I didn't say get over it, but it feels like a great way to get a thread locked rather than a productive argument to find a solution.
I have a genuine question - what would help the shadow light side of things feel incentive to stick out and keep trying rather than escape a timequake without engaging, for example. Not talking numbers, let's say it's even or in your favour, what is it that would help you -want- to stay and fight or keep trying? Maybe if we can really pin point what is disheartening and or frustrating, or incentive, we can find solutions.
Let me back up and talk about the A-word, as it matters why it is disheartening. I don't think it is out of the question to assume that a side plays to 'win'. So what does winning looking like? For some that was seeing Mag (and by extension Ixion) lose ( be them celest or otherwise.). Others see that has there only being ONE winner (after all, it is the game's biggest competition event.), something that isn't too crazy to think. Both of these things are false for shadowlight's outcome. Those that defined winning by either of those saw shadowlight on the losing side of things. It is disheartening to win the event only to have the admin 'sorry, you don't actually'. You may say Parhelion is the 'true' ascension and Ixion isn't. but Ixion got a special event (regardless of what was said, it was for him at the end of the day) and a special ascendant-ness. The real winner of 2020 felt like Ixion because of those things, not Parhelion.
So, this let's assume in 8ish months the lag is still not fixed (because really, fixing that kind of lag is hard) - do we declare that a tie as well and raise two people again?. Or it doesn't even have to be ascension. Does any event with bad enough lag now have to be declared a draw with two winners?
For most recent frustrations, we are low numbers, when we get a decent size group for something, IHC calls in at least twice our numbers (and I get it, you guys want pvp so you are going to jump at it), but most of us don't want to fight 2:1 numbers regardless of what it is and would rather do something else instead.
My personal frustrations - during the flares, Mag will often camp the bubbles to stop people from even raising constructs (something that even helps them if they wanted to focus negatively on it) for getting orgpoints. Same with wildnodes - people that are clearly just hanging out (ie, alone) to get their dailies/orgpoints get swarmed the second they show up. This extends to revolts, but I understand that is much harder to tell who is going for org points and who is making an effort against the claim.
My personal frustrations - during the flares, Mag will often camp the bubbles to stop people from even raising constructs (something that even helps them if they wanted to focus negatively on it) for getting orgpoints. Same with wildnodes - people that are clearly just hanging out (ie, alone) to get their dailies/orgpoints get swarmed the second they show up. This extends to revolts, but I understand that is much harder to tell who is going for org points and who is making an effort against the claim.
This was always the case, though, for both sides. Orgpoints are a competition, too.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
I didn't say get over it, but it feels like a great way to get a thread locked rather than a productive argument to find a solution.
I have a genuine question - what would help the shadow light side of things feel incentive to stick out and keep trying rather than escape a timequake without engaging, for example. Not talking numbers, let's say it's even or in your favour, what is it that would help you -want- to stay and fight or keep trying? Maybe if we can really pin point what is disheartening and or frustrating, or incentive, we can find solutions.
I can't speak for other people but I very much know that if I see people in a TQ that I have trouble not dying to, then I am just not going to have fun so there's no point in staying. It's not 'those people are assholes and how dare they kill me omg omg'. It's just 'oh hey, these people have skills I can't counter and with the current people we have we always struggle to make a kill so rather than get angry and frustrated that we failed, I'm happier to dip out and do something else constructive'.
At this point, we need people who will teach, lead, and some syngergy worked out that's feasible with our current combatants and their skills. Without that, nothing is going to change.
My personal frustrations - during the flares, Mag will often camp the bubbles to stop people from even raising constructs (something that even helps them if they wanted to focus negatively on it) for getting orgpoints. Same with wildnodes - people that are clearly just hanging out (ie, alone) to get their dailies/orgpoints get swarmed the second they show up. This extends to revolts, but I understand that is much harder to tell who is going for org points and who is making an effort against the claim.
This was always the case, though, for both sides. Orgpoints are a competition, too.
The difference is I personally wouldn't go after someone getting their orgpoints for participation and I would just ignore them.
My personal frustrations - during the flares, Mag will often camp the bubbles to stop people from even raising constructs (something that even helps them if they wanted to focus negatively on it) for getting orgpoints. Same with wildnodes - people that are clearly just hanging out (ie, alone) to get their dailies/orgpoints get swarmed the second they show up. This extends to revolts, but I understand that is much harder to tell who is going for org points and who is making an effort against the claim.
This was always the case, though, for both sides. Orgpoints are a competition, too.
The difference is I personally wouldn't go after someone getting their orgpoints for participation and I would just ignore them.
That might be you PERSONALLY but I have seen people on SL side go after non-combatants SPECIFICALLY even though they're only there for points. So I don't think that's really a fair thing to complain about here.
My personal frustrations - during the flares, Mag will often camp the bubbles to stop people from even raising constructs (something that even helps them if they wanted to focus negatively on it) for getting orgpoints. Same with wildnodes - people that are clearly just hanging out (ie, alone) to get their dailies/orgpoints get swarmed the second they show up. This extends to revolts, but I understand that is much harder to tell who is going for org points and who is making an effort against the claim.
This was always the case, though, for both sides. Orgpoints are a competition, too.
The difference is I personally wouldn't go after someone getting their orgpoints for participation and I would just ignore them.
That might be you PERSONALLY but I have seen people on SL side go after non-combatants SPECIFICALLY even though they're only there for points. So I don't think that's really a fair thing to complain about here.
TIL, I really only saw it happening in revolts a few times (and figured it was less about denying the orgpoints and more about stopping them from getting a foothold)
For most recent frustrations, we are low numbers, when we get a decent size group for something, IHC calls in at least twice our numbers (and I get it, you guys want pvp so you are going to jump at it), but most of us don't want to fight 2:1 numbers regardless of what it is and would rather do something else instead.
This much is accurate, and comes down to the numbers difference between the sides right now. It makes sense for IHC to do this, but the result is that even when SL has an advantage, they can't compete. They start winning, IHC calls in 3 or 4 more people. SL can't call in more to match. Or even when the numbers aren't even, the fact that it looks like SL might try to compete leads to calls for more on IHC side to come.
Nothing unreasonable about that, but when it happens every time of course the other side is going to stop trying. Also, when counting "numbers are even", it's not accurate to claim that Random Glom Newbie = 1 SL person and Zagreus = 1 IHC person. Yet I see that happen all the time.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
TIL, I really only saw it happening in revolts a few times (and figured it was less about denying the orgpoints and more about stopping them from getting a foothold)
No, this has happened in every conflict event. I can still remember being frustrated with Glom doing this to me every time and figuring out ways around it - when possible.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
TIL, I really only saw it happening in revolts a few times (and figured it was less about denying the orgpoints and more about stopping them from getting a foothold)
No, this has happened in every conflict event. I can still remember being frustrated with Glom doing this to me every time and figuring out ways around it - when possible.
As a fairly new character i remember being introduced to the joys of being murdered at the rift to a timequake due to my enemy status to the inner sea. Wasn't even -in- the quake. But as others told me and i will tell others, if you show up to a conflict event, there will be conflict and no one has the right to peacefully get their daily credits and wander on by.
it drives me crazy but i totally admire Azula - she will jump in, bunker down and get her dailies even if they don't have enough to compete and be slippery as hell and half the time if not more often, make it back out alive despite our efforts. Talk about will to live! Love it.
As a fairly new character i remember being introduced to the joys of being murdered at the rift to a timequake due to my enemy status to the inner sea. Wasn't even -in- the quake. But as others told me and i will tell others, if you show up to a conflict event, there will be conflict and no one has the right to peacefully get their daily credits and wander on by.
it drives me crazy but i totally admire Azula - she will jump in, bunker down and get her dailies even if they don't have enough to compete and be slippery as hell and half the time if not more often, make it back out alive despite our efforts. Talk about will to live! Love it.
Seriously, Azula's great. I used to do the same thing myself, at just about every timequake, but it gets so frustrating. Also, yes, the inner sea deaths were part of what led to arguments about how pk status works, as I recall. So many times glom/celest kept people from even entering.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
I just don't have the energy anymore to log in, hear that there are at least double our numbers in every single timequake at every time of day I can log in, and get excited to go die. No, it doesn't 'cost' me anything - except the buffs, the time sitting there waiting, the time where someone might make a jerk comment about how quickly I died, whatever. I haven't been able to make it to an aetherflare or revolt in weeks, because they're happening while I'm at work or in the very middle of me sleeping. My work is draining enough. If I try and just 'be a team player' and 'keep conflict alive' and whatever other trite things people might want to say, I will absolutely just quit instead. It's already hard enough to catch the things I find fun in the game without deliberately seeking out the things I only tolerate at the best of times.
And these are not the best of times.
Czixi, the Welkin murmurs, "Fight on, My Effervescent Sylph. I will be with you as you do."
Aian Lerit'r, Lead Schematicist exclaims to you, "A *paperwork* emergency, Chairman!
I can't strongly recommend putting a lot of effort into rebuilding your alliance PvP capabilities, because it is time intensive, emotionally draining, and after your hard work and investment seems to pay off, the admin has shown a willingness to just roll through and take it all away without any sort of justification.
I do recommend trying to enjoy the RP side of the game, it's where Lusternia shines. It has a rich history and loving admin nurturing their orders and helping people realize their visions within the game. Competitively, there are far better offerings out there.
I can't strongly recommend putting a lot of effort into rebuilding your alliance PvP capabilities, because it is time intensive, emotionally draining, and after your hard work and investment seems to pay off, the admin has shown a willingness to just roll through and take it all away without any sort of justification.
I do recommend trying to enjoy the RP side of the game, it's where Lusternia shines. It has a rich history and loving admin nurturing their orders and helping people realize their visions within the game. Competitively, there are far better offerings out there.
No, this is nonsense, and this thread is not about RP. Start one about RP if you like.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Rehashing ascension and the decision made is beyond flogging a dead horse. We've heard it all by now several times. Can we avoid the dreaded A word for now?
No, we cannot. Why, you might ask? It's quite logical.
Let's say that your side suggests improvements. Maybe they're good, maybe they're awful, who knows. It doesn't really matter. They could spend thousands of hours of coding your changes. Yet, that's all meaningless if after that there's still no conflict. They might as well not have wasted the time on it. If you completely ignore how we feel, refuse to address our concerns, it fatally undermines any suggestion / change that is implemented.
What we can do is not overly rehash Ascension except as a historical reference point. We're here at this precise position because of it, after all (sure, you can say other things contributed, that is fair- but this exact place is due to that one event/decision). Then we try to look forward- the administration says that they want to re-earn the trust that they've lost with us and rebuild faith. But... thus far, at least, that's not really taken shape.
I think step 1 is pretty clearly: "Hey, I know we talked about Ascension recently, but we're really not going to do anything in that regard until we actually have the game in a better place." To me, that's a higher priority if they're serious about it. And, as I include in basically every post in this thread, I still think that they need to sit down for an extended talk about how to move forward. There's not really much engagement in this thread and only a small portion of the game even reads forums anyways.
Right. So you can't allow anyone else to discuss a problem that occurred in the Before Time, because it's not directly related to your narrative. If you don't like the premise of the thread, start a new one. Don't comment.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Right. So you can't allow anyone else to discuss a problem that occurred in the Before Time, because it's not directly related to your narrative. If you don't like the premise of the thread, start a new one. Don't comment.
I shall comment, because this is an important topic. Further, that is not what I said. I am not completely shutting down discussion of the "before time"- I even acknowledged that it was fair to raise points from then as additionally contributing factors- but instead said that you also have to include our own perspective instead of telling us to stop talking about it and focusing exclusively on what you think is relevant.
The Ascension had no bearing on the game balance. Raising two Ascendants had no bearing on the game balance. You keep bringing it up as if it affected Game Balance -- but it didn't, so you're effectively hijacking a thread @Kethaera made to address Game Balance to complain about something that you feel personally offended by.
Do you know what was disheartening for IHC? Being so close to completing it and then being stuck in a lag so impossibly bad that I would spend a literal 10 minutes getting caught up on my own commands when it had one moment of clarity. Having Wyrdenwoods lean on their chembomb alias and getting dozens of them off without being able to shield.
We got over it. Even if Zagreus hadn't been raised, we would have gotten over it. But Zagreus got raised, and toxic people from Shadowlight keep harping on what a TERRIBLE CHOICE it was to throw Magnagora a bone when we hadn't had a True Ascendant raised in Magnagora for NINE YEARS. Nine years. The last one who was raised in Magnagora was Akyaevin in 2011. In that time, Glomdoring raised 4, Hallifax raised 1, Gaudiguch raised 2 and Celest raised 1. Karlach now lives in Magnagora again, but he was raised by Glomdoring. Serenwilde raised none. Magnagora raised none.
We also worked really hard to secure Seals, and I'm really proud of Ironhart for all the work they put in.
Are we done now? We've hashed out why it was frustrating over and over again. Can we finally talk about actual game balance issues now?
Right now Shadowlight has some great combatants, but not a ton. I think a big part of where the non-balance comes from (outside of IHC merely having more people online generally) is that IHC (Magnagora especially) has more unified calls and combat awareness. A lot of Magnagora uses the same system, so it's easier to teach people how to combat; we also have a lot of older combatants who are well-skilled (Thalkros, Zagreus, Silvanus, Shango, etc).
I'm really hoping that the Outpost system helps close this gap, at least for combat awareness. That's 95% of any combat, is being combat-aware. I've also seen Celest gaining a ton of new people and I'm really excited about that! I'm hoping that Hallifax and Glom are also gaining a bunch, because once those people are trained up, it'll help even out the playing field.
With people starting to go back to work in the States, I think we'll see a lot fewer times where all the heavy hitters are online for every conflict, and hopefully that means we can be more optimistic about stuff.
The Ascension has everything to do with game balance- as in, the state of the game right now, and people's willingness (or lack thereof) to participate. Of course you got over it- you got exactly what you wanted, and the other side stopped showing up.
If you actually want the other side to show up, you need to re-engage them (and what, some random new Serenwilde-oriented system isn't going to do that). You don't re-engage them by telling them to "get over it." You do so by actually listening and working together instead of dismissing their issues.
Both sides got what they wanted. Admin didn't make SL lose or IHC win. They made it a draw due to something that both sides have agreed was an issue. I don't understand the resentment of that. SL wasn't stripped of anything by the admin.
I agree a lot with what Vexacion had to say about overall current balance. I think that the easiest fix would be for all Orgs to forgo all alliances. This means that Orgs would need to stand on their own. I would say that in this scenario Magnagora, Celest, and Serenwilde would fair the best, but the others could definitely spark up much easier than current SL needs to in order to fight current IHC.
An idea is to make TQs have 3 different TQs at once. Each pitting one Org against another Org. Depending on which Org I am depends on which TQ entrance I have. This could be random pitting allies or enemies.
Obviously, some Orgs would struggle more than others, but that just sheds light on the fact we don't have enough combatants to support 6 Orgs.
Both sides got what they wanted. Admin didn't make SL lose or IHC win. They made it a draw due to something that both sides have agreed was an issue. I don't understand the resentment of that. SL wasn't stripped of anything by the admin.
Please stop saying this. SL did not get what they wanted. SL did not win. IHC went from losing (again, in the game's biggest contest) to winning. If you want to be super picky, 'both sides' did not agree to it. The admin asked ONLY parhelion and ixion. Those two people do not represent their whole alliance.
Stop defining getting an ascendant as 'winning'. It is much more complex than that. At best, SL tied.
See my post for things - Large parts of SL defined winning as there being ONE winner. Some define it as stopping Mag (Celest's whole idea is to stop the taint). To those (which is probably going to be a larger part), SL lost once it was declared a tie/Ixion was going to be raised
Both sides got what they wanted. Admin didn't make SL lose or IHC win. They made it a draw due to something that both sides have agreed was an issue. I don't understand the resentment of that. SL wasn't stripped of anything by the admin.
Please stop saying this. SL did not get what they wanted. SL did not win. IHC went from losing (again, in the game's biggest contest) to winning. If you want to be super picky, 'both sides' did not agree to it. The admin asked ONLY parhelion and ixion. Those two people do not represent their whole alliance.
Stop defining getting an ascendant as 'winning'. It is much more complex than that. At best, SL tied.
See my post for things - Large parts of SL defined winning as there being ONE winner. Some define it as stopping Mag (Celest's whole idea is to stop the taint). To those (which is probably going to be a larger part), SL lost once it was declared a tie/Ixion was going to be raised
Was your goal to raise a TA or prevent a TA? If raising a TA was your goal then you achieved your goal (The definition of winning I am using.). If your goal was to prevent a TA then you weren't playing Ascension the way it is intended as the goal of Ascension is to raise a TA. In my opinion, if prevention of Ascension was your goal then that is a very toxic goal.
If you define victory as denying things to others, and a loss as them getting things, regardless of your own personal gain, then quite frankly you deserve the "loss". I really think you should take a step back and reevaluate why you play the game.
If you define victory as denying things to others, and a loss as them getting things, regardless of your own personal gain, then quite frankly you deserve the "loss". I really think you should take a step back and reevaluate why you play the game.
In a game where Ascension is the biggest PVP competition (to the point we get people who only sign in during Ascension time), it is wrong to want only one winner? In a competition that has never had a draw before. Or is Celest's whole RP to stop the taint wrong now?
Both sides got what they wanted. Admin didn't make SL lose or IHC win. They made it a draw due to something that both sides have agreed was an issue. I don't understand the resentment of that. SL wasn't stripped of anything by the admin.
Please stop saying this. SL did not get what they wanted. SL did not win. IHC went from losing (again, in the game's biggest contest) to winning. If you want to be super picky, 'both sides' did not agree to it. The admin asked ONLY parhelion and ixion. Those two people do not represent their whole alliance.
Stop defining getting an ascendant as 'winning'. It is much more complex than that. At best, SL tied.
See my post for things - Large parts of SL defined winning as there being ONE winner. Some define it as stopping Mag (Celest's whole idea is to stop the taint). To those (which is probably going to be a larger part), SL lost once it was declared a tie/Ixion was going to be raised
Was your goal to raise a TA or prevent a TA? If raising a TA was your goal then you achieved your goal (The definition of winning I am using.). If your goal was to prevent a TA then you weren't playing Ascension the way it is intended as the goal of Ascension is to raise a TA. In my opinion, if prevention of Ascension was your goal then that is a very toxic goal.
Edit: Grammar
The goal of Ascension is to raise a TA, but only one. not two. I don't think prevention in a competition is a toxic mind set. it is a competition afterall.
If you (admin you) are just going to hand out a tie, why even have a competition at all. Just RP things at that point and give everyone TA.
An idea is to make TQs have 3 different TQs at once. Each pitting one Org against another Org. Depending on which Org I am depends on which TQ entrance I have. This could be random pitting allies or enemies.
Obviously, some Orgs would struggle more than others, but that just sheds light on the fact we don't have enough combatants to support 6 Orgs.
Anyone want to actually talk about ideas to help game balance?
I have put out a couple, but I will restate my last.
Dismissing our side's issues that Xenthos talked about? That's what this looks like.
If you think it is toxic for playing the game a specific way (/don't see how some one our side could see Ascension as a loss) then you are never going to get the pvp you want.
Anyone want to actually talk about ideas to help game balance?
I have put out a couple, but I will restate my last.
Dismissing our side's issues that Xenthos talked about? That's what this looks like.
If you think it is toxic for playing the game a specific way (/don't see how some one our side could see Ascension as a loss) then you are never going to get the pvp you want.
Just trying to avoid the thread being closed as warned prior by admin. This same imbalance happened to IHC a couple of years ago.
Anyone want to actually talk about ideas to help game balance?
I have put out a couple, but I will restate my last.
Dismissing our side's issues that Xenthos talked about? That's what this looks like.
If you think it is toxic for playing the game a specific way (/don't see how some one our side could see Ascension as a loss) then you are never going to get the pvp you want.
Just trying to avoid the thread being closed as warned prior by admin. This same imbalance happened to IHC a couple of years ago.
Do you have any thoughts on my idea Ayisdra ?
Putting Allies against each other is a bad idea. Having to rely on RNG is just as bad.
Balancing sides out is going to be hard. Limiting how many people of a side isn't really going to work (at least as long as alliances aren't hardcoded). THe idea that every org should be on their own isn't either.
I know it isn't really a solution, but IHC restricting themselves is really the only answer I can think of. (which I know, why would they do that). But when IHC can keep calling in more people that it starts to even reach 3:1 numbers where as SL can't and it just leads to more people giving up because we can't muster the numbers.
Comments
At this point, we need people who will teach, lead, and some syngergy worked out that's feasible with our current combatants and their skills. Without that, nothing is going to change.
The difference is I personally wouldn't go after someone getting their orgpoints for participation and I would just ignore them.
TIL, I really only saw it happening in revolts a few times (and figured it was less about denying the orgpoints and more about stopping them from getting a foothold)
Nothing unreasonable about that, but when it happens every time of course the other side is going to stop trying. Also, when counting "numbers are even", it's not accurate to claim that Random Glom Newbie = 1 SL person and Zagreus = 1 IHC person. Yet I see that happen all the time.
it drives me crazy but i totally admire Azula - she will jump in, bunker down and get her dailies even if they don't have enough to compete and be slippery as hell and half the time if not more often, make it back out alive despite our efforts. Talk about will to live! Love it.
And these are not the best of times.
Czixi, the Welkin murmurs, "Fight on, My Effervescent Sylph. I will be with you as you do."
Aian Lerit'r, Lead Schematicist exclaims to you, "A *paperwork* emergency, Chairman!
Do you know what was disheartening for IHC? Being so close to completing it and then being stuck in a lag so impossibly bad that I would spend a literal 10 minutes getting caught up on my own commands when it had one moment of clarity. Having Wyrdenwoods lean on their chembomb alias and getting dozens of them off without being able to shield.
We got over it. Even if Zagreus hadn't been raised, we would have gotten over it. But Zagreus got raised, and toxic people from Shadowlight keep harping on what a TERRIBLE CHOICE it was to throw Magnagora a bone when we hadn't had a True Ascendant raised in Magnagora for NINE YEARS. Nine years. The last one who was raised in Magnagora was Akyaevin in 2011. In that time, Glomdoring raised 4, Hallifax raised 1, Gaudiguch raised 2 and Celest raised 1. Karlach now lives in Magnagora again, but he was raised by Glomdoring. Serenwilde raised none. Magnagora raised none.
We also worked really hard to secure Seals, and I'm really proud of Ironhart for all the work they put in.
Are we done now? We've hashed out why it was frustrating over and over again. Can we finally talk about actual game balance issues now?
Right now Shadowlight has some great combatants, but not a ton. I think a big part of where the non-balance comes from (outside of IHC merely having more people online generally) is that IHC (Magnagora especially) has more unified calls and combat awareness. A lot of Magnagora uses the same system, so it's easier to teach people how to combat; we also have a lot of older combatants who are well-skilled (Thalkros, Zagreus, Silvanus, Shango, etc).
I'm really hoping that the Outpost system helps close this gap, at least for combat awareness. That's 95% of any combat, is being combat-aware. I've also seen Celest gaining a ton of new people and I'm really excited about that! I'm hoping that Hallifax and Glom are also gaining a bunch, because once those people are trained up, it'll help even out the playing field.
With people starting to go back to work in the States, I think we'll see a lot fewer times where all the heavy hitters are online for every conflict, and hopefully that means we can be more optimistic about stuff.
I agree a lot with what Vexacion had to say about overall current balance. I think that the easiest fix would be for all Orgs to forgo all alliances. This means that Orgs would need to stand on their own. I would say that in this scenario Magnagora, Celest, and Serenwilde would fair the best, but the others could definitely spark up much easier than current SL needs to in order to fight current IHC.
An idea is to make TQs have 3 different TQs at once. Each pitting one Org against another Org. Depending on which Org I am depends on which TQ entrance I have. This could be random pitting allies or enemies.
Obviously, some Orgs would struggle more than others, but that just sheds light on the fact we don't have enough combatants to support 6 Orgs.
Edit: Grammar
I have put out a couple, but I will restate my last.
Do you have any thoughts on my idea @Ayisdra ?