Welcome to our Forums!

Type /register while in-game to register for a forum account.

Implement in Future Make It Harder To Maintain A Town

Eyvah

Well-Known Member
There is so many afk towns on really good tiles on loka. To the point where town owners log on every 2 week for 30 minutes to keep the town alive and I dont think this makes sense. I respect Loka's history and all the time spent building the town but trying to keep it alive for a decade by logging on 30 minutes a month is pointless.


My suggestion is to make towns harder to maintain so whenever a town falls people can have the chance to raid it and get some old valuable items.

Also, In case its a very well built town admins can take a snapshot of the town right before it turns into a ruin in case new players make a town in that ruin and turn it into a grief.
 

Terryn_Greystone

Active Member
Slicer
I've been trying to keep my town alive so that I can continue building it.
Volterra has been the main reason I still play, and I want to see the project through.
I really don't think I would be able to keep the activity up any higher than it is. So it is very concerning for me that this is going to be a change that's happening soon. It probably means that I won't ever be able to finish it... It's really, really frustrating that there is a push to make keeping a town more difficult. Not everyone can have a big group of players.

Though, if this is going to happen and I just won't be able to finish it, then I'll probably just world download the town, pack up my stuff, and kill the town. Because I'm not gonna waste my time on something I can't even keep running for much longer.
 
Last edited:

FoxyBearGames

Well-Known Member
Guardian
I think that maybe the solution will lie in making it harder to get towns set up. For example, if it was super expensive to build your void storage or super expensive to start a town (big time sinks for initial levels) it'd make people think twice about their towns. Additionally, I think that making some kind of consistency penalty to towns who overexpand with towns of members out of nowhere could also be another option.

Maybe the cost to start a town should be increased as a test before the more major changes later (as we sort of tested alliance size limits).
 

cookieIm

Active Member
Muted
-1 there is very few towns left that even have “old valuable items” and when they do eventually fall it’s fun when the entire server is there. if they all fall within a week because the server made it harder to maintain towns then the economy would become worse than it already is and the server/player reaction to a town falling would be a lot less it a random town (towns that nomads make and just log off forever in) than an old town, hilo dong dank silverhand etc
 

Magpieman

Old One
Staff member
Old One
I've been trying to keep my town alive so that I can continue building it.
Volterra has been the main reason I still play, and I want to see the project through.
I really don't think I would be able to keep the activity up any higher than it is. So it is very concerning for me that this is going to be a change that's happening soon. It probably means that I won't ever be able to finish it... It's really, really frustrating that there is a push to make keeping a town more difficult. Not everyone can have a big group of players.

Though, if this is going to happen and I just won't be able to finish it, then I'll probably just world download the town, pack up my stuff, and kill the town. Because I'm not gonna waste my time on something I can't even keep running for much longer.
Activity is not the only metric we can use when it comes to making towns harder to maintain. The main one is the shard cost of towns with few or zero territories. Currently, there is effectively not cost to people leaving sleeper towns on all continents. We can also tweak how the activity mechanic works without increasing the required number to prevent some of the more cheesy ways to keep sleeper towns alive.
 

Terryn_Greystone

Active Member
Slicer
Activity is not the only metric we can use when it comes to making towns harder to maintain. The main one is the shard cost of towns with few or zero territories. Currently, there is effectively not cost to people leaving sleeper towns on all continents. We can also tweak how the activity mechanic works without increasing the required number to prevent some of the more cheesy ways to keep sleeper towns alive.
That makes sense. Something like that would definitely be more managable. I am happy to pay more shards, or even just having to get people on a bit more often. That doesn't seem nearly as daunting as the thought of having to get on five or so players each month to keep the town active.
 
Back
Top