|2017/03/16 08:22, Breaux:|| |
|IMO, its is critical that any changes implemented/put forward to the decision makers are simple to understand, have reasonably foreseeable implications and pass some sort of cost/benefit threshold. The cost/benefit analysis should question whether the intended outcome can be reached through a less time consuming measure, and indeed whether the intended outcome is worth the workload required to be spent by volunteers coding and implementing, and the expected implementation date. (Given the declining player base and for other good reasons, I would argue the sooner we can see something implemented, the better.)
I'd hate to wait let's say.. another few years of for a major overhaul because of an arduous coding process or difficulties finding the coding skillls required, only to see that we didn't reach a balanced outcome, or worse that responsible Ainurs drop the ball mid-project for whatever reason (do you remember Ilie??). Less foreseeable changes result in a more complex, iterative and time consuming process to reach balance, and responsible implementors would be realistically be more likely to drop off (due to RL or whatever issues) mid way through.
Some of the suggestions do make me worried and begs the basic question 'are we looking to improve or nuke thieves?'. I also understand that people want to be creative in proposing changes, but the resources required may not have been considered vaery carefully. Proposed changes should be somewhat realistic.
I say 'should' and 'somewhat' because the general flow of ideas if of course welcomed and appreciated. Some may consider my proposed changes to be unrealistic because they are not solely debuffing scouts as was instructed. I would only say that I've proposed a series of interrrelated changes that, on balance, address what I understand to have been the 'problems/imbalance' with scouts pre-Ilie.
Again, perhaps the strangest thing about this whole process, or the prescriptive framework of this particular thread (not questioning the intention) is asking the player base (again, don't get me wrong, this is appreciated) to help fix a 'problem', being the OPness of scouts pre-Ilie if nosneak is removed, when no one from the management is willing to put forward any arguments as to how or why this was a problem, relatively speaking. I can't come to any other conclusion than that the decision makers don't care or want to share this with the wider community (and I'm not necessarily talking about rogon/imago; rogon admitted he had no clue, so it would seem that they too are in the dark in relation to the 'consensus' of the decision makers or at least the underlying argumentation -- scary thought! In any case, because we are working under transparency level zero, the feedback you will receive will inadvertently be the result of subjective ideas/definitions of what the 'problem' was pre-Ilie. I hope this is taken into account in evaluating the ideas put forward.
The message is this, to those proposing ideas: try to be realistic and think simple. To those relaying the message or deciding: please take into account the transparency issues in evaluating proposals, and try to be objective in your own perception of what the 'problem/imbalance' was pre-Ilie, even if you are not willing to share this. Also, I would hope that the 10-year evaluation process is done soon, and that you can decide on something. In doing so, i urge you to also think simple. Simple changes can be implemented more quickly and seamlessly, and even if the changes would not pan out to be perfect, then at least we have taken a step in the right direction, without immos having spent days and days of playtime on coding, and without MUME bleeding to death before anything was ever done about this. At least then we have a chance.