The report was up for a full month with people poking other envoys to go look at it. If they didn't, that's their issue. Even the week before the report was submitted, poking to go look at it was ramped up and people were told it'd be submitted at the end of the month.

Except the "web" thing was changed pretty darned close to the end. For no apparent reason.

Can't actually look at the timestamps because the wiki is down (why is it always down? It makes actually checking the thing really tough), but I'm pretty sure it was still "change Web to 1s Stun" a week before submission. With no objections at all.

We're not all envoys, so regardless of the fact that some envoys didn't bother to read it, there are those of us that had no idea what was on it and are now going "wtf."

By no apparent reason you must mean, that there was envoy comments suggesting that it be changed to a higher mana cost instead and nobody else disagreeing with it. In fact... for during the whole time the report was being made including the last month that envoys were being constantly nagged about it, only 3 envoys made comments at all on the entire report.

So mister envoy, if you were against the mana option, why is it you didn't feel the need to comment until after the report was dealt with by the admins?

As I recall, they were comments along the lines of "a second option," not "We dislike this one, let's change it and completely throw out the first one!"

Of course, I can't get at it to actually verify.

Just out of curiosity, why suggest a second option, if you don't like the first one?

Ah, so you didn't feel your opinion was needed on the report until it was over and done with. Since... of the three envoys who actually did discuss the report, you were not one of them.

Uhm, yes to this.

What envoys do and don't do aren't just 'their issue'.

Yet another reason why I think everyone should be able to read reports. >_>

It was actually myself who said the stun solution was one that favoured warriors/monks and the only solution needed was to raise the mana cost.

Given there was no comment refuting that for over a week of it sitting there, and closer to 2 weeks, it seems that that solution was accepted instead for the report when it was finalised.

Again, if you have the ability to type "read report" you have the ability to type "mister envoy what's happening with such and such"

If you can't be bothered to talk to your envoy then that is your own fault.

Not that I care if you read all the reports or not. Just that I find it funny that you can complain about needing to know what's going on, but you don't show any initiative in just... asking.

Timestamps:

January 31st, up until 13:14
1. Skill: Spellcasting - Web
* Problem: Quickly rising to almost be counted as a fourth guildskill due to it's overwhelmingly applicable nature, Beastmastery's Web capability has seen for itself far too broad and too powerful a range of use in everyday combat. Though the use of Beastmastery to give a slight boost in combat is understood and appreciated, the general concensus of both the gaming populace and the envoys agree that Spellcasting Web is far too powerful an ability.
* Solution: In hopes of keeping a level of utility still in line with this skill, a proposal therefore for this ability to no longer entangle targets, but instead give a -single- second's worth of stun. Extremely useful still in its capability of rendering a target prone without the adverse effects of the too powerful entanglement, being limited to it's beast balance should act suitably to further reign it in.

January 31st, 13:14
1. Skill: Spellcasting - Web
* Problem: Quickly rising to almost be counted as a fourth guildskill due to it's overwhelmingly applicable nature, Beastmastery's Web capability has seen for itself far too broad and too powerful a range of use in everyday combat. Though the use of Beastmastery to give a slight boost in combat is understood and appreciated, the general concensus of both the gaming populace and the envoys agree that Spellcasting Web is far too powerful an ability.
* Solution: In hopes of keeping a level of utility still in line with this skill, a proposal therefore for this ability to no longer entangle targets, but instead give a -single- second's worth of stun. Extremely useful still in its capability of rendering a target prone without the adverse effects of the too powerful entanglement, being limited to it's beast balance should act suitably to further reign it in.

2 things. 1. I would like to know who the general consensus is, cause I was never asked as an envoy for my concensus on the matter of web, and 2. Beast Stun favours warriors/monks more than other classes, where as Web favours all classes. I and others I have spoken to also do not feel Web to be a major issue. It has good combinations that can be done, but the cost (which I do feel could and should be raised) keep it from being overly used.

>> Gregori, Hartstone

Revision as of 20:38, 2 February 2009
Beastmastery Submitted

(At this point it was removed from the main page, at 20:38, 2 February 2009)

Then no more edits on the Beastmastery report until:
07:58, 5 February 2009

At which point Web became:
Skill: Spellcasting - Web

* Problem: Problem: Beastmastery Web is a very powerful ability for far too cheap a cost.
* Solution: Raise the cost of Beastmastery Web from 1500 mana to 2000 - 2500 mana.


I'm not sure where you're getting "envoys comments" and "two weeks" from, Gregori. :/

But from the timestamps and the single comment, I think it pretty obvious why this one is confusing a number of envoys. (And no, this is not an Admin fault. They actually did what was submitted to them.)

Lulz Gregori.

Ok so it wasn't as long as I thought since my comment.. nor did I say anything at all about "multiple comments asking to change it" In fact I said "I was the one who offered the mana solution instead"

If you are going to do nothing but Troll, learn reading comprehension.

Again, you still had time to comment to argue/discuss it. Three envoys made comments the entire time the report was being worked on. You were not one of them. Despite the fact Xiel poked people daily, Estarra poked people every couple days, Charune poked people. But hey, why should you be required to actually to do anything as an envoy?

Just as an aside, there's nothing stopping envoys from getting opinions from others on the forums. I note there was a thread on Beastmastery already asking for input. I wouldn't have any objection if envoys wanted to post a draft report on the forums for more feedback--though I will warn them from experience that sometimes an avalanche of conflicting opinions or sudden ... uh, vigorous ... debates may not give you the constructive feedback you were looking for!

I actually edited and fixed it before you posted, and I did start it before your second post where you said you made the comment so I had not seen that one yet. However, you're the one who said comments. There were not comments. There was one comment asking it to change, done shortly before the thing was actually moved to "submitted"... but apparently not actually submitted yet.

How do you know that I never ask?

And I would find it difficult to ask my envoy 'hey, what was that change they made to beast web a week before the report went in' when I have no idea there was a change made to beast web a week before the report went in.

Oh you are right I said envoy comments, when I meant to say an envoy comment. Given the following posts where I point out I was the one who commented and made the mana solution though, someone should be able to gather the intended meaning, instead of the trolling for semantics so they can try and make their arguement look better, but hey whatever floats your boat.

Due to your consistent complaint about never knowing what is going on, despite being pointed out that there are envoys that would tell you if you asked.

Edit:: No, but you could say "Hey what is on the beastmastery report?"

Since even if you could read ingame reports you wouldn't be able to read the special reports as they are in a completely seperate resource.

So while lecturing me for "a lack of reading comprehension," you... did not read the part of my post where I stated that I wasn't even reading the thread and had not seen your responses, because I was going through the Wiki getting timestamps and making a post. Interesting.

And I really don't think I'm the one trying to "make my argument look better," here. I just put up the timestamps, they pretty much speak for themselves. I'm not really even presenting any other argument except that there really wasn't a whole lot of time to make the change or comment on this respect.

It's perfectly reasonable for Envoys to be confused about what happened with this item in specific.

Yes.