Welcome to our Forums!

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

Log in

Suggestion Towns (Specifically Ascalon)

Wxndernut

Wxndernut

Well-Known Member
During the most recent conquest cycle this month, the fights have been extremely laggy and just unfun in general due to the lag. Some people are blaming the amount of people that are warping to the fights. but that is just not the case. There have been larger fights than the ones taking place this month with less lag. The real problem is the number of towns on Ascalon, and the number of towns being loaded during each fight.

Currently there are forty-two towns on Ascalon: out of those forty-two towns ten of them have three actives or less. There are simply too many towns that are being kept alive just by three people logging on every few weeks. While I am not saying start going around to delete towns that aren't warping thirty people to conquest fights; towns have to be made more difficult to run and keep alive for the good of the server specifically on Ascalon. I would suggest increasing the daily upkeep cost from fifty to one hundred and possibly even the minimum actives required from three to five. Another possible solution is instead of doubling the upkeep cost when there are less than three actives in the town the upkeep cost could be tripled. Hopefully, I believe this would help eliminate some of the needless towns that are on Ascalon currently. I respect that some people just want to have a town to build on, but Loka is a pvp server and its called a town for a reason. There should be at least more than five actives in a town.

Side note: I am aware that there is some sort of town update coming, but these are just some of my ideas on how to fix lag during conquest fights.
 
catgirljodie

catgirljodie

Member
It’s a great idea however how would this work for newer towns. If it still took three people to make a town would they too incur the 2x penalty as other towns which are deemed ‘inactive’ and were currently being taxed?

Also I think that it’s overall just the loading of many towns at once plus the number of fights happening. Unless the fight took place on a different shard or was somehow instanced I don’t know if there would be much to change the lag? Could definitely be wrong though.
 
Wxndernut

Wxndernut

Well-Known Member
catgirljodie said:
It’s a great idea however how would this work for newer towns. If it still took three people to make a town would they too incur the 2x penalty as other towns which are deemed ‘inactive’ and were currently being taxed?
Click to expand...
This is a great point, the 2x penalty only occurs after two weeks of the town being inactive. It would also probably make sense to increase the amount of people required to make a town in order to match the number of actives required.
catgirljodie said:
Also I think that it’s overall just the loading of many towns at once plus the number of fights happening. Unless the fight took place on a different shard or was somehow instanced I don’t know if there would be much to change the lag? Could definitely be wrong though.
Click to expand...
While there has been some occasions where there have been two fights going on at once, the lag is pretty much the same even when there is only one fight going on in the shard. I think the largest contributing factor to lag is the twenty-four plus towns being loaded all at once during a fight on Ascalon. Both The Bank Robbers and Western Union have twelve towns in their alliances and in each fight at least twenty of the total twenty-four are loaded and on top of that random players that are on that are not in the fight are also loading their towns.
 
Last edited:
Wxndernut

Wxndernut

Well-Known Member
catgirljodie said:
It’s a great idea however how would this work for newer towns. If it still took three people to make a town would they too incur the 2x penalty as other towns which are deemed ‘inactive’ and were currently being taxed?
Click to expand...
I think it's also worth mentioning that, in my opinion I believe towns should be "reserved" for well established players that already know what they are doing and have enough materials. I remember when I played Loka two years ago how daunting making a town was and how confusing it was. I really think that if you are making a town, you should have been in someone else's town for a few months and have built up enough materials to sustain the new town you are going to create. I think the real issue is when someone makes a town and only has around 15 people in the town. At that point, there's no reason for you to not stay in another town especially when half of those members probably don't even log on.
 
catgirljodie

catgirljodie

Member
Wxndernut said:
While there has been sometimes where there have been two fights going on at once, the lag is pretty much the same even when there is only one fight going on in the shard. I think the largest contributing factor to lag is the twenty-four plus towns being loaded all at once during a fight on Ascalon. Both The Bank Robbers and Western Union have twelve towns in their alliances and in each fight at least twenty of the total twenty-four are loaded and on top of that random players that are on that are not in the fight are also loading their towns.
Click to expand...
This is kind of what I was thinking, those towns being loaded is definitely an issue however I believe during a fight those towns contributing large amounts of data could themselves possibly be instanced? I’m not sure how it would work but it may have potential in being a doable thing.

On top of sharding or instancing the fight itself they could reduce the lag. It seemed from some of SOTS’s that Crypt and Mag touched some on the possibility of instances towns in general if needed with a bigger server so it may just be a long wait before we get something of which does reduce lag whether in fights or just generally across the continents (in specific Ascalon).
 
Magpieman

Magpieman

Old One
Staff member
Old One
These are all along the lines of things we are planning on doing. The key being we have camps to mitigate the harm this causes to new players. That's the reason we have yet to add harder requirements to own a town, there needs to be an alternative, which we want to be camps.

The other thing we are planning is town sharding (which may need to be brought forward).
Wxndernut said:
How would that work? Would all towns on loka be on its own shard?
Click to expand...
Multiple towns would share the same shard in terms of hardware but yes effectively there would be a border just outside the town that when crossed would smoothly instance you like some of out quest tech.


There is also an option to further reduce the town cap on alliances, but this is more a short-term fix.
 
H

HyperTotodile

Active Member
Slicer
I think for the short-term we really should reduce the town cap on alliances to like 8 towns max. This issue has long-term solutions already being worked on, and once camps are implemented, we can make it harder to make a town so that we don't have the problem of 3000000000000000000000 towns being loaded at once and adding to the lag during fights.

For the time being, I think we should lower the town cap on alliances to 8, and the problem will sort itself out over the long run because there are already plans to solve this problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top