So yea i know t his probably wont get added but we need this back. No territory cap or higher cap. Now all u need is to neutralize. But that isn't fun. Its funner where u need to take land and hold it. You need to think of the right plays ( i know sounds cringe) to cut off people. So bring back the good old days. if not just bump up the cap so u can do that stuff then just neutralizing stuff.
Welcome to our Forums!
Type /register while in-game to register for a forum account.
No Plans to Implement good ol days
- Thread starter Logic_ES
- Start date
Yea i know they can atleast bump the cap up
Yeah that's probably not going to happen, even bumping up the cap is unlikely. New players just look at the map go "There is no where to settle" and they are off because they don't want to disturb the giant blobs that are on the continent.
I don't think the sole reason against unlimited territory control is wanderers wanting to make towns, there are several means to get around this. In just a couple of minutes these are some rough idea's I had:
- shortening the time it takes to start a fight activated by a wanderer
- making it impossible for towns to teleport to these nomad fights, forcing them to walk or fly
You also have to remember that as a nomad you probably don't fully understand the concepts of territory fights, node control or how to read the map, I didn't when I first started. It probably isn't a "huge" concern of theirs to avoid the large blobs of one colour.
While I do agree that it probably won't be restored, and quite frankly shouldn't be fully restored to the way it was, perhaps broadening the suggestion to add workarounds to the 30 territory cap that provide the benefits of both worlds. For example, if you had more than 30 territories territory decay could kick in, providing the benefits of taking land and holding it for a short time and a cleaner map. This would force more frequent fights and force players to choose their territories more wisely. Another idea could be exponential cost beyond 30 territories making it significantly more expensive to hold your earnings.
It only takes 15m to start a fight as a Nomad if you're not attacking a territory owned by a town. It's 60m at that point, because the town deserves the chance to be able to defend their territory. Most new towns are setup on neutrals.
-As with above, if they're attacking a neutral, towns already can't warp there.
This is already a world cap policy
Can't speak for anyone else but I think there being a "big bully" leads to larger conflicts and the rise and fall of mIGhTy eMpIReS. The EP rose because Nova bullied the towns, and after wiping the floor with him they set their sight on Eldritch, the big papa of Ascalon. This is the only example of this I've seen as that was the last example of it being possible, I'm sure though that similar situations have taken place before my time.
I can't say I've ever been a fan of the land cap as it doesn't really serve a purpose other than than helping nomads and arguably even then it doesn't help that much; encouraging nomads to make a town without doing their research is arguably worse than reducing the amount neutrals available.
I believe the reason this is encouraged is because when players join they always opt to make their own town without reading into how to, how difficult it is etc. I believe the fix to this is creating an environment where it's either easier to be a nomad or there's more incentive to add new random players to towns.
tl;dr: in the long run the territory cap isn't that useful imo
I do not know that the cap is necessarily encouraging new players to not do research before making a new town. I do, however, strongly agree with the notion that the cap is trying to solve a problem that does not really seem to exist. For that reason, I also agree with what Red said.
He said what I have been wondering to myself for some time.
How many nomads are really checking the map when they join the server? It seems increasingly unrealistic to suggest that that is what happens (and thus that it has directly led to an increase in new towns since being implemented), especially because of my own experience being similar to Red's. I was not exposed to the map until I was already in a town. If we agree that this is the general experience it starts to feel Iike the limit is arbitrary.
I would be curious to see if there is some hard information on this, because I think that would give us a better sense. I realize that it is unlikely such information is tracked.
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:
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.
- What problem am I trying to solve?
- How is 'x' going to solve the problem?
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.
??????
Thanielle
Well-Known Member
When i first joined the server properly and joined House Iron I saw Eldritch on the map and assumed it was just the default npc town or something because it was so big
Considerably different time, in current conquest towns need to be incredibly active to support massive land grabs. In C2 I recall people saying they were able to fund their towns mostly off industry outputs.
Personally, the reason I always try to promote attention towards PVE is I feel it's something new players could get into and allow them to become more invested in the server. I remember joining Loka and being lost and had no clue what was going on; this is the way I like it to be as it creates a environment which the players wants to explore and find out more.
If that wasn't concise and seemed as if it's a run on. I believe more attention to world development (the oceans update, unique mobs) creates an environment which is more friendly to new players.
Whenever it is that we finally release our "What Is Loka" YT video, all new players will be driven to watch that video which will have a bit in it about how to read the map. Hopefully that will help them tell where they can start a town. And if we allow unlimited territory control like we used to have; they'll look at the map and note there are few places to start one.
Nice Crypt! I love that idea. Although it was fun the first time I learned your TGen needed shards to keep the town alive.
Magpieman said:
If a loss in tactical management of territories is a problem then this is one way to potentially reintroduce it. In C2, often all territories were owned, meaning if you gained territory someone else lost it, which meant a lot of discussion around who could own what. The above idea would put a soft cap of 50% territory ownership continent wide, so similar dynamics from C2 would take place because there are less territories to go around than people want. Obviously the perk would have to be very strong to encourage that. This is just an idea off the top of my to explain how we can introduce mechanics to solve potential problems.
This is something we are starting to push and put work in behind the scenes. I agree that more PvE is something that would add a lot to the server, but we lacked the resources to add it in the past. So hold tight on that one, it will be coming.