The reason GMs can't appoint Envoys is pretty simple: we don't want Envoy selection and retention to become a political process. Envoys are not beholden to their GM to curry favour, or to answer to their GM why they didn't suggest all upgrades to their own class (and downgrades to everyone else). Players should not be posturing to become Envoy - rather they are selected by an impartial source. Oftentimes the Patron may ask for input as to who might be a possible choice for a guild's Envoy, but that is at the discretion of that administrator.

While there are GMs who are capable and responsible enough to make impartial decisions regarding Envoys, it's also equally possible that there may be GMs who are not. GMs, unlike Gods, receive no training nor do their decisions have direct Producer oversight.

Quite simply, we don't want all the politicking that goes on within guilds to taint the Envoys and the envoy process.

Much to the chagrin of the Envoys, they quickly find out that just because one of their suggestions is submitted, it does not mean it will go in. They are, after all, suggestions, and the admin have the last word. Some ideas will be implemented, some will be rejected outright, and sometimes we'll take an idea and modify or go in a different direction. The point is that we aren't abdicating our responsibility to balance combat to the envoys, but rather the envoys are a tool to help us pinpoint major issues and address them on a regular basis.

Only the admin can appoint Envoys, and not GM's, for a very good reason. This is an OOC position and not a political post, and we have the last word on who is and isn't an envoy. If there isn't a patron in a guild, we may RARELY appoint an envoy for you, but without admin oversight (i.e., an active patron) we would rather the guild wait until choosing an active patron. Unfair? Maybe, but again this is an OOC admin privilege for guilds, not a right.

As an aside, being knowledgeable in combat and having good ideas is NOT the most important thing of being an envoy. The MOST important trait an envoy can possess is that of being an effective communicator and diplomat--i.e., someone who can communicate with their guild and other envoys. I say this over and over again but no one seems to believe me until they realize that discourteous tactics to push their ideas backfire or go nowhere or inspire resentment from the other envoys.



Ninja me again, tentacle boy, and find out why my high heels have sharp points!

Rawr!

I believe the envoys have a system where they can override a veto.

Without a veto, there is a chance of a tyranny of a majority. It would hardly be fair if envoys suddenly began submitting nerfs to an unpopular guild or archetype without that guild or archetype being able to come to their defense. Again, this is where diplomacy and communication comes in--maybe there are ways to compromise that can be looked into. If an envoy is obstinate and simply being obstructive, the admin will simply remove him or her. Remember, all envoys are envoys at our sole and absolute discretion.

That all sounds nice and wonderfull, but what happened with the Paladins makes me raise an eyebrow.

If I remember correctly, the Paladins didn't want a certain god as patron, but they had no envoy. The god refused to give them an envoy and then not be patron anymore. Because ICly you can't treat a god like that. It was an ooc request for an envoy but they were told that envoys are IC positions. Meaning, if the guild doesn't have an active patron, they are hosed for envoys.

Hopefully from now on the admin will look at envoys as an ooc position more than an IC position and such things wouldn't happen anymore. It seem to me that if no god is currently active that has an RP that fits a guild, they shouldn't be punished oocly for the RP not meshing.

Are envoys ever rewarded for all the work they put in? We gripe and complain to them quite a bit, and they have to spend a lot of time testing and gathering information, for a position with no real IC rights or benefits. Makes me wonder, why do people WANT to be envoys?

I have no problem with a guild not having an envoy if they refuse to choose an active patron (i.e., be subject to administrative oversight) except for some exceptions. There is an IC veneer to envoys, and if I recall correctly, the Paladins did not diplomatically go about requesting one (either ICly or OOCly), and it was determined they could wait. No guild has the "right" to have an envoy--it is an admin prerogative to appoint one.

Mainly because we enjoy the game and we'd like it to be as fun as possible (which requires balance).

Beyond that, we're not rewarded, save the rare thread that says "yay envoys!" (which is far outweighed by threads lamenting certain changes, but that goes with the job, I suppose). Long as the game's fun and fair (and yes, if a change goes too far or was wrong, we're more than willing to suggest changing it back in the next report, see thornlash's multiple changings), we're at least able to be proud of ourselves.

I was an early envoy for the Moondancers, back before the Envoy system worked as it does now. Frankly, I had a blast with it. I wanted to be Envoy because I enjoy testing things and coming up with ideas. I gave some ideas for the AL/PB Envoy which happened recently. None were taken, but I gave them. People take the position because of the reward of helping the game. It's just a fun job.

It's probably a good thing that GMs can't appoint envoys anymore, as when my guild's envoy was speaking about stepping down, she had asked me if I would be willing to take it over. Well...yeah, in a heartbeat. At least with me not being able to appoint, the best person can get the job, instead of me.

I do it for the honours line.

And also for the Bards.

Won't somebody please think of the Bards.

Envoys are great... You guys do a lot of work and deserve a big from us... after all, without you most of the problems regarding balance would be never fixed

And this gets me wondering... will there ever be balance in Lusternia, or for that matter, any MMORPG?

I was recently removed as guild envoy of the Aquamancers. I spoke with Terentia IC to ask why. Terentia told me that Daxera, the Archmage (read: GM) of the Aquamancers, requested it in light of recent events. Terentia agreed and I was ousted. I never once spoke about this with Daxera. It happened while I was offline. When I asked Terentia how being guild envoy was relevant to anything currently going on in the city, Terentia told me that like all other positions, it was up to "the guild" (which ends up being Daxera, I guess).

It was definately politically motivated.

You're not the first envoy to be ousted.

Not that I know what you are talking about, but the impression I got from Morgfyre's and Estarra's post was that they are talking about politics such as "I want him to be envoy because he will be biased and upgrade us" or "You are no longer envoy because we got nerfed".... and not politics such as "You just commited treason, we don't want you as envoy"

edit: Politics such as "You just commited treason" is politcs which is valid for not being an envoy anymore, where as the politics of "You got us nerfed! die!" is not valid to lose your envoyship. or "You go to my school, I'll give you a position of power".. would also not be valid.

There have been people who have been fired as envoys for envoy-related reasons. I was fired because I killed 2 Serens, which upset Daxera, who desired to have me removed. Morgfyre posted that being an envoy isn't supposed to be politically based - it certainly was in my case.



If someone commits treason, they tend to get kicked out of their city/guild, and it isn't an issue. I was not punished in Celest or the Aquamancers at all. I was simply removed as guild envoy.

Thats what I get for using random examples...

Ok... In your case, killing 2 Serens is political in the sense of Treason, even if its not officially treason Yet. The politics of the city is that they don't want someone who kills serens as envoy (not that I understand that at all.) Its a different kind of politics than what Estarra and Morgfyre were talking about.. from what I understood.

Perhaps. The reason I'm posting is I hope Morgfyre can clarify.

I'll clarify.

The justification I heard was that you weren't listening to your guild members and/or weren't keeping them informed which seemed a reasonable criticism of an envoy. Obviously, envoys should be keeping their guild informed and asking their opinions (as that's part of the responsibility). Ultimately, for truly treasonous members, the guild could oust the traitor (which would of course remove him or her from envoyhood).

(I actually had no idea that you killed anybody or upset Daxera until I read it here.)

It is difficult to argue this point (and given I'm joining Magnagora soon regarding this ordeal with Daxera and some other Aquamancers, it doesn't really matter) , but I will say this.



When I spoke with Terentia, she did not mention the points you have raised at all. It could be that IC she lied to me - which is fine... but not typically her style. As an envoy from the guild as a whole, I never received a single complaint - quite the opposite - people were generally very happy (I remember getting several tells from Aquamancers when Liquidform was changed, for example). -shrug-

I think the envoy system is a wonderful privilege given to the playerbase by Estarra and her admin team, and without it a lot of truly important concerns and issues would not make it to the ears of those who can affect the necessary change.

All the envoys do a very good job of debating (often heatedly) the objective balance of changes, upgrades and downgrades, and I think often just by listening to the process more than the final decisions, you can really get a sense of what the players themselves are wanting and needing, and whether there is any overlap between them.


If you really think that is anywhere close to approaching an unbiased (or accurate) report, I would urge you to reconsider. Downgrades in particular are -extremely- difficult to pass on unless there is widespread agreement that they are objectively necessary, and usually go through many revisions until the envoys with the skills are happy that they will remain functional and appropriate. I certainly know it has been a long and involved process to address possible transmigrate and darkrebirth alterations. (Yes, expect something eventually - hopefully we all knew it had to happen.)


Having said this, I am soon hopefully stepping down as an envoy, and I hope that the system can be smoothed out a little (perhaps it will because I go, who knows ) so that it doesn't turn into org vs org debates like the forums tend to. Although I like that every guild has a representative, I don't believe that envoying limited changes for their guild alone (which is basically what happens now) promotes objectivity. So far, it hasn't been an issue because almost all the past and current envoys excel at pursuing balance without exaggerated regard for their individual benefit, but I don't know how long it will last, particularly given discussions such as the one quoted. I've also noticed a lot of elitism creeping into the scene, where no suggestion or opinion is accepted on its merits unless expressed by a top-tier active combatant.

Overall though, I think envoys fulfill an important and essential role.

Remember that the *admins* appoint the Envoys, and in theory, they appoint the most unbiased and knowledgable people in each class. In practice, this is actually reasonably accurate. Of course everyone is a bit biased, but the vast majority of us do our best to not make decisions with that bias. If the Admins think that someone is being too biased, they can remove them as Envoy. The Admins certainly don't have the time to sit around playing Lusternia 24/7, nor do they have the time to test out every combat situation in which certain skills and skill combinations may be unbalanced. Thus, they need to rely on knowledgeable players to do that for them, otherwise it would be a nightmare, as Charune said.

The way the current system works, preventing a change from happening is FAR easier than enacting a change. Thus, people can't go "We hate Celest, so we're going to suggest the common skill PWNCELEST that makes any Celestian you target heartstop!" Even if every non-Celest envoy was an idiot and thought the skill was a good idea for some reason, a single Celest envoy could go "Uh, no." and it wouldn't happen.


I get the impression that the original post was made out of anger that a Trueheal change was being suggested. Allow me to elaborate on the Trueheal situation, though I probably shouldn't.

Trueheal is a skill that fully cures all afflictions, cures all exhaustion, restores all health/mana/ego, restores balance and equilibrium, and makes you invincible indefiniately until you act. Thus, it is the most powerful healing skill possible, the most powerful defensive skill possible, and has offensive applications.

Before you laugh at the offensive applications bit, allow me to compare Trueheal to Haymaker. Both cost 10 power. Haymaker is four hits to one body location that do 75% normal damage each. Thus, a double combo that does 75% less damage. A Paladin can combo, trueheal, and immediately combo again with no damage penalty, can hit multiple body locations if they wish to dance around parry/stance, and can use maneuvers with the hits rather than hitting directly. As an additional effect to being better than a Haymaker in every way, "Truemaker" as it's known, also cures all afflictions, health/mana/ego, and exhaustion. Certainly, Truemaker isn't used all that often, but it's orders of magnitude better than Haymaker, another trans skill, in every way, for the same cost.

There is also the offensive use of shield stun + trueheal + fling soulless. Though very powerful, this isn't used so much these days. Still, it does exist, and has been used.

Any one of the three uses of Trueheal (curing, defensive, offensive) is worth 10 power. Well, the barrier alone maybe not, but if it came back every 7 seconds for 60 seconds, then it'd be called Serpent and definitely worth 10 power. At the moment though, Trueheal is better than Serpent in one respect - you don't need to drop it ever - it can last far longer than 60 seconds.

Thus, the offensive parts of the uber-defensive/healing skill needed to be removed, flat out. I don't see how anyone can argue that part. The healing has been argued to remain the same, even though the 10 power skill undoes far more than 10 power worth of offensive feats when fighting druids, dreamweavers, warriors, or spiritsingers, making it still somewhat questionable how balanced it is. The defensive part needed to change, as the skill is good enough to be worth 10 power with just the healing effect, the barrier is only needed to stop an immediate hit to be in line with the skill's purpose. So, it shouldn't be used to sit there, invincible, in the middle of a group of enemies.

Now, it isn't like this one skill is all that makes Sacraments worthwhile for a warrior or a celestine. The skillset is full of VERY useful skills, including ones that are wonderful for warriors, which many other warrior choices don't get. Moon, Night, Stag, Crow, and Necromancy, for instance, have very few skills that warriors can really make use of beyond the trans skill, and in some cases (Crow/Stag), not even that, where as Sacraments users have Numen, Sacrifice, Ressurect, Dazzle, Judgement, and the Inqusition combo which, though difficult for warriors, has been done before by warriors from what I've heard. All in addition to Trueheal, which is wonderful for warriors who can conserve their power while still launching a strong offense.


All the above, I probably shouldn't share, but oh well. It is my opinion, which is biard, though that is as unbased as I could be. Biased would have been to push forth a change on the curing bits, since I can spend 24 power for a fully saplock only to have it undone in a second with a 10p skill, which really irks me, but oh well