No Plans to Implement Raise or Change the Conquest 3 Territory Limit

[Kaph]

Hey guys,

Currently, there is a planned cap of 30 territories within an alliance or town. Before I go into this suggestion, I would like to say that I completely understand the reasoning behind implementing the territory cap - and I agree with many of those reasons.

That said, I believe that the actual limit of 30 is too low. First and foremost, towns should not be held to the same territorial standards as entire alliances. So, if anything comes off this suggestion, I believe that there should be separate territory limits for towns and alliances.

Having the limit affect both towns and alliance, and not vary between them, is a direct nerf to alliances. Whilst I don't think that nerfing mega-alliances is completely unjustified, this cap hits them way too hard. I am worried that lowering the power of an alliance (to this degree) would make Conquest - the backbone of the server - feel stale and, in some cases, repetitive.

Additionally, I believe that the 30-tile limit would unnaturally thwart the expansion of towns, especially those within an alliance. Nothing feels worse than having your town or alliance stagnate due to artificial limits - it just isn't fun. That is why, if the limit was higher, it would still adhere to the reasons behind its implementation, but wouldn't feel restrictive or oppressive. I personally believe that 40, or 45, is more well-rounded limit.

I am open to discussion about either raising the limit, or changing it so that it won't affect both towns and alliances. Thank you.

 

[OperaGhost2004]

I'm with Kaphox on this, I think 30 is fine for individual towns, but I think maybe 65 or something for alliances

 

[ModernMozart1787]

maybe you get more territories as your strength goes up?

 

[RedSkilZZ]

The limit wouldn't stagnate towns as each territory (at least from what I understand) would be worth more. The limiting of territory encourages new players to settle on land they would otherwise think is taken. While yes, it may make it seem less rewarding to own a small amount of territory, benefits will come in a different shape. When more towns are set up, Conquest will evolve beyond a two-player game. It would not limit Conquest (due to neutralizing fights) and will, in fact, promote it because new towns/alliances will be created.

Allowing towns/alliances to claim more land will make the map seem more 'established'. Thus would not allow for new towns to be created as easily and would not allow for these positive effects on the community.

 

[Adzy]

More towns, more fights!!!

 

[ModernMozart1787]

true.

 

[ModernMozart1787]

maybe 30 for individual towns is fine, but 30 per alliance is a bit too crippling. maybe it would be a good idea for alliances to have an average of 15 per town in the alliance, so an alliance with 2 towns has 30 territories, an alliance with 3 towns has 45, and keep going like that.

 

[Cryptite]

maybe 30 for individual towns is fine, but 30 per alliance is a bit too crippling. maybe it would be a good idea for alliances to have an average of 15 per town in the alliance, so an alliance with 2 towns has 30 territories, an alliance with 3 towns has 45, and keep going like that.

The most important to remember is that, functionally speaking, Alliances and Towns must be equal. There's a very good reason why Alliances and Towns both share the same attacks-per-day, reins calls, defenses, costs, and others. The idea is that 30 players should be strong whether they're one town of 30 or 3 towns of 10.

As a result, the Cap must be the same for both Towns and Alliances, regardless of whatever the number is. The minute you say Alliances can have more territories, it then becomes a massive advantage to make an Alliance, just so you can have more territories.

If the cap is a stickler for alliances, it's up to them to divide up the territory control.

 

[OperaGhost2004]

One problem is that there will be more neutral fights than player versus player fights. also, the larger the alliance is, the fewer each town can have. this makes no benefit to being a larger alliance. you will, of course, have more fighters, but i hardly see how this benefits anyone. take Eldritch, for example. they've spent ages building an empire, and now it will instantly be wiped out. i think that this completely ruins the thing of alliances only being attacked 7 times a day. that was implemented so that they would not be destroyed in one fell swoop. however, that is happening anyway.

on another note, if whole alliances can only have 30 territories, there will be a lot of neutrals t-gens, even after each one has 30 territories.
might the continents need to be smaller after this?

P. S. will the territory cap apply to big boi/ small boi?

Thanks for reading,

Opera

 

[Cryptite]

What's important to remember is that, in Conquest 3.0, there're some key changes coming to how getting Strength works on Continents:

• Claiming a Neutral is worth no strength.
• There will be no more half-strength fights.
• Meaning, attacking a town's territory, whether it's adjacent to yours or not, is worth full strength.

You get nothing by just expanding your territory control via neutrals. As a result, so long as the territory cap is over 7, the amount you can control is irrelevant.

Also, a major reason for the 30 cap is so that there are many more neutrals. We want the map to look (to new players) like there's room for new towns and factions to setup shop and carve their piece of the world out. We don't want the map to look 100% taken, as lots of players skip over Loka because the server looks "done", so to speak.

IIRC there will be a territory cap on Small Boi but not on Big Boi.

 

[OperaGhost2004]

out of curiosity, how do you get more strength if no other town has territory next to yours?

 

[Magpieman]

out of curiosity, how do you get more strength if no other town has territory next to yours?

You can attack any territory on your continent for strength. However you can't control it if its not next to you territories. Instead it is neutralised and you get strength.

 

[OperaGhost2004]

oh ok

thanks for clearing that up for me

 

[bat3415]

Hey guys,

Having the limit affect both towns and alliance, and not vary between them, is a direct nerf to alliances. Whilst I don't think that nerfing mega-alliances is completely unjustified, this cap hits them way too hard. I am worried that lowering the power of an alliance (to this degree) would make Conquest - the backbone of the server - feel stale and, in some cases, repetitive.

Additionally, I believe that the 30-tile limit would unnaturally thwart the expansion of towns, especially those within an alliance. Nothing feels worse than having your town or alliance stagnate due to artificial limits - it just isn't fun. That is why, if the limit was higher, it would still adhere to the reasons behind its implementation, but wouldn't feel restrictive or oppressive. I personally believe that 40, or 45, is more well-rounded limit.

Since I joined the server one of my main problems with conquest has been that there is no reason to NOT be in an alliance. You get more people in fights, more 6 minute timers(up until recently when that was changed) and there was no down side. A few months ago cost of territory maintenance was changed so as to break up the territory of mega alliances, and Eldritch and the Covenant comfortably paying for 115 territories is enough evidence that raising cost was not enough of a deterrent. I hope that this new territory limit, in combination with the lack of reinforcements on Big Boi island, will be enough reason to break Mega-Alliances up, or else force them to negotiate over who will hold how much territory.

 

[msittig]

What effect will this have on nomads? When I first joined Loka block protection was basically non-existent except at towns, so nomads could build basically anything, anywhere (hence my mountain hideout, Philosopher's Guild and tree house in Ascalon, and underwater hideout in Garama). But with the advent of the hexagon map and total control over all of Ascalon, like Cryptite said, the map became totally taken and building as a nomad (or wanderer, as most new players are) became basically impossible:hard to collect resources, hard to build. Will it be viable to be a productive nomad once again?

 

[Skuhoo]

Nomads can and always have been able to harvest and place blocks in foreign territory. There's nothing stopping them from making a house out in someone's territory aside from the risk of getting killed by another player.

 

[msittig]

Nomads can harvest blocks? Whenever I go to work on my old nomad builds I can break blocks but they don't drop anything, even blocks I just placed down. Lost a shulker box that way.

 

[ModernMozart1787]

r u a nomad now?

 

[nephist]

Alliances should not have to divide up territories like a small box of pizza, that would be discouraging players from making alliances on the server. If the territory capacity for a single town is 30 territories, then the capacity for alliances should be somewhat larger, especially those alliances consisting of multiple towns.

It really puts players who want to work together on Loka at a disadvantage, and although amassing territory isn't really emphasized in conquest, it is still a crucial part of a town for reaching those specific buffs and resources per territory.

Also - the argument that new players would be intimidated from creating new communities and towns on Loka is faulty. One thing our community can boast about on the server is putting a priority to making new players understand the unique features Loka has to offer, and yes, that does include settling on territories as well as making towns and whatnot. All they have to do is ask in public chat, and most people would be willing to help.

When players come onto the server with a friend group or clan, they pick up on our features fast. Other players who might come onto the server themselves, perhaps young, will typically join up with an established town. It is very uncommon to see new players frustrated with the server enough to leave and never come back, assuming that they try to make a town by themselves on some territory that they want, but aren't allowed to for some reason.

Anyhow, this is what I have observed with my time on Loka, and I hope that this argument will put the "fact" to rest that a small territory cap for ever-expanding alliances would somehow encourage players to come and create new towns.

Those in a clan or a friend group who are truly wanting to make a new town will make a new town - and those who choose to make a town by themselves will be overwhelmed with costs and trying to find two other founders, and they themselves will probably leave and go to an already established community on the server.

Perhaps the territory capacity can be increased by 5 with every town in the alliance, starting from the founding town's original 30. However, this could lead to dominant towns on the server splitting up their members to found these new towns all on the same continent, with them all joining the alliance, and using all of the territory for the original founding town.

There must be some sort of compromise here that the community of Loka can debate about, but the only thing I know for sure is that the territory capacity of thirty being the same for both single towns and huge alliances will not cut it.

Think about it, folks: a small cheese pizza for one is fine, but with multiple people? It can only be sliced so much.

 

[OperaGhost2004]

Alliances should not have to divide up territories like a small box of pizza, that would be discouraging players from making alliances on the server. If the territory capacity for a single town is 30 territories, then the capacity for alliances should be somewhat larger, especially those alliances consisting of multiple towns.

It really puts players who want to work together on Loka at a disadvantage, and although amassing territory isn't really emphasized in conquest, it is still a crucial part of a town for reaching those specific buffs and resources per territory.

Also - the argument that new players would be intimidated from creating new communities and towns on Loka is faulty. One thing our community can boast about on the server is putting a priority to making new players understand the unique features Loka has to offer, and yes, that does include settling on territories as well as making towns and whatnot. All they have to do is ask in public chat, and most people would be willing to help.

When players come onto the server with a friend group or clan, they pick up on our features fast. Other players who might come onto the server themselves, perhaps young, will typically join up with an established town. It is very uncommon to see new players frustrated with the server enough to leave and never come back, assuming that they try to make a town by themselves on some territory that they want, but aren't allowed to for some reason.

Anyhow, this is what I have observed with my time on Loka, and I hope that this argument will put the "fact" to rest that a small territory cap for ever-expanding alliances would somehow encourage players to come and create new towns.

Those in a clan or a friend group who are truly wanting to make a new town will make a new town - and those who choose to make a town by themselves will be overwhelmed with costs and trying to find two other founders, and they themselves will probably leave and go to an already established community on the server.

Perhaps the territory capacity can be increased by 5 with every town in the alliance, starting from the founding town's original 30. However, this could lead to dominant towns on the server splitting up their members to found these new towns all on the same continent, with them all joining the alliance, and using all of the territory for the original founding town.

There must be some sort of compromise here that the community of Loka can debate about, but the only thing I know for sure is that the territory capacity of thirty being the same for both single towns and huge alliances will not cut it.

Think about it, folks: a small cheese pizza for one is fine, but with multiple people? It can only be sliced so much.

I completely agree.