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

[nerdcat]

NO TLDR BECAUSE WE ONLY WANT PEOPLE WHO WILL READ THE ENTIRE FORUM POST TO RESPOND! DON’T BE LAZY.. LOKA LIFE BALANCE


Expansions for nether

• More Shrines
• More buildings like dreadfort

Fun grinding methods

• Good quests
• Puzzles? More fun things, nothing specific. (Ex: Sewer/Candy Quest)
• More interactive things

Updates to fishing

• Allows you to sell fish to npc for a set price per pound
• Allows you to buy certain baits to increase odds for a fish size (as a money sink)

Deal with increased inflation

• Money sinks
• A Set price for brewing mats (Shop)
• XP Bottle NPC

Un-Boring conquest

- Rotating mods and effects through months
- Different modules get added and removed each month
- To balance things out, add a new fun aspect of conquest with strategy
- Increase out of battlezone timer so new players that are clueless about /kill don’t leave the server or have a fit over losing their prized sword



Industry Upgrades

• Make NPCS do things besides clear lore, add a nice GUI or a function to upgrade industries
• Leveling up that specific aspect of /town level increases output of industry linearly with the NPC showing progress and benefits of leveling it up
• Separate point but make /town level if you hover over small levels it shows you progress to the next level of it

Conquest Expansion

When you attack others it should cost money to attack (we suggest 300 shards) this way people can’t spam place everyday without the intent to win and only trap. This would only be for fighting other towns/alliances and not neutrals or Rivinia. If the attackers win they take double the amount (600) from the leader of the alliance/town, but if the defenders win they take the attacking cost. It should also cost 500 shards to call reinforcements as the majority of reins recently are for fun and have no importance, whoever wins the reins keeps the 500 (added back into the leader’s tgen/war chest) this is also more realistic and adds a nice twist to conquest. We also think the cost should be raised on Balak as the stakes are higher, and Balak has been boring recently.

If this wanted to be expanded even more, it could be a way to implement rebellions, coalitions, and conquering (not killing towns they’d be physically unaffected). Ideas for a later date

Decrease Conquest’s barrier to entry

Despite it constantly being said that the barrier to enter conquest is small and really easy to get over, it is actually the opposite. In my opinion it seems nearly impossible as a small town to start conquest unless you are getting actively taught and have no life outside of minecraft, the amount of grinding needed to pay for a few people up to 20-50 at a time is ridiculous and grinding needs to be scaled up and made easier or more interactive. A new town may join the server and settle completely randomly or place on a town and get entirely wiped and instantly quit. You should not need to grind 2-3 hours a day like it's your job to get setup or compete with anyone else on the server.

Things towns (especially new ones will not have or probably won't)

- Autobrewer
- Enough Materials
- Knowledge of meta or industries
- Where to mine (instinct is to just stripmine)
- Even though the wiki exists and has all necessary information, not all players will read through this and the server needs to be made for those that do not want to read paragraphs of information to play. It is often said how players with short attention spans won’t play but, the complexity and lack of certain features leads to really fast player burnout and lower player retention, in order to keep the server alive and doing okay for a good while, the bar needs to be brought down for who can play the server.


Also with the rollbacks of lockdowns going on in real life, people are not able to spend as much time playing to continue to enjoy the server, because no pot mats and no materials = not fun. Player counts have also been going down after fights and the server player number will continue to go down if things do not change. Grinding should only take about an hour to do for each task, instead of 3-5. The spawn rates for creepers should be raised as when there are a lot of people on the server they’re extremely low.



Things that people think new players should know about.

- Rivi and it’s buffs (conquest points)
- How conquest works
- What is the meta? (Grinding, Conquest, PvP)
- They also do not know that they physically cannot get ran off the server if they lose a conquest fight
- But most people that join randomly set up a town or place on a town as a nomad, and get killed 50 times and quit, never seen again



Loka also (somewhat falsely) advertises itself as factions, towny, survival, and roleplay. Which leads to new players joining and being disappointed by the lack of the towny plugin, factions elements, vanilla survival, and a COMPLETE LACK OF ROLEPLAY.

Our opinion on the never ending end ganks

End ganks are quite possibly the worst thing to exist on the server currently. It might possibly be the cause for player burnout and currently grinding issues. It is not just fights caused by disputes over grinding, people go there just to go and to fight. And surprisingly it is an actual amazing social experiment. It shows the complete lack of judgement and control that Loka players have, end ganks should absolutely be restricted because people are ruining the server for others and for themselves.

Cons of End Gank:
HUGE money sink
Wastes XP, sets, and causes constant player burnout because some do not feel the motivation to grind endlessly in a mine. There should definitely be more things to get sets and stuff.
Makes grinding hard for players, and especially new players

PROs of End Gank:

Provides fights, even for a small amount of time (entertainment)

Nerf, remove, or make fast travel available to all players

Point towards remove: The fact that players can die at a dock and be back there in less than 10 seconds is absurd and should not be a thing.

Nerf: Add a cooldown for use or block it being used on certain continents

Make Available for all (+ remove maybe): Why should only continent capitals have this perk? Waiting for boat rides is often tedious and unenjoyable, it also allows people with capital perks to have a slight advantage at dock fights due to them
getting there earlier than a team that does not have those perks.
Example: A player is combat tagged and is waiting for it to expire. The enemy team, whos player just died to the last player, spams alliance chat for them to get over there because he is tagged. This allows the players with the perks to get there faster and kill him, but if it was the reverse, the player would get out of combat tag and escape while the players without the perks would have to wait for the boat and gets there just as it expires.

ALSO BOAT RIDE NOT FUN I DO NOT ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Gank Isle/Continent -

We need a new Gank Isle/Continent as currently there is no point where you gain zero profit, as you can die super easily due to void or other players. We suggest making this new Isle be entirely red tag with no safe spots. This continent should have an area to grind that gives good rewards, for the high risk. Idea: The area gives you some form of extra looting on a sword similar to starter docks swords. These swords shouldn’t drop on death (when you die they’re gone) and as soon as you leave the area they disappear. This new isle will keep people intrigued rather than camping and ganking in grinding spots. Add a KOTH on this new Gank Isle that would give an abundant amount of grinding materials.

XP Bottles -
Currently XP Bottles are completely ungrindable you can't grind xp bottles you have to wait , but if there was a shop (Or maybe a quest you could do similar to nyx quests where you get 3 stacks of small 1 and a half stacks of medium or 1 stack of large). WeI propose that we are able to bottle the XP we get in a standardized xp size (vanilla), the other 3 sizes will still exist from the dungeons, but there will now be a fourth bottle which is the Bottled XP bottle (bad name TBD). This allows people to save and reuse later their hard earned XP. This means there will not be a huge gap of wealth and gap of ownership of XP which results in easier grinding for sets and things, which is also a solution to the barrier to entry and large amount of time used grinding problem. This also allows town members to grind without needing perms to industries or asking owners.

GP - (Or gunpowder but i’ll be calling it gp)
Gunpowder is the most annoying thing to grind and is the only reason there aren't new major groups i’ve been approached by many group leaders who all want to play Loka, but these groups start a town and it instantly flops because you can’t grind enough gunpowder to contest a major continent.

New Towns -
I’d like to put you in the shoes of a new player. You have recently found a new server with 30 people (Good numbers) and you make a new town. You get raided in a week all of your stuff gets ran, you have little to no potions due to how hard it is to grind, and if you take a single tile you get your tiles run by strength farmers. So you’re left to take tiles and constantly lose. We’re proposing to give new towns immunity for three days. If you’re a new player, creating a town should automatically initiate town lockdown for three days to prevent new players from being farmed. This way they can build safely and learn about Loka instead of being farmed until they log off to never be seen again

Also let us delete forum posts <3
Thanks for reading if you made it this far, we appreciate the support <3.
Yours truly,

RP & Friends

 

[jakeman5]

If you cap towns in an alliance, all the players will just collapse into however many towns can be in an alliance and literally nothing will change other than you would actually restrict players' freedom to create their own towns how they like. Further, any player exclusions that would result from this would cause them to likely leave as they're preventing from having fun "doing the big fights with the big towns".

Unfortunately, any caps on town/alliance sizing is regrettably a poor idea and quite the opposite, would harm growth on the server. We know this to be true as we've tried variations on this theme over Loka's 10 years.

It is incredibly difficult to manage large towns. Southern Valyria for example has been through 4 owners in the past several months for this reason. I don't think it would be possible for all these players to go into a couple towns. Players wouldn't want to get rid of their towns and also the towns would become to big to effectively manage.

It is 10 times easier to have 20 small towns rather than 3-5 large ones.

 

[Cryptite]

It is incredibly difficult to manage large towns. Southern Valyria for example has been through 4 owners in the past several months for this reason. I don't think it would be possible for all these players to go into a couple towns. Players wouldn't want to get rid of their towns and also the towns would become to big to effectively manage.

It is 10 times easier to have 20 small towns rather than 3-5 large ones.

This sounds like a failure on our part, frankly. I think going forward there will just be larger and larger towns. If we can make running those or managing them easier/better, that's something we should (and plan to) do. But capping town member size just winds up excluding players which sucks for everyone.

 

[jakeman5]

This sounds like a failure on our part, frankly. I think going forward there will just be larger and larger towns. If we can make running those or managing them easier/better, that's something we should (and plan to) do. But capping town member size just winds up excluding players which sucks for everyone.

I’m not saying cap the town member size I’m saying cap the number of towns. I think it would end up being great for the community and activity as a whole. Plus if you only need 3-5 towns to compete with other alliances the barrier to entry is significantly lower.

People can try to run mega towns but it won’t work. They are too expensive and time consuming to supply as we speak.

 

[MoistP]

Fast travel isn't broken, you literally just have to win a continent for it. The state it's in is fine, if you want it then take a continent.

I like the rotating mods, I think to spice it up, only 4 mods should be available per week, a random 4 that is, so you don't just have the top 4 mods each week, maybe strategically planning attacks instead of aping the tgen.

My own suggestion is to give bonus buffs/help to towns that warp less people in fights, to SLIGHTLY balance it out, im not saying put it at a level playing field but a lil buff to help them out.

 

[Sparky___]

I think it would end up being great for the community and activity as a whole. Plus if you only need 3-5 towns to compete with other alliances the barrier to entry is significantly lower.

Out of personal curiosity, can you elaborate on why you believe either of these?

 

[jakeman5]

Out of personal curiosity, can you elaborate on why you believe either of these?

Like the benefits that will come from it? Or do I have proof that it will work because if that’s what your asking the answer is no.

 

[Sparky___]

Like the benefits that will come from it?

Why do you think it would be great, other than thinking that players won't just pile into the limited amount of towns and instead create more alliances? Additionally, why would the barrier for entry be lower if there are limited amount of towns in an alliance? Players in theory would not be limited, just towns, so in theory the barrier to entry would not necessarily change?

There is a lot of evidence (prior experience: see every time a new group threatens the status quo and sides link up as a result) to suggest players would simply pile into towns, rather than make more of them and not a whole lot to suggest the opposite. So, I am wondering if I am just not seeing or thinking of something that others may.

 

[Zachary_N_Kaleno]

People can try to run mega towns but it won’t work. They are too expensive and time consuming to supply as we speak.

@FoxyBearGames I'd like to know your opinion on this, I know for one you run a Megatown, and I'm in it. But I'm not really managing it.

 

[Constantine10]

There desperately needs to be a way to grind gp effectively without slaving away in a gp cave for two hours or more, what amplifies this is this amount of gp probably wont even last you the week for pots, in a decent sized town it will evaporate.

I dont really believe End ganks are the worst thing on Loka and I wouldn't say they ruin the experience for other Loka players, if you need to grind pearls you can fly away from docks easily and I have never been followed , At the end of the day End ganks are optional for players almost always and so saying they are a huge money sink and are a waste of sets and exp isn't credible, and sets are not in short supply for most people and are easy to get with a trip to the ri you can probably get enough sets to last you a long time. Whilst exp may be a option the market is completely flooded with exp bottles and if you cant afford them go do shrines to get exp. Its completely understandable why people end gank and restricting them wont stop people from 'wasting' pots and sets but just drive them elsewhere as they are starved for pvp, or atleast exciting pvp.

Putting new towns on Lockdown for 3 days is a really good Idea, when me and Lemon created Donzula within 5 minutes 4 people had shown up to try and kill us which was ridiculous and for a new player would probably scare you away from Loka permanently. Its really hard for new players to actually get their town up and running, so lets cut them some slack and atleast stop them getting raided.

The Lokan shard is undergoing hyperinflation, Im selling Unbreaking III books for 1.5k and people buy it, the exp bottles are more expensive than they use to be due to the demand for them to enchant sets for ganks etc , yet there is a large supply of them on the market, I feel as if the exp bottle market has become so dysfunctional because players just decided to overload it with bottles and instead of selling lots for low prices , they sell lots for high prices because people will still buy them because of the demand. Like Nerdcat said this can be fixed by introducing an NPC which sells the standard vanilla exp bottles. Due to the growing numbers of players and the growing numbers of gankers , brewing mats prices have also inflated as no one wants to grind for their own mats(specifically gp) as its boring. So the people who do grind mats will sell them for more as people get more and more desperate. The increased player count also adds strain to this as you cant grind shrines as easily due to then often being silent, you cant grind Netherwart due to it often being harvested.You cant/dread grinding gp as its so boring or like in RP you may no longer own a gp cave due to it being conquered, So add a growing demand for mats, more players, more pvp and no change to a grinding system which is now strained and so repetitive and dull, you get the sum of a Hyperinflated economy which is lethargic and unsustainable. However adding a set price for things such as mats will solve the problem but will also stifle the player economy so unfortunately I cannot come up with a perfect solution to this.

Hope you enjoy this essay I wrote instead of doing my homework, feel free to criticise it.

 

[Tedzi_]

-1 gankzi says end ganks should be allowed, i am dissapointed in you nerdcat

 

[jakeman5]

Why do you think it would be great, other than thinking that players won't just pile into the limited amount of towns and instead create more alliances? Additionally, why would the barrier for entry be lower if there are limited amount of towns in an alliance? Players in theory would not be limited, just towns, so in theory the barrier to entry would not necessarily change?

There is a lot of evidence (prior experience: see every time a new group threatens the status quo and sides link up as a result) to suggest players would simply pile into towns, rather than make more of them and not a whole lot to suggest the opposite. So, I am wondering if I am just not seeing or thinking of something that others may.

My Rationale:

I think it will be great because from my experience it is incredibly difficult running a large town to where you can just leave pots open. It is DRASTICALLY different to run a small town. My town would be broke if I didn't legitimately put a wall in-between pots and my war room. Nothing is scalable for that large number or members/actives. Your industries aren't scalable with town members, food becomes scarce, pearls disappear, pots evaporate. Heck I went through 7k pearls when they were locked behind a wall in a month without conquest. This would create a glass ceiling of sorts as far as how many members you can take in. Towns with 75-100 actives DO NOT WORK. They might work for 1 month but they aren't sustainable. 50-100 active players per town is what some of these alliances would have to do if their actives had to be condensed into 3 towns. The notion that all those towns would just delete their towns and just pile into mega towns is a fallacy. There are reasons people make towns, they wouldn't be so inclined to give it up. I do understand that there would be some towns that would be destroyed as a result of this but my guess would be that most people would not want to destroy all their hard work just to be a regular member of a large mega town where they aren't going to be able to have fun. Kicking peoples towns out of alliances is going to create bad blood so that is also what I would bet on.

The barrier would be lower because it is exponentially easier to become a competitive alliance if you aren't fighting an alliance with 10-20 towns. With the ability to add new towns if you feel threatened.

This would also create more PvP because less people in alliance = less laggy fights = more fights = more activity = new players = new alliances = more fights…

 

[Cryptite]

I think there're two things here I want to address.

On one hand, like before I think your first point is fair, the management of big towns doesn't scale well and can quickly get out of hand. I argue there are plenty of ways to manage it now, but that doesn't mean they're easy or don't deserve some love. We can and should do more to help management of these towns. So I'd rather make this easier for town owners than presume it's impossible and try a cap.

As for the other point:

The notion that all those towns would just delete their towns and just pile into mega towns is a fallacy.

This is objectively false and we've seen this many times over Loka's history. Players by and large want to fight and they want to win. A large population of Loka is of course just the fighters. They are not interested in what town they're in or where they live, they play to fight, and logout when that's over. To presume they won't pile into a big town if that's what is required to fight is completely false. We know this is the case and we've seen it many many times.

 

[Sparky___]

My Rationale:

I think it will be great because from my experience it is incredibly difficult running a large town to where you can just leave pots open. It is DRASTICALLY different to run a small town. My town would be broke if I didn't legitimately put a wall in-between pots and my war room. Nothing is scalable for that large number or members/actives. Your industries aren't scalable with town members, food becomes scarce, pearls disappear. Heck I went through 7k pearls when they were locked behind a wall. This would create a glass ceiling of sorts as far as how many members you can take in.

Do you think this would be made easier with features/mechanics introduced to assist in the the management/distribution of resources within towns (not capping town members)? Or is your view that the issue is something else entirely (not enough resources to grind, grinding bad, etc)?

The barrier would be lower because it is exponentially easier to become a competitive alliance if you aren't fighting an alliance with 10-20 towns. With the ability to add new towns if you feel threatened.

This point confuses me the most as I am not sure you are taking into account that by limiting alliances to a certain number of towns you are not also limiting the amount of players that can be in the alliance.

 

[Mocc1]

, and a COMPLETE LACK OF ROLEPLAY.

ok, go ahead, roleplay then

 

[Cryptite]

ok, go ahead, roleplay then

Also like, bro, we made all these nether's eve and exploding spawn quests... what do you call that?!?! >:|

 

[Vescure]

Also like, bro, we made all these nether's eve and exploding spawn quests... what do you call that?!?! >:|

Spawn boom boom and Halloween parody

 

[koi0001]

The most shocking, controversial opinion I've seen so far?

He used the candy quest as an example a good quest instead of maze or the electrical puzzle...

 

[jakeman5]

On one hand, like before I think your first point is fair, the management of big towns doesn't scale well and can quickly get out of hand. I argue there are plenty of ways to manage it now, but that doesn't mean they're easy or don't deserve some love. We can and should do more to help management of these towns. So I'd rather make this easier for town owners than presume it's impossible and try a cap.

I do think that is the main thing that would make this change effective in creating more activity on the server and fights. I am not presuming, I know it is basically impossible for 3 towns with 50-100 actives to survive in the same alliance for longer than a month, it would be a mess. Hypothetically possible, in reality not so much.

This is objectively false and we've seen this many times over Loka's history. Players by and large want to fight and they want to win. A large population of Loka is of course just the fighters. They are not interested in what town they're in or where they live, they play to fight, and logout when that's over.

They want to fight, so why not give them more frequent fights by actually having opponents to fight. This also presumes that there will be fixes in order to make fighting sustainable but that is a different topic.

To presume they won't pile into a big town if that's what is required to fight is completely false. We know this is the case and we've seen it many many times.

They might try to all join a big town but like I said it won't last. The town owners will be overwhelmed. There is no way Helian could make 20 towns worth of people fit into 3 towns for example. It just would not work.

Do you think this would be made easier with features/mechanics introduced to assist in the the management/distribution of resources within towns (not capping town members)? Or is your view that the issue is something else entirely (not enough resources to grind, grinding bad, etc)?

I think it would be good for towns but then you get to the bottom of it and who wants to fight when the people you are fighting can just recruit more towns to win and it becomes old fashion whoopin rather than close fights? The server cannot handle the high numbers and it lags terribly, then players never come back. I think this would assist in stopping that. I don't think there is enough to do on the server as a whole and creating more fights and making materials necessary for fights more obtainable would alleviate that to a certain extent.

This point confuses me the most as I am not sure you are taking into account that by limiting alliances to a certain number of towns you are not also limiting the amount of players that can be in the alliance.

You aren't technically, you can have as many players in a town as you want.

 

[Mocc1]

Electrical, Candy, Sewers were all phenomenal quests, I think personally that more main quests/non holiday event quests should exist. Some quests to uncover Loka lore or just to be fun.

 

[jakeman5]

Electrical, Candy, Sewers were all phenomenal quests, I think personally that more main quests/non holiday event quests should exist. Some quests to uncover Loka lore or just to be fun.

They working on that.