Cartir
New Member
I honestly think the whole “alliances controlling continents” idea is dumb and ruins what I think made this server fun in the first place.
Letting 12 towns team up to attack and take territory completely kills balance. At that point, it’s not strategy or skill anymore, it’s just numbers. Smaller towns don’t stand a chance, new players get steamrolled, and the same mega-groups dominate everything with zero risk.
The best part of this server used to be town politics, rivalries, and actual decision-making. I’ve been playing on this server for 5 years, and in that time I’ve seen how this system plays out long-term. Alliances just turn the game into blob warfare where one side wins because they have more people, not because they played better. There’s no tension, no creativity, and no incentive to be independent when joining a massive alliance is basically required to survive.
Instead of encouraging competition, this system forces everyone into the same boring meta. If you’re not in a giant alliance, you’re irrelevant. That’s bad design and it hurts long term player enjoyment.
It makes the server less fun, less fair, and way less interesting overall.
*EDIT WITH SUGGESTIONS*
I appreciate all the feedback so far, even from people who don’t fully agree. That’s kind of the point of posting this.
To be clear, I don’t think alliances themselves are automatically bad. The issue is how unrestricted they are right now and how that removes most of the strategic decision-making. When alliances can pull towns from every continent to fight over a single capital, location stops mattering, continent identity disappears, and wars turn into pure population checks.
Based on what people here have said, I think there are a few changes that could seriously improve things without deleting alliances entirely:
1. Reduce alliance size (even temporarily).
Several people mentioned this, and I agree. Dropping the cap from 12 towns to 8, even for a single month, would be a great test. It would force alliances to make real choices about who they bring, instead of just stacking everyone possible. Smaller alliances would also mean more rivalries instead of two massive blobs.
2. Limit cross-continent participation.
If an alliance is fighting for a continent capital, the majority of that alliance should actually be from that continent. It makes no sense for half the alliance to have zero connection to the land they’re conquering. This alone would bring back geography and planning as meaningful factors.
3. Rework or remove merc towns.
I agree with the concern raised about merc towns. We already have reins, which are limited for a reason. Having unlimited merc towns on top of that just bypasses intended restrictions. If merc towns stay, they should at least be capped or tied to the continent being fought over.
4. Encourage more, smaller conflicts instead of server wide wars.
Some of the most fun fights weren’t the biggest ones, they were fights where individual towns and alliances actually mattered. Right now, everything escalates into 200+ player warp spam, which looks impressive but isn’t fun for a lot of people long term. Smaller alliances naturally lead to more frequent, meaningful fights.
I’m not claiming these ideas are perfect, and I’m not saying they should be permanent. But testing changes like these, even for one month, would give real data instead of assumptions. Right now, the meta feels stale, predictable, and heavily skewed toward whoever can stack the most towns.
I’m saying this because I want the server to stay interesting, not because I want it to burn. If people see flaws in these suggestions, I’m open to hearing them, but doing nothing clearly isn’t working either.
Letting 12 towns team up to attack and take territory completely kills balance. At that point, it’s not strategy or skill anymore, it’s just numbers. Smaller towns don’t stand a chance, new players get steamrolled, and the same mega-groups dominate everything with zero risk.
The best part of this server used to be town politics, rivalries, and actual decision-making. I’ve been playing on this server for 5 years, and in that time I’ve seen how this system plays out long-term. Alliances just turn the game into blob warfare where one side wins because they have more people, not because they played better. There’s no tension, no creativity, and no incentive to be independent when joining a massive alliance is basically required to survive.
Instead of encouraging competition, this system forces everyone into the same boring meta. If you’re not in a giant alliance, you’re irrelevant. That’s bad design and it hurts long term player enjoyment.
It makes the server less fun, less fair, and way less interesting overall.
*EDIT WITH SUGGESTIONS*
I appreciate all the feedback so far, even from people who don’t fully agree. That’s kind of the point of posting this.
To be clear, I don’t think alliances themselves are automatically bad. The issue is how unrestricted they are right now and how that removes most of the strategic decision-making. When alliances can pull towns from every continent to fight over a single capital, location stops mattering, continent identity disappears, and wars turn into pure population checks.
Based on what people here have said, I think there are a few changes that could seriously improve things without deleting alliances entirely:
1. Reduce alliance size (even temporarily).
Several people mentioned this, and I agree. Dropping the cap from 12 towns to 8, even for a single month, would be a great test. It would force alliances to make real choices about who they bring, instead of just stacking everyone possible. Smaller alliances would also mean more rivalries instead of two massive blobs.
2. Limit cross-continent participation.
If an alliance is fighting for a continent capital, the majority of that alliance should actually be from that continent. It makes no sense for half the alliance to have zero connection to the land they’re conquering. This alone would bring back geography and planning as meaningful factors.
3. Rework or remove merc towns.
I agree with the concern raised about merc towns. We already have reins, which are limited for a reason. Having unlimited merc towns on top of that just bypasses intended restrictions. If merc towns stay, they should at least be capped or tied to the continent being fought over.
4. Encourage more, smaller conflicts instead of server wide wars.
Some of the most fun fights weren’t the biggest ones, they were fights where individual towns and alliances actually mattered. Right now, everything escalates into 200+ player warp spam, which looks impressive but isn’t fun for a lot of people long term. Smaller alliances naturally lead to more frequent, meaningful fights.
I’m not claiming these ideas are perfect, and I’m not saying they should be permanent. But testing changes like these, even for one month, would give real data instead of assumptions. Right now, the meta feels stale, predictable, and heavily skewed toward whoever can stack the most towns.
I’m saying this because I want the server to stay interesting, not because I want it to burn. If people see flaws in these suggestions, I’m open to hearing them, but doing nothing clearly isn’t working either.
Last edited:
