Watch this get mass downvoted by inactive players and nation leaders.

I'm going to be real, we really need a rework on siegebases, ports and inactive towns. The Fact the entire coast of much of America is occupied by vacant Floritanian towns.... in Africa Quin and Thracia and Europe Rome really prevent the formulation of any authentic coastal cities. In other areas, huge towns are maintained for 'history' while depriving much useable land of actual purpose. It is my opinion for larger historical towns, they can simply be confined to photos or world saves instead of aimlessly wasting space.

For sieges, and for strategic reasons. 'Holders' work to amplify the powers of established nations at detriment to smaller ones. Players are NOT recruiting people to CCNet, they are using other people as 'alts'. I do not care what vain argument of 'that's just how the server is' the fact of the matter is these accounts are being used like 'alt' accounts. In an Ideal world, siegebases should be reworked to SPAWN movecraft instead thereby reducing the space. This solution would require debate on more knowledgable people than me, but would prevent the issue of Siegebases taking as much space.

As for 'holders' of important towns, I believe each nation should have 2 towns under a nation NPC type character but no more. I also believe stricter rules are needed to prevent such. Mechanics such as median town activity may be used to enforce this.

I fear Nations will die if these issues are not looked into. The hogging of the best land makes people more unwilling to play, it only works to help meganations at the detriment of future possible nations and towns. The fact towns become secure under 'holders' prevent any meaningful politics or internal affairs and works to create an 'alt' system at the hands of powerful recruiters who recruit assets and not people.

I simply wont respond to arguments of change = bad. If the world or the server for that matter operated under the logic that we cannot change as not to hurt those who make use of this broken system, we would simply have no change. We can have periods of warnings or mandated server peace time in order to adjust the playerbase. But something has to budge

I disagree with your conclusion Ashes, I understand why you may feel it is a death sentence to give a fort to an active player because they run the risk of revolting however that in itself is a fundamental part of nations, the idea of a town existing for the sole reason of a fort is frowned upon.

I do agree to a moderate extent with the amount of inactive towns, and that increasing upkeep could be a potential solution, but its important to acknowledge that the nation that own the coasts and large european and african masses are generally abundant in money and that upkeep increase would serve nothing but having their grinders get more burnt out.
I have had similar issues with wanting to establish nations however was unable to due to popular areas such as Greece, Japan and Russia all being taken for years now. That being said, I was able to monopolise and gain more territory in europe by just throwing myself and a few others in there and slowly expanding, as smaller towns fall claim over them and use the pressure against close nations.
I feel as if an artificial increase in upkeep doesnt align to the real life methods of getting more land, which is war, the entire premise of ccnet (surrounds diplomacy etc).
Maybe if a nation occupies another nation their upkeep is increased dramatically per claim block they have? That way meganations may be forced to reduce claims.

As for Illyt you raise some interesting points, Yes the coasts are occupied however Floritania had to work to get those towns originally, and merely being inactive isnt grounds for your town to be annihilated. That being said vacant towns have been and are a regurgiating issue on ccnet and do need to be cleared out to make room for more nations and different perspectives in war.

I myself host a few towns through as you describe them "alts" which are just inactive friends and I agree with the ideology that this isnt meant to be just "part of the server" which is why ive done my part of reducing my claims and to place myself in a rural area instead of in central europe lol.

So yeah, there does need to be change, and to Ashes as far as I remember Ineusia doesnt even look at downvotes so dont stress about that.

Im just concerned about how the change can be implemented

I understand the motive of this, but that would mean that many people who are attending to their real world circumstances or are stepping away for a little bit are going to be stressed that all of their work is going to be thrown away because they cannot bedrot on Minecraft for every hour of the day. Overclaiming is an issue in some situations, but that does not mean that every town that is less active should have to fall, be mutilated by no-life griefers, and reclaimed by a random that doesn't know how to play, to which that claim just falls again and again.

Changes like this are made in a selfish nature, and it is without uncertainty that you, just like the rest of us, can find locations to build your developments. Please consider the circumstances of other people and not just yourself.

If this is the case, then half of Rome would be wiped out, with years of history destroyed. Telurian coastlines preserved for past players who made a change would be made for nothing all because one player was too ambitious to recognize the idea of preservation, history, and the circumstances of others.

I will add in addition as the leader of a new nation - mostly because it is relevant to you addressing the "difficult conditions for new nations", which is false. New nations are (or at least sensibly should be) in areas that are not as developed, or do not already have a concentration of pre-existing towns present in the area. (i.e. Someone making a nation up against Rome and Alchak and whoever else is eating the Mediterranean region.

I will add in addition as the leader of a new nation - mostly because it is relevant to you addressing the "difficult conditions for new nations", which is false. New nations are (or at least sensibly should be) in areas that are not as developed, or do not already have a concentration of pre-existing towns present in the area. (i.e. Someone making a nation up against Rome and Alchak and whoever else is eating the Mediterranean region.

I'd like to add my two cents. As a long term player that has a much larger life outside of Minecraft now than I did back in 2021, I can say that I am not dead, but kind of inactive during the semesters. And, those "dead" towns in Rome do get used for the most part. We have strategically placed landmarks, event places, and our forts to keep all of our main towns relevant. Whether to be for roads, recruiting, cultural aspects, or merchant, every city in the mainline of Rome has a purpose.

Cosmic has real life stuff going on that I won't state out in the open. We are both not quitting, but we may have to be gone for a couple weeks at a time to attend to our professional lives. Why should we be punished for being contributing members of society?

Now the picture thing IIlyt mentioned. A lot of Roman players (and you know this) have built Rome from the ground up as not simply to be built, but to attract new players, celebrate achievements (like our 5 year anniversary coming up), and to have something pleasant to look at while we traverse our nation.

Now, if you go raising upkeep like this, compounded wit the fact that you have increases to upkeep during occupation, then occupation taxes, then you have the inactive tax, at town that normally pays $1,000 in upkeep per day, can go to $3,000 in a hurry. How is that fair to the players who worked hard for their city, has real life stuff going on, and earned every penny of that money.

Lastly, you have the fact that this is based off the mayor? If the mayor quits and there are plenty of active players, are we really going to punish the active players, just because the mayor went inactive? Now we are telling people to give their towns to holders (and there are massive debates on this as well) simply to avoid the inactive tax. I feel like this entire argument is specifically targeting larger nations who are successful, and are still very much the most active nations on the server... With Rome having 39 active players in our player base currently.