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

[fa1c]

We have had many of the same LCRs for the past year, mostly coming from a single alliance. I truly do not think that these past LCRs have been representing what the players think, and it has been shown with unpopular decisions/updates. I think loka should impose something similar to the festival hosting rules that it already has

Option 1: Impose term limits

Instead of someone being able to serve forever (such as silent who’s served 8 terms) allow LCRs to be able to be voted in for 2 terms every couple of years. I think this would help more people feel encouraged to run and represent what they think is best for loka

Option 2: One representative max per alliance

With this option, I have it in mind going with term limits, but with this being added instead of a single alliance getting a majority in LCR meetings/votes I think this would add more diversity to the LCR team. HL has had at least 3 out of the 6 seats these past LCR votes. There are some issues with this option, such as players like scotrian, who move quite often and thus are hard to classify as HL or something else.

Overall, I feel like the current LCR model is flawed, mostly representing 1-2 alliances and the same people running and winning every time. With a rework, we could get newer faces and encourage more people to go for LCR

Please tell me any flaws/criticism about this suggestion

 

[nerdcat]

millions must vote for nerdcat as LCR…

 

[Scotlxnd]

Love the idea! Gets new players with new ideas to go for lcr

 

[Cryptite]

I truly do not think that these past LCRs have been representing what the players think, and it has been shown with unpopular decisions/updates

Can you provide examples of what decisions (driven by LCRs) you believe were made that did not represent the playerbase?

such as silent who’s served 8 terms

Can you provide the evidence to support this?

HL has had at least 3 out of the 6 seats these past LCR votes.

HL, who represents half the server represents half the LCRs. Doesn't that sound exactly balanced?

 

[fa1c]

Can you provide examples of what decisions (driven by LCRs) you believe were made that did not represent the playerbase?

I realized I was wrong about the tac rush decision (what me and a few people I spoke to thought originally) after I spoke to a few LCRs about this

Can you provide the evidence to support this?

HL, who represents half the server represents half the LCRs. Doesn't that sound exactly balanced?

Does HL represent half of the server? From active considered players I’m pretty sure the other alliance has more alone

 

[berdb]

I think LCR just shouldn't be a thing. Does anyone genuinely believe the LCR represent the communities opinions? It's just a popularity contest. And whenever changes get made by LCR and we try to argue about it we get told "Oh well its what the community wants" and the logic is that because they got voted into power, everyone who voted for them agrees with their takes, but no its just a popularity contest where people vote for their friends/who they got pinged for, everyone knows that so I just don't understand why LCR is a thing. Ideas can always be posted on the forums, LCR is not needed. Though it'll probably never be removed

 

[berdb]

Can you provide examples of what decisions (driven by LCRs) you believe were made that did not represent the playerbase?

If the idea to cut dbrs duration in half was posted to the forums it probably would've been -1d by nearly the entire server but since the great LCR silentstormsix whos opinons always align with the community suggested it during a LCR meet, it got added.

 

[berdb]

I think LCR just shouldn't be a thing. Does anyone genuinely believe the LCR represent the communities opinions? It's just a popularity contest. And whenever changes get made by LCR and we try to argue about it we get told "Oh well its what the community wants" and the logic is that because they got voted into power, everyone who voted for them agrees with their takes, but no its just a popularity contest where people vote for their friends/who they got pinged for, everyone knows that so I just don't understand why LCR is a thing. Ideas can always be posted on the forums, LCR is not needed. Though it'll probably never be removed

simply do not understand the logic in genuinely believing that people vote for the LCR becuase they want that person to represent their ideas and choices no way you can actually believe that, also at this time i think 100% of the lcr were in HL and theyre being consulted about a matter which directly benefits them so erm (or maybe 1 wasnt but theyre still the majority)

 

[fa1c]

View attachment 13563
simply do not understand the logic in genuinely believing that people vote for the LCR becuase they want that person to represent their ideas and choices no way you can actually believe that, also at this time i think 100% of the lcr were in HL and theyre being consulted about a matter which directly benefits them so erm (or maybe 1 wasnt but theyre still the majority)

iirc dma was the only LCR who wasn’t in HL along with Silent
They also did not post the results anywhere I could find for that vote

 

[berdb]

iirc dma was the only LCR who wasn’t in HL along with Silent
They also did not post the results anywhere I could find for that vote

still 4/6 (Versus 0 lcr from the other big allaince)

 

[fa1c]

HL, who represents half the server represents half the LCRs. Doesn't that sound exactly balanced?

So if we say HL has 60% of the playerbase should they have 4 seats? Which leads to them having a majority in literally everything??

 

[FoxyBearGames]

LCR term limits have never been imposed because most LCRs have only ever served one term. In fact, 75% of all people who have ever been LCRs only served one term. Beyond that, 8 people have served 2 terms, 5 people have served 3, and Silent has served 5 (NOT 8) terms. Silent is an outlier and also lost re-election for what would have been his sixth term. He just proved that people can (and will) not vote for you if you are going to try and serve indefinitely.

As for limiting the amount of LCRs per alliance, I've had a few people bring this up to me recently, given what we did with tournaments. However, it's important to realize that these are fundamentally different issues. In a perfect world, people can host tournaments all the time. In our world, it's limited because the staff team has limited resources to put into helping people host these, and we also want them to be a big deal when they do get hosted (that's why only certain months are available to bid). For LCRs, it's different because we do have the time to listen to more of them, and with a growing community, it is reasonable to assume that we need more LCRs over time (for what it's worth, we want as many people to apply as possible and will increase the number of spots as the number of applicants and voters increases).

With that said, the goal of having LCRs is so that the staff team can hear direct, raw community feedback about the state of things on Loka. There is no majority rules voting system that suddenly allows them to override the minority viewpoint on a particular topic. We have them so we can listen to them, not so they can literally make the decisions for us. When we discuss things, we discuss them at length until we reach a reasonable conclusion, given everyone's observations. Yes, the feedback we hear is valuable and crucial to our decision-making, but that does not mean that it directly drives every decision made; instead, it serves to guide the decisions we make.

The reason people may feel their voices "are not heard" or that we make "unpopular decisions" is likely a mixture of these problems:

1. You have not talked to the LCR who voted for you, or simply did not listen to your LCR as to why we made that decision.
2. The LCR you did vote for is not doing their job properly and gave faulty feedback (could have been feedback to us OR whatever explanation they gave you!).
3. The LCRs most involved in the decision were in the opposing alliance, and it appears the ones you know had no say in the decision (everyone has a say!).
4. You yourself or someone close to you should have run for LCR, but didn't, and now feel that the system is broken when in reality it's your involvement in the system that is broken (run next time!).

The truth is, tons of discussion occurs before a change is made (Crypt is busy and doesn't have time for unimportant business), and we take running the server very seriously. We can argue semantics here for hours on end, but ultimately, the server is still run by Crypt/Mag at the end of the day. They have the final say. Thinking that the HL LCRs somehow run the server is just plain silly.

 

[mimo4]

Can you provide examples of what decisions (driven by LCRs) you believe were made that did not represent the playerbase?

There was never at any point some large player push for changes like the massive nerf to DBR or fentanyl golems, these ideas came from LCRs and they were / are pretty controversial. It could be argued that a lot of people like these changes (no clue who likes the random DBR nerf lol) but the point is that LCRs obviously don’t represent the community directly like that because these ideas came sort of out of nowhere rather than due to some great demand.

I think LCR just shouldn't be a thing. Does anyone genuinely believe the LCR represent the communities opinions? It's just a popularity contest. And whenever changes get made by LCR and we try to argue about it we get told "Oh well its what the community wants" and the logic is that because they got voted into power, everyone who voted for them agrees with their takes, but no its just a popularity contest where people vote for their friends/who they got pinged for, everyone knows that so I just don't understand why LCR is a thing. Ideas can always be posted on the forums, LCR is not needed. Though it'll probably never be removed

This TBH. It’s a cool idea on paper but in practice a lot of the changes end up very divisive and oftentimes the divide is very brazenly clear / across major alliance lines. I’d much prefer if the server just took ideas from the player base directly and Cryptite implements things soley as a mixture of ideas of his own and the player base, rather than having individual players who happen to have won the last popularity contest get a lot of say in what gets done since this has lead to random things nobody asked for (again, because im still mad, not a single soul asked for a DBR nerf, easily the most blatant example of the flaws of the LCR system)

 

[FoxyBearGames]

There was never at any point some large player push for changes like the massive nerf to DBR or fentanyl golems, these ideas came from LCRs and they were / are pretty controversial. It could be argued that a lot of people like these changes (no clue who likes the random DBR nerf lol) but the point is that LCRs obviously don’t represent the community directly like that because these ideas came sort of out of nowhere rather than due to some great demand.

I hope it's evident that maybe some of these ideas came from the staff team internally. A lot of your argument hinges on this idea that Cryptite listens to the LCRs and doesn't have his own ideas. Anything that gets implemented ultimately gets Crypt's final seal of approval because it's deemed a "good idea". The LCRs exist to give us an idea (in advance) of what sentiment surrounds decisions before we make them.

This TBH. It’s a cool idea on paper but in practice a lot of the changes end up very divisive and oftentimes the divide is very brazenly clear / across major alliance lines. I’d much prefer if the server just took ideas from the player base directly and Cryptite implements things soley as a mixture of ideas of his own and the player base, rather than having individual players who happen to have won the last popularity contest get a lot of say in what gets done since this has lead to random things nobody asked for (again, because im still mad, not a single soul asked for a DBR nerf, easily the most blatant example of the flaws of the LCR system)

When we discuss items with the LCRs, we also discuss ideas posted on the forums. We don't just talk about what they directly bring to us. As a staff team, we also bring our own discussion topics. The reason we consult the LCRs is so that we get an idea of how certain features affect the mechanics of conquest and what the sentiment amongst players is (as we generally don't play conquest ourselves). However, we do watch conquest fights routinely and have a general idea of what works/doesn't work. We don't sit there and take majority votes on ideas, nor does Crypt not have ideas of his own (every idea goes through him!). We discuss everything at length with the thoughts of the Elders, LCRs, and whatever dialogue is on the forums.

If you feel the LCRs don't represent the community properly, this probably points to a lack of variety in who ran, rather than a lack of variety in who won. Any sizable enough group with a decent candidate should be able to get someone elected. Is there someone you had hoped would win that didn't? Community involvement is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL for this system to work, but that doesn't mean it's the system's fault if people don't choose to involve themselves in it.

Maybe the real issue is transparency, not the system?

 

[mimo4]

I hope it's evident that maybe some of these ideas came from the staff team internally. A lot of your argument hinges on this idea that Cryptite listens to the LCRs and doesn't have his own ideas.

Not sure how on Earth you reached this conclusion. It goes without saying that every idea needs Crypts approval and that a lot of ideas are his or ones he has contributed to. This doesn’t change the basic fact that some ideas like the DBR nerf were things that nobody wanted or had been asking for, were suggested by an LCR and ultimately made their way into becoming a feature. If you argue the point that LCRs actually aren’t all that important then this just makes them sound useless.

Maybe the real issue is transparency, not the system?

This is definitely a part of it but an issue of transparency is an issue of the system. The fact that after LCRs get elected whatever is being discussed by them and the server staff is basically mystery (unless you just ask one and they tell you which is cool but not really an official mechanism) is what leads to random surprising additions (DBR nerf!) that nobody was asking for and which just feel random

 

[FoxyBearGames]

Not sure how on Earth you reached this conclusion. It goes without saying that every idea needs Crypts approval and that a lot of ideas are his or ones he has contributed to. This doesn’t change the basic fact that some ideas like the DBR nerf were things that nobody wanted or had been asking for, were suggested by an LCR and ultimately made their way into becoming a feature. If you argue the point that LCRs actually aren’t all that important then this just makes them sound useless.

You said, "these ideas came from LCRs and they were / are pretty controversial", implying Crypt had little to no involvement in them.

unless you just ask one and they tell you which is cool but not really an official mechanism

You are supposed to be able to talk to your LCRs about decisions we make. The job description literally says "Engage respectfully with the community" and "Represent the interests of the community." Every LCR knows this, and I would bet that they would be more than happy to answer your questions. Have you asked any of the LCRs present for the golem/DBR changes about why we made those decisions?

is what leads to random surprising additions

Every addition could be considered "random or surprising" if you don't follow the development of the server closely, and talking to LCRs should be part of what's required to follow Loka's development closely.

 

[mimo4]

You said, "these ideas came from LCRs and they were / are pretty controversial", implying Crypt had little to no involvement in them.

I do not think you know what imply means. The ideas DID come from LCRs and LCRs were involved in getting them added, but obviously the guy who owns the server and reviews the ideas to pick what should be added has involvement in the process, that is just not something that needs to be explicitly pointed out!

Have you asked any of the LCRs present for the golem/DBR changes about why we made those decisions?

I argued with Cryptite extensively about the AI golem mechanic in DMs and he made it pretty clear the change was discussed with LCRs and that the purpose of this mechanic is to offer players who "cant pvp" a role in conquest so they matter, and a quick glance at the LCRs for that month makes it painfully obvious which individuals were involved in getting this change implemented because it was those individuals and their friends who notoriously became the biggest abusers of the mechanic. Cryptite also made it clear in the update thread that the DBR nerf was suggested by an LCR and that it was an idea he liked (IIRC the LCR who suggested it was Vinovian, so the motives there speak for themselves I believe). Talking to cryptite directly is infinitely more useful and informative than talking to the LCRs who got those features implemented because unlike those individual players with their own interests and goals on the server, Cryptite is not involved in "server politics" in the sense that he does not have any ulterior motives and is instead implementing features based on what he thinks is best for the server.

Every addition could be considered "random or surprising" if you don't follow the development of the server closely, and talking to LCRs should be part of what's required to follow Loka's development closely.

You are being intentionally obtuse. I am very active in the community and I ask staff + LCRs about any change or feature that I believe is worth asking about. Obviously when I say random and surprising I am referring to changes like the nerf to DBR (not a single soul asked for this, there was not a big forum controversy over it or anything that you regularly see before a big nerf, it just happened one day because ???) or fentanyl golems that can chip away half your health while ignoring invulnerability frames. It is not debatable that as players of the server with their own alignments and goals, an inherent flaw with the LCR system is that these players will often push for suggestions that benefit them first, whether they do so consciously or not does not make too much of a difference.

 

[fa1c]

(not a single soul asked for this, there was not a big forum controversy over it or anything that you regularly see before a big nerf, it just happened one day because ???)

to add to this, Cryptite had to specifically mention a little bit after the update that it wasn’t an April fools update. Showing how random, unexpected, and unwanted that update was and is

 

[SilentStormSix]

IIRC the LCR who suggested it was Vinovian, so the motives there speak for themselves I believe

hater

 

[FoxyBearGames]

the purpose of this mechanic is to offer players who "cant pvp" a role in conquest so they matter

This is and always has been something that is considered when changes to conquest are made, dating back to before my time as CM, Guardian, and even LCR.

Cryptite is not involved in "server politics" in the sense that he does not have any ulterior motives and is instead implementing features based on what he thinks is best for the server.

This is correct! We implement changes REGARDLESS of server politics.

an inherent flaw with the LCR system is that these players will often push for suggestions that benefit them first, whether they do so consciously or not does not make too much of a difference.

Sure, people are right to suggest whatever is top of mind. However, this does not somehow mean that the changes implemented are biased one way or the other. We discuss changes at length to make sure they are in line with the long-term vision of Loka, not how they might interface with the current server geopolitics (the one exception to this would be changes that are made based on the size of the playerbase, like capping alliances at 12 towns).