Welcome to our Forums!

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

Implemented Prevent mercenary towns from starting attacks on their home continent if they leave their alliance

Self-explanatory title, why should mercenary towns, which are supposed to have relinquished their rights to capturing territories on home continent for the entire month, be allowed to capture territories if they leave or their alliance gets disbanded?
 

koi0001

Well-Known Member
Guardian
why should mercenary towns, which are supposed to have relinquished their rights to capturing territories on home continent for the entire month, be allowed to capture territories if they leave or their alliance gets disbanded?
Because they're now unable to rejoin an alliance throughout the entire month and no longer a mercenary town.

Why do you believe this is unfair?
 

scotrian

Well-Known Member
Sentry
Community Rep
Self-explanatory title, why should mercenary towns, which are supposed to have relinquished their rights to capturing territories on home continent for the entire month, be allowed to capture territories if they leave or their alliance gets disbanded?
windows so why we snitching now WTF
 
Because they're now unable to rejoin an alliance throughout the entire month and no longer a mercenary town.

Why do you believe this is unfair?
Imagine you are having a wonderful balak month, winning every single fight because you are completely undisturbed at home, and suddenly an alliance disbands for whatever reason. Suddenly, the towns that were in the now-disbanded alliance are threatening your peaceful month at home!!! If you make the choice to fight on another continent, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences of your alliance disbanding (make sure the alliance you join has good leaders idk), and in any case, alliances disbanding is still a pretty rare occurence...
 
yea do this to kill the server more if an alliance disbands the towns arent supposed to do anything for the rest of the month good idea!
if your alliance leader disbands it knowing nobody outside the main continent will be able to place neutrals then you joined a crap alliance lol
 

Cryptite

Elder
Staff member
Elder
So this all should already be working as intended. Players who fought anywhere would be locked to that Town, Alliance and World. If that means they were from Garama but fought on Kalros as a mercenary, then they are locked to Kalros and are unable to fight back home.

Unlocked players would be free to do whatever as they already can. If you lock as a mercenary and your alliance disbands, or kicks your town out, that is unfortunately too bad. It would not be fair for players to be able to bail out halfway through a month under any circumstance and turn around and suddenly fight on another continent. Those kinds of mid-month betrayals are why Conquest Locks exist as they do.
 

scotrian

Well-Known Member
Sentry
Community Rep
So this all should already be working as intended. Players who fought anywhere would be locked to that Town, Alliance and World. If that means they were from Garama but fought on Kalros as a mercenary, then they are locked to Kalros and are unable to fight back home.

Unlocked players would be free to do whatever as they already can. If you lock as a mercenary and your alliance disbands, or kicks your town out, that is unfortunately too bad. It would not be fair for players to be able to bail out halfway through a month under any circumstance and turn around and suddenly fight on another continent. Those kinds of mid-month betrayals are why Conquest Locks exist as they do.
Tbf in this case wasnt really a "betrayal", our alliance kinda imploded 😭
 

LightAndDqrk

Active Member
Slicer
Then shouldn't i be able to place on garama? makes 0 sense tbh, this weird stuff just keep killing the server
I absolutely agree with that, if we can't take tile after we leave the cross-alliance and we can't tile part in the continent where the cross-alliance is, it doesn't make sense.
 

Cryptite

Elder
Staff member
Elder
I absolutely agree with that, if we can't take tile after we leave the cross-alliance and we can't tile part in the continent where the cross-alliance is, it doesn't make sense.

You need to look at it from another point of view. Say you're a Garama Alliance fighting for capital and you know that several competing towns on Garama are mercenaries for Kalros and are powerful towns with lots of players. Suddenly 1 week before the month ends, those towns' alliances break apart on Kalros. Now they can come back to your continent and fight you and possibly win when the entire month you expected them to be locked to Kalros.

Is that fair?

When you decide to be a mercenary you accept the risks that entails. It's no different than individual players moving to Kalros, locking there, but then deciding to move back to Garama. They can't fight on Garama for the rest of the month.
 

ZyeMist

New Member
So this all should already be working as intended.
Was there an update you made in the last day or so to implement this? Currently there are a few towns, on both Ascalon and Kalros, who were merc towns for Southern Raiders (Garama alliance that exploded) and now hold tiles back on their home continents.
 

Cryptite

Elder
Staff member
Elder
Was there an update you made in the last day or so to implement this? Currently there are a few towns, on both Ascalon and Kalros, who were merc towns for Southern Raiders (Garama alliance that exploded) and now hold tiles back on their home continents.

Towns are not locked, individuals are. So if there were members of towns back on their home continents that never locked, then they are free to do Conquest as usual.
 

ZyeMist

New Member
Towns are not locked, individuals are. So if there were members of towns back on their home continents that never locked, then they are free to do Conquest as usual.
But like... eldritchbot logs definitely show people who were locked warping to those neutrals
 
Back
Top