Suggestion Cap to conquest fights (all). (HOT TAKE)

[36s]

THIS is probably going to be one of my hottest takes yet. Hear me out though. Limit the size of conquest fights to 64 people per side. Not only would fights go by smoothly but it would also encourage MORE alliances and MORE PvP as a whole. I remember crypt saying he hated that it was just 2 alliances fighting against eachother every time, but with this addition it would completely change the game. It would also encourage alliances to move continents and have fights on every continent not just one continent per month. Please hear me out as this is a huge suggestion but it would benefit the whole of pvp and conquest and lag. I expect a lot of -1's but just think about how smooth everything would be if it were like this.

 

[36s]

ORRRRRRR HEAR ME OUT. the defending/ offending side gets to CHOOSE how many people fight during that fight on both sides (whether it be min 64 people and can choose all the way to unlimited players) !!!!!!

 

[coolkidsupa]

1v1 rp vs bits balak

 

[Lampp_]

-1 how would you stop people from warping if you did a thing from rivi you could throw a fight and remove the entire warp if it gets rbed then if the fight is unfavorable you could get someone from ur group to remove everyones warp and get a rb like that or you could just have first come first serve which for people who are doing something right before warp means they get instantly cut out besides theres not 4 groups with 64 people each if there was multiple alliances this could may work but right now it just cant due to the size of the community and how buggy it would be basing off rivi lawl also a 64v64 is still gonna be laggy not as laggy as 90v70s but still laggy

 

[_Bl00dy]

I like the idea but the execution needs work +1

 

[xJhacar_]

-1

 

[FoxyBearGames]

Until a hard limit has been determined to how many people the server itself can handle (before it becomes unplayable 100% of the time), I don't think that this fight cap is worth it. I think the amount of factions on the server at that point will be well over two though, so this would become irrelevant with forcefully splitting alliances. Conquest may be a recruitment war, however this is incredibly good for the server population and growth. Just look at the tab list, about 95% of players who are on it have been recruited. Imposing a limit simply would not be good for mainstream conquest due to new players never being able to show up to fights. This does not go without saying that I would DEFINITELY like to see smaller scale conquest in the range of 20v20 or 50v50 (with much higher rewards than that of what Rivina has now to make it legitimately worth it). Another thing to take into account is that this would only lead to people getting around the system of equality by having "cheese" alliances where 2 separate alliances (both with the maximum amount of players) would both place on the same alliance at once and no matter what, result in one of these alliances winning.

ORRRRRRR HEAR ME OUT. the defending/ offending side gets to CHOOSE how many people fight during that fight on both sides (whether it be min 64 people and can choose all the way to unlimited players) !!!!!!

The issue with this is that if the alliances do not come to an agreement, they're essentially both dead in the water and there is no resolution, other than just auto-defaulting to a specific number (which is definitely what would happen most of the time).

Tl;dr although not a bad suggestion, it's just not good for growing the server. Forcefully (key word) splitting the server into more than two alliances also is not great for recruitment either. What I would definitely like to see is people actually deciding to split off on their own. This would be incredibly positive for the server, and lead to a 3-way recruitment war as opposed to just a two-way recruitment war.

 

[ThePigGang]

-1 HAVE FAITH IN SHARDING

 

[36s]

Until a hard limit has been determined to how many people the server itself can handle (before it becomes unplayable 100% of the time), I don't think that this fight cap is worth it. I think the amount of factions on the server at that point will be well over two though, so this would become irrelevant with forcefully splitting alliances. Conquest may be a recruitment war, however this is incredibly good for the server population and growth. Just look at the tab list, about 95% of players who are on it have been recruited. Imposing a limit simply would not be good for mainstream conquest due to new players never being able to show up to fights. This does not go without saying that I would DEFINITELY like to see smaller scale conquest in the range of 20v20 or 50v50 (with much higher rewards than that of what Rivina has now to make it legitimately worth it). Another thing to take into account is that this would only lead to people getting around the system of equality by having "cheese" alliances where 2 separate alliances (both with the maximum amount of players) would both place on the same alliance at once and no matter what, result in one of these alliances winning.

The issue with this is that if the alliances do not come to an agreement, they're essentially both dead in the water and there is no resolution, other than just auto-defaulting to a specific number (which is definitely what would happen most of the time).

Tl;dr although not a bad suggestion, it's just not good for growing the server. Forcefully (key word) splitting the server into more than two alliances also is not great for recruitment either. What I would definitely like to see is people actually deciding to split off on their own. This would be incredibly positive for the server, and lead to a 3-way recruitment war as opposed to just a two-way recruitment war.

ok fine i give up is that what you wanted to hear?!????? jokes good argument i now disagree with my suggestion

 

[FoxyBearGames]

ok fine i give up is that what you wanted to hear?!????? jokes good argument i now disagree with my suggestion

60v60 conquest do be sounding kinda fun doe 0_0

new conquest isle?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[Lampp_]

were gonna have this discussion again when the player base gets bigger but capping the fights @ 100

 

[xForerunner]

while there's merit to the performance bump argument, i think it's the wrong reason to advocate for capped fights. i do think there's something to be said for the quality of fights when reducing the amount of players. in my experience conquest is more enjoyable the fewer the players there are. yeah there's a certain novelty to having these large clusterfuck fights with 100+ people but i think it just degrades the experience after a certain point. by capping continental fights you can offer a little more of a unique experience on balak by uncapping fights there, which fits balak more thematically for it to be the space where alliances go all out.

also if we're gonna cap continental fights can we please reduce the warp timer to compensate

 

[Asynchronized]

-1 why would you limit the capacity of a ever-growing playerbase’s ability to partake in the server

 

[Asynchronized]

-1 why would you limit the capacity of a ever-growing playerbase’s ability to partake in the server

and also, more fights on a continent = more lag either way. it doesn’t just magically lag in a single fight it’s the whole server for the continent (when sharding is in effect)

 

[Zaidgvv]

-1 tf even is this

 

[Danito]

-1

 

[Lurnn]

and also, more fights on a continent = more lag either way. it doesn’t just magically lag in a single fight it’s the whole server for the continent (when sharding is in effect)

balak + rivina will have a separate sharding, a like with the three continents, so in the grand plan this would reduce only 1 continent fighting (2 sides) or 1 Continent + balak fighting.

Either way right now I don't see this being a sustainable addition but there is no denying lag free and overall capped fights if loka could sustain this being overall a better addition, - a lot of players quit due to how impossible it is to fight a much bigger force, if there was a hard cap any and every side if determined enough could reach this- whereas without it's an infinite cycle and will reach the stage of just laggy fights once again. This is fact, but yeah of course it's not viable right now and won't be for a long time.

 

[Asynchronized]

balak + rivina will have a separate sharding, a like with the three continents, so in the grand plan this would reduce only 1 continent fighting (2 sides) or 1 Continent + balak fighting.

Either way right now I don't see this being a sustainable addition but there is no denying lag free and overall capped fights if loka could sustain this being overall a better addition, - a lot of players quit due to how impossible it is to fight a much bigger force, if there was a hard cap any and every side if determined enough could reach this- whereas without it's an infinite cycle and will reach the stage of just laggy fights once again. This is fact, but yeah of course it's not viable right now and won't be for a long time.

I mean eventually it’ll probably be so huge to probably warrant another continent but for now I think having a cap on fights doesn’t make sense if the cap is enough to lag the server anyways, and if the excess of the cap is spread to another fight on the same continent/shard then the difference is nil and the same amount of lag will happen.Loka has made some pretty good progress on handling lag in huge fights and I think as it goes on it’s gonna get better anyways. Balak fights are always gonna be laggy cause its two continents against eachother, and parts of a continent moves to another to fight balak aswell.

 

[Marioistrash]

This is what happens when rp recruits 300 people and merges like 10 alliances

 

[FoxyBearGames]

There was an idea a while back to add a new objectives system to Balak which would vastly improve the fighting system of Balak by splitting players off to two separate objectives as opposed to just one, which I think would fix the problem of fights being an absolute disaster that was mentioned above.