Suggestions and feedback is great. While appreciated, it is frustrating when there is little thought put into them. When putting forward suggestions it's important to think of the following:
- What problem am I trying to solve?
- How is 'x' going to solve the problem?
From what I can tell the problems you are trying to solve are lack of incentive to start fights (as a result of not keeping the territory if at the cap of 30) and the lose of some tactical play when considering what land to take. What you feel will solve these is clearly removing or increasing the territory cap, but I'm not too sure how you think it will do this.
I feel yourself and others are not looking at the wider picture. Conquest 3 (C3) changed a lot of mechanics, not simply just adding a territory cap. I would argue the biggest of these changes was how world capital was decided (the 3 continent capitals fighting it out on Balak). I believe this is one of two the major factors creating the problem you describe. The other being players not wanting to fight. The server tends to go in waves in terms of war, this is currently a more peaceful time. The reasons for this is one or more of the following. Players being burnt out from previous large wars, politics changing (less 'enemies') and a lack of new blood on the server (a result of us not doing paid advertising in a while, which we plan to change very soon). World cap being decided on skill rather than farming small towns on your continent resulted in towns having to band together in bigger alliances to have a shot at winning world capital. Alliances being bigger means more allies on your continent and subsequently less enemies. Thus less fighting on continents.
Bountiful Territories were added post C3. This is a far bigger incentive to attack territories than simply the notion of owning a territory. Especially when you consider how small industry output was per territory in C2. While there have been some conflicts created as a result of Bountiful Territories, they have been few and far between. This further supports the argument that removing the territory cap is NOT going to suddenly increase fights on the server.
I believe the only thing removing the territory cap would accomplish is allowing the capital/big alliance on each continent to take 90% of the territories on the continent (like Eldritch in C2). It creates a win more mechanic where the best alliance at the time can obtain more resources than anyone else, module all their generators, control all the biomes, attract the most new members, and be so far ahead of everyone else that it is not possible to overcome them without a huge influx of new players to the server. I am unable to think of any benefits to come from removing the territory cap.
Some new mechanics we could look at adding are more ways to manipulate territory. Whether that be increasing the territory cap for yourself or restricting others cap for 'x' time after neutralising some of their territory. Perhaps some kind of continent perk if say 50% is neutral and belongs the wilds, to encourage neutralising fights and town meetings to decide which towns can have 'x' territories to maintain peace. The big question is what problem do players want solving. With this knowledge we can make design choices to tackle them.
At the end of the day there is only so much the fundamental mechanics can do to incentivize conflict. If players don't want to fight they wont, and that's fine. Lokan politics are very fragile and it only takes one person to flip everything on its head.