What's new
By:
Loka Forums

Type /register while in-game to register for a forums account.

Suggestion 40v40 Continental Fight Cap

H

HyperTotodile

Active Member
Slicer
THE ACTUAL SUGGESTION ITSELF:

My proposal to the Loka staff team is this: for Continental fights (i.e. Ascalon, Kalros, Garama), each side is only allowed to warp 40 players total, for a maximum number of 80 players warping between the 2 competing alliances to a single fight. This, in my opinion, is the most elegant solution to the problem of mass recruitment.

Also keep in mind that this cap on the number of warpable players WOULD NOT APPLY TO BALAK OR REINS. In other words, the recruitment wars aren’t truly dead, and new players are constantly being brought into the server in order to fight on Balak. In my view, this is the best possible solution for all parties involved.





For further reading (justifications and detailed explanations) of my suggestions, I refer you to https://tinyurl.com/Conquest4

Hello Lokans! Welcome to my suggestions on how to change Conquest! This series of 4 posts will discuss ONLY the actual ideas themselves.

The defenses of these ideas, the justifications for their implementation, the rebuttals to potential counterarguments, and more can be found by clicking the link above.
 
Last edited:
Upvote -1 Downvote
3 voters
this not applying to balak makes literally no sense, why would another average of 60 actives who warp everyday want to sit in a town for a max of 1 fight a day and usually not even, the limit if you were to implement it would have to affect balak. The only way the goal of a max 40v40 can work is if there's just fighting on every continent and multiple alliances, this idea simply does not work with an alliance that can still warp 100 any day of the week, it's not something loka would want that kills a part of there playerbase

either way -1
 
As someone who, in the past firmly believed in this idea, I can say with confidence that it indeed would never work. This sort of a system just isn't healthy for Loka and while it would work for a "medium" conquest isle, it would and could never work for continental battles. The limit of an alliance should come down to the limits of the supply and systems of it's towns, which can both be boiled down to how well the alliance leaders can run their towns.
 
In my opinion, any player cap in conquest fights will be detrimental to the server since it will lead to massive carry alliances and new players not being able to warp to continental fights. Now, you say that "...the skilled players (Western Union) only banded together because of necessity... In order to stand a chance, they did what they had to do, and they asked all the main carries of the server to move to their alliance and lock" (Hypertotodile 10), but this is just false. Western Union did not have many carries move over to their alliance besides Tqmen, Dnnh, and Archersquid. In fact, they were missing many of their carries. The real reason carries move together is because they are friends. Creating a player cap in conquest fights would make alliances such as Western Union stronger than they already are. As of now, I cannot think of a single alliance that would be able to compete with Western Union if there were only 40v40s on the continent. Ascalon would be taken over for months. Even if Balak did not have these 40v40s, why wouldn't Western Union ping their log-on pvpers and recruits? The only people that would benefit from this suggestion would be Western Union and all of their carries.

You say that with 40v40s new players would be more likely to return to the server, but I think it is the exact opposite. Everyone on Loka has experienced trying to warp to a rivi fight just to be removed because they aren't good enough. A 40v40 player cap and the warp selector would increase this to a daily experience. Eventually, new players would leave and never return to Loka if every time they log on to warp they get removed. This suggestion would hurt the new player experience; I doubt any of them would come back after being removed from fights daily. You say that "this is PRECISELY what I want to occur" and that "one day, this will happen to an 'Actual Loka Player'"(Hypertotodile 21) and that they will make their own town and alliance with their own recruits. In theory, this sounds correct, but this cannot be further from the truth. Sure, the player may make their own town, their own alliance, with their own recruits, with their own pot mats, and their own shards, but how will they be able to fight the massive alliances filled with every carry on the server? They will be demolished in every fight and eventually the recruits will leave, and the town and the alliance will die.

Simply put, 40v40s are not and never will be good for the server and newer players.
 
Wxndernut said:
In my opinion, any player cap in conquest fights will be detrimental to the server since it will lead to massive carry alliances and new players not being able to warp to continental fights. Now, you say that "...the skilled players (Western Union) only banded together because of necessity... In order to stand a chance, they did what they had to do, and they asked all the main carries of the server to move to their alliance and lock" (Hypertotodile 10), but this is just false. Western Union did not have many carries move over to their alliance besides Tqmen, Dnnh, and Archersquid. In fact, they were missing many of their carries. The real reason carries move together is because they are friends. Creating a player cap in conquest fights would make alliances such as Western Union stronger than they already are. As of now, I cannot think of a single alliance that would be able to compete with Western Union if there were only 40v40s on the continent. Ascalon would be taken over for months. Even if Balak did not have these 40v40s, why wouldn't Western Union ping their log-on pvpers and recruits? The only people that would benefit from this suggestion would be Western Union and all of their carries.

You say that with 40v40s new players would be more likely to return to the server, but I think it is the exact opposite. Everyone on Loka has experienced trying to warp to a rivi fight just to be removed because they aren't good enough. A 40v40 player cap and the warp selector would increase this to a daily experience. Eventually, new players would leave and never return to Loka if every time they log on to warp they get removed. This suggestion would hurt the new player experience; I doubt any of them would come back after being removed from fights daily. You say that "this is PRECISELY what I want to occur" and that "one day, this will happen to an 'Actual Loka Player'"(Hypertotodile 21) and that they will make their own town and alliance with their own recruits. In theory, this sounds correct, but this cannot be further from the truth. Sure, the player may make their own town, their own alliance, with their own recruits, with their own pot mats, and their own shards, but how will they be able to fight the massive alliances filled with every carry on the server? They will be demolished in every fight and eventually the recruits will leave, and the town and the alliance will die.

Simply put, 40v40s are not and never will be good for the server and newer players.
Click to expand...
idc
 
Wxndernut said:
In my opinion, any player cap in conquest fights will be detrimental to the server since it will lead to massive carry alliances and new players not being able to warp to continental fights. Now, you say that "...the skilled players (Western Union) only banded together because of necessity... In order to stand a chance, they did what they had to do, and they asked all the main carries of the server to move to their alliance and lock" (Hypertotodile 10), but this is just false. Western Union did not have many carries move over to their alliance besides Tqmen, Dnnh, and Archersquid. In fact, they were missing many of their carries. The real reason carries move together is because they are friends. Creating a player cap in conquest fights would make alliances such as Western Union stronger than they already are. As of now, I cannot think of a single alliance that would be able to compete with Western Union if there were only 40v40s on the continent. Ascalon would be taken over for months. Even if Balak did not have these 40v40s, why wouldn't Western Union ping their log-on pvpers and recruits? The only people that would benefit from this suggestion would be Western Union and all of their carries.

You say that with 40v40s new players would be more likely to return to the server, but I think it is the exact opposite. Everyone on Loka has experienced trying to warp to a rivi fight just to be removed because they aren't good enough. A 40v40 player cap and the warp selector would increase this to a daily experience. Eventually, new players would leave and never return to Loka if every time they log on to warp they get removed. This suggestion would hurt the new player experience; I doubt any of them would come back after being removed from fights daily. You say that "this is PRECISELY what I want to occur" and that "one day, this will happen to an 'Actual Loka Player'"(Hypertotodile 21) and that they will make their own town and alliance with their own recruits. In theory, this sounds correct, but this cannot be further from the truth. Sure, the player may make their own town, their own alliance, with their own recruits, with their own pot mats, and their own shards, but how will they be able to fight the massive alliances filled with every carry on the server? They will be demolished in every fight and eventually the recruits will leave, and the town and the alliance will die.

Simply put, 40v40s are not and never will be good for the server and newer players.
Click to expand...
I AINT READING ALLAT 🤣🤣
 
Lurnn said:
this not applying to balak makes literally no sense, why would another average of 60 actives who warp everyday want to sit in a town for a max of 1 fight a day and usually not even, the limit if you were to implement it would have to affect balak. The only way the goal of a max 40v40 can work is if there's just fighting on every continent and multiple alliances, this idea simply does not work with an alliance that can still warp 100 any day of the week, it's not something loka would want that kills a part of there playerbase

either way -1
Click to expand...
That "another average of 60 actives who warp everyday" will have the same access to pvp as before. Why is that? If you read my recommended Balak Changes to accompany this, it clearly states: 3 Continent Attacks, 5 Continent Defenses. 3 Balak Attacks, 5 Balak Defenses.

I am strongly against implementing a fight cap on Balak for a number of reasons. The primary reason I'd have to say is: the recruitment wars still need to exist in some capacity, so that a constant stream of new players is flowing into the server. They will be brought in for Balak, they will be converted into "Actual Loka players" when they warp for Continent.

"this idea simply does not work with an alliance that can still warp 100 any day of the week" HL and Bank Robbers will mutually disband and split off into smaller alliances if this update is implemented. I've already put it on the table in Western Union discord that if this is implemented, I will take one for the team and move my recruits to Kalros so that there's guaranteed pvp on all 3 main continents.

"it's not something loka would want that kills a part of there playerbase" We will have to agree to disagree, because one of my central premises is that this update would not reduce the amount of new players flowing in, while at the same time, increasing the player conversion rate (defined as the amount of people introduced to Loka via mass recruitment that end up becoming "Actual Loka players"). If you believe my proposed changes would kill the server and shrink the playerbase, I do not know how to convince you otherwise assuming you've already read my entire paper.

I'd need somebody to convince me that the new player experience would be substantially worse after the implementation of my proposed changes in order for me to believe that my proposed changes would actually shrink the playerbase. If somebody could convince me of that, then I'd retract all of my posts and arguments, because there's no point advocating for changes that would kill the server or make the new player experience worse.
 
Wxndernut said:
In my opinion, any player cap in conquest fights will be detrimental to the server since it will lead to massive carry alliances and new players not being able to warp to continental fights. Now, you say that "...the skilled players (Western Union) only banded together because of necessity... In order to stand a chance, they did what they had to do, and they asked all the main carries of the server to move to their alliance and lock" (Hypertotodile 10), but this is just false. Western Union did not have many carries move over to their alliance besides Tqmen, Dnnh, and Archersquid. In fact, they were missing many of their carries. The real reason carries move together is because they are friends. Creating a player cap in conquest fights would make alliances such as Western Union stronger than they already are. As of now, I cannot think of a single alliance that would be able to compete with Western Union if there were only 40v40s on the continent. Ascalon would be taken over for months. Even if Balak did not have these 40v40s, why wouldn't Western Union ping their log-on pvpers and recruits? The only people that would benefit from this suggestion would be Western Union and all of their carries.
Click to expand...
We already talked on discord and pretty much came to agreement on most points. The only point we differ on is this: How likely is it for mega-alliances full of the best players on the server to form after the implementation of these ideas?

My answer to that is: EXTREMELY unlikely.

Your answer to that is: EXTREMELY likely.

Our premises are too different for us to come to agreement on just about anything you've said here. I will offer arguments in the spirit of fairness, but they will not change your mind, because if my paper failed to do so, then anything I write here is meaningless.

1. "The real reason carries move together is because they are friends." I already disagree with you because of the argument you cited prior, and nothing you wrote changed my mind, because I literally sat in WU VC with them in the writing of this paper, and they said that was the reason they all banded together against us this month.

They're even offering to split up into smaller alliances and spread out onto different continents. These actions are not in line with your argument that, "They're just banding together because they're all buddies.", because if that were the case, they would NEVER willingly split away from their friends to create SMALLER alliances on DIFFERENT continents from one another.

2. "Creating a player cap in conquest fights would make alliances such as Western Union stronger than they already are." This is self-evident. Fun fact: an alliance full of all the best carries on the server AND is reviving dead/inactive carries would, in fact, benefit greatly from my proposed changes. Their November roster ONLY EXISTED to try and defeat the big bad Bank Robbers, an alliance full of leadership who are known to recruit en masse and dupe hundreds of players.

I believe their fears were well-founded, because they lost the month due to my duping of hundreds of players. I see no reason for them to create such an alliance, or for the formation of a Sand Force-esque alliance, in a system of 40v40 continental fights. Who wants boring pvp with no competition?

The sentiment currently is pretty anti-recruitment wars for the playerbase as a whole, so I really doubt that if these changes were to be added, the immediate player response would be to ditch all their friends and shove all the best players into one mega-alliance to run down the entire server. Plus, they'd get FUCKED if Continent vs. Continent Balak was implemented, and such an alliance would stand NO CHANCE of winning World Capital. Their only victories (Continent & Rivina) would be meaningless because of how free they'd be, and their KDs would be ruined if they even considered warping to Balak fights.

3. "The only people that would benefit from this suggestion would be Western Union and all of their carries." As previously stated in Point 2, I disagree. By and large, my main motivator for the suggestion of 40v40s is actually the new player experience. I would NEVER put forth these forums posts if I didn't believe that new players would enjoy their outcomes.

Not to brag, but to brag and be arrogant, I am one of the main mass-recruiters on LokaMC, and have been since January 2021. I present this, to you, Mr. Wxndernut: new players would LOVE 40v40s. Their pvp experience would be a lot more fun, they wouldn't feel like "just a number" or "just a statistic", and they'd be FAR MORE LIKELY to go on to become "Actual Loka players".

This might seem counterintuitive if you subscribe to 2 premises:

Premise #1: 40v40 fight cap primarily benefits carries.

Premise #2: New players will quit the server if they can't be warped to a Continental Fight via the Warp Selector.

I have nothing new to say in reply to Premise #2, because my reply to that has been turned into a sped-up gif, and I've already been memed to death by jovenshirepoop. But just to re-iterate, I believe that the fight cap encourages people to split their alliances into smaller alliances. There's not even horrible consequences on the player side for doing so.

You'd still be able to warp to Balak even if your town broke off from the Capital Alliance of your Continent, and you'd still be able to fight alongside your former comrades on Balak against other Continents.

You'd be able to have less laggy fights on your continent, and your recruits will actually enjoy the wars because you get to give more time to teaching them how the server works.

The more time you spend with a new player, the more invested they become in the server, the more likely they are to stick around and become an "Actual Loka player". I really shouldn't have to spell this out for anybody, but with mega-alliances, almost no time at all is dedicated to the teaching of new recruits, or getting them involved in our community at large.

In smaller alliances on smaller continents, though, this is NOT the case at all. Most people who come to the server via Kalros or Garama Conquest generally end up becoming "Actual Loka players", and I don't think this is a coincidence at all. dzne in an attempt to refute my claims about mass recruitment even told me, "But Hyper, all my recruits stay and are starting to main Loka!", and this just further proves my point.

I'm holding, AS A CORE PREMISE OF MY ARGUMENT, the following: mega-alliances are discouraged by the implementation of my proposed changes, there would be more alliances, and there would be smaller alliances. If we accept that a smaller alliance means it's easier to spend more time with each recruit, then it follows as a logical consequence that new players will NOT be more likely to quit the server just because they got taken off of the continental warp a few times.

What I think would happen instead is that alliances would splinter off into smaller ones once a given alliance gets too big. I can't prove it because these changes have yet to be implemented, but given how partial people are to just randomly doing /town a leave in order to have a "Rivi month", I don't think it's too far fetched to believe that a bunch of towns would randomly do /town a leave in order to make a new alliance of their own, should their home alliance grow too large for people to be able to warp for continent fights.
 
also i told you that whatever u wrote i would write 2x as many words in reply so you better have PREPARED PROPERLY WXNDERNUT. THE STORM IS COMING...................... A GUN WITH A SILENCER IS STILL A GUN.................... BEWARE OF THE RISING SUN.
 
Wxndernut said:
You say that with 40v40s new players would be more likely to return to the server, but I think it is the exact opposite. Everyone on Loka has experienced trying to warp to a rivi fight just to be removed because they aren't good enough. A 40v40 player cap and the warp selector would increase this to a daily experience. Eventually, new players would leave and never return to Loka if every time they log on to warp they get removed. This suggestion would hurt the new player experience; I doubt any of them would come back after being removed from fights daily. You say that "this is PRECISELY what I want to occur" and that "one day, this will happen to an 'Actual Loka Player'"(Hypertotodile 21) and that they will make their own town and alliance with their own recruits. In theory, this sounds correct, but this cannot be further from the truth. Sure, the player may make their own town, their own alliance, with their own recruits, with their own pot mats, and their own shards, but how will they be able to fight the massive alliances filled with every carry on the server? They will be demolished in every fight and eventually the recruits will leave, and the town and the alliance will die.

Simply put, 40v40s are not and never will be good for the server and newer players.
Click to expand...
My central argument is: 40v40s would make continental fights less laggy, more fun, and more new-player friendly, as the smaller alliance sizes would enable leadership to teach better and spend more time with each individual recruit. Since each recruit would feel more important and enjoy themselves more, they'd be FAR MORE LIKELY to become an "Actual Loka player", thus growing the active playerbase in the process.

"Everyone on Loka has experienced trying to warp to a rivi fight just to be removed because they aren't good enough. A 40v40 player cap and the warp selector would increase this to a daily experience."

You are 100% correct. This would REALLY suck for the new players in an alliance that accidentally recruited a little too hard and now have 46 online when they can only warp 40. That's just the truth.

"Eventually, new players would leave and never return to Loka if every time they log on to warp they get removed. This suggestion would hurt the new player experience; I doubt any of them would come back after being removed from fights daily."

This would happen to some new players, but not all, and most crucially, it wouldn't even be a sizable amount of the new players. We aren't even approaching 50%, or 40%, or 30%, or 20%, or 10% of the new players when we're talking about the amount of players this exact situation would happen to.

I know for a fact that, in December, my Kalros alliance won't even warp 40 to most fights. So I really doubt in a server full of smaller alliances that there'd be alliances running into the problem of, "Oh man, I have 57 online and can only warp 40 to this fight! Woe is me!".

I will concede that this is the strongest argument against the implementation of 40v40 fights BY FAR (in my opinion), and I don't have a good solution it, because the Warp Selector mandates that you warp your best 40 to a continental fight.

I believe that, following an event like this, a town would /town a leave, and a new, smaller alliance would form so that the recruits can actually warp to continental fights.

"Sure, the player may make their own town, their own alliance, with their own recruits, with their own pot mats, and their own shards, but how will they be able to fight the massive alliances filled with every carry on the server? They will be demolished in every fight and eventually the recruits will leave, and the town and the alliance will die."

I disagree. I think you are wrong, because there will be no "massive alliances" boasting a roster of "every carry on the server". I already explained why in my paper and in my previous reply, so I will not repeat myself for a third time here.

I don't doubt that they would "be demolished in every fight" at first, but if I have a town with 15~ actives and /town a leave, I want my 15 actives to have pvp on continent. If we start losing because we're warping to 15v35s, then guess what I'm gonna do? RECRUIT, WXNDERNUT, RECRUIT! I would recruit until I'm warping even numbers, and then I'd have time to train up my recruits.

We'd host /c train sessions on weekends, I'd turn all my new players into potting machines, we'd grind together while watching the Kung Fu Panda trilogy, we'd work on our comms and teamwork by placing on more skilled alliances/towns on Rivina, and eventually, we'd hopefully win continental cap after leaving the alliance that kept removing my recruits via the Warp Selector!

If you think recruitment dies the instant that we implement a 40v40 fight cap, I would say that you are sorely mistaken. If you think mass recruitment dies the instant we implement Continent vs Continent Balak, I would say that you are sorely mistaken.
 
Wxndernut said:
This guy thinks hes in a movie 😭
Click to expand...
ITS IRONIC WXNDERNUT IF YOU THINK I AM BEING 100% DEAD FUCKING SERIOUS WHEN I SAY SHIT LIKE THAT YOU HAVE NO BRAINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
 
I think that we can accomplish making more "actual Loka players" without driving the majority of the community mad. The simple answer is to continue improving Loka making it a more appealing main game for people who often hop between PVP servers. I know this is one of your major goals Hyper but I think we can still allow for recruitment wars to exist for the time being while also promoting staying on Loka. They're not mutually exclusive.
 
I hate to write this because it makes me sound so high and mighty, but they won’t know that they dislike it until they try it.. I genuinely believe the vast majority of the playerbase will LOVE Conquest once this update rolls out.

The most fun months people talk about are ones with smaller fights. Nobody EVER talks nostalgically and reminisces about “the good ol’ days” when speaking of 80v80s and 100v100s.

There are too many issues inherent to these massive fights and the recruitment wars. Even if the server held a consistent 20 TPS, that’d never solve the issue of recruits feeling like “just a number”, because no time would be dedicated to making them a contributing member of the community..

I will fight and die on the hill that Conquest, as it stands right now, is broken and needs radical change in order to be fixed.

I thought a year’s worth of HyperTotodile mass recruiting to win every time he started losing would be more than sufficient proof that the recruitment wars are a bad thing for this server. Apparently I was wrong.

And besides that, my proposal doesn’t remove mass recruiting or the recruitment wars entirely. I genuinely believe Continent vs Continent Balak makes it so that “recruitment wars” and “promoting staying on Loka” will no longer be mutually exclusive. Because right now, they ARE mutually exclusive. And I believe my proposals would change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top