Changes to Towns

[lilfros]

the reason he gave the town may be because there is no war going on in that continent.

right, and this shouldn't be the case, if you own a town there should be a commitment to it and you shouldn't just be able to leave freely.

karlos would die if this rule gets to exist. No1 would want to move to karlos due to needing to wait 1 month to get ownership of that town, on a dead continent without wars + no1 would want to make a town there knowing ppl wouldnt want to wait 1 month on that continent if they want to buy ppls town +karlos is action is based on 2 months a year where random ppl move to get some action and cool fights there, which will not happen at all due to needing to wait 1 month to get theyr town back once theyr back from karlos and 1 month in karlos if they want to buy theyr town, which ends up on people not wanting to move making karlos dead

I honestly think this update could maybe have the opposite effect of this, towns are gonna die during this and people will realize it's gonna take more commitment to make a town, thus people will move to make towns on kalros just like you said like once or twice a year, BUT actually be FORCED to stay there because owning a town will require more commitment.

Although another part of me thinks this wont be the case and honestly to solve the problem with not a lot of activity on kalros is to incentivize winning cap more, as it stands kalros caps seem almost uncontested forever now and maybe another update is the solution to that (policies, conquest, rewards, balak, etc.)

We considered adding a feature to handle town sales safely, but that means we'd be straight up supporting town sales, which we are not fond of.

why is this the case? I feel like it's become publically accepted in the community and is happening frequently, and honestly, there is easy potential to set up a shard sink here (similar to how tourney raffles work now). You would also solve the problem of scamming in the process.

 

[berdb]

that would make a lot of people quit...

top 10 active kalros players:
(there are only 3)

 

[Blissterz]

/town delete all @kalros

 

[obuth]

I get where you're coming from, but from a gameplay standpoint, there can't really be such a thing as builder towns or pvp towns. All towns require some level of upkeep to exist which, for all intents and purposes, just means people need to go to the RI every once in awhile. I also get that builder towns may have less players but it certainly wouldn't be fair to carve out any sort of exceptions for towns based on a "type" either. This is just one of those things where some are indeed disproportionally affected, but there's really not much we can do about it.

It seems a bit unfair to charge the same high prices for keeping up towns on all three continents. Kalros doesn't have as many people playing and doesn't see as much action as the other continents. So, making towns there cost the same as the ones with more players doesn't seem right. This update could and most likely would, lead Kalros to be a wasteland.

Similarly, the same standards for all towns, regardless of their focus, doesn’t seem entirely fair. Build-focused towns have different goals, not necessarily focused on recruiting players for PvP or conquest. They shouldn't be held to identical standards. So, I've been thinking of a solution:

Categorizing towns into groups, such as 'Build Towns' and 'PvP-Centric Towns.' Build Towns could have specific regulations, like limiting the number of players they can warp in Conquest, owning a smaller number of tiles, altering their industries output, etc. In exchange, their town upkeep costs wouldn't be the same as PvP-Centric Towns, who often have more players, which would justify them paying more.

 

[Zachary_N_Kaleno]

It seems a bit unfair to charge the same high prices for keeping up towns on all three continents. Kalros doesn't have as many people playing and doesn't see as much action as the other continents. So, making towns there cost the same as the ones with more players doesn't seem right. This update could and most likely would, lead Kalros to be a wasteland.

Similarly, the same standards for all towns, regardless of their focus, doesn’t seem entirely fair. Build-focused towns have different goals, not necessarily focused on recruiting players for PvP or conquest. They shouldn't be held to identical standards. So, I've been thinking of a solution:

Categorizing towns into groups, such as 'Build Towns' and 'PvP-Centric Towns.' Build Towns could have specific regulations, like limiting the number of players they can warp in Conquest, owning a smaller number of tiles, altering their industries output, etc. In exchange, their town upkeep costs wouldn't be the same as PvP-Centric Towns, who often have more players, which would justify them paying more.

City States (Build) vs Mercenary (PvP) towns

Just a name idea.

 

[Lurnn]

Major +1, I've been inactive for over a year now, regrettably so. After just asking in guide chat Meridia has 0 tiles and wouldve had this amount for the majority of our time however i think our current daily cost of 74 is likely even a bit higher due to recently joining an alliance, but take this number for example

At that current rate it's 2220 shards a month for town upkeep, 26640 a YEAR. That's a little more than a SINGLE RI trip, for anyone arguing a change to this at all i'm genuinely astonished, like I don't even think we properly analysed how cheap it is for us and our current maintenance when entering said inactivity as in all technicalities we have enough at the current rate for YEARS to come, which is a little insane.

As for the town ownership swapping stuff and Personal vault there's not much you can say against that!

Sorry for the paragraphs but i'd like to touch on everything whilst i'm here
There was a time when I first joined the server where all 3 continents were held by "Wolf Force" at the time Wolf Force was the name of the Mega Alliance that consisted of BITS (Garama) BITW (Ascalon) and of course WF (Kalros)
Whilst often times two continents would remain dead at a time there was atleast TWO major towns being kept up and running with major commitment towards them at all times to keep a permanent base of operations on every continent and to retain the caps, but yeah this new commercialised loka is terrible! never thought of something like this but awesome change

+1

 

[9Crits]

It seems a bit unfair to charge the same high prices for keeping up towns on all three continents. Kalros doesn't have as many people playing and doesn't see as much action as the other continents. So, making towns there cost the same as the ones with more players doesn't seem right. This update could and most likely would, lead Kalros to be a wasteland.

Similarly, the same standards for all towns, regardless of their focus, doesn’t seem entirely fair. Build-focused towns have different goals, not necessarily focused on recruiting players for PvP or conquest. They shouldn't be held to identical standards. So, I've been thinking of a solution:

Categorizing towns into groups, such as 'Build Towns' and 'PvP-Centric Towns.' Build Towns could have specific regulations, like limiting the number of players they can warp in Conquest, owning a smaller number of tiles, altering their industries output, etc. In exchange, their town upkeep costs wouldn't be the same as PvP-Centric Towns, who often have more players, which would justify them paying more.

Kalros still good for grinding and I love spruce wood and ice !!

 

[Zachary_N_Kaleno]

Kalros still good for grinding and I love spruce wood and ice !!

People are more interested in the conquest side of things rather than anything ornamental when it comes to decisions like these.

 

[LightAndDqrk]

Kalros still good for grinding and I love spruce wood and ice !!

potatoe and dark oak

 

[ACwavelength]

true maybe add like a cooldown or something, but one thing is true, karlos would die if this rule gets to exist. No1 would want to move to karlos due to needing to wait 1 month to get ownership of that town, on a dead continent without wars + no1 would want to make a town there knowing ppl wouldnt want to wait 1 month on that continent if they want to buy ppls town +karlos is action is based on 2 months a year where random ppl move to get some action and cool fights there, which will not happen at all due to needing to wait 1 month to get theyr town back once theyr back from karlos and 1 month in karlos if they want to buy theyr town, which ends up on people not wanting to move making karlos dead

Maybe that's a good thing? a continent just for building sounds chill

City States (Build) vs Mercenary (PvP) towns

Just a name idea.

idk about strict classes for these things, seems like something you could exploit. But a buff for non PVP towns is a good idea

+1 on the vaults

 

[Terenoca]

Maybe that's a good thing? a continent just for building sounds chill

idk about strict classes for these things, seems like something you could exploit. But a buff for non PVP towns is a good idea

+1 on the vaults

there will be no such thing as a building continent.... Lets keep it real, building towns have less then 3 actives and with this new tax thing there wont be a build town alive ( not to mention loka rn is alive due to the recruit towns that make fights happen, not the build towns). ( i love building towns im not saying that there shouldnt be building towns )

 

[FoxyBearGames]

"Loka was never meant to be a real estate server" - Mocc, Circa 2023~

 

[capybara]

please increase actives on towns (old towns need to fall)

ong blisterz theres like 50 of them at this point with 1 active and that are somehow still alive

 

[capybara]

View attachment 8975

Besides that, a concern I have might be with newer players trying to make a town (if they even get past leaving spawn) and sustaining it, I've talked with a few people and a somewhat common topic was that people they recruited often had some trouble understanding the concept of an "RI". There definitely needs to be some more guidance as to what people are supposed to do in this regard as many expect it to be like regular minecraft where you can get a bunch of ores by strip mining. Although the cost changes are said to not be paralyzing, this may fail to recognize a newer players experience and could cause trouble for them and their experience while they try to find their footing on the server, not all players are scooped up immediately out of the intro into some pvp town, a somewhat large chunk just leave confused and disappointed.

You could argue however that new players don't even make it to that point so it can't be that big of an issue but that is also an issue because new players should be able to know their options and what to do on the server, some new players log off, lost in spawn, never to log in again due to having a poor and confused first impression, which is a whole other problem.

As for the personal vault I think it is very nice to finally have the ability to protect some loot that can't fit in your echest from a tyrannical town owner that uses the rules to steal from all their members. It also provides a safe haven for more nomadic players.

and my rambling is over...
(i wrote this while being very exhausted so it may take a few reads to understand my tired mess)

I say someone makes a tutorial on everything loka that pops up in chat whenever someone joins for the first time, explaining how it works, because otherwise no new player is doing allat

 

[capybara]

It seems a bit unfair to charge the same high prices for keeping up towns on all three continents. Kalros doesn't have as many people playing and doesn't see as much action as the other continents. So, making towns there cost the same as the ones with more players doesn't seem right. This update could and most likely would, lead Kalros to be a wasteland.

Similarly, the same standards for all towns, regardless of their focus, doesn’t seem entirely fair. Build-focused towns have different goals, not necessarily focused on recruiting players for PvP or conquest. They shouldn't be held to identical standards. So, I've been thinking of a solution:

Categorizing towns into groups, such as 'Build Towns' and 'PvP-Centric Towns.' Build Towns could have specific regulations, like limiting the number of players they can warp in Conquest, owning a smaller number of tiles, altering their industries output, etc. In exchange, their town upkeep costs wouldn't be the same as PvP-Centric Towns, who often have more players, which would justify them paying more.

no bro let the towns fallllll thanks gng appreciate it, the crown gank squad will pull up to the dead towns for fun ganks for rewarding loot!!!!!

 

[Babysoy]

ong blisterz theres like 50 of them at this point with 1 active and that are somehow still alive

Skill issue.

 

[Swin]

LOL

 

[Hypotemabus]

I absolutely agree with the changes and what it set out to remedy.

I sort of hold a dual residence in both Sandsete and Seafire Foundry, and move between them to work on joint project, build stuff and trade resources. Kettlemoth has also accompanied me from Seafire.

I like being able to work between towns as a way of contributing to the community, strengthening trade, sharing knowledge, making friends, but also just seeing and being part of some of the cool stuff people have on the server!

I have had a few reflections on potential ideas.

First idea, given that movement between towns might be a little more restrictive for players with ownership positions, one option could be changes to the temp builder time limit to allow for more lengthy excursions for larger projects.

Second idea, perhaps a new kind of broader dual citizenship mechanic that could be as extensive or limited as needed. Something like this may also be in part a way for players to move between continents to take part in the most active pvp opportunities and wars. Makes me think of Norsemen moving to Constantinople to form the Varangian Guard.

 

[Zachary_N_Kaleno]

Second idea, perhaps a new kind of broader dual citizenship mechanic that could be as extensive or limited as needed.

I'm unsure about this honestly, the whole point of making towns cost more and ownership more difficult, is to make players more loyal to towns. Having players split loyalty would be completely regressive in the direction the server seems to be heading.

While I do think a dual citizenship mechanic would be cool, I don't think it would match with the idea the server is heading. Towards Singular town loyalty.

 

[mads64]

It seems a bit unfair to charge the same high prices for keeping up towns on all three continents. Kalros doesn't have as many people playing and doesn't see as much action as the other continents. So, making towns there cost the same as the ones with more players doesn't seem right. This update could and most likely would, lead Kalros to be a wasteland.

Similarly, the same standards for all towns, regardless of their focus, doesn’t seem entirely fair. Build-focused towns have different goals, not necessarily focused on recruiting players for PvP or conquest. They shouldn't be held to identical standards. So, I've been thinking of a solution:

Categorizing towns into groups, such as 'Build Towns' and 'PvP-Centric Towns.' Build Towns could have specific regulations, like limiting the number of players they can warp in Conquest, owning a smaller number of tiles, altering their industries output, etc. In exchange, their town upkeep costs wouldn't be the same as PvP-Centric Towns, who often have more players, which would justify them paying more.

i like this. heavy restrictions on everything you mentioned though, so its not abused. build towns probably warp an average of 2 people a year tbh