I recently moved to Garama because I wanted to leave the frozen hellhole that was Kalros for my once a year outside in the sun (outside of Kalros) and I was troubled by the realization that I'd not be able to own my town for two months.
The update post for the aforementioned pain says that the update was made so that people would care about their towns and that giving away ownership was a big deal, but for people like me this update just makes playing the game less convenient overall, as "hold my town for a month" has now become "hold my town for two months while I sit in it as a subowner". I'm not sure why I have to be inconvenienced as a town owner for wanting to play the game on a different continent for a little bit. This also has not discouraged pop-up towns that just get leveled up to the almost bare minimum to enjoy the game (joining an alliance/maybe Pearl Gates?) that just join an alliance and then just self-destruct once they are bored, they don't exist after this due to a lack of town selling, overall decreasing the odds that a real town actually exists or takes form.
Town selling was also a concern but the problem is, is that the state of the server encourages short-lived towns and constantly moving, as the center of action always changes from month to month and notably mostly always excludes Kalros. Instead of punishing/inconveniencing the maybe 3 town owners that want to move every so often (me), why not include incentives to keep long-standing, active towns, for example: a town that has 30 active members and that has been around for a few months has an upkeep decrease, or something like that.
There will always be those who move around incessantly as long as the server environment continues to breed that type of gameplay, those who may have wanted to purchase a town now just make one at its bare minimum state and delete it once its usefullness has ran out, the ones inconvenienced by this update are not town sellers, as the town would just most likely get deleted anyway if not sold, the ones inconvienced are those with long-standing towns only. The belief that the towns not being easily transferred leads to them being less valuable is true, but the main reasoning as stated at the end of the log is that it is meant to reduce the number of towns, which it does not do, it just cycles who owns a specific tile every time the main attraction moves, the motivation to build is nearly non-existant as you are not rewarded for staying put, you are actually discouraged from staying put as you'll often be bored as the main point of the server is conquest.
I know that @garama pirated my idea and put it into a shorter cope form (as opposed to my longer cope form) in another forum post but this one provides the necessary perspective from someone affected by the change.
The update post for the aforementioned pain says that the update was made so that people would care about their towns and that giving away ownership was a big deal, but for people like me this update just makes playing the game less convenient overall, as "hold my town for a month" has now become "hold my town for two months while I sit in it as a subowner". I'm not sure why I have to be inconvenienced as a town owner for wanting to play the game on a different continent for a little bit. This also has not discouraged pop-up towns that just get leveled up to the almost bare minimum to enjoy the game (joining an alliance/maybe Pearl Gates?) that just join an alliance and then just self-destruct once they are bored, they don't exist after this due to a lack of town selling, overall decreasing the odds that a real town actually exists or takes form.
Town selling was also a concern but the problem is, is that the state of the server encourages short-lived towns and constantly moving, as the center of action always changes from month to month and notably mostly always excludes Kalros. Instead of punishing/inconveniencing the maybe 3 town owners that want to move every so often (me), why not include incentives to keep long-standing, active towns, for example: a town that has 30 active members and that has been around for a few months has an upkeep decrease, or something like that.
There will always be those who move around incessantly as long as the server environment continues to breed that type of gameplay, those who may have wanted to purchase a town now just make one at its bare minimum state and delete it once its usefullness has ran out, the ones inconvenienced by this update are not town sellers, as the town would just most likely get deleted anyway if not sold, the ones inconvienced are those with long-standing towns only. The belief that the towns not being easily transferred leads to them being less valuable is true, but the main reasoning as stated at the end of the log is that it is meant to reduce the number of towns, which it does not do, it just cycles who owns a specific tile every time the main attraction moves, the motivation to build is nearly non-existant as you are not rewarded for staying put, you are actually discouraged from staying put as you'll often be bored as the main point of the server is conquest.
I know that @garama pirated my idea and put it into a shorter cope form (as opposed to my longer cope form) in another forum post but this one provides the necessary perspective from someone affected by the change.
