect again

Once you get past all those silly extra Us in words like color, it's fine.




But to be on topic, thanks for the nifty information on how Envoys work! I never knew what all was involved either. And, Thanks to all the Envoys out there cause it sounds like you all do a lot and you deserve a