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

 

[Cryptite]

Fent Golems was my idea almost entirely my idea btw (I do like that name for it though). The LCR discussion about that generally went "yeah that sounds like an interesting change to the meta of fights".

It's also worth mentioning it's also almost never just me that is unilaterally making design decisions involving balance. Foxy is overstating that a bit. Magpie is also involved and ideas are also thrown about between more than just LCRs only. I'll unilaterally approve QoL-type stuff since they're really no-brainers.

a quick glance at the LCRs for that month makes it painfully obvious which individuals were involved in getting this change implemented

You speak as though this feature change is only usable by specific players or sides on Loka.

not a single soul asked for this

Nobody asks for OP things to be nerfed if it benefits them. We don't need to keep things that are economically or balance-wise bad for the game just because nobody complains about it. These are basic design tweaks that are healthy for games, and every game does it.

If there's anything genuinely valid I'm taking away from this whole debate it's that the lack of transparency is a fair concern to bring up. Practically 80+% of the LCR meetings wind up creating a list of QoL items and probably half of those haven't even really been implemented due to issues of priority. Balance tweaks are both the most controversial, but also the easiest to make since they're just changing numbers in the code.

Allowing the players to see what the LCRs talked about (you might have heard of these as called "minutes") is a fair thing to bring up and we'll consider it. Even if many of the LCR meets don't wind up with a lot of tangible results in the near future, at least everyone being able to see what was talked about or agreed-upon may help people better understand what LCRs "are even doing".

Almost all of the LCRs we've ever had, regardless of their side, have been able to coherently weigh whether balance decisions are good or bad for either side because most LCRs have been on the winning/losing/attacking/defending sides enough to have the experience to talk about it. Others bring up things out of left field which is great because I think it allows Loka to be flexible and consider things beyond the mainstream POV (Conquest just being only for pure pot-pvp, as an example).

 

[mimo4]

You speak as though this feature change is only usable by specific players or sides on Loka.

It is not ofc but its made for a specific kind of player, or at the least was designed with that type of player in mind as the primary concern regarding the feature and how it works

Nobody asks for OP things to be nerfed if it benefits them. We don't need to keep things that are economically or balance-wise bad for the game just because nobody complains about it. These are basic design tweaks that are healthy for games, and every game does it.

I just do not see how DBR was OP in any way. The 4 minutes was perfectly balanced out by the resource cost, where it is 3x more expensive than any other potion in the game because you have to craft it (1 per ingredient rather than 3 per ingredient via brewing stand). I also just do not think it is OP. The average player did not have access to a large amount of it because DBR was tedious to mass produce when compared to other potions and this meant debuffs were still very much viable. It is to reach the conclusion it was removed for the benefit of a certain type of player that may or may not have been involved in the LCR process at that time

I agree with everything else

 

[Cryptite]

was designed with that type of player in mind as the primary concern regarding the feature and how it works

What is wrong with that? Do you believe Conquest should only be accessible to one type of pvper?

 

[mimo4]

What is wrong with that? Do you believe Conquest should only be accessible to one type of pvper?

No, but it clearly contradicts the original point you made in the sense that everybody CAN do it, but most people wont because the feature is not designed for them, and I do completely think it is an inherently flawed feature. The golems are fast, they hit hard, they ignore invulnerability frames and for the players abusing them the over reliance on this mechanic just curbs improvement IMO. It is good to add extra roles to conquest that make the gamemode accessible to every type of player so that everyone can play a role, but I do not think just having the golems play the game for them by making them absolute tanks that chip away half your health is a good way to do that

 

[scotrian]

im cooked if term limits happen

 

[Cryptite]

No, but it clearly contradicts the original point you made in the sense that everybody CAN do it, but most people wont because the feature is not designed for them, and I do completely think it is an inherently flawed feature. The golems are fast, they hit hard, they ignore invulnerability frames and for the players abusing them the over reliance on this mechanic just curbs improvement IMO. It is good to add extra roles to conquest that make the gamemode accessible to every type of player so that everyone can play a role, but I do not think just having the golems play the game for them by making them absolute tanks that chip away half your health is a good way to do that

And that's a perfectly fair opinion to have. It does not necessarily represent the majority opinion of all players on the server and represented none of the LCRs opinions at the time, which were (again) a diverse group of players from around the server. The debates about this feature specifically are worn out at this point but the fact that there are plenty of players who have expressed that buffed golems are manageable (to fight against, etc) speaks to it not being some uniformly detested decision.

I'd rather have this amount of energy spent brainstorming other ways we could expand on additional roles in Conquest instead imo.

 

[Babysoy]

Fent Golems was my idea almost entirely my idea btw (I do like that name for it though). The LCR discussion about that generally went "yeah that sounds like an interesting change to the meta of fights".

I love how it went from like ''Angry little Goblin'' to ''Fent Golems'' . I personally agreed with the whole idea of the ''Fent Golems''. Golems were very meh before, and with this update they became scary and powerful and I believe that's how they should be. And it also helped some of the players that aren't so powerful in sword skill have fun in their own way.