by Alright, being a moderator and grading applications has become more and more about nerfing to the point, where perceived „balance“ has gotten out of hand. And I believe we, as a staff, have lost perspective of the necessities beyond nerfing and looking out for potentially abuseable wordings. What I mean, is that being staff and grading an application should NOT solely be about „HA! Found the overpowered part, rest doesn't really matter I guess“. No, finding the unbalance and pointing it out; that's just PART of being a moderator.
Going beyond what Kyll covered in her thread, likely thinking that it is COMMON SENSE, is going into the other direction. Paying attention to applications that end up potentiallly depowered, apps that have parts which just bare no effectiveness or purpose, spells and abilities that could be that much better, more extensive and just cover more ground than they do. I'm talking about doing the following:
If there is something wrong with an abiliity, be it depowered or overpowered, ALWAYS give alternatives, or give GOOD reasons why an alternative is not applicable.
Example: D Rank spell „Fireball“ deals 89 S Rank damage. Mod says „Way too op, make it deal 1 D Rank damage“. Where does my issue lie? Well in the lack of just about every aspect of comprehension for the member. Will the member understand why he had to lower it? No. Not without explanation. If you feel the need to butt in at this point already and say „Well he should know that that's just overpowered, and doesn't fly.“ How about you explain to him WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO.
Someone with a spell that deals 89 S Ranked damages with a D Rank spell is OBVIOUSLY trying to go for a magic that deals heavy damage. Now, what would the sensible steps be in this case?
„Hey, so your D Rank spell 'Fireball' is just way too strong. But am I understanding it right that you're trying to make this spell deal heavier damage than the regular D Rank spell? Because if yes, there are ways in which we can have this spell deal more damage than average, with it still being balanced and useful in battle-type situations. One of them would perhaps be giving that spell a charging period of one post, stating that the spell has requirements that need to be met, or that the spell has a higher cost than normal.“
I think we can all agree that there is a VITAL difference between the first type of comment reading „Way too op, make it deal 1 D Rank damage“ and the second type of grading reading a paragraph that is supposed to make it comprehensible for the member what he can do to make the spell still deal high damage in a balanced context. In my case, I like giving members who propose such clear misunderstanding of PvP and rules, situations in which I can show them WHY their spells are op. This of course, is not necessary. What IS necessary is giving the member alternatives, context and reasons for any sort of comment on the spell. We can't be stuck at singular one-lined gradings of apps that give NO room for discussion, NO room for a member to understand why he needs to do what he needs to do, and NO room for alternatives.
Give ideas to the members. That's what we're there for. Making magic work, giving members the benefit of making their magic good. Not just nerfing everything into oblivion and sitting on our bums thinking „Job well done“ when nobody is really doing what they could do.
Kyll's post covered the first half of what a moderator's necessities are. But I feel that it lacked the other half, which is apparently NOT common sense. I've seen apps in which mods lazily just type big fat „NO“'s „TAKE THAT OUT“'s and „THIS DOESNT WORK“'s without telling the member what they could do differently to make it work, why it actually doesn't work, and what they could put in place of the things that don't work. We, as staff, and especially as moderators should work on the attitudes we walk into apps with. No, not every app is trying to be unbalanced. Keep that in mind and don't nitpick on the discrepancies, but try to make the apps you work as great as they can possibly be.
Going beyond what Kyll covered in her thread, likely thinking that it is COMMON SENSE, is going into the other direction. Paying attention to applications that end up potentiallly depowered, apps that have parts which just bare no effectiveness or purpose, spells and abilities that could be that much better, more extensive and just cover more ground than they do. I'm talking about doing the following:
If there is something wrong with an abiliity, be it depowered or overpowered, ALWAYS give alternatives, or give GOOD reasons why an alternative is not applicable.
Example: D Rank spell „Fireball“ deals 89 S Rank damage. Mod says „Way too op, make it deal 1 D Rank damage“. Where does my issue lie? Well in the lack of just about every aspect of comprehension for the member. Will the member understand why he had to lower it? No. Not without explanation. If you feel the need to butt in at this point already and say „Well he should know that that's just overpowered, and doesn't fly.“ How about you explain to him WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO.
Someone with a spell that deals 89 S Ranked damages with a D Rank spell is OBVIOUSLY trying to go for a magic that deals heavy damage. Now, what would the sensible steps be in this case?
„Hey, so your D Rank spell 'Fireball' is just way too strong. But am I understanding it right that you're trying to make this spell deal heavier damage than the regular D Rank spell? Because if yes, there are ways in which we can have this spell deal more damage than average, with it still being balanced and useful in battle-type situations. One of them would perhaps be giving that spell a charging period of one post, stating that the spell has requirements that need to be met, or that the spell has a higher cost than normal.“
I think we can all agree that there is a VITAL difference between the first type of comment reading „Way too op, make it deal 1 D Rank damage“ and the second type of grading reading a paragraph that is supposed to make it comprehensible for the member what he can do to make the spell still deal high damage in a balanced context. In my case, I like giving members who propose such clear misunderstanding of PvP and rules, situations in which I can show them WHY their spells are op. This of course, is not necessary. What IS necessary is giving the member alternatives, context and reasons for any sort of comment on the spell. We can't be stuck at singular one-lined gradings of apps that give NO room for discussion, NO room for a member to understand why he needs to do what he needs to do, and NO room for alternatives.
Give ideas to the members. That's what we're there for. Making magic work, giving members the benefit of making their magic good. Not just nerfing everything into oblivion and sitting on our bums thinking „Job well done“ when nobody is really doing what they could do.
Kyll's post covered the first half of what a moderator's necessities are. But I feel that it lacked the other half, which is apparently NOT common sense. I've seen apps in which mods lazily just type big fat „NO“'s „TAKE THAT OUT“'s and „THIS DOESNT WORK“'s without telling the member what they could do differently to make it work, why it actually doesn't work, and what they could put in place of the things that don't work. We, as staff, and especially as moderators should work on the attitudes we walk into apps with. No, not every app is trying to be unbalanced. Keep that in mind and don't nitpick on the discrepancies, but try to make the apps you work as great as they can possibly be.
