No Plans to Implement Increasing the Maximum Territories

[Beetee_Latier]

In my opinion I think that the current maximum territories should be increased to 50-60 territories. The purpose of the max territories was to make the map look more claimable and available, so new players would go and create towns and feel like they could settle there. Usually, if somebody quits because they see a pretty full map and don't want to settle because of it, then they probably aren't going to play long either way, so we shouldn't hold back the rest of the server from expanding larger for those types of players. In my opinion, a more filled map will actually motivate people more to start new towns, because it creates a challenge and a clear goal for new towns.

Also, the main root of continental conquest was usually territorial disputes. With an empty map and large neutral buffer between towns, this completely eliminates the sense of competition between towns for territories, helping contribute to the issue of almost no continental wars anymore as a result. Also, one of the main goals on Loka for towns used to be to completely take over their continent, or own as much as they can. With the small current territory max, most towns are restricted to their surrounding biomes, making it so an amazing biome control no longer comes down to whoever is strongest on the continent, but rather who is inside or close to the biome.

Next, with much of Loka split into mega-alliances now, it most often forces these large towns in population to receive tiny industry outputs, while neutral towns can claim as much land as they want, and receive a ton more benefits for holding this land, while avoiding conquest. Large industry outputs should be based on who's the most powerful, not who's the most neutral and anti-conquest.

Lastly, if the territory max was to be larger (which I hope it is), land should be at a cheaper cost, because it would make it so smaller towns aren't as shy about claiming a land.

This is just some of the ideas I was thinking of and the reasoning why I think the current max should be brought up. Please leave any feedback or ideas of your own below, I'd be happy to discuss it more

 

[Walkers]

The territory cap is one of the few things that has worked from C3. Without the cap EP & Iblis would probably cover their continents

 

[Sparky___]

The territory cap is one of the few things that has worked from C3. Without the cap EP & Iblis would probably cover their continents

Definitely agree with this. Previously I thought the 30 cap would be quite detrimental, but it ultimately only puts Ascalon at a disadvantage, since it's the larger of the 3 continents. However, that being said, it's not like that disadvantage negatively affects the server. In fact, I'd argue that's why a large portion of the new towns on Loka have been founded on Ascalon. Though they have been mostly short lived, it's created a lot of opportunities for the Elysian Pact and other towns to engage with new players. I do agree, though, wholeheartedly, that territorial disputes were a large portion of how conflicts could arise and that efforts should be made to continually promote continental fights, as that is a core component of Loka, and what seems to be missing with Conquest 3.

 

[bat3415]

Next, with much of Loka split into mega-alliances now, it most often forces these large towns in population to receive tiny industry outputs, while neutral towns can claim as much land as they want, and receive a ton more benefits for holding this land, while avoiding conquest. Large industry outputs should be based on who's the most powerful, not who's the most neutral and anti-conquest.

This is a large point behind the territory cap, (at least in my opinion, not sure if it is shared by crypt or maggers) a reason for mega alliances to split themselves up, maybe one town wants territory that their alliance won't allow them to take, or wants higher industry outputs and their alliance wants to split territory between 5 or 6 towns. This territory cap gives those in that position a reason to split themselves off and take territory for themselves instead of staying in a mega-alliance.

 

[Beetee_Latier]

The territory cap is one of the few things that has worked from C3. Without the cap EP & Iblis would probably cover their continents

I'm proposing to change the continent cap to 50-60, which doesn't cover a continent. Also, I don't really think the cap has worked, as it has removed one of the main reasons for people to begin continental wars.

This is a large point behind the territory cap, (at least in my opinion, not sure if it is shared by crypt or maggers) a reason for mega alliances to split themselves up, maybe one town wants territory that their alliance won't allow them to take, or wants higher industry outputs and their alliance wants to split territory between 5 or 6 towns.

Yeah I get this, but at the same time realistically none of these mega alliances are going to split up because it would eliminate the one last war going on on Loka right now

 

[Beetee_Latier]

In fact, I'd argue that's why a large portion of the new towns on Loka have been founded on Ascalon. Though they have been mostly short lived, it's created a lot of opportunities for the Elysian Pact and other towns to engage with new players.

I do think having neutrals is good, but I feel like as of now there are so many that it lacks any sort of competition. Yes these new towns are being formed, but they are not living long because there is no longer milestones anymore in a way due to there being no territorial disputes. Before the cap, there were lots of milestone for these new towns to chase (which made them stay active) for example: claiming their first territory, claiming around their town, claiming their biome, etc etc. But without any sort of competition, it makes these milestones extremely easy to achieve, which makes the server uninteresting for these new towns to stick around.

 

[Donutified]

From personal experience, the territory cap has generally kept smaller towns safer from the behemoths of conquest (Such as Jotun and Silverhand), and ensures when people are starting up towns they are not overwhelmed by a completely full map. As a result of this, it welcomes new players and prompts them into the direction of conquest in a subtle yet effective way. Unfortunately, I'm gonna vote to keep the cap the same but I respect your decision and choice Bee.

 

[Beetee_Latier]

From personal experience, the territory cap has generally kept smaller towns safer from the behemoths of conquest (Such as Jotun and Silverhand), and ensures when people are starting up towns they are not overwhelmed by a completely full map.

If the territory cap was increased there would still be neutrals, it's not like I'm suggesting we remove the cap. And sure the larger alliances are obviously going to take up a lot of land, but 50-60 territories does NOT cover a continent, and neutralizing still exists, so the cap isn't protecting anyone.

As a result of this, it welcomes new players and prompts them into the direction of conquest in a subtle yet effective way.

I'd argue otherwise because the only conquest that these towns are pushed into the direction of are joining these mega alliances, which like bat said isn't a thing that we want.

I respect your decision and choice Bee.

Thanks!

Also just to clarify some of my points to everyone: I'm just saying we should increase the cap a little bit, to introduce some real competition other than becoming the capital of your continent. Because without any sort of competition, there isn't going to be continental conquest, and every new town that is created is going to either get sucked into a mega alliance or end up disbanding.

 

[Walkers]

If the territory cap was increased there would still be neutrals, it's not like I'm suggesting we remove the cap. And sure the larger alliances are obviously going to take up a lot of land, but 50-60 territories does NOT cover a continent, and neutralizing still exists, so the cap isn't protecting anyone.

I'd argue otherwise because the only conquest that these towns are pushed into the direction of are joining these mega alliances, which like bat said isn't a thing that we want.

Thanks!

Also just to clarify some of my points to everyone: I'm just saying we should increase the cap a little bit, to introduce some real competition other than becoming the capital of your continent. Because without any sort of competition, there isn't going to be continental conquest, and every new town that is created is going to either get sucked into a mega alliance or end up disbanding.

The lack of competition on continents was created by the politics of Balak. I don’t view the territory cap as the cause as it doesn’t stop people fighting

 

[Beetee_Latier]

The lack of competition on continents was created by the politics of Balak. I don’t view the territory cap as the cause as it doesn’t stop people fighting

I do agree that the politics of Balak do contribute a lot to the lack of continental conquest, but increasing the max territories one can hold would definitely ignite some competition for land. Also, I understand increasing the competition of land won't definitely create a ton of wars, but the very least it can do is create more incentive for people to fight again.

 

[Wizardteepot]

This is a large point behind the territory cap, (at least in my opinion, not sure if it is shared by crypt or maggers) a reason for mega alliances to split themselves up, maybe one town wants territory that their alliance won't allow them to take, or wants higher industry outputs and their alliance wants to split territory between 5 or 6 towns. This territory cap gives those in that position a reason to split themselves off and take territory for themselves instead of staying in a mega-alliance.

This was the whole reason Auru broke off from Iblis in the first place. We figured since Silverhand would want a large portion of land (I mean, I can't really blame them), any land that Auru also would want to take would be interfering with their land claims and hindering their growth towards the 30 territory cap. Now I'm hearing/watching Iblis kind of struggle to find a perfect medium to divide the territory cap between 5~6 towns, and I'm definitely glad I'm not a part of the problem.

The lack of competition on continents was created by the politics of Balak.

I agree with this statement. Because of the way Balak was structured, and how people were decided to fight on Balak, people moved continents to specifically fight on Big Boi. For example, Archer and a lot of Stromgarde moved to Ascalon to fight with Elysian Pact on Balak, much like Eldritch, Valentia, and Tortuga moved to Kalros to fight with Iblis on Balak. Even if you were to increase the territory cap, the major fighters on each continent are now on the same side because of Balak. The only ones left who would even fight on a continent are the smaller towns/alliances (Like Auru's and Althuan's alliance on Kalros) who don't have the fighters for continental conquest, or didn't want to be fighting to begin with. The Territory Cap change wouldn't change a thing.

50-60 territories does NOT cover a continent

This is where I have to respectfully disagree. I don't remember the exact numbers, but if I remember correctly, each continent hosts between 100 and 120 with Ascalon being the largest. Let's say Absolum Gilgalad (Auru/Althuan) and Iblis somehow peacefully agreed to divide up land evenly between the two alliances. Just with two alliances and this new cap you'd already cover all of Kalros, and the same would apply to the other two continents as well. This is specifically what Mag and Crypt DIDN'T want for Conquest 3, as more neutral land gave equal opportunities for new players and new towns to settle without a hassle, even if they are short-lived.

 

[ModernMozart1787]

The main problem with the territory cap is it makes conquest stale for small towns. The problem with removing it means almost no new towns altogether. I personally think that we need more growth in both conquest and town number. The only question is how to get both, and I'm not sure how to do that. I think that the C3 system is better than the C2 system, but it is still far from ideal, but if I think of a way, there will be a C4 suggestion forum post.