4Game

I realize it's probably too late for something like this to be implemented, but looking at a lot of people's votes for the upcoming Balance Council – my own included – it feels like there is a lot of desire to revert changes from the previous Council. Now, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but I do worry about these changes being "wasted" in a back and forth where, say, Thirsty Dame bounces between 5 and 6 provisions with every patch.

(I'll be using Dame as an example because I feel it's a particularly divisive change unlike, say, Compass. This isn't really about whether Dame should be a 5 or 6 provision card, it's about how the system should allow that decision to be made.)

In my opinion, what would have made sense (other than a two-round voting system where first the changes are suggested, then everyone votes in favor or against each of the suggested changes) would be a system that takes into account the popularity of previous changes. So say the change for Dame from 5p to 6p had 10% of the votes in the provision nerf category last council; in order for her to be buffed to 5p the system should require more than 10% of the votes in the provision buff category. If that goes through, with, for example, 20% of the available votes, that becomes the new standard for changing the card's provisions. It's important for this requirement to be based on the votes available rather than the absolute number of votes to account for a fluctuating playerbase/number of voters.

Right now 90% of the votes could go towards nerfing Compass to 10p, and if people didn't overwhelmingly vote to nerf it again to 11p next time it is possible for a minority to once again buff it to 9p – when there is a precedent demonstrating that change is clearly against the wishes of most eligible players and there is nothing they can do about it other than overnerf the card (thus wasting a vote) or wait until the next Council to nerf it back (and, uh, waste a vote).