No Plans to Implement Undo or alter the town transfer changes

[Click1x]

it made exacly the oposite of it, no one buys towns now, because there is no point, you buy a town and you and the person who is selling it to you have to wait a whole month to switch ownership(making it boring ash, and easier to scam people) I dont think loka staff made a good choice on adding this concept. People instead of buying towns now, create them so they wont wait a month, the prove of it is looking at garama that in one month i risk to say there where created at least 3 more towns (making the continent fully spammed on towns, and having like 2/3 tiles available to make one).

Well i wouldn’t say no one buys towns. Gotham and Dawnstar were just sold this month. It’s just annoying having to wait.

 

[Magpieman]

The main reason for this change is to reduce the number of towns on the server. We believe that if towns are more difficult to transfer to others then they have less value and therefore players are less incentivised to hold onto towns keeping them on life support.

The entire point is to be a giant inconvenience to town owners. There are too many towns on Loka and they need to be reduced. They allow for a huge area of land to be block protected and the numbers they were at previously were unsustainable to future server growth. We want towns to die, and be harder to maintain. Owning a town is full of so many upsides it is a no-brainer to most people, so the drawback is you cannot just hop to another continent willy-nilly and keep your old town alive. If we allowed owners to say remain in their town and fight on another continent then why would anyone ever delete their town or let it die?

The third option we had, which we have chosen not to move forward with is increasing the number of actives required to run a town as we think this would be the least popular change to manage the number of towns on the server. It also directly harms new players the most as it makes it very challenging to get a new town off the ground.

This is one of our last resorts as it harms the largest number of players (not just town owners) and is more punishing on builder towns. However, if the trend in town numbers does not head to a position we are happy with then we will have to look into this option too. Also worth noting costs may increase further too.

If we introduced more changes and this solved the too many town problems we could go back and reassess allowing town owners to fight on other continents, but for now it is a necessary evil.

 

[Swin]

town loyalty was the main concern if I remember correctly. Don't want 500 trash towns scattered across the world that no-one would use

What i get from this comment is that the main concern on this rule was to not be allot of spammy towns on continents which seems not to be working, but indeed im 100% sure after this garama phase that is happening rn, that at least half of the towns that were created will be deleted because the owners dont want to wait a whole month to leave on it

but why do you need to own a town to participate in conquest?

You dont need exacly, but your seeing it on the point of view of a single person. Lets see for example a player who recruits ppl, he needs a town for him to manage to control his recruits(and no he cant just join other town because the pots would go all gone in 1 single war, imagine have 2 main players who recruit allot in a single town, it needs allot of grinding, but yes its possible liberty city is an example of that but not all players are avaiable to do what liberty did).

but I would rather like to think this is because of the growth of the server

Questionable. But what if the server keeps growing? will all the tiles on loka be towns?

 

[LightAndDqrk]

Which... was the goal? The admins didn't like town selling, so they made it harder to buy towns.

You're never going to be able to stop the scams from occurring, it's just not possible in an active server. Also, what makes scamming easier? It appears to have the same issues that regular town selling had previously.

That is the result of basic economics, high demand, but not enough supply. It makes having a Garaman Town worth more. I don't see how that's an issue unless you're talking about conquest, but why do you need to own a town to participate in conquest? It'll eventually die down, and if not, I don't see an issue with it either.

Sure, Garama wasn't as packed as it was now, especially before town selling, but I would rather like to think this is because of the growth of the server, which was only slightly intensified due to the bureaucratic nature that now comes with selling towns.


It was always three, they simply brought on sleepers for 30-40 minutes, then had them log off. Unless if they did something else.

Which is why town prices were hiked up? So those 1 man towns had to actually be actually active, or fall to the crevices of time.

in the past, the authorities could be intermediaries because there were sudden sales, but when the 1 month rule comes, they will only be intermediaries when you can take ownership of the town, so you will be able to defraud people more easily.

 

[daqniel]

atleast lower the tax make it 50 not 300 please!

 

[LightAndDqrk]

Well i wouldn’t say no one buys towns. Gotham and Dawnstar were just sold this month. It’s just annoying having to wait.

To be honest, I'm still waiting for 1 month for gotham and it can be said that my 1 month has been garbage and this 1 month thing is cooling me off from Loka.

 

[LightAndDqrk]

atleast lower the tax make it 50 not 300 please!

they want less towns...

 

[LightAndDqrk]

In addition, loka continues to grow, I don't think there will be fewer towns, on the contrary, the number of towns will increase, there is almost no region left to open a town in garama, if garama continues to be active in this way, it will become impossible for one of the new players to settle in garama, at least they could easily buy a town in the past.

 

[Click1x]

they want less towns...

i think the 30d is alright i don’t want it but it’s whatever but the town prices is kinda annoying

 

[Nekometa]

allow easy place to compensate for the 30d owner cooldown

 

[Lampp_]

The entire point is to be a giant inconvenience to town owners. There are too many towns on Loka and they need to be reduced. They allow for a huge area of land to be block protected and the numbers they were at previously were unsustainable to future server growth. We want towns to die, and be harder to maintain. Owning a town is full of so many upsides it is a no-brainer to most people, so the drawback is you cannot just hop to another continent willy-nilly and keep your old town alive. If we allowed owners to say remain in their town and fight on another continent then why would anyone ever delete their town or let it die?



This is one of our last resorts as it harms the largest number of players (not just town owners) and is more punishing on builder towns. However, if the trend in town numbers does not head to a position we are happy with then we will have to look into this option too. Also worth noting costs may increase further too.

If we introduced more changes and this solved the too many town problems we could go back and reassess allowing town owners to fight on other continents, but for now it is a necessary evil.

The things I’ve noticed is that this hasn’t slowed the town rate at all, IMO make towns wayyy more expensive and harder to level up

 

[Click1x]

allow easy place to compensate for the 30d owner cooldown

i think he wants easy place

 

[Zachary_N_Kaleno]

The things I’ve noticed is that this hasn’t slowed the town rate at all, IMO make towns wayyy more expensive and harder to level up

Harder to Level up, that might actually be a worth while suggestion.

 

[PETI]

The entire point is to be a giant inconvenience to town owners. There are too many towns on Loka and they need to be reduced. They allow for a huge area of land to be block protected and the numbers they were at previously were unsustainable to future server growth. We want towns to die, and be harder to maintain. Owning a town is full of so many upsides it is a no-brainer to most people, so the drawback is you cannot just hop to another continent willy-nilly and keep your old town alive. If we allowed owners to say remain in their town and fight on another continent then why would anyone ever delete their town or let it die?



This is one of our last resorts as it harms the largest number of players (not just town owners) and is more punishing on builder towns. However, if the trend in town numbers does not head to a position we are happy with then we will have to look into this option too. Also worth noting costs may increase further too.

If we introduced more changes and this solved the too many town problems we could go back and reassess allowing town owners to fight on other continents, but for now it is a necessary evil.

So why arent the old towns falling?

 

[Zachary_N_Kaleno]

So why arent the old towns falling?

Those who own towns tend to be rich I'd assume. So it would take a long time for them to actually fall, especially for builder towns that just, sit there and look pretty.