I actually believed Jeremy when he said that Aetolia would be getting a trigger/alias free client.

Heh.

You say that as if they're reliable people to make good, informed decisions and have a deep, unquestionable understanding of in-game mechanics, balance, and just general common sense.

I'm sorry sir, but your bitter is hanging out. Whatever your latest misconceived gripe is, you should take it to your envoy, in lieu of making scathing, frivolous remarks on the forums.

As Sior said in the U-Stream, the matter was discussed over envoys, and the general consensus was that it's fine (and no, Glom/Celest weren't the only envoys who were present to give opinions). Whatever is stuck in your craw, you should talk to your envoy!

Making generally caustic remarks on the forums is a pretty good way to leave yourself in the position of having an opinion and no one wanting to endure the unpleasantness of listening to you.

Are you saying that all my so-called gripes are misconceived? Perhaps some are, I'll grant you that, but when it comes to game balance and anything envoy related, I need only point out that, in the very recent past, many envoys have been highly displeased with how balancing goes on. My envoy is currently inactive (I was the envoy prior to that) and after dealing with the incompetence that has festered, taking it to an envoy is mostly a waste of time.

I didn't watch the U-Stream, so I'll accept any faults from that. General consensus requires a majority, and from past experience, there have been plenty of "general consensuses" given from 5 out of 26 (I think it's 26) envoys. I won't doubt your comment that glom/celest weren't the only ones to put in their input, but I do have to ask if the non-glom/celest envoys were from Gaudiguch. Let's say not. Where all envoys asked? Definitely not. It only takes one to notice something that others missed, and while I'd love to say that every envoy is fully knowledgeable and well-versed in the intricacies of the game, it's simply not true.

I'm sorry that you view my remarks as caustic, but I do find something particularly humorous about your final sentence. It implies that there are people that would want to hear my opinion in the first place. I've never had the impression that player-input matters (or at least an equal representation of player-input). You can come back and say that no one wants to listen to me, but I'm not so conceited to mistake my experience as universal.

I also now feel like what I said in jest hit a bit of truth. If, as you say, my comment was frivolous, scathing, and caustic, why bother to defend against it? Certainly the administration's work should speak for itself and make me out to be the wolf-crier. Perhaps your reply was an attempt to set me out on the right direction. I thank you if it was, but I'd say that the general consensus is not to be condescending when trying to help others.

Certainly, you may have intended your comment in jest, but I suggest you take some time to refine your sense of humour (or, at least, your delivery).

I know they (and when it's my place, I) try our best to listen to players and make adjustments as we can (within reason).

My intention wasn't to repair your 'world-view', but rather to point out that your behavior is contrary to (what one presumes) is your motive - certainly, I like to believe everyone would like to see everything changed for the better. Sitting there acting like a child will achieve quite the opposite - whatever validity you may have tends to become obfuscated within the tone of your delivery.

As to 'helping', I could care less if you're perceived as a jack ass.

But I'll happily volunteer this tidbit:

The threshold for personal attacks against admin sits a fair bit lower than it does against players, and if you do not check your tone (and being perceived as a 'jack ass' tends to assist in the matter - on the opposite end of things, so to speak!), it won't be too long before you're short a venue to be perceived as one.

(I trust that's not too condescending to be, what the general consensus might consider, 'understood'!)

Choke isn't fine, but it beats me how to fix it without nerfing it to hell. If only people really cared about balancing this game, then we could all maybe bash our heads together to figure it out.

I would simply like to point out where the first childish remark came from.

How in the hell did this devolve in a choke thread? Really now, come on.

I haven't watched the Ustream, but I was present during the last long conversation about choke on envoys. The Celestian envoys were in favor of nerfing it further - at least they were discussing/suggesting further changes instead of saying such changes weren't really needed. In my experience they do not tend to give support along the current political lines - they want their own buffs and are really hesitant to support giving them to any other org. Iytha is the most active and informed envoy from Gaudiguch, and from everything I've seen is truly fair-minded about nerfing or buffing across org lines.

The Gloms present were Vadi and I, with him doing most of the discussing. I don't really have anything new to say on the subject, my only comment really was that some people would never consider choke balanced, no matter what was done to it, and opening the door to discuss it and hearing feedback, was not particularly indicative of a serious problem, since whenever Estarra is talking, people seem to want to perk up and be heard no matter what is being discussed. It was the Serenwilde quarter that yielded that choke at this point was probably as good as it was going to get, a statement that seemed generally to be "yeah, I guess'd" enough, that this particular 'battle' was over, despite the conversation continuing for a bit longer afterwards.

Your remarks can indeed be caustic. You imply above that the envoys from Celest and Gaudiguch are corrupt and will blindly support their allies' skills just because they don't have to fight them - and that the admin are so dim as to not realize that arguments presented in this fashion would not be motivated by personal bias. Maybe you do really think that - but that stuff belongs on your ooc gripe clan of choice, not when you're talking to the people you're talking about. It seems like the real concern you want to express is that you don't think the matter was discussed at enough length, with as many people giving their input as you would like...but that is not what you said.

You were a good envoy until you got fed up with it - reasonable, knowledgeable, and basically fair. We've discussed this privately ages ago and have some of the same concerns, but rather than try to stick around and make what progress you can, you just attack the system and everyone involved, loudly and publicly. This is an adolescent mistake, and I think if you step back you can recognize it. When you're not being "caustic," plenty of people listen to what you say.

I would have been surprised if it hadn't.

Forget Choke!

What about Finalstiiiiing!

http://forums.lusternia.com/index.php?show...20&start=20

Choke is the new lich (still has catching up to do though!)

Dammit, Lilia. You took the words right outta my mouth. Shuyin, you're totally out of line there. How can you say that Choke's fine? It's not, certainly. I mean, just compare it to IRE legacy retardation. Retardation was room-wide, and kills vibes (supporting passives) as it went on. Choke on the other hand is a single-target, and doesn't slow down fae (supporting passives) at all! This makes Choke a 1-for-1 disable. A choker could hold down a target while putting himself into the same position, letting their passives AND allies take down whoever is being choked with ease and an absolute lack of hindering. Single-room choke is so much superior to retardation.

Furthermore, original room-wide choke was INFERIOR to retardation. Room-wide choke didn't destory fae either, but fae can be affected by disloyalty while nothing short of lust affects vibes in the same way. Fae also did not hit more than a single target, save for one or two effects. Land a disloyalty and a single fae tick would be enough to turn the tables, whereas even if a magi got lusted in retardation, his vibes at least won't turn on himself. So the change from room-wide choke to single-target choke is an immense, unbelievable, and absolutely unbalanced buff!

To say that it is balanced is out of line, childish and entirely unacceptable. An apology should be forthcoming, dammit.

Edit PS: Tsk tsk, Tau. You were trying to derail choke into finalsting there, weren't you? I see through you. This thread is about choke, don't try to pull a fast one!

I don't think she is citing his opinion as childish, I think she is pointing out that Shuyin posted about it in a way he knew would provoke a response.

Yah, I was on the side that said that choke needs fixes, but is pretty much as good as it's going to get without more changes/problems, and I tried to suggest more things to help fix the issue, which is how it works in group combat.

That said... I agree with Sahm on this sort of thing, if to a lower degree. I feel like there is a lot of scoffing that goes on from the admins to player comments (be careful changing gold drops, the economy will get messed up, anyone?), though a lot of the problem comes from admins just not seeing the issues that all the players see as issues.

(And the threshold for insulting comments should be EXACTLY THE SAME for players and admins, if not more strict for admins. Seriously.)

Edit: or irony. I can't really tell. Ignore this part, I guess.

I disagree with the admin not listening to players when they complain/state a problem. I've read over several old threads that were about things people really hated and after a long rant/discussion, the admin did something about them. For example, the old Font construct, second version of mindblast, several other things. Now, I don't agree that that should always be the way to go about getting things changed, since sometimes the changes go too far, but the admin do listen to players on certain things.

Edit:
Also, report 119, which is on choke, was made by the Admin.

You misunderstand - my point was that personal attacks against admin are not tolerated. While they are also not tolerated against players, against admin they are more readily, quickly and heavily dealt with (given there are venues to deal with perceived complaints against admin, none of which are 'forum topics).

In other words, if you're posting personal attacks against admins, you're well on your way to losing forum privileges.

Finalsting?