I wanted to bring up the current mercenary town rule and see what everyone else thinks about it.
Right now, any town being able to join any alliance on any continent feels like it hurts one of the main parts of Loka, which is loyalty to alliances and continents. The server has always felt better when towns had real ties to their alliance and continent, instead of everything becoming mainly town-based and temporary.
I understand the reason behind the rule. It makes it easier for certain groups to work on their towns, still participate in fights, and not feel locked out of content. That part makes sense. But before this rule, if a town wanted to fight somewhere else or switch sides, they had to make actual changes. They had to move, commit, and deal with the consequences of that choice. That made alliances feel more meaningful.
The issue is that mercenary towns allow way too much movement with very little commitment. For example, in just the last three months, one town(Valyria) was able to fight with Alexander on Ascalon, then fight with Kylaz on Garama against ArcherSquid, where around 200 people were brought to Garama even though only two towns were actually based there, and now fight on Kalros with Squid. That should not be possible from one town in such a short amount of time. At that point, it is basically a Loka world tour.
I also understand the counterargument that removing or limiting mercenary towns could force highly committed players to make towns on other continents. That could fill up the map and create more inactive or extra towns. But at the same time, the map is constantly being expanded as new biomes and areas get added, so I do not think that should be the main reason to keep the current system exactly as it is.
It is also much easier and healthier to track real movement over time. If players slowly move from continent to continent, build towns, make alliances, and commit to a side, that creates politics and consequences. That is very different from one large town being able to switch sides in the last five minutes of conquest truce and completely change the fight. One system creates long-term movement and commitment. The other creates sudden last-minute power shifts with barely any downside.
Another thing is that not having merc towns used to add real value to builder towns. When PvP groups needed to move continents, they needed an actual town to take care of them and support them. For example, when Valyria used Cryptic Cove to fight on Garama, that gave a builder town an important role in the war. Builder towns were not just side pieces. They became useful because larger groups had to rely on them if they wanted to operate on that continent.
BitS is another good example of this. My alliance was able to bring in towns like Sandsete, Yaddas, and Edgewind, which were more builder-focused towns, and those towns would actually warp and be part of the alliance. They had value because alliance slots were not only about stacking as many PvPers as possible. Builder towns could matter because they gave continent presence, support, infrastructure, and long-term identity to the alliance.
The whole idea of merc towns was supposed to make it easier for builders and smaller towns to get involved in wars, but I feel like it has almost done the opposite. Because of the max town rule, big alliances now have less room for actual builder towns unless they also bring a lot of active PvPers. If an alliance only has limited town slots, they are going to prefer towns with 20 active fighters over a builder town that mainly provides infrastructure, history, or continent presence.
I do agree that merc towns have had benefits. They have helped some people fight more easily and probably made conquest more accessible in certain situations. But what we have seen on Loka over time is pretty apparent. The current system makes alliances feel weaker, builder towns less valuable, and continent loyalty less meaningful.
If no changes are going to be made to Balak or the way mega fights work, then I think we should at least consider going back toward smaller, more alliance-based fights. The current system seems to push the server even further into massive fights with less loyalty and less meaning behind who is fighting for who.
I am not saying the rule has no benefits, but I do think it has changed the server in a way that needs to be looked at. Some real conquest change would be nice before the summer, whether that means limiting mercenary towns, adding cooldowns, making continent commitment matter more, or finding another way to bring back smaller and more meaningful fights, or even fixing or revamping the big fights.
What does everyone else think? Should mercenary towns stay the way they are, be limited, or should we move back toward a system where alliance loyalty and continent commitment matter more? Should Cryptite add more objectives to conquest?
Right now, any town being able to join any alliance on any continent feels like it hurts one of the main parts of Loka, which is loyalty to alliances and continents. The server has always felt better when towns had real ties to their alliance and continent, instead of everything becoming mainly town-based and temporary.
I understand the reason behind the rule. It makes it easier for certain groups to work on their towns, still participate in fights, and not feel locked out of content. That part makes sense. But before this rule, if a town wanted to fight somewhere else or switch sides, they had to make actual changes. They had to move, commit, and deal with the consequences of that choice. That made alliances feel more meaningful.
The issue is that mercenary towns allow way too much movement with very little commitment. For example, in just the last three months, one town(Valyria) was able to fight with Alexander on Ascalon, then fight with Kylaz on Garama against ArcherSquid, where around 200 people were brought to Garama even though only two towns were actually based there, and now fight on Kalros with Squid. That should not be possible from one town in such a short amount of time. At that point, it is basically a Loka world tour.
I also understand the counterargument that removing or limiting mercenary towns could force highly committed players to make towns on other continents. That could fill up the map and create more inactive or extra towns. But at the same time, the map is constantly being expanded as new biomes and areas get added, so I do not think that should be the main reason to keep the current system exactly as it is.
It is also much easier and healthier to track real movement over time. If players slowly move from continent to continent, build towns, make alliances, and commit to a side, that creates politics and consequences. That is very different from one large town being able to switch sides in the last five minutes of conquest truce and completely change the fight. One system creates long-term movement and commitment. The other creates sudden last-minute power shifts with barely any downside.
Another thing is that not having merc towns used to add real value to builder towns. When PvP groups needed to move continents, they needed an actual town to take care of them and support them. For example, when Valyria used Cryptic Cove to fight on Garama, that gave a builder town an important role in the war. Builder towns were not just side pieces. They became useful because larger groups had to rely on them if they wanted to operate on that continent.
BitS is another good example of this. My alliance was able to bring in towns like Sandsete, Yaddas, and Edgewind, which were more builder-focused towns, and those towns would actually warp and be part of the alliance. They had value because alliance slots were not only about stacking as many PvPers as possible. Builder towns could matter because they gave continent presence, support, infrastructure, and long-term identity to the alliance.
The whole idea of merc towns was supposed to make it easier for builders and smaller towns to get involved in wars, but I feel like it has almost done the opposite. Because of the max town rule, big alliances now have less room for actual builder towns unless they also bring a lot of active PvPers. If an alliance only has limited town slots, they are going to prefer towns with 20 active fighters over a builder town that mainly provides infrastructure, history, or continent presence.
I do agree that merc towns have had benefits. They have helped some people fight more easily and probably made conquest more accessible in certain situations. But what we have seen on Loka over time is pretty apparent. The current system makes alliances feel weaker, builder towns less valuable, and continent loyalty less meaningful.
If no changes are going to be made to Balak or the way mega fights work, then I think we should at least consider going back toward smaller, more alliance-based fights. The current system seems to push the server even further into massive fights with less loyalty and less meaning behind who is fighting for who.
I am not saying the rule has no benefits, but I do think it has changed the server in a way that needs to be looked at. Some real conquest change would be nice before the summer, whether that means limiting mercenary towns, adding cooldowns, making continent commitment matter more, or finding another way to bring back smaller and more meaningful fights, or even fixing or revamping the big fights.
What does everyone else think? Should mercenary towns stay the way they are, be limited, or should we move back toward a system where alliance loyalty and continent commitment matter more? Should Cryptite add more objectives to conquest?
should be like 1-2 and you cant merc two months in a row.
