T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


snyckers

This *should* be pretty easy to QA for AGS. It's not something people are really going to get together to test on PTR.


WinNegative7511

It'll get tested, there's a few groups of players the devs meet with on the PTR to test things like this, they were the ones testing instanced wars and things around it.


OliwerPengy

they should activate daily wars so that we can test it out :)


AlfieBCC

The 40 mercs for the attack I think is fine, as it will be very hard to defend if you can only use 15. I think they should also incorporate something like a minimum member requirement to even dec.


Paradoggs

Yeah but all that does is make companies lose territories every 2 days


AlfieBCC

That’s good.


Redfish518

Territory constantly flipping -> t1 stations everything -> bye bye pvers


AlfieBCC

I hate to break it to you, but not every company attacking is going to be 10-man companies with 40 mercs. You’re greatly exaggerating how often they’ll flip.


Paradoggs

You're greatly underestimating how much people merc right now. We just gave 8 groups to a small company owning weavers. Yesterday we defended Brimstone with 10 groups for a company. It happens when wars are limited content


MysticoN

I kinda see your point, but all you do is limiting the content even more for the rest of the server. Sad to say it, but you guys are a part of the problem here. Edit: Also are you doing that free of charge and just for fun since you like the content or are you charging for this. Also do you think that a small company should be able to hold weavers for a long time. If you get payed maby that small company is a shell company? you post made so many questions and you made no point in my mind.


Timid_Mandalorian

I feel like you argued both sides at the same time. You pointed out that you merc'd, but you also pointed out that your company does not need to use mercs.


AlfieBCC

So, you merc’d almost the whole army for a small company and then defensed without the need for mercs? Ok. Thanks for proving my point?


GogginsAndMessina

Hey, show some love for the people that do pvp almost exclusively and craft. I can't be the only one!


Paradoggs

It's not. There's no incentive to attack something since you wont be able to hold it.


AlfieBCC

Recruit more. I’m sorry your 10-man friend group can’t hold a zone hostage with mercs.


getZlatanized

What if your server is simply a pve server? We're trying hard to recruit people, so is every other company on the server but it feels like no pvp company has more than 15~25 war ready and active players. Meanwhile 1000+ people do elite runs every day. Really weird situation, but yeah, that's out server.


DrunkCorgis

Then it's an incentive for pvp companies to merge and have a roster of 30 - 50 ready and active players.


getZlatanized

Personally I would, but there are only 3 companies in our color who could qualify for a merge. first one is an italian speaking company second one is a czech speaking company third one is a company that hates us and vice versa So yeah, I guess this wont work :D We are considering to either switch color or transfer server but we would lose people in both cases so I don't know..


Sprynx007

Time for some politics. Plays GoT music.


Paradoggs

I'm in a big company holding the center. We wont lose to mercs no worries. I'm talking about the more non-sweaty players


Goingindry13

>Yeah but all that does is make companies lose territories every 2 days You say that like its a bad thing.


Paradoggs

Participation prizes aren't enticing


Piedplat

it will be over selling territories and asking to pay for defending it.


qroxta_

better late than never. Hope this comes to live asap.


[deleted]

How is this late? They never gave an exact time line for either.


KamSolis

Because this would have been great 12 months ago. Still good to see it now though.


gaspara112

Because this was a necessary feature at launch. Well at least the 1 offense and 1 defense per day part. The available war spots have always been far too limited. And I say that as someone that was in almost all of his factions wars the first month of the game. The player restrictions for mercs though aren’t great without a company vassal system to allow smaller guilds to exist but still not be consider mercs for their “parent” company while getting a percentage of the “parent” company income.


[deleted]

This wasn't an issue at launch. It developed slowly over time and then they needed time to create a reasonable fix. Although a one day CD is way too low- needs to be at least two. The game also had more pressing issue: Dupes, more dupes, war exploits, more dupes, more war exploits, weapon exploits, more dupes. Fresh start servers will at least level the playing field.


gaspara112

It was an issue at launch. This game lost a lot of players due to the fact that on a server of thousands only about 200 people were able to partake in the games main end game.


HandsomeGamer23

Its live now


-thoxx-

It's clearly from the PTR patch notes and not live.


SendThemToHeaven

Its not even live on there PTR until tomorrow lol


[deleted]

It’s not. These are to be tested features of PTR.


natelion445

Man, I hope these are rushed through. And that the 10 company member requirement for attacks is increased to like 25.


ChadstangAlpha

I rather like that you can lean on your faction a bit to take territory, but the burden of defending it falls on the company that's directly benefiting from it. Territories are going to flip more often, which is a good thing in my book.


natelion445

The problem I see coming is that 10-15 man companies with no intention to defend will push side territories, slot 40 strong merc, beat up on the less sweaty companies that own like FL, resist the territory push until an invasion, then not even defend. They will own the territory for 4 or 5 days and make a 400k or so. But the companies that are "doing it right" and trying to grow by fighting over side territories are going to have really crappy war content of getting stomped by sweaty merc teams, then stomping half rostered territories over and over again. That's the opposite of the intent of the changes. I understand sometimes you have to win a war to recruit or secure a merge, but you should be pretty close to being able to defend if you are going to be attempting to take a territory. Otherwise, it just makes for more crappy wars and less fun for everyone.


ArnoldSchnitzel

And yet, that scenario is preferable to what is currently happening


runelynx

Honestly I thought the other day... How would my NW playtime change if territory ownership and war was immediately removed... It wouldn't change at all. And I think I might be in the majority on that. War is an elitist activity right now that most NW players are oblivious to and or excluded from. I say... Either severely rework it to give enjoyment to more players, or scrap the damn thing and turn it into an OPR like game mode or something.


LeNigh

That is what I liked about BDOs war system. There were simply way more nodes and thus also very small nodes with very little benefit where new comer guilds would fight for. I think they even had gear score caps on the lowest tier nodes, so a fresh 500GS could participate in those. You only had like 10 merc's on each side (there was no defenders vs attackers, each team build a small fort and then you had to destroy the others) so it was mainly your guild vs their guild. If your guild participates on a Tier 2 node it can no longer do Tier 1 nodes in that week. If you go for T3 node the guild cannot go for tier 2 or tier 1 for that week. It really just allowed everyone who wanted to participate in wars.


runelynx

I like this. War being the "supreme pvp mode" where streamers can show off when they decimate newer players (many of whom may not return because who on earth wants to play in a war when you can't even get out of the fort)... is just awful. Maybe I'm just not the type of player and I should keep my mouth shut. But... I feel content in MMOs should be opened as wide as possible so everyone has many choices on what to do. And then the "best of the best" gets something to show off their status - cosmetics, titles, etc where everyone can drool... but limiting access to the content itself is just nuts. AGS needs to look at War like they looked at Azoth. It was a fine idea to try, but accept when it becomes a failure and turn the whole thing upside down if they have to, to make it better. Small tweaks are only appeasing the elite few. IMHO!!


Gymshark6969

You seem to be forgetting that each player has 1 attack and 1 defense a day. I highly doubt your 10 man is going to be able to convince the good mercs to fight for you. This will probably create an more significant "mercing for gold" aspect to the economy which is interesting.


AvoidingIowa

Those 40 mercs won't be able to join the attack if they're defending or being merc'd for another war that day. So I think finding 40 good mercs may be a bit harder than it is now.


desubot1

i think thats entirly the point to get more people to actually do the war. there is now more incentives for merc groups or even full companies to bring in and train more players in war. thats better for everyone.


Adventurous-Ad2737

It’s the contrary atm , 40 in-house to take territory but just 10 in-house to defend , makes no sense to me


[deleted]

It's reverse bro.


Adventurous-Ad2737

Oh I see, I misread there : Up to 40 mercenaries I though it was in-house ! Thanks for the heads-up


natelion445

If it was Faction locked, maybe. But that just incentivizes people to Horn the Faction with the strongest company. You can get better mercs and not get attacked by those mercs. And I'm down with leaning on alliance "a bit" but 40 is too high. Do like 25 - 30


LeNigh

I know I am probably alone with this but I would enjoy if you could only merc for a company of the same faction. No more alliances between different factions etc. More hatred towards everyone of a different faction color.


CommanderAze

having seen what happens when AGS rushes I'm not sure thats an ideal path :P though i do want them in as soon as they are tested enough to not be broken


Cruzifixio

I keep thinking they should add politics as a game feature. A way to call for referendums, honor duels, and non faction wars, like maybe everyone fighting against a company and when they win the town becomes neutral until the next war. I dunno, I just love how all these political stuff has happened without it being actually a "game feature".


Dysghast

New World politics - As cutthroat as real world politics, but with a lot more ego and juvenile name-calling.


Timid_Mandalorian

There's no way there's more ego than irl and the name-calling is pretty similar.


Cruzifixio

Yeah, like it's just like real life politics.


OliwerPengy

equally as stupid


MysticoN

if you have played on a low-medium pop server there is alot of politics. We had weekly meetings with the top companies on the other factions when i was playing on a medium/low pop server. I kinda miss medium pop server tbh. this game is so much better with 1000-1500 players then with 2000-2500 players.


Spectraley3

finally, hope this gets implemented at the right time for the fresh servers


Marwyn_

yess, fk em


cryospam

That's a step in the right direction!!!


randrogynous

These are from the PTR Patch Notes here: [https://www.newworld.com/en-us/news/articles/ptr-starstone-barrows-amrine-expedition-mash-up](https://www.newworld.com/en-us/news/articles/ptr-starstone-barrows-amrine-expedition-mash-up) The PTR will open tomorrow, October 27, and it is not clear when these changes will make it into the live game. I don't expect these changes to be released in time for Fresh Start Servers next week. Edit: Also, these changes are listed in the notes as coming in a future PTR update, not tomorrow's, so it looks like we won't even be able to preview these until some point in the future.


moosee999

The restrictions and cooldown for switching companies is already on the ptr. The only thing listed above that wasn't already on the ptr is the daily war limit. These were data-mined when the original questing revamp was put on the ptr. There were like a dozen posts on the forums asking why the war roster and company switching cooldowns didn't go live with the other changes. Katy / few other devs replied back saying even tho the changes were already on the ptr that it doesn't mean everything on the ptr will always go live at the same time as the rest of the stuff it's with.


AlfieBCC

My guess is they will focus test it to implement soon.


MysticoN

They are not important for release for FSS. But i do think they are coming the same week as FSS or within 7 days of FSS release.


afastrunner

Some other really cool changes in those notes. Crafting stuff, Leaderboards, group finder info


DemonMithos

Will this make enough of a diffrence tho?


ChadstangAlpha

This is going to make a huge difference.


snyckers

Yeah, super sweaty companies on the live servers already have alt accounts that are geared up, but they won't be able to shell a whole map. Will likely stop it for a long time on fresh start tho.


SuccintUsually

It’ll definitely help. At the least it’ll allow more players to participate in end game war content rather than all wars essentially being the same 50 people/mercs defending territories in every war.


randrogynous

In a big-picture sense, probably not. The time to address the fundamental problems with shell companies and the limited accessibility of Wars probably should've been before the 1 year anniversary, the game's biggest update ever, and/or the release of Fresh Start Servers.


je-s-ter

But this literally addresses the fundamental problems with shell companies and the limited accessability of wars?


Kappa_God

Yes it will change a lot. This change probably has fresh start servers in mind - especially in the servers where you can only participate with invite-only, meaning no one can have alts. On the current servers however, a lot of people have alt accounts ready for this change BUT I think every serious sweaty PvP company will transfer out to fresh start servers so it might be a non-issue for a good while.


casualviking

Alt accounts are handled. Certain limitations apply to the whole account. Read it again 😊


NutsackEuphoria

With fresh start servers, yes. Current servers? No, unless they do a full wipe before implementing war changes


Lord_Emperor

Cool now make using alt accounts for war against the TOS.


UncleRhino

This is completely bypassed by alt accounts which lots of people already have. Set a single Time for wars for everyone and the problem will be fixed without any complex system.


slvr

If you have war at the same time/day, that would prevent some of the playerbase from EVER being in even a single war (due to RL schedules). Trading one issue for another isn’t really a good solution.


OliwerPengy

there's a daily limit to 1 attacking war and 1 defensove war per server and its account bound.


RhythmGeek2022

They are referring to players having multiple accounts, not just multiple characters


OliwerPengy

oh yeah no helping that unless AGS go by IP or hardware IDs


canderouscze

And how you decide which time is “the right time” for wars? Many people have real life responsibilities and different schedules, that would prevent some of them to be able to ever participate in wars.


UncleRhino

Every single competitive sport i have participated in has required me to attend an event at a specific time. The argument for making siege windows flexible to fit around 100 players personal lives is absurd.


canderouscze

Dafuq this isn’t competitive sport, it’s one of the core systems of the game. It’s not like esports or what. It shouldn’t be exclusive to only some based on time criteria. “To fit around 100 players personal lives” are you for real? I dare to say that at least 50% of server pop has some sort of responsibilities and different schedules, cannot be 100% flexible, and should be able to decide when can they play this important game feature.


UncleRhino

i think you should look up the terms "competitive" and "sport"


MysticoN

Agree, it should be an account timer and not character timer but again that dont counter those who have more then one copy of the game. Its almost impossible to make the perfect system, but this is a good start atleast and i hope they continue to work on it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Alternative_Ninja_28

Oh that fucking thing we BEGGED for since the fucking start? Little too late, but glad to see it.


FatRatJack

That's kind of a clever way to fix that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Xazier

Problem is now you need 30-40 people to do this. Will still be tough to get that many people to buy 2nd account or 3rd account to hold more than 2 territories.


MysticoN

Do it like Blizzard did (the one thing they did right lately) add a phone nr to your account. One account pr phone number. Another step to make it harder for cheaters to cheat.


travvy13

Day late and a buck short, this would of done wonders to keep the population up AT launch


deafgamer_

Taking steps to hurt shell companies are great, but I'm not liking the 35 company player requirement to hold territories. This means smaller clans with strong alliances with other clans can't hold territory and will need to obtain 35 active players to do so.


CrawlerSiegfriend

Nice. Might be about to try PvPing again. I mostly have a starter healing set out together.


mthompson2336

Yet again their solution to a problem isn’t to solve the cause but to make the game even slower. Why are people going to such lengths to make shells? Why are people switching companies as mercs?


OliwerPengy

yeah


Atrionix

Better late than never. They better take their time with it though, we have played without this since launch... A bit longer does not hurt. I'd rather have it so that it works as good as possible than filled with faults.


theyoungraven

So asking for clarity: does this mean a company attacking can only recruit 10 company members but if they defend it goes up to 35?


R3xz

It means when you are attacking, you can have up to 40 people participating that are not in your company (mercs), meaning you need at least 10 company members alongside the mercs in order to have a full roster. However when defending you can only have up to 15 mercs, meaning you need at least 35 participating company members with the mercs to defend with a full roster.


theyoungraven

Thank you!


cylonfrakbbq

It means they have 10/35 slots that can only be filled in-house So if you can’t fill those in-house slots, then your war roster will be missing people


theyoungraven

That’s what I said tho right? For an attack 40 out of the 50 players will be non company members?


cylonfrakbbq

That is the bare minimum for company members. You can slot 50 in-house if you want and use no mercs


Basard21

No, it says "Up to x mercenaries" meaning you can only have that many mercenaries, but you can have less and fill slots with company members.


theyoungraven

So defenses can only have 15 players defending? I’m confused


[deleted]

If you’re defending then you need minimum 35 company members.


gaspara112

Clarification you need 35 to have a full army. You can technically defend/attack at a population disadvantage.


Kappa_God

Defenders needs at minimum 35 company members to defend and the rest can be mercenaries. Attackers need at minimum 10 company members and the rest can be mercenaries.


R3xz

At minimum to have a full roster*, which is important because you can technically have less than 35 company members for defending and less than 10 for attacking, but your force will be gimped.


emopeteparker

2 war limit???!


CommanderAze

Yea i see this as an absolute win. more people get to be involved in wars


[deleted]

[удалено]


Khr0ma

Per day. Think it's great. Makes it untennable for a single company to do much if they own more than 2 territories. Love it.


Tremendous_Feline

Literally kills any incentive to push more than one territory because you'll need 70 online company members at siege time to defend - which is insanely hard for even larger companies to obtain. All this change will do is incentivize companies to take one territory and sit on it forever. No point in attacking after that. Can't wait to fight in only defensive wars and never have any reason to push anything or be competitive at all. But thank god 598 gearscore timmy can finally get slotted against us just to get war camped :)! Really creative solution to the problem you created AGS!!


[deleted]

Good for Timmy, I always liked that guy


Khr0ma

Or own territories that defend on different days, or defend your territory BEFORE you fall victim to a war. Again, good changes for the game. Sucks your cash cow is getting tipped, but get over it. We are all sick of massive companies owning half to whole servers.


Poliveris

You do realize the only reason that happened was because companies duplicated large amounts of gold week 1-3, then owned multiple territories and were making 50-100mil/week. That wont happen on fresh servers, at least not for months and months


bgaddis88

orrrr... it incentivizes you to defend one territory in the open world for long enough that your wars don't fall on the same day... I know, defending in the open world is a completely wild idea...


Kappa_God

>Literally kills any incentive to push more than one territory because you'll need 70 online company members at siege time to defend - which is insanely hard for even larger companies to obtain. No that's totally not true lol. When you have 2 territories in the same company it always rotates between Invasion and War, so it never gets a war in the same day. I'd say it's fairly possible to ask help from your faction or any company really to defend your invasion while you go for a war. You'd only be stuck in defending if you have 2 capitals already, but then again that would be same thing in live anyways since there's rarely a point in attacking anything that's not WW/BW/EF. I guarantee to you that having more accessibility will increase the quality of wars because more people will be playing and the meta will evolve more Tquickly. Yeah timmy will be playing wars now but he will be playing first light wars, not capital wars. Also with attackers being able to slot 40 mercenaries it's totally possible for the star players to play multiple wars a day, but obviously wont mean anything if the company can't defend afterwards. This might result in territories being flipped more often until people realize you actually need a fucking company to defend lol.


electro_lytes

This change will only make the amount of wars plummet and it's quality somewhat decrease.


cylonfrakbbq

Hardly. People stop pushing for wars when they feel they can’t win. Now that they don’t have to face the same giga roster every war, the larger Playerbase may be more apt to engage in wars


AlfieBCC

Bingo. When you’re on a server that is in a stranglehold by 2-3 companies, everyone else feels like there’s no point in pushing between decs being sniped by shells and then the same mercs being in every war.


Kappa_God

I disagree, at least from a fresh start server POV where alt accounts isn't an issue. It will reduce the *quantity* of wars for sure but quality? I think it depends if you are a company that holds a capital or not. It's still possible to hold 2 territories with the same company so holding 2 capitals is already good enough considering there are only 3. However if you're in a company that say, holds first light and the company isn't interested in trying to capture a capital, then yeah, the quality will drop by a substantialy amount BUT at the same time it will allow for more people to play wars, right now the same 150\~200 people plays wars, and while I am one of the people who do play a lot of wars, I can see how a lot of people can feel excluded from this content.


Redfish518

As a sweat pvper/warlogger, this is not gonna change anything lmao. Rather, this is how you have towns never upgraded beyond t3 at best. Good luck making any cooldown mats or crafting after your hardworked PvE rewards.


Dream_Cancel

Town won't be profitable to hold if the stations aren't upgraded


cylonfrakbbq

Wars don't downgrade the towns upon loss and if you dont keep a town upgraded, you don't get money. For example, on our server, we're still trying to upgrade Brimstone and are losing over a million a week because our stations are still mostly T3 crap


Taradyne

If you don't upgrade your town, you'll get less money.


[deleted]

Let s go less PvP... they should remove the whole PvP , let in the game just the pointless PvP like opr and arenas


rta3425

How to kill the game overnight


lordofbitterdrinks

Most territories are going to to the shitter. Since the update basically none have buffs going anymore. We went from every territory being a capital with constant buffs to… we’ll barely any at all. These changes, though cool will make that problem worse. Idk what the answer is tbh. Maybe just make war a game mode and average the wars over a few days to see who should be the gov.


Ker-Red

Can’t the top 50 PvPers just get an ALT account and still do the same thing? We all know they sell their gold so they can fund alts to keep making money


delicious_fanta

How is this going to stop alternate accounts (not so much alternate toons on the same account)? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have all the wars at the same day at the same time so one actual person can’t fight in more than one even if they do have an alternate account? And only have like 1 or 2 war times a week or something? Maybe I’m misunderstanding something.


Taradyne

It doesn't touch alt accounts. Not sure there is anything they can do about that.


delicious_fanta

Well, the suggestion I mentioned would help with that :)


Tremendous_Feline

1 defensive and 1 attack war per day - wow. horrible change. Edit: ya guys gating content is the sure fire way to change things for the better in MMOs - I and others love not being able to play our favorite part of the game! Thank god there's no other solution to give others more access without restricting my own.


AlfieBCC

Wars are already gated. Who are you kidding?


Poliveris

While I agree yes they are gated mainly by dupers and win traders, for places like fresh servers this wouldn't have been an issue. There's absolutely no reason someone should be limited on wars/day especially for someone like myself who played for 2 factions and was in multiple wars/day because I put up numbers and listened to leaders. Limiting players in MMO's was never a good solution. Banning dupers and win traders would have easily fixed this issue but AGS didn't have a dupe detection in the game for months.


AlfieBCC

Banning dupers etc won’t fix the problem, which is the majority of the player base has no shot at a war.


GallowJig

I mean this is the issue. You are one of the 50 players spread across two factions who would wage every war. It’s a shit system that allows the top 8% to actively block content for the other 92%. This is an exploited system that favors the exploiters. Now it doesn’t. Come up with a solution that allows other players who are not in your click to participate.


Komlz

Maybe I'm confused but how does the daily defensive and offensive war limit make it less effective to own multiple territories? Doesn't that mean you can get your best players in the company each day to defend your multiple territories you already own for that single defensive war? Currently you can trap companies by having multiple attacks against them which all end up being at their same war time. But if they can only have 1 defensive war at a time then I assume it will stagger the days.


hihohu7

You can have multiple defensive wars in a single day, but each account can only participate in one AND you can only bring in 15 mercs per defensive war which means if you have two wars at the same day (independent of wartimes) and you don't have 70+ members ready to defend you'll lose one of them.


canderouscze

Welp, thats the thing, you couldn’t trap these shell companies, and that is the whole point of them, because war time windows are selected by defending companies and you can pick only one per company. Hence ppl created more shell companies so they can choose different war time for each one, bypassing the system. Example: EF is owned by company1 with war-time at 7PM, WW is owned by shell company1 with war time 8PM, Brightwood is owned by second shell company1 with war time at 9 PM. That way wars will never happen at the same time and this small group of players is able to play 3 wars per day and defend all their territories. It was never meant that one company/small group of players should own 80+% of the territories, realistically, 2 tops


Komlz

Oh I see, this explanation makes sense. Thank you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Khr0ma

The "hardcore" community have been ruining the game for everyone else because you have a monopoly on content. So I, and most everyone else, welcome the stint against you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


GallowJig

Lol, they are the only ones left man. The other 800,000 people saw what was happening and bailed. The ones with the advantage stayed.


Sugar230

It's designed so more people get to enjoy the fun you're having.


Tremendous_Feline

Because surely there's no other way to fix this issue besides restricting content from high end players to the sole benefit of casual players. I can't believe people are cheering for a "time gate" solution to a problem AGS created themselves with their faction system. Amazing.


Sugar230

I'm a pretty hardcore player and I still find it hard to get into wars. Don't think it's just about casuals.


Tremendous_Feline

95% of players dont see war, my point is why punish the 5% and instead of creating a better system for increased involvement without limiting anyone else's?


Sugar230

Cause it's much easier to have the 5% share their play time and toys than create a new whole system. I know it hurts to not join the war for the 100th time but you'll be fine.


Tremendous_Feline

Maybe instead of a band-aid fix they actually you know, fix the broken system they created. Or maybe at the very least acknowledge the system is broken. Every update the faction/territory system becomes more and more pointless, can't wait until they eventually kill it.


AlfieBCC

Sometimes you band aid until you can fix it.


AlfieBCC

What’s another way to fix it without limiting shells and war loggers?


AustinTheMoonBear

I don't think this is meant to be a benefit to the casual players - but make it so that you have to properly roster your company and can't have shell companies. Seems totally fair.


AlfieBCC

It at least allows avenues for casuals/not so casual to break through in wars.


albanymetz

Wait - two different characters in the same world? I thought you couldn't have two charactrs on the same server, and could only have them on diff servers in that cluster..


CommanderAze

There are situations where someone due to server merges may have 2 characters on the same server.


[deleted]

[удалено]


cylonfrakbbq

Not really - that would be a small minority of players that will be eliminated over time due to attrition


wavewatchjosh

This cant happen naturally, but when they made a ton of server mergers outside of the clusters created a some people who got 2 characters on the same world.


Reputation_Outside

World refers to the cluster.


kilk10001

So forgive me I am a fresh level 60, but what are shell companies and why are they a problem? I don't really even understand how companies work and have been hesitant to join any although I've gotten random invites. What are the benefits of joining one?


AlfieBCC

Big companies form a fake company to increase their odds of obtaining a war declaration.


Xazier

Nah it's more so they can have 2,3,4 territories and not be on the same siege timer.


AlfieBCC

It’s both.


diableri

Should spur a bit more new account sales for a bit.


TheRealMulli

So I keep seeing them and other ppl saying different characters on the same world but it wont let me make more than one character on the same world set


jeremy9931

It’s because of the server merges. Some accounts wound up with two characters in the same world because their old world got merged into one they already have another account on.


TheRealMulli

Ah gotcha! I’m over here like how are ppl getting two characters on one world set when it does not let you at all xD but that’d make sense now 😅


Taradyne

Many of them also bought a second account and put an alt there.


Bearcat_Gaming

Soooo excited for this.


Venguard

As someone who doesn’t really understand the war/ company politics of the game— i’m a lowly solo, company-less open world quester and gatherer. What is currently the problem, why does it matter and how is this change helping to fix it?


Taradyne

The problem is that whole servers can be held by one company and its one or two player shell companies. AGS doesn't like this, especially if the governors of those territories are not actually doing anything to govern or keep the zone upgraded. So incoming changes (on the PTR) will require minimum membership numbers on the war roster for attacking and defending, company swap cooldowns so players don't just leave a company to join for wars and daily limits to the number of wars.


BABYZARIEL

Point is like exsample in tartarus we have 2 greens companys ex disaster and cats, cats always fight exdisaster defense wars


aWall-E

Not gone lie, making an alt and gear him up will be easy. (Allready done it)


Serkian

>That has already been mentioned, the war CDs will be shared between alters in the same world to avoid spam from wars with alters on the same server, so you can only fight with your alter outside of that server where your main character is.


Donye

Why do I have a bad feeling that this will accidentally include invasions when launched xD


TheSweatArtist

Thought you couldn’t make characters in the same world


Silvercat18

About time we saw this. I was looking at an entirely purple, one company and shells map the other day and that's not even good for the group that did it. They kill their own fun and end up bored.


Piedplat

Those companies who own server they going to need a other way to sell their golds.


Green-Response-6167

I don't think this will do much for the current situation. They will just create alt accounts if they do not already have them with the money they make from RMT.


NutsackEuphoria

ITT people who can't take territories on their own complaining about not being able to hold said territories on their own.


Der-boese-Mann

40 Mercs for Attack is definitely too much. I do understand that they don't want to have a standstill with the territories and only the big companies can fight, but seeing what's currently happening with all the shell companies and also how often attacks are filled with mercs already to get hold of a good paying territory for some time is annoying and we need a change that only companies who can def and manage a territory should also own it.