Description: Players could merge their faction and what powerboosts they have. Pooling resources and members to build, trade, and explore together
Why: There is no single faction in the server that reach the cap. Great builders/redstoner/pixelartist scattered between factions and inhibit more growth if entered into 1 faction.
How: A tweak to the faction system.
Pros:
First point: pooling resources (building materials, money, players)
Second point: utilizing underutilized faction limit
Third point: by merging into 1 faction player would have bigger visions and collaborations. Bigger base also means more buildings/structures built as infrastructure/transportation.
Cons:
First: might need regulations (not much of a hassle imo, I could volunteer to help with that)
Second point: might multiply problems in faction compared to before. More player could also mean more interplayer problems.
i mean, have you even tried it extensively with another faction’s leader?
because the thing is, all of the above you said are what i did with another faction’s leader, we both trust each other we can both access each other storage like pretty much everything including editing terrain, and everything of that boils down to trust and thats it
It’s already doable with the changes that were done to faction cooperation rules a while ago. You can give yourselves access and permissions and work together, no one has to be scattered, that is a player choice.
Powerboost migration between two factions is not currently being considered. The system works the way it does by design, allowing players to get power on their own early on, while later acting as a money sink.
Yes but with powerboost binded to old faction, true merging of 2 factions won’t be possible. So it act like a “trap” of sort for the last member to hold the faction or the powerboost is wasted…
Imagine a scenario of lone player giving up on recruiting for more power and thus purchase powerboost… Then later on want to join bigger faction but could not as not to waste the powerboost.
And no, the coleader system is inherently different from 2 faction sharing resources. It allow true claiming etc as regular leader while sharing power etc with the faction. Consider a case with HUGE faction. Might be a hassle for leader to maintain land here and there (for example I give extreme example a faction that divide its land into 4 corner of the world). With coleader system, each “city” could be delegated into 1 person acting as coleader. Maintaining claim etc.
The faction merge and coleader option make flexibility in faction form, while maintaining overall economy etc from buying powerboosts, warps, etc.
Again, English is not my main language so if you might not get what I mean I will try to translate it more from my language (hoping one day there is staff member who have Indonesian as mother language)
Nobody should consider what I’m about to say as something WIP but a possible solution to Godfather’s request could be something like giving back the cash that is used to purchase powerboosts if a faction is disbanding to “merge” with another. When I think about it, only concern of players in 2 factions merging MIGHT BE the money spent on the powerboosts (if purchased) by the smaller faction that wants to merge TO the bigger one. Other than that, I don’t see any necessity of a merging system implementation.
Yes but that was rejected before thus I propose this as alternative. With current server state it might be better for factions (could be more than 2) to merge themselves and coordinate as 1 single entity. If implemented before V3 we might see a rise in faction activity when V3 start (if approved, small factions could merge themselves or with big factions so V3 will be fresh start with better factions).
And maybe to reduce small factions forming again, make minimum number of player to build a faction 5 or 3 at least.
Powerboosts are viewed as an investment. As such I don’t think they will ever be made transferable or refundable in any way. Once you buy them, you have them and that’s that. To be clear, I don’t see this changing in the future, at least with current circumstances. Factions can still merge, they’re just going to lose their investment if they choose to, which is honestly a benefit to the economy as it creates more demand for money to buy new boosts.
And no, the coleader system is inherently different from 2 faction sharing resources. It allow true claiming etc as regular leader while sharing power etc with the faction.
You can currently use /f perm as Ast said to permit another player/faction/relation to claim/unclaim for your faction. Although you need to be careful when using this as there is the rule about evading powerboost price increases and other similar faction limits.
Ah okay so basically faction merge as I said is impossible. Thank you for clarifying that. How about selling a faction with powerboost? Is that allowed?
There isn’t really a rule against that specifically, so I suppose you could sell ownership of a faction as long as its land doesn’t contain a gfarm as selling gfarms are forbidden. But you’d have to be the only person in the faction itself (and no, that doesn’t mean kick everyone else without talking to them) as you can’t sell other people’s stuff out from under them just because you’re the owner of the faction.
tldr;
yes, but make sure whatever is still in the faction is solely yours and that it doesn’t contain a gfarm.
If you unclaim the gfarm then you’re not selling it with the faction, although don’t use unclaiming it just to evade the rule
i.e. you unclaim it and have another faction claim it, sell the faction, then transfer the gfarm to the faction you sold by having the other faction that claimed it earlier unclaim it to so the buyer can claim it ._.
although tbh i think the rule on selling gfarms is a bit pointless in the current state of the server
So Avalon for example is going to be sold. We have gfarm. So we unclaim gfarm and sell the fac is considered evading or compliance to the rule? Kinda confused sorry english not my main language
Situational… Did the player your selling the faction to immediately claim the gfarm afterwards? If so then it could reasonably be seen as selling the gfarm still.
Ideally the gfarm would need to remain in wild for some time to avoid the dilemma…
Then again, I at least feel the rule of not selling gfarms should be re-examined considering the number in wild at present…
Yes… It should be revised. It should be legal as long as the faction or player buying it doesn’t have 1. Wasn’t the rule made to prevent players or factions hoarding guardian temples?
And for the letting the gfarm wild for a while… Its possible, but if someone buy like in example Avalon and nearby is a gfarm wont they claim it if they don’t have one? Kinda weird rule if need to get wild for a while… And also kinda complicated for how long should the gfarm stay wild. Ofc the player could easily use the “no claim near other faction rule” and just claim here and there around the gfarm so no one could claim it… But yeah… Makes more trouble and rule making difficult
There is a rule about only having 1 gfarm as well, so it specifically was less of and anti-hoarding measure, although it partially serves as one.
To my knowledge the main thought was preventing players from claiming land and gaining a ton of money from especially doing nothing; however, due to the popularity of gfarms in TE, the fact of other types of XP farms was (mostly) overlooked. As you can see now in the current environment, gfarms are barley used due to the downsides of them (mainly damaging the player). Not to mention that there is only 1 gfarm on the entire server that even beats other XP farms and for the longest time it didn’t exist (although in another period of a strong gfarm [nexus], it was used occasionally but was still commonly passed for a non-damaging farm that was just barely worse). So, the rule was primarily based on the assumption that they’d be worth something in the economy but in reality this was maybe only true for a shortish time.
That being said, I do find some merit to not having structures be sellable nevertheless, but on the other hand it creates issues as well.
