Deus_Furore

First Question, do they have dictionaries in South Carolina? I know they do in NC, but on the chance you're near one, please look up the word satire. Sa-ti-er.

Second, maybe next time in your rush to seem 'more right' or 'witty', you won't go calling people idiots when its pretty clear to the rest of us that the only one who didn't get it, was in fact you. Hence the old adage, better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Just a bit of friendly advice.

[ QUOTE ]
<3

But what about that other guy who insists DA is pure and utter garbage? Surely his impassioned defense of bashing the set makes more sense, even though he ignores slotting, proper use of powers, and basic logic!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well after reading this guide, I'm inclined to be glad that Broots don't have such a poor set like Regeneration.

Thankfully, us Broots have /Energy Aura. Which is just hands down better.

ya, know.

Also Also,

use the "code" and "/code" (with brackets instead of quotations) and it should line up just fine.


Gosh, I feel so Helpy-Helperton today!

*Warm fuzzy inside feeling*

This guide is full of Win, and Awesome.

I now feel like a bright light has illuminated what was once a dark abyss of Ignorance and despair.

For some reason I feel compelled to type the following:

"This is easily the best guide I've seen thus far.
Why?

Because it gives me a comparison of the various sets, and explains the shortcomings in significant detail of a single set that I might be interested in.

It's always nice to see the good(What it can do in resistance totals and et cetera) and the bad(The defense holes, how it lacks in comparison to other sets, etc). "



Wow that was weird, for a second it felt like someone else was typing instead of me...

Hrmm.

<RtOP>

[ QUOTE ]

And Deus, if you're using nukes for your RSF run, you're pretty much invalidating yourself, and you know it. There's nothing DA can do with that nuke support that a team of 8 any other brutes can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually Im not invalidating anything haetron. I challenge you to find an instance of a single RSF team that has EVER been formed on these boards made up of any 8 members of a single AT that did not at least use one of the most commonly used temp powers.

Using a single bio nuke for the +Regen most surely does NOT invalidate the metric.

It has long been a proven fact that on a heavily buffed team, its in fact Shivans that contribute the most, and in fact outdamage the players who summoned them by a large majority. Shivans are one of the biggest factors along with stacking vengeance to the normal completion strategies of most RSF teams on live.

Nukes are even less of an impact. If you thought I meant chemical burn nukes, you are mistaken.

There won't be any damage done to the AVs outside the source of the players themselves directly.

Also, I challenge ANY other power-set combination of Brutes to do the same thing. You make it sound so simple, yet I have never heard any thread or topic mentioned about a successful all-brute RSF. If it's so simple a task that any armor set could do it, please provide a link to the post containing proof that it has happened.

I'll go ahead and let you know that you won't find one, becuase not every other power sets brutes have provide a mechanic that would come close to providing a team with a chance to win.

8 /stone Brutes couldn't do it. People have already tried.

Saying that the use of Biological mutagen warbug nukes invalidates the accomplishment, smacks of more intellectual dishonesty. Sorry, but you're going to come up well short of your goal of trying to marginalize this accomplishment if you try and use that as your only argument against it.

Technically, the Warhulk didnt defeat you. It was already dead when you died. What killed you was the Jagaer, who got in the shot after the warhulk exploded as it died and took a good chunk of health with it.

It could have been prevented by taking a simple green inspiration in my mind, since dark regen was about 3 seconds from recharging, and there were only 3 mobs left in the group. Also, simply not attacking a moment while the warhulk was stunned would have allowed you the necessary time for dark regen to recharge. The warhulk was stunned anyways.

In either case, the fact that you died, was not because of some defeceit or flaw in Dark Armor, wouldn't you agree Umbra?


Also of note. Constant fury the entire time by the end of the second mob group? Yeah, I noticed that too. Wonder what you're doing wrong?

I thought you couldnt build fury with a /DA brute...well at least thats the impression the OP seems to be under?

No shivans. Yes nukes and other temps. If its as successful as indications, were going to try the MoRSF criteria.
Which will mean no stacked veng, because of no deaths criteria, and no other temps either.

lol. The thing that keeps me up at night is worrying what some anonymous forum-poster with all of 11 posts, or some net-nanny with her/his forum "ettiquette" rules, thinks about me as a person based off of words I type and they read on a screen...

Insulting? Sure. At times I can and will be, especially when it's called for. Just because it's a forum, doesn't mean i have to play nicey-nice. Im not trying to win a popularity contest like some people around here. the one thing I won't do is curse at someone or resort to emotional reactions. I don't "get mad" when i read the forums like some people. I've got thicker skin.

Close-minded? maybe, but then again, so is the OP. Don't see you mentioning that do we? Close minded people are anyone that doesn't agree with 'you'. that's the reality of the situation. Just because you try to paint a pretty picture and come off smelling like a objective third party observer, doesn't mean anyone is actually buying into it. Just as I'm not buying into the altruism and "Helpy-helperton" nature of this thread. There's enough conceit and self-rightness to go around in here.

I freely admit my humanity. You should try not to look so perfect. It only makes you look that much more flawed.

In closing, to the last poster,
Stop co-signing and post something original with some thought to it. Just an idea.

And as for a progress update, I'm setting up a team now of 8 dark brutes, wherein we will beat the RSF, and put it on video with a rigourous analysis of technique, builds, and strategy. That will pretty much be the culmination of the guide im working on that will pretty much forever end this debate, I hope. For all those folks out there who can't seem to wrap their noodle around the complexities of dark armor, hopefully the video will put it all into something easily understandable and with an in your face kind of irrefutability.

then again, for certain close-minded people out there, there really was no debate at all to begin with.

Isn't that right Haetron?

[ QUOTE ]
Funny, I don't recall anything about him saying one couldn't be successful with /DA, or that doing so would be a fluke, just that for most cases and situations, other secondaries are generally better picks.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

[ QUOTE ]
The goal is to prevent anyone from ever considering playing the set for any reason than concept, or the fact they -want- the game to be difficult.
...
multiple weakspots it has that render it one of the weakest Brute secondaries.
...



[/ QUOTE ]



Sorry, I guess the whole pros and cons part was in some post I didn't read? haetron doesn't leave much to the imagination about his opinions on dark armor. He clearly believes it the worst set, and through his post he has communicated that dark armor has no pros, we're all just confused and misguided. The pros are really cons in disguise... Clearly anyone with a dark armor brute can't even be as successful in any PvE or PvP as every other secondary set. He plainly stated how each of them were a better choice. Unequivocably, no less...

Honestly, I appreciate your efforts to mediate, but its really unnecessary.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly why can't you click them when you need them? The only reason you could not, would be if you had used them previously, and that still shows their overall usefulness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This appears terribly flawed to me. You cannot simply assess their availability with such sweeping terms. An example of how to analyze this sort of thing is in Arcanaville's comparative surivivability comparisons. You have to compare both uptime of clicks versis consistent value of toggles/passives and the more discrete effects of needing to click things (there are transitional periods where you simply cannot activate the power even when you want it).


[/ QUOTE ]

Except, those transitional periods almost never come up in casual game play, people save their Tier 9's for situations where they will actually need them, and don't fire them the instant they're available just because they are there. Im not trying to pretend that T9 resistance numbers are permanent parts of gameplay, but then, Toxic damage almost never is either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im really trying not to be insulting. Just ask anyone who knows my post history. If I want to come out and call someone an idiot, I normally just do. As I said, I knew what I was typing would sound like a personal attack on your end. It wasn't meant to be, and I said as much. If you still find offense, then that's your prerogative. You can feel better about being the bigger man. In either case, it's your worry, not mine. I'm just a rarity I guess, who doesn't believe in reserving tact for complete strangers. That's just too much caring and emotional investment without a return. I much prefer brutal honesty.

However, I don't know how to word the "whats and wheres" that I have found at fault in your posts anywhere other than smack dab on your shoulders.

You have information in front of you, but like Uberguy has stated, and others here have been trying to call your attention to, you continue to gloss over the ones that may not agree with you and only see what you want to. Since your mind is closed on the subject, you shouldn't be surprised or offended when everyone else's is as well.

I suppose the same could be said by you of the other side of the house, but you have to understand what you are doing here; you're challenging other people's experiences as well as challenging a very vocal and powerful minority.

You are in effect saying that my experience with Dark Armor (and many other posters), which up to this point has been a resounding success, has for all practical purposes been some kind of fluke. You won't consider player skill, which I brought up intending to give your ideas about fury limitations some merit, albeit falling short of that, so that leaves everyone at an em'passe.

If you're allowed to question my experience with your own and numbers that supposedly support your stance, then I am allowed to call into question the context and reasonability of that experience.

Here's the thing you really, really, really don't get haetron.

Statistics can be created and facts can be used to support any position. I can take the same "facts" and numbers that you've been touting all week and show how they actually support my position instead.

Your analysis is incomplete and flawed.

I'm about to show you what a complete and thorough analysis looks like. I've got 14 players assisting me with dataminding. Every Primary and secondary covered. And the "facts" we're seeing are so far from what your own experience has led you to believe, after you read it, if you in fact do so (which i really doubt ), you'll either be left with a few explanations:

We're all a bunch of liars and we made it all up...

We're playing a different game than you are...

Or, and this is my personal belief...

your own experience, has led you to believe a certain thing and in order to escape the reality that this has placed you in, you've set about trying, and in some measure succeeding, in hoodwinking not only yourself, but everyone else in the process using numbers and situational comparisons that only support your own very limited and narrow analysis.

It could very well be, that you, like many others, just aren't cut out to play the best armor set in the game for brutes. You neither understand it, and you really don't understand yourself.

I realize this sounds like a personal attack, but rest assured it isn't. I'm not calling you stupid, or a crappy player. I'm simply suggesting that instead of finding fault with the game, and a power-set that you just plain don't like (for who knows why, probably bad experience), you instead just take a step back and try to reconcile why you have such a vastly different experience from a minority of players with collectively a metric ton of experience at not only the game, but the power-set you're ranting against.

And make no mistake, it is a rant, cleverly wrapped up in objectivity, but transparently subjective nonetheless.

And of course, I will offer multiple comparisons with equal footing for all the armor sets.

And this comment is really exactly what I'm talking about:

[ QUOTE ]
Ill be really interested on how much spin you'll be able to put on the base numbers Dark Armor provides, that'll actually put it -above- what other sets provide with better base numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement really does highlight my point. You only want to talk about base numbers, because only those numbers back up your side of the argument to any credible degree. You won't talk much about Dark's control powers because no other set has those, and those are the very powers that make up for, and in my experience, surpass the survivability of every other set.

Seriously, I'm not the only person that is seeing this type of doublethink on your part.

Frankly I'm tired of people with the mentality that the game mechanics are at fault for their own contradictory, or in some cases, just plain flawed play style.

And as for the spin comment, you've done plenty of spinning yourself. Of course, no one thinks they spin anything themselves, it's always the people that don't agree with you that spin...

You and Fox news bud. Fair and balanced...


anyways, thats it.

Hey, no worries, I'm just dropping by a final time to let you know to watch out for my fact-filled, forthcoming guide:

"Why you should never play anything other than a Dark Armor Brute."

It's sure to be full of Awesome, and win. Oh, and lots of numbers, cause thats how I roll. Mainly from all the data-mining I've done over the past week. you know, actual testing, as opposed to pulling numbers from builders and going "here, see, I'm right!"

Stay tuned.

[ QUOTE ]


That Electric Armor is the best Brute Secondary has become conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is oftentimes wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


Kinda like the earth being flat, or the sun revolving around the earth, or spontaneous generation, and who could forget the memorable, and highly believable, Moon being made of cheese!

Also, for the record, Fury, and its calculations, aren't as simple as 1+1=2...


I rather lawl'd when I read that.

I'm disputing your numbers and your observations.

And Ur wrong!

And my posting time is limited also, but, i've got about two pages worth of numbers from hero stats so far.

I'm shooting for 6 hours.

the respec SF i just ran against the +3 DE should give real good results too. Pretty much pegged fury the entire time. and that was running OG the entirety also.

So based on that information, are you supporting the proposition that Dark Armor should not be taken as a Brute, because of the slight initial delay in building fury due to control powers?

Attack chains shouldn't even be used with a Brute. The dynamic ability to use fury pretty much throws out the idea of attack chains being a quotient for endurance usage or damage to any reliable degree. If anything, the addition to IOs to the game drastically mitigate concerns about endurance use, especially where dark armor is concerned because Dark Armor also has the most toggles to run, which would hurt it if not for the fact that only it's damage aura and cloak of fear draw constant signifigant Endurance, and these are further mitigated by the prevalence of End Recovery bonuses and their availability in the very same toggles that dark possesses.

On my stone/dark brute, I have virtually eliminated all worries about endurance and have a higher recovery rate through IOs than a /EA brute in Overload: 4.01 per second.

Again, my opinion, is that /dark is not for the average player. /Dark armor better serves those players who play at higher difficulties, have experience with numbers (how to do mathz), and those players who are able to manage several tasks at once.

/Dark Armor played well will equal or exceed the performance metrics of any other power-set, brute or not, in both offensive and defensive categories. It is not the hamstring of fury that it is made out to be.

The numbers don't support it. Opinions are just that, unsupported, and thusly inconclusive, both for and against, but they still remain arguable, but only in so much as they can't be presupposed to universally apply in all situations, which is exactly the tone that the author of this post takes.

His opinion and supporting arguments assumes that player skill makes no difference in the effectiveness of a power-set, well, that and several other assumptions, but that one being the most flawed. The entire argument has to made from the position of ommission of a very influential truth. His argument might be credible if you ignored the glaringly obvious. Performance in this game varies wildly between players, and it isn't because we are playing different builds or sets, thought those do vary to an extent. The most variable factor in determining the effectiveness of a build or power-set in any situation still remains player skill. For Dark Armor, this is probably even more important in my opinion than any other set because of the necessity to constantly assess your defensive situation and select the best tactics.

However, assuming all those factors, this is not the case in this thread, and surely does not meet the general level of informative material that should be in the player guide section. It's both disingenuous, and far too speculative to be of use to anyone other than an editorial about one person's experience. In fact, it might do more to harm the general eduaction levels of those that read it as uncontested fact.

Until I see some damage output numbers from from the players claiming that dark's control toggles hurt their fury significantly enough to justify their wild accusations that it would preclude not even considering the power-set, and damage output i'll add, it will remain an 'old wives tail, and unsupported opinion.

Numbers forthcoming.

If you haven't seen the numbers to support dark armor as being the most survivable armor set in the game, just look at any of Arcanaville's posts on immortality lines and defense.

I've also extensively datamined dark armor and have seen that it surpasses Stone armor for survivability before you even factor in the controls from OG and Cloak of fear. AV's conclusions also supported this.

How Dark went from the premiere armor set for those that live for relentless level missions, to the worst set for a brute to take is beyond me.

It's an ignorant trend.

I guess I'll start up Wordpad...

I think i have the same mind set as Renascor...

Should I even bother? Would numbers and datamining be enough to counter blatant opinion based on experience that could have been skewed in the first place? Would it even be worth the effort?

Probably not. I shall ponder.

1. Fix Fury in PvP.

2. Balance hero vs villain PvP at all levels. Give villains access to epic pools if they desire, and create patron powers for heroes that do not diverge from the villain versions to the point that it again unbalances the equation. Simple.

3. Fix the bounty system in SC so that it cannot be exploited by people who remain afk in the zone for hours on end until server reset just to spite people because they have some gripe about the games mechanics and decide to take it out on the player base.

4. level 50 PvP zone FFA. With objectives. Not RV. Create something meaningful. Want to see what objective and reward based PvP looks like? Take a look at DAoC. That would be a good starting point if you don't understand that a game won't be imbalanced by introducing PvP rewards that carry over to PvE, providing that factional balance already exists.

5. Last but certainly not least, more development staff supported PvP events. Cameo appearances by signature based characters during events. nuff said.

Thanks in advance.

THanks for clarifying that for me, and I do see your point.

I even concede it's very credible. I find myself wanting to agree with you, and in a way, I already have numerous times in the thread, that the system as I've suggested is in no way necessary.

Especially not as it may have been neccessary with regards to the former game we were both a part of.

However, despite that, I think it 'could' help, hence my suggestion. And with that, I'm willing to let my points speak for themselves.

It is exactly as you said. It's for the folks within the Community Relations department to decide if they would benefit from such a arangement.

I'll keep answering questions for those that want or call for clarification, but I think I'll rest my case with the following:

If there are no objections, besides the disagreement to whether it is implicitly needed or not, I think it would be a good thing to at least give a chance to work.

[ QUOTE ]
My only fault with it is there's a bit too much "rose-colored glass" between the OP's account and my memories of the day to day workings of the correspondent program. That's not just my old disappointments in the game of the dev team talking, I paid close attention to it across the boards, because for a while I wanted to be a Correspondent. I saw it accomplished very little other than add a layer of smoke and mirrors at the expense of overall player morale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, speaking on belhalf of a two-year correspondent (reference Felton Kel, board name: SeaRaptor), I guess your observations from the outside aren't exactly the same as those from the inside as an actual former correspondent.

True?

Again, let's not get sidetracked on the merit of a suggestion based on a parallel of it not being as successful as it could have been in a galaxy far, far away.

My perceptions were different from yours. Duly noted. Now, lets move beyond that and discuss the relavence of the suggestion here, in the only area where it needs to concern itself with.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see it working here exponentially better than it did in SWG. Wouldn't you agree to that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Efficiency is a big part of how useful any feedback mechanism is. I'm really not certain that many AT issues get missed by our dev team, so I think my point is, that an added layer of administration just bogs things down.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this response raises even more questions for me. I'm also not sure you answered the question that you quoted. If I missed it, I appologize. But again, for the sake of curiosity, do you see that system, if implemented here, working better than it did when it was used/abused by SOE?

With regards to administration leading to inefficiency, that's an age old argument against or for bureaucracy. However, I'm not advocating another layer of adminstration, I am suggesting a formal system for organization and advocacy. I'm not sure what administration would need be created other than possibly adding some more workload to Ex Libris's position, though admittedly, it would also reduce her workload in other areas. Only she, or those responsible for overall involvement/coordination could make a determination if it was worth it I think.

Again, it's just a suggestion. In fact, since nothing is permanent, they could simply decide to try it out, and if it didn't bring enough positives, it could be done away with. No one would be fired, so in essence, if nothing is ventured, then nothing is gained.

It would be worth a shot at least, and I think that the goal in this case, a better game play experience for me and you, is worth that.

For my $14.95 a month, it's worth it at least.

[ QUOTE ]

I've already run into line of communication issues between what gets reported to NCSoft and how that info makes it back to Cryptic (or not) and what gets reported directly to Cryptic via these forums. I'm not certain an added layer of player volunteers would be that helpful in straightening those things out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be helpful. You'd be eliminating (or seeking to do so through reduction) a large middle-man, namely NCSoft customer service. Obviously, people will still petition in game, but you would see less posts in the technical issues and bug threads about common known issues with regards to particular ATs or power-sets. I think streamlining the communication process further will only speed things up in the long run, thereby making it more efficient in the long term, despite any organizational woes or start-up hitches.

[ QUOTE ]

I think if the core issue you're trying to solve is filtering out the signal to noise ratio of the forums, a more efficient way to do it by educating the playerbase.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the goals yes. Educating the player base may be more efficient, but my friend, you're implying that such is possible, or even probable. It's been my experience that 'teaching' the playerbase is as tenuous as a razor's edge. More efficient, yes. But a pipe dream.

As a prime example, Arcanaville, myself, Dark_Master, and others have attempted to educate those on the Brute and Scrapper forums that Dark Armor is probably the best secondary for survivability. No matter how much effort we put into educating, perception remains reality. Humbly, and with all due respect, this suggestion may not be the most efficient solution, but of the two, it is far more realistic a proposition in my mind.

[ QUOTE ]

Official threads tend to do the same thing. That's not to say they don't wander afield at times, but they do get a generally better grade of response than the day to day forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think creating a top issues thread in every Archetype forums would do more help than harm. It would probably give people in the Brute forums an outlet to say "Fury in PvP still does not function as advertised". Instead, every month we have a new thread with 10 pages of responses.

Getting rid of those types of, while meaningful and important, redundant type of discussion couldn't be all that bad.

[ QUOTE ]

And then of course there are the dedicated problem solvers in our community. People like BillZ, Arcanaville, and many many others, who are already de facto filling the role you're trying to formalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely. My motivation, or at least 'why' I am advocating this suggestion and in fact made it in the first place, is to ensure that people like those you named not only are able to continue to discuss their problem solving with the playerbase, but could also, should they so incline themselves, have a more direct line of communication, and a formalized communication, both to the devs, and from the devs.

But as Arcanaville will easily admit, she cannot be in the Brute, Scrapper, and Blaster forums all the time. Her particular area of interest is in defense and the mechanics of it, at least from what I have seen. I am just advocating that in order to better ensure that no AT gets overshadowed or forgotten, that having dedicated 'spokespersons' or at least organizers within their own forums cannot be necessarily a bad thing.

At least, I think it could help more than hurt. It's worth a shot at least, and unless I or someone else can come up with a bonafide objection that has consequences outweighing those benefits, I think the pros outweight the cons.

[ QUOTE ]

I just want anyone who is willing to to step up and do the good work and make the statements, without worrying about turf wars and formalities, and precedence. Right now, anyone can. With formalized correspondents, that's not guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to disagree with the first part of your statement. I think right now there is a lack of posting from anyone or everyone who wants to do it because there already are turf wars, precedence, and formalities. Have you read the thread: "Defense: and Termination Regression" in the Brute forums?

Thats an excellent case of precedence and turf wars if there ever was one.

So, if the current system does not prevent that, then I doubt it would be enhanced by the inclusion of a Correspondent, quite the opposite in fact.

The forums can be an 'unforgiving' and 'new user unfriendly' place sometimes, especially to those who are lurkers or don't often post. Sometimes, they are vehemently shouted down and out by other posters using the information from the more helpful ones you named above. Information can be used to help, or to hammer.

I need not even go into the non-functionality of the 'search' function on the boards. It's hardly user friendly and almost requires its own research to use above mere functionality.

Not all questions or concerns in all posts are addressed on their merits either. My suggestion will not change that of course. Some are in fact redundant, some are not, but are often similar enough to others that they become so. My suggestion would improve that though, at least I feel that it would.

Also, if I haven't expressed it by now, thank you for your comments and your concerns. It is an interesting discussion, and hopefully something positive will come of it, regardless of anything else.

Lemur, I agree that the correspondent positions did not address the real problems with SWG

In fact, the real problem with that game was not the mechanics, which could be fixed, but a dissalusioned administration that hamstrung its developers as suredly as the sun sets in the west.

I don't want to go off into a tangent about what was wrong with SOE, and John Smedly, the then president of the company, but let it suffice to say that, when the same system failed there to a discommunication between the players, and the developers, I do not see that happening here.

NCSoft, and the development staff have shown themselves to not be as dissalusioned as those at SOE.

At no time could a developer such as _Castle_ does for NCSoft and Cryptic communicate as readily and easily as he does with this player base, as he could have for SOE.

For this company, which I feel is more in touch with their paying customers, I feel this system could live up to it's potential.

I see it working here exponentially better than it did in SWG. Wouldn't you agree to that?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not suggesting that we create a private forums for player correspondents to communicate in secret with the developers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this wouldn't be a bad idea either, though. If the AC positions are created, having a forum for them to discuss issues with themselves and the Devs might not be a bad idea.

The reason for this? A lot of times the ATs have the same powersets. What might not work for one AT might work for another AT, and discussing that in a place where all of the ACs can see it before it goes to the Devs would allow for them to make sure it doesn't get changed for the AT the power works fine for.

Also, it would allow the ACs to come together and discuss what they think should be the order the Devs try to tackle things. If there is a bug in an entire AT, then they can say that that should be worked on before an animation change for a particular power, or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, and I will be completely honest, I didn't want to be the one to suggest it.

Suffice it to say, in SWG we had exactly that, and of course, we had the discontented minority crying foul the instant something didn't happen they way they desired.

As I said, the position was often thankless and demanding. It was the moments of accomplishment, fleeting as they were, when it became worth it.

[ QUOTE ]
QR


Player elections will not work. The correspondents should simply be selected by Lighthouse and Ex Libris after expressing interest. Democracy is a wonderful institution, but it's too slow for this purpose.



[/ QUOTE ]

yes, I think this is how it will most likely work. In my original post i use the term 'voting', 'elected', and 'nominated' interchangably.

That is to say, it would behoove the player base to 'nominate' a player to the position. This would help express not only support of those inevitably selected, but would increase player involvement with the process, and hence increase satisfaction and contentment.

Of course, the person would have to submit the fact that they are interested in applying for the position, then to be selected by Ex Libris, or some arm of the community relations department.

Obviously, since it is a voluntary position, and with all that entails, a person could simply decline such endorsement from the players or posters.

For example, I would nominate Living Hellfire for the Blaster Archetype Correspondent. I also know he has the option of refusing such nomination. Though, with enough players asking him to take on the task, he just might.

Of course, it would still be up to him to submit his willingness to accept such a nomination. And upon such acceptance would still be up to him to submit such to the Community Relations department for consdieration.

I think leaving the ultimate decision up to the NCSoft of course, is paramount. They must have some way of instituting controls and safeguards to protect their interests as well as the players.

However, it would be easy for them to make such a decsion. They simply need base it off a person's qualifications, their post history, how helpful or respectful they have been, etc.

The history is there for all to read.

[ QUOTE ]
How does one differentiate the decision that a given suggestion, issue, or position be presented to the developers or community reps from the decision not to present a position that the volunteer disagrees with or dislikes?

It seems to me the proposal was to have the volunteers doing a digest or summary of ideas for presentation to NCSoft/Cryptic, no? Is he just a copy editor, cleaning up typoes and taking out "pie," "no," etc. from the discussion?

Does someone have to sell the volunteer on a suggestion for it to be passed upwards?

What are the criteria for "top 5" issues? The volunteers preferences? Are there metrics or is it intuitive, or both?

I must admit, it seems to me that using soft-core words for a hard-core concept doesn't lessen the impact when it actually goes into effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do it in a transparent fashion.

I am not suggesting that we create a private forums for player correspondents to communicate in secret with the developers.

As I said, I've seen this from experience. This isn't simply abstract and untested potentiality.

Your suggestion, about what metrics would be used?

Simple. A forum post. People would post their ideas. The correspondent would tabulate the top 5 sugggestions, and list them on the front page.

There ya go. What is so shady or complicated about such a system of organization? The developers and the player base would have the information right in front of them.

If someone wanted to go behind the correspondent to 'make sure no errors were committed' then that would of course be their prerogative. I would suggest that someone doing so would be a overly cynical and paranoid individual, but that is not to say that someone won't do it immediately. People are obviously going to behave according to Murphy's law. This suggestion won't do away with something as natural as human distrust.

So yes, a digest or summary would be a job the Correspondent should and could do, and transparently enough in the open to avail the conspiracy theorists. (though nothing will satisfy them obviously)

The criteria for "top 5 issues" would not be volunteer preference. You assume that the volunteer would have the power to affect such player posts, or get rid of suggestions he didn't want. I'm not suggesting or implying such a thing. You, for instance, could as easily read every post in such a thread calling for top 5 issues to be discussed. You could tabulate your own results. The same as the correspondent would. The correspondent would collate all the different suggestions. Of course, being a human being, he would have his own, but that is not to say he would 'make' his own suggestions to the devs in lieu of the top 5 as decided by the player base.

Any system is abusable, I'll admit.

But we still have policeman walking the streets with guns. Some, are still going to turn out crooked. So why then not scrap the idea of Policemen entirely?

Obviously, the instance of corruption is much smaller than the alternative.

Let's use common sense here as well. Occam's Razor applies.