Suggestion Conquest Ideas

[ReformedPheonix]

Hello fellow epic gamers!!!!!!

Conquest is pretty broken/unbalanced. I've experienced my fair share of Loka fights,

so I wouldn't consider myself a rookie when it comes down to it. Here are my main points below:

-Defense in its current state is too easy, creates a very difficult situation for the attackers, even when the attackers have a noticeable skill advantage

One of the biggest ways we can see this is to see Valyria vs Seagulls fights.

https://eldritchbot.com/fight?id=HJZWdTdLQ

We would routinely average more kills and were largely seen as the more skilled side. But the overpoweredness of the modules, and the fact that we were outnumbered meant the odds of winning these fights was little to none. The defenders were able to routinely bail themselves out of losing trades by sitting in lingering death. I'm pretty sure y'all are aware how damning accidentally walking into a lingering death is, and it is pretty hard to survive lingering death for 10 seconds whilst also tanking potential multiple fighters.If we even dared to make a push or even get hit by a golem at all we would get toss backed, hit with mining fatigue and slowed which again just makes winning a 7v12 much more difficult, especially when you consider every 8 minutes they're constantly able to bring everyone back. Sure, it dosen't help us to have 2 players without kills, but they have 4 out of 12 players with kills, with 1 making up 11 of them. , I am aware you all know how damning accidentally walking into a lingering death is, and it is pretty hard to survive lingering death for 10 seconds whilst also tanking potential multiple fighters.

Valyria versus SeaGulls

Battle for the The Rivi Shores with 23 participants.

eldritchbot.com

Taking it to a different time period. These fights also reinforce my point. The attackers, despite being similarly numbered, stood no real chance against a four module defense, and got dominated.





These aren't isolated incidents either. I could go through eldritch bot logs and probably pull out hundreds of these.


One more for good measure:





It is very important to note, that this doesn't happen all the time. There are times when the attackers overcome the odds and win the defenders. In theory, on an equal-person, near equal skill "war", the defenders should win about 60% of the time. That's usually not true. Either the attackers, (In the recent last big conquests I was apart of, this would be Best in the West, who fought on mainly attack) win about 95% of the time, or the defenders win 95% of the time (Noobville in South Valyria, Seagulls, Covenant, Silverhand, etc.) The attackers simply have to massively out skill their opponent to overcome the strength of the modules. Which leads into my next point

-Conquest is way too module-centric and needs more actual pvp. The modules are just too strong and there may be too many of them.

In my opinion, let me do a rundown of the modules

Spectral- Very overloaded and a must have. You are basically trolling by not having it, because I argue it does the most out of any modules. Its ability to show show charges, low health, and remove invis makes it OP. Maybe let it do one of those things.

DBA- too OP given that it outputs passively and not on hit and it's effects are have a large impact. Maybe change it to when you kill a golem. That would make it so you are punished if you take a charge and don't intend on sitting on a lamp. I'm not 100% sure about how to fix this one.

Lingering Death- bleed to powerful. Perhaps make it so it only bleeds while your in its radius. That still leaves the possibility of risky plays and moves whilst still punishing people who chose to move through it.

Laser, TNT, Slowness- Very weak, they should be looked at being reworked or removed.

Vicious Attack -Unknown

Rallying Charge - omegalul. Deserves to probably be under Laser, TNT, and Slowness in terms of uselessness.

Presumably, Loka wants to incentive strategy, and part of that strategy involves how you mod your tgen. but there is really little strategy to be had. There's a holy trinity of mods, Spectral, DBA, and Lingering Death, and there's probably a small chance you'd use one outside of those three. Also, I find it quite odd that the attacking inhibitor is forced to take defensive modules. Those defense modules aren't actually helping in doing their job, and it should be remembered the attackers aren't supposed to defend. If they find themselves in a defense scenario, they should be punished by not being able to have defense modules. Here are some ideas of attacking modules:

On warp, disable enemy tgen modules for 30 seconds - 1 minute
A module that directly reduces the effectiveness of tgen modules, to prevent stacking of the same module and variety
A module that reduces the effectiveness of debuffs in either reduced duration(recommended) or reduced effectiveness.
A module that gives regen II for 10 secs after an defense warp/Str III for 10-15 secs after a defensive warp (although I could def see this one getting out of hand)

Here is a way to also make attack a little bit more reasonable for the attackers.

In addition to a nerf/rework of the modules, reduce to amount of defensive modules to two and keep the attacking module at 1. This still provides a defensive advantage because you have two modules, four lamps, and still a core. 4 defensive modules is a lot to be dealing with, and having two at all is still a huge advantage. Giving the attackers also an actual attacking module should make a very noticeable difference and give the attackers certain windows to get kills/force the defenders to adapt.

Proposed Option #2

2 attacking modules, and 4 defensive modules.

Along with nerfed defensive modules, this could definitely be a viable option. It's a little bit less fair than proposed option #1, but still a step in the right direction

Proposed Option #3

1 attacking module, 4 defensive modules

Probably the easiest out of the three to implement as this is our current setup with the addition of an attacking module. In this scenario, the attacking module would need to be pretty powerful, and the 4 defensive modules would need to be weak-medium in effectiveness.


-Conclusion

Conquest in its current state involves usually one side stomping another on, and that generally happens for the side that is able to defend. Defense is way too easy as a result of very powerful modules, and no attacking modules. In my opinion, there needs to be some mini or large scale conquest rework before we can really get a good system in place.

 

[FateStay]

I would agree with a lot of this and I like how you didnt just complain but also thought and gave some ideas.

 

[Qfu]

preach girl !!!! +1

 

[Aressem]

just let the server die tbh

 

[ReformedPheonix]

ayo where is brother magpie and cryptite

 

[Cryptite]

Mag's out all week, then I leave at the end of this week for a week myself. Mag said he'd like to respond once he gets back. As well, we usually like to see if these threads play out for a little bit while people bring out their opinions and gather data, etc.

As for modules being the problem, having personally watched a lot of different fights over the past couple of months, it seems that skill, teamwork, and coordination are still the biggest thing getting people wins. Modules have an effect, certainly, but I don't personally feel they're nearly as problematic as your case makes them out to be.

That said, something I do agree with you on, personally, is that the current meta is a little too fixed and stagnated atm. Spectral/DBA/2x lingering are pretty common to see these days and the rest are situational, but rarely used. I'd like to pull some data on the current loadout of active modules these days and see what the numbers say. Fortunately we're in the maturity-stage of Conquest where we both have lots of data and can use it to make better-informed decisions. This lets us create a more balanced system backed by statistics, which is better for everyone in the long run.

 

[ReformedPheonix]

Mag's out all week, then I leave at the end of this week for a week myself. Mag said he'd like to respond once he gets back. As well, we usually like to see if these threads play out for a little bit while people bring out their opinions and gather data, etc.

As for modules being the problem, having personally watched a lot of different fights over the past couple of months, it seems that skill, teamwork, and coordination are still the biggest thing getting people wins. Modules have an effect, certainly, but I don't personally feel they're nearly as problematic as your case makes them out to be.

That said, something I do agree with you on, personally, is that the current meta is a little too fixed and stagnated atm. Spectral/DBA/2x lingering are pretty common to see these days and the rest are situational, but rarely used. I'd like to pull some data on the current loadout of active modules these days and see what the numbers say. Fortunately we're in the maturity-stage of Conquest where we both have lots of data and can use it to make better-informed decisions. This lets us create a more balanced system backed by statistics, which is better for everyone in the long run.

Obviously its a culmination of issues why you lose a fight. It's impossible to say one thing definitively lost you a fight in my opinion. That being said, I think modules affect the outcome of the fight too much, especially in the beginning of the attack. The first pushes tend to be the most punishing as they should be, but too many times are the defenders carried by the modules of their tgen then actually the skill and teamwork that they show. For the longest time I was forced to attack versus people with full modded tgens, and whilst the modules have been getting better, I still think they have a too large and too harsh of an impact on the end result. The winner of the fight should be who fought better as a team and displayed more skill, not how many meat shields I can bring to use bows and sit on the bleed.

 

[Magpieman]

First off wanted to say thank you for the time and effort you have put into the post. Feedback like this helps us change things on Loka for the better. While I don't agree with the relevancy of all the data shown, I really appreciate you taking the time and including it alongside the points you make.

Your first main point is that defence is too easy and overpowered. While defending should provide a slight advantage, we obviously do not want this advantage to be too large or it would disincentivise people placing inhibs and initiating fights. The reason we want defenders to have a slight advantage is partly to encourage them holding land/generators, but also because the attackers are able to choose when the fight takes place and therefore can maximise the number of participants they bring. It seems we both agree that in an ideal world, roughly 60% of the time the defenders should win, as you mentioned here.

In theory, on an equal-person, near equal skill "war", the defenders should win about 60% of the time. That's usually not true.

I have taken all the data from this years fights that have 31 participants or more, and it shows an almost perfect a 60/40 split. Other than handpicked fights where there are various external factors, I see no evidence that attackers are at too much of a disadvantage.

Of this data sample, every single fight was won by the side with the greater number of participants, with the exception of one. Ironically the exception was a win for the attackers despite being outnumbered.

https://eldritchbot.com/fight?id=H1x62Hh@4

Whether the side with the greater numbers should be winning more or not is another conversation entirely. However, having a better win rate with more participants generally has a positive effect on the server. It encourages people to recruit new players to the server and means there is no disadvantage to bringing bad PvPers to the fight, meaning nobody misses out on the action. The last thing we want is people being told not to come to fights because they aren't good enough.

The second major point you make is that conquest is too module focused and modules are too strong. I don't think the power level is too far off on the most part. It's important that modules are impactful as they cost a large number of resources and they help to make fights play out differently depending on the modules used. However, I do agree that we can make various changes to them to shake up the meta and bring their power level even closer to one another. One of the main problems with the meta is, in reality, there are only 2 players pushing the meta forward. (the two major alliances) As a result, they quickly develop an opinion on what is 'best' and rarely change because they are not exposed to other strategies. Probably also because they are high stakes fights so they do not want to test other module setups during them and also fights are long so it's not very practical to test. There is the added issue that changing modules comes at a cost so it can be expensive to change up your strategy.

Spectral - This module has been very polarising over its history. It is either a must use or never use. I could see us removing one of its abilities to bring it in line with other modules.

DBA - Lot's of tweaks that could be made here. Either reducing the number of times it triggers, reducing the debuff, or even switching its effect with the vicious attack module. (So DBA would trigger when golems tp to you and vicious attack would happen when you are close to golems)

Lingering Death - I could see us reducing the length of the bleed effect further or only having it do greater damage but only when you are within its radius. I feel this module only needs minor tweaks. Reading your latest post it seems the problem you have with it is defenders gaining safety while inside. Could perhaps somehow prevent defenders being stationary inside the zone?

Laser - This is far stronger than people give it credit. Due to its single target effect, it is much weaker in larger battles but can carry smaller fights. Granted on Balak it tends not to work well, but outside of that it is strong. Could see us making it even better at single target damage, or always target the lowest health player but I think it still has a place in conquest.

TNT - Again stronger than people believe. It's targeting is much more accurate than it used to be back in the day, and does large damage/knockback. Can always tweak it further by increasing range or explosion/damage or reducing the time until it detonates.

Slowness - This was always intended to be an alternative zone of control module to lingering death. Perhaps with a small nerf to lingering death and a small buff to this they will put them on the same power level.

Vicious Attack - I think the main reason this sees little use is due to the perceived power of DBA.

Rallying Charge - Our first attempt at a module encouraging more aggressive play. The concept is cool, but I would agree it's far too weak of an effect.

I do really like the idea of having a unique set of modules for the attacking side. Modules that focus on attacking and being aggressive. It could be an interesting way to prevent metas from becoming stale by having these attacking modules directly counter certain defensive module strategies. Obviously, this would be something we'd have to be careful how we implement so they are not blatant decisions every time. Something that may be worth considering is allowing both sides to change modules 1 hour prior to the fight and they cannot see the other one's choice until they have both picked. Would create some fun mind games, as well as being an effective way of preventing the same strategy being spammed.

You mention that one side often stomps another. I wonder if that is partly because golems spawn in too quickly, allowing a side to almost destroy all modules once they team wipe the enemies. I have noticed lamps going down very quickly when watching fights. Would you agree with this?

In conclusion, while I don't agree that defenders have an enormous advantage, I still think it's important we encourage people attacking. Otherwise, we end up with a standoff between both sides and no fighting happens. I don't think conquest requires a giant rework, but small tweaks to module balance and perhaps golem spawn times would put it in a really good place. The concept of attacking modules is a cool one and something I would like to explore. I'd be curious to know what people think of both sides picking the modules at the same time, or whether attackers should be able to see what modules the defenders are using and pick something that best counters it. Would also love to hear further ideas on what some of the attacking modules could do.

Again a big thanks for taking the time to make this post Pheonix. Getting feedback like this helps a ton!

 

[Cryptite]

Could be interesting to have a system whereby both sides could choose to pick different modules anytime within the 1 hour fight online, if they wanted to change them. This change-up should be free since you already paid the cost of the mods. Then, perhaps a minute before the fight starts, the module changes go up and all participants see the changed modules.

Mostly spitballing, but I appreciate you kicking off this debate Pheonix.

 

[ReformedPheonix]

First off wanted to say thank you for the time and effort you have put into the post. Feedback like this helps us change things on Loka for the better. While I don't agree with the relevancy of all the data shown, I really appreciate you taking the time and including it alongside the points you make.

Your first main point is that defence is too easy and overpowered. While defending should provide a slight advantage, we obviously do not want this advantage to be too large or it would disincentivise people placing inhibs and initiating fights. The reason we want defenders to have a slight advantage is partly to encourage them holding land/generators, but also because the attackers are able to choose when the fight takes place and therefore can maximise the number of participants they bring. It seems we both agree that in an ideal world, roughly 60% of the time the defenders should win, as you mentioned here.



I have taken all the data from this years fights that have 31 participants or more, and it shows an almost perfect a 60/40 split. Other than handpicked fights where there are various external factors, I see no evidence that attackers are at too much of a disadvantage.

Of this data sample, every single fight was won by the side with the greater number of participants, with the exception of one. Ironically the exception was a win for the attackers despite being outnumbered.

https://eldritchbot.com/fight?id=H1x62Hh@4

Whether the side with the greater numbers should be winning more or not is another conversation entirely. However, having a better win rate with more participants generally has a positive effect on the server. It encourages people to recruit new players to the server and means there is no disadvantage to bringing bad PvPers to the fight, meaning nobody misses out on the action. The last thing we want is people being told not to come to fights because they aren't good enough.

The second major point you make is that conquest is too module focused and modules are too strong. I don't think the power level is too far off on the most part. It's important that modules are impactful as they cost a large number of resources and they help to make fights play out differently depending on the modules used. However, I do agree that we can make various changes to them to shake up the meta and bring their power level even closer to one another. One of the main problems with the meta is, in reality, there are only 2 players pushing the meta forward. (the two major alliances) As a result, they quickly develop an opinion on what is 'best' and rarely change because they are not exposed to other strategies. Probably also because they are high stakes fights so they do not want to test other module setups during them and also fights are long so it's not very practical to test. There is the added issue that changing modules comes at a cost so it can be expensive to change up your strategy.

Spectral - This module has been very polarising over its history. It is either a must use or never use. I could see us removing one of its abilities to bring it in line with other modules.

DBA - Lot's of tweaks that could be made here. Either reducing the number of times it triggers, reducing the debuff, or even switching its effect with the vicious attack module. (So DBA would trigger when golems tp to you and vicious attack would happen when you are close to golems)

Lingering Death - I could see us reducing the length of the bleed effect further or only having it do greater damage but only when you are within its radius. I feel this module only needs minor tweaks. Reading your latest post it seems the problem you have with it is defenders gaining safety while inside. Could perhaps somehow prevent defenders being stationary inside the zone?

Laser - This is far stronger than people give it credit. Due to its single target effect, it is much weaker in larger battles but can carry smaller fights. Granted on Balak it tends not to work well, but outside of that it is strong. Could see us making it even better at single target damage, or always target the lowest health player but I think it still has a place in conquest.

TNT - Again stronger than people believe. It's targeting is much more accurate than it used to be back in the day, and does large damage/knockback. Can always tweak it further by increasing range or explosion/damage or reducing the time until it detonates.

Slowness - This was always intended to be an alternative zone of control module to lingering death. Perhaps with a small nerf to lingering death and a small buff to this they will put them on the same power level.

Vicious Attack - I think the main reason this sees little use is due to the perceived power of DBA.

Rallying Charge - Our first attempt at a module encouraging more aggressive play. The concept is cool, but I would agree it's far too weak of an effect.

I do really like the idea of having a unique set of modules for the attacking side. Modules that focus on attacking and being aggressive. It could be an interesting way to prevent metas from becoming stale by having these attacking modules directly counter certain defensive module strategies. Obviously, this would be something we'd have to be careful how we implement so they are not blatant decisions every time. Something that may be worth considering is allowing both sides to change modules 1 hour prior to the fight and they cannot see the other one's choice until they have both picked. Would create some fun mind games, as well as being an effective way of preventing the same strategy being spammed.

You mention that one side often stomps another. I wonder if that is partly because golems spawn in too quickly, allowing a side to almost destroy all modules once they team wipe the enemies. I have noticed lamps going down very quickly when watching fights. Would you agree with this?

In conclusion, while I don't agree that defenders have an enormous advantage, I still think it's important we encourage people attacking. Otherwise, we end up with a standoff between both sides and no fighting happens. I don't think conquest requires a giant rework, but small tweaks to module balance and perhaps golem spawn times would put it in a really good place. The concept of attacking modules is a cool one and something I would like to explore. I'd be curious to know what people think of both sides picking the modules at the same time, or whether attackers should be able to see what modules the defenders are using and pick something that best counters it. Would also love to hear further ideas on what some of the attacking modules could do.

Again a big thanks for taking the time to make this post Pheonix. Getting feedback like this helps a ton!

1. So I went through and looked at a couple of the eldritch bot fights from this year, 31+ participants and saw that conquest fights, atleast from these eldritch bot fights aren't close. They're steamrolls that have tended to be in the defense favour. Not all fights or like this though and there are some close ones. Ex. https://eldritchbot.com/fight?id=Bk4GmAr04. This happend to be a fight where the defenders were outnumbered and lost. However most times atleast that I saw, the defense had more people, and tended to win more. Atleast it is good that it is remaining 60% defense wins and 40% attack wins, but its looking like the attack dominates the defense or the defense dominates the attackers, the latter of which is more common. That dosen't look very good, as these are two pretty evenly matched sides (we've traded wins and losses before)

I think modules are good because whilst they do help good pvpers, they make it easier for the bad ones to do better. It is easier to fight when your always being buffed then just regular pvp. For example on Balak, Jotun was able to win majority of the gank fights because we seemingly had a lot more people who were good fighting without modules.

Nextly Modules. I understand that modules are pretty powerful and expensive, but it hurts the attack too much and there's' little to no meta. Modules shouldn't be overloaded like spectral, or very underpowered like slow.

One of the major reasons that there is a meta developed by the two big alliances is because people sort of feel forced to join these big alliances. We saw before conquest 3 that there was alot of spread, and people were reluctant to leave their continents to join a greater fight. A big example of this is EP and Stromgarde. Stromgarde remained fighting on Kalros even though we wanted them to help us on Ascalon--however once Balak came around they helped us to try and win world cap. People join up on one of the two sides to win World cap, and enjoy the conquest/perks that come with winning. So I have a crazy solution to that problem. Let everyone onto Balak.

Obviously we couldnt let everyone onto Balak because the island is just not big enough for that. Let the top 2 towns from each continent onto Balak + the top winner on Rivina. I'm not sure of the logistics of this but in theory this would break the "big alliance meta" Tons of different towns would be allowed onto Balak and get the chance to win world cap. This would encourage continental pvp cause you wouldn't need to join one of the two major alliance to be on balak.

Modules: A quick overview of how I feel about them updated with the recent fights

Spectral: Still too strong. Look at suggested changes in the post

DBA: Too strong. Should be on golem hit on on golem kill.

LD: Too strong. Perhaps make it so the bleed only affects in its radius.

Laser: Don't change. I realize I said it was bad, but it has an underrated usage in lower people fights. Just because it dosen't help mega alliances dosent mean its a bad module. Don't change good.

TNT: People have complained how good it is but ive never really been affected so imma drop a fat idk

Slowness: Maybe give speed I whilst in its radius. It could be used to escape attackers or something like that

VA: N/A

Rallying Charge: N/A. Perhaps give something like regen/or resistance/a strength buff etc

Golem 100% spawn in too fast. I've noticed that as soon as you get a big clean all of a sudden we are into the core or very close. Make it so you are forced to take charges whilst fighting to take advantage of a clean. Attacking modules would also make it easier to clean so golems should take more time to spawn. +1 that.

EDIT: I did not read what Cryptite put down. I would be interested in that. That would also make sense since one idea that has been tossed around for attacking modules is a mod that weakens the effect of an defensive module. There, the defense can decide whether or not its still worth to keep the module if it is going to be weakened. Good idea imo

EDIT: DBA is overpowered as heck!!!! So annoying prevents so many kills and creates so many opportunities to be killed.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate that you guys are open to conquest ideas.

 

[Cryptite]

in theory this would break the "big alliance meta"

There will always be a big alliance meta. This is pretty much an objective truth and there have been quite a few debates throughout the forums about this exact topic. The simple fact of human nature is that there will always be two predominant sides. This even has parallels in the real-world today, even with the giant number of countries throughout the world.

I'm not shooting down the greater Balak participation idea with this response, but just pointing out that in the entire history of the server, there've always been, and always will be two sides. After the Jotun crew's most recent departure, you've seen old members of Iblis go to other sides just to even the spice, but I guarantee you if Malen and crew returned, they would return to Iblis/Cov and the Horses in order to fight back. Minor skirmishes and border-disputes happen all the time, and should do, but at some point, everybody gets pulled into a side and that's okay.

Perhaps the great naivete of Balak is that it's currently designed to support up to a 5-team fight, as it were. Of course this is the least likely scenario, but as we've noticed, it's hardly ever even a 3-person fight. This is partly because Loka's population is low and often the same groups of players are fighting each other, but even a new faction that could challenge the current incumbents would only disrupt the landscape for at most a month or two until the current "veterans" would decide to band together to face the new threat.

 

[ReformedPheonix]

There will always be a big alliance meta. This is pretty much an objective truth and there have been quite a few debates throughout the forums about this exact topic. The simple fact of human nature is that there will always be two predominant sides. This even has parallels in the real-world today, even with the giant number of countries throughout the world.

I'm not shooting down the greater Balak participation idea with this response, but just pointing out that in the entire history of the server, there've always been, and always will be two sides. After the Jotun crew's most recent departure, you've seen old members of Iblis go to other sides just to even the spice, but I guarantee you if Malen and crew returned, they would return to Iblis/Cov and the Horses in order to fight back. Minor skirmishes and border-disputes happen all the time, and should do, but at some point, everybody gets pulled into a side and that's okay.

Perhaps the great naivete of Balak is that it's currently designed to support up to a 5-team fight, as it were. Of course this is the least likely scenario, but as we've noticed, it's hardly ever even a 3-person fight. This is partly because Loka's population is low and often the same groups of players are fighting each other, but even a new faction that could challenge the current incumbents would only disrupt the landscape for at most a month or two until the current "veterans" would decide to band together to face the new threat.

Big alliances are always going to exist, yes, even when I arrived Covenant dominated most of Ascalon, and Iblis most of Kalros, and it took a large amount of recruiting and friendships to break Cov's hold. However, with more people allowed to head to Balak, this would make it so we all don't have to join one side to fight on balak, we can all be split and still enjoy competing over Balak buffs. The days of when we joined, is an ideal situation, there were 3 continents full of conquest and different sides all competing. Let's be honest, currently, The player who wins Rivina isn't going to compete on Balak. No other alliance other than the Oath of Flight and Iblis/Cov are going to compete as of rn.

 

[NerdieBirdieYT]

Big alliances are always going to exist, yes, even when I arrived Covenant dominated most of Ascalon, and Iblis most of Kalros, and it took a large amount of recruiting and friendships to break Cov's hold. However, with more people allowed to head to Balak, this would make it so we all don't have to join one side to fight on balak, we can all be split and still enjoy competing over Balak buffs. The days of when we joined, is an ideal situation, there were 3 continents full of conquest and different sides all competing. Let's be honest, currently, The player who wins Rivina isn't going to compete on Balak. No other alliance other than the Oath of Flight and Iblis/Cov are going to compete as of rn.

This whole thread goes over my head but I’d just like to point something out, which I think Mag was saying too.

“However, with more people allowed to head to Balak, this would make it so we all don't have to join one side to fight on balak, we can all be split and still enjoy competing over Balak buffs.”

This cannot happen. The playerbase is not big enough to split Balak like this. Sure, we have enough players for it, but not enough Towns/people who would fight hard enough. Getting to Balak is a decent challenge already, and not many Towns do it. There simply aren’t enough Towns that can put up any kind of challenge for the Towns who already fight for Balak.

That’s just my two cents and maybe we’re talking about shellfish or something totally different Idk man I’m just trying to help ;-;

 

[ReformedPheonix]

“However, with more people allowed to head to Balak, this would make it so we all don't have to join one side to fight on balak, we can all be split and still enjoy competing over Balak buffs.”

Not necessarily. Part of the reason why so many people joined into big alliances and large towns is because of Balak, they wanted to benefit from the Balak buffs along with the conquest that was quickly being drained out of the continents. With more towns being able to access the Balak, the people apart of these huge alliances could form towns and do continental fights, while still being able to compete over Balak. The easy fix to big alliances and town (and Balak) is to prevent alot of people from allying, but we obviously cannot do that. The time before Balak had alot of different towns on every continent fighting and alot of different people fighting.