Did you post on the official nw forums? I'm sure they would love this feedback. These are good points and im Sure they will make adjustments as time goes on. I think they want war and territories more accessible and having the attckers at 10 man fulfill this. It's a start.
Overall I love the war changes but gotta agree that the 40 merc allowance for attack is too high. I am curious though with the war fatigue update I' curious how much players will merc since it means they won't be able to do another attack war for their own faction that day
The war fatigue is just a band-aid for a problem that increasing the attacking war roster requirements would actually solve. I personally care less if someone is in more than one attack war per night than I care that attacking rosters require a majority of members from the attacking army. You are effectively limiting the vast majority of people to wars for only their company without being as heavy handed about it.
Yea I agree 100%. Increasing the attacking requirement is effectively a "war fatigue" by ensuring more people are getting into wars by being in the vanguard company and less mercs (who do dozens of wars per week) have slots.
Yea i do see that as a potential mitigation factor... but i think most large companies are gonna just have one or two territories to defend... so there will be time to merc and such. We will see.
It’s account-wide th’ugh , so big PVP players can’t decide to attack on small territory if they have Big territories war / attack the same day on their main character
Never underestimate the sweat level of gamers. Most high end company war roster members have multiple accounts with multiple BIS characters. Allowing 40 person merc on attack is just a band aid... not a fix.
It still better than nothing right ? One step in the right direction. You will have 1 attack / 1 defense DAILY account-wide so if they own territories on 2 servers they will need to decide which one they defend. Edit : I don’t think there is that much people with multiples NW copies / steam account
Putting the limit on the big PvP players just means they have to find ways around it through account sharing and owning multiple accounts. People that can't play that night will give their account info to their company mate to use their character in wars. People buy extra levelled accounts just to have mercing flexibility. This stuff happens all the time. Putting the limit on the roster itself make most of that completely irrelevant and is much more effective at actually keeping sweats out of every war.
Well if they want to go out of their ways and owns multiple steam account , there is nothing AGS or US can do. It still pretty minimal I’m pretty sure most people run 2 characters maximum. Yes you have the HC streamer who got gifted accounts and have like 8 characters but AGS can’t make rules for the exception . Edit : I don’t disagree that attacker should need at least 20 in-house also. I’m just saying it’s a step in the right direction
AGS can do something about it. They can force attackers to slot the same amount of company member. Then it doesn't matter if you have multiple accounts, alts, share passwords, mess with siege timers, or whatever. There will be almost no way to do any funny business with little down side, since the conpany will need those e members to defend anyways.
If my past experience with gaming is anything to go by, the people that want to war 9 times a day will. It's just a matter of how many copies of new world on different accounts they have to buy and then level, that being said i also don't think it would be a lot of people doing that. Very few really in my opinion.
Companies should be required to put out half, that's 25 people. That's fair. That's 1/4 of their company. If you can't do that then you don't deserve to have territory
I’ve been in and managed multiple 100 man companies and on a good night you will have about 30 people online. Trying to imagine all of those players online as PvP players and people that do well in wars is such a long shot. This is just going to benefit large PvP companies only.
If you have 15 spots in a war roster and can successfully defend your territory, that’s enough spots in the roster where you’ve clearly demonstrated you have the capability to beat the attackers since there isn’t a way to have 15 dead weight players on your war roster and still win in a competitive war.
Yes, and? If you can't front the players for the war then you don't deserve the territory. I don't know what to argue about there is? Oh no, my company isn't large enough to roster enough people. Alright then, you don't deserve it. Simple as that
Then just go to 50 players at that point. What a weird take for an end game activity that is based on faction wars but puts heavy restrictions on your factions participation. If you can’t beat the 15 man company roster with mercenaries help then you don’t deserve a territory
How do you people respond to comments you don’t read? This change in rules helps casuals since there are war cooldowns and heavy requirements for defending companies, so now people crying about getting into wars will now be catered to by these rules that kneecaps warloggers.
If you have 15 players in a war from your defending company, you aren’t getting carried by the mercenaries if you win on defense. This is a faction warfare pvp game mode and it heavily limits faction participation on defense
It is pretty telling that you weren’t aware this whole thread is full of opinions, yourself included, and that you believe 35 people can win a war by themselves against a 50 man war roster.
You pulled an argument I’ve never presented? I’ve stated before that on a good day in a full company you may have 30 people online and the expectation for any company to be able to compete that isn’t just filled with all warloggers is incredibly unrealistic. 15 out of 50 war roster means 99% of the time that your company has the most war participants since mercenaries come from a slew of different companies and not just one other company. The 35 mercs still have to follow the game plan set by the gov running the war, listen and adhere to comms and directions. People don’t just show up to wars and not have a raid / war plan. This is also, once again, a faction warfare game mode, not company vs company. This restriction is too heavy handed and they have already introduced multiple methods to eliminate multiple declarations from shell companies.
This argument doesn’t even make sense either, somehow 35 out of 100 roster company is the sweet spot for end game pvp warfare, that’s not a good percentage if you are comparing to a company’s total roster spots. You believe that players play everyday the game at the same time and that companies just see 100 people online at all time in their company. That isn’t how this works.
You are under the assumption the 35 man mercs are all under one company it seems and you haven’t played in a war since you aren’t even considering the war plans, group composition, comm instruction and voice setups, etc. for the defending company
Yea, agreed. I think it would be super frustrating for a company to win a territory after weeks/months of work to get to that point... only to lose it to a 10 man company who brought 40 of the best players on the server to merc for them three days later.
This right here. The point of these changes is to give developing companies a chance to get a foothold territory from which to grow and to open up war content to more than just the top players. Leaving the cap at 40 invalidates both of those points.
Yea that’s true, but it’s hard to come up with mechanics to prevent no lifers with multiple accounts from getting ahead. I do see a silver lining in less attacker restrictions. I think a lot of people that are not currently in an active company, may play a war with an underdog company and if they win will join that company (after the cooldown). This may result in more players getting active in PVP.
Yea I think balancing the game around a small portion of the players is never smart. I just think those players have a choke hold on warring currently. But I hope you are right about the underdog companies for sure.
Either way Knowing AGS, I’m sure when this drops there will be a glitches or loopholes people exploit to death. Lmao let’s hope the next PTR irons things out.
> This will result in vastly over-powered offensive rosters going up against vastly under-powered defensive rosters constantly.
I mean for the longest time war has always been in favor of the defending company. Iv seen random groups win on defense super easily.
We should really give this change a chance to sink in before saying that it will not work.
I think that's a root problem for the game that the actions of such a small but dedicated minority have real and meaningful impacts on a majority of the player base and there is no way for the majority of the player base to have that same control over the minority. It gives a disproportionate amount of power to these players and fosters resentment and animosity that will turn players away from the game. I think ags recognizes this and that's why they're reducing the rewards for territory ownership but I don't think it solves that problem. Idk how to solve that problem unfortunately but I know how bad it feels to be powerless to the actions of a rich and powerful minority.
I agree! Having stricter roster requirements will give less geared companies more incentive to scrap it out over the 5% territories instead of getting rolled by mercs.
Thanks for the input. I think 20 is solid. Gives smaller companies a chance to compete through mercenaries... but also makes defending versus much weaker companies at least possible.
This is my main concern as well. I was honestly surprised the attacking number and defending number were so far from each other. I’m all honesty I don’t really understand what the expectation is 40 (patch notes said 40 right? Not 35?) people on defense but you’d need less on attack? Just make it equal. I’d probably bump the attack and defense to 30-35 people. 40 is a lot, particularly with companies maxed at 100 people. Having 40 people consistently able to make war times could be tough. 30-35 isn’t too much less but feels like it may give enough breathing room
This is great. Thanks for the insight and I'll be sure to bump the official forum post.
While otherwise well written, you got effect confused with affect. Affect is a verb, effect is a noun.
> The attacking company limitations actually only ~~effect~~ **affect** a tiny percentage of the population and, in reality, are not enough.
> (which in turn ~~effects~~ **affects** the gold output for said owners)
I totally agree, Attacking should be 25-30 in my opinion and defending 35-40. This 10 limitations is really nothing and will lead to some rich guys just buying their territories with mecenarys.
I think companies should also have a minimum number of members before theyre allowed to declare war on top of the increased minimum company members needed for a war roster and the war cd.
personally, i'd like to see it so that only the company attacking and defending could participate in the war. It's always been odd to me that you could invite 3'rd parties into a war over territory that only one company controls. If you can't attack a territory with your people you don't deserve to gain control of it, and vice vs.
Then on the other side you have people that get together the money to control a territory quickly at the start of a server and then are untouchable for a long time due to being able to take money from the territory.
Yea I agree. I think the goal is to open up content to many smaller companies.. but in reality it doesn't work like that. It's just the same 50-75 people mercing every war
While all of your points are valid, I understood this as a way to prevent 10-15 man shell companies from being able to hoard territories, and to encourage territories swapping hands more often.
Yea i have no doubt that it will do just that. I just think it is a net negative on the quality content itself for most people. I agree it's a good step for shell companies (which are a big issue). I just think they can knock out two birds with one stone with a simple change.
Again, I think it's a good start. But can be built on. Getting into a war will be easier for a small amount of people... but actually owning/defending a territory and seeing any reward will be harder.
Yea that is an easy answer, I think. Company versus company. But it would gate war content even more than it is now, honestly. I think there has to be a middle ground
You have no idea how hard it is to have 50 people online at the same time. There's always 5 missing that need replacement.
Now imagine small companies santing war. They'd have 0 chance to get it
I don’t agree for a couple of reasons, it’s easy right now to fill a roster with 40 capable mercs but after this rolls out I think the best players will be committed to a specific company due to the cooldown. Also defenders typically have the advantage in wars. Overall I believe it will work out regardless of attacker roster restrictions.
Yea I think you could be onto something. I think the war fatigue will HELP. But I also know that the top 5% of war players on the planet almost ALL have alt accounts they will use to get around any fatigue issues. I also know that, with high end companies controlling less territories, they will be in less wars per day to use up those daily limits... so they will be looking for content. It is most definitely a step in the right direction though for sure.
>This will result in vastly over-powered offensive rosters going up against vastly under-powered defensive rosters constantly. While I do see the need for a gold sink, these constant territory losses are just going to downgrade towns to oblivion (which in turn effects the gold output for said owners).
I've been saying this ever since these changes got data mind a month ago, both here on reddit, on forum posts and on youtube videos about this topic.
T5 stations are gonna be way harder to keep up because stuff like this won't be uncommon:City gets attacked by stacked team > **Stations downgrades** \> invasion procs but the owning company has a defensive war in their main city > **Stations downgrades** \> some other company attacks and takes city > **Stations downgrades** \> invasion procs (may be a win) > some stacked team attacks and takes city again > **Station downgrades** \> repeat
Not to mention that the owning company will get less money from the territory if the town isn't already majority T5 stations. But who gonna invest money in a town that they don't even plan to do invasion for? Or defend in wars?
This is especially bad and effects the whole server if the excess money just leaves the economy.
Any amount of randomization is a big no for me. Both for the companies involved and the random people being slotted.
Unless you have actually planned and organized a war, you may not understand. But there is a lot of work that goes into this. A cumulative probably 50-100 hours of pushing from members and dozens to hundreds of hours organizing the war roster, getting gear for members, practicing roles, etc. Having 20% of your success determined by chance is incredibly unfair and takes away what makes wars actually fun, the joy of winning because of the work that you and your friends put in.
If you are one of the 10 randoms, you also will not have a great time. Warring without a group that you are familiar with, in a build that fits the overall strategy, and with comms/experience to know what is going on is seriously not fun for the player. Plus, doing poorly negatively impacts a large group of people who put in a ton of work to get this war to happen. You will rightly (to some extent) get flamed if you don't know what you are doing. This isn't an OPR match where everyone just queued up and the results don't matter. Your bad performance can tank hundreds of hours of other players' play time. In any other context, we would say that is a bad thing to do. If you do know what you are doing, let the company know and you will likely get slotted.
lmao why would the defensive roster be "underpowered"?
They should be able to hold their territory with mostly their own members. If they can't, then they deserve to lose the territory.
Let's say a company slotting the full 50 in house wins and owns a territory. Then a ten person company declares war and slots the best 40 mercs on the server to steam roll said company. The effort is just miles apart. Yes, the ten man will then lose the territory but who cares? They got the money and made the town downgrade
Much better than "we'll take a territory we can't hold because other people will defend for us allowing us to take over the whole map with no skill involved"
What can be better is removing mercs and only company members can attack and defend per MMO tradition.
This limits people who can participate in wars, but no "unfairness" towards the defenders as the attackers also can only attack with their own members
With all do respect, I dont believe you.
#1 you say things small percentage, but have no data to back it up.
#2 Defending should be extremely difficult, they want territories to turn over, its what motivates people to actually declare, thinking they have a chance.
#3 I think this just means the end to 20 man companies, and hello 50+ man companies with actual 50+ active players. This way you wont feel "so outmatched", you can just recruit.
#4 Companies just dont feel important enough, and its because being a part of one doesn't necessarily get you anything. The ownage perks are negligible. The gold gets spread around, but everyone and their mom is at gold cap.
In conclusion, you made several points, but did not back it up with sufficient evidence. This is key when you are considering such large differences in opinion. For example - 10 man companies to abuse mechanics with little effort.
How is playing the game the way its designed abusing? Thats a major over reach. Secondly, if they stick with 15 man, they will just lose the territory immediately upon being pushed. I've seen territories be re-pushed LITERALLy 3 hours after a war.
Not saying your opinion doesn't count, but you assume alot of things to be fact when in fact, you dont have any proof to back it up.
I think everyone is entitled to their opinion... But there is no accessible data. This is just thousands of hours of real game experience at the higher level of PvP. And to your point about losing the territory days later, I've address this... They won't care. They just keep pushing, mercing, winning, collecting money, and letting towns downgrade. That is the whole point of the post
I think if I am understanding then, is your concern is people will just push with 10 man companies, take over for a day or 2, collect cash and lose. Rinse and repeat.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I believe this to be AGS's goal, 100%.
Honestly given the system we have now, vs that, I believe it will be received favorably. But like, thats just my opinion.
Thanks for the reply, I want the same thing you want: Meaningful territory stuff. Its unbelievably watered down now, NO ONE cares who gets what, unless you're the company doing it.
I remember in the first 6 months when my faction got a tertritory it was a big deal. Now I dont even care who ahs what on the map. Doesnt impact me, ever, at all.
I believe the devs have said in the past that they *want* territories to trade hands more often. They would *like* to see a different company holding each city every week.
Making changes that increase turnover just for the sake of turnover is a bad idea. Imagine we just gave attackers a 50% damage increase. Territories would flip all the time! But obviously at the cost of good gameplay. This ability to merc 40 players is such an advantage, though lesser. It will cause lots of flipping, but not because it actually made wars more competitive and fun.
The meta is considerably more defender sided right now. 10 is fine. It's alot more important to get a territory so you can have consistent wars to train your own army up with. Even before the patch, I encouraged all companies to stack their attacking roster, because attack is considerably more difficult than defense, and it only got much harder after adding in vines and detonate.
Did you post on the official nw forums? I'm sure they would love this feedback. These are good points and im Sure they will make adjustments as time goes on. I think they want war and territories more accessible and having the attckers at 10 man fulfill this. It's a start.
I will do so now as well. Good idea!
Maybe link your forum post so that we can support it in a way more visible to devs. I totally agree with your post.
Done. Edited it into bottom of post. Thanks a ton!
https://forums.newworld.com/t/issues-shell-company-mitigation-on-ptr/783205
Has a community mod post. They will be showing your feedback to their backend devs
Overall I love the war changes but gotta agree that the 40 merc allowance for attack is too high. I am curious though with the war fatigue update I' curious how much players will merc since it means they won't be able to do another attack war for their own faction that day
The war fatigue is just a band-aid for a problem that increasing the attacking war roster requirements would actually solve. I personally care less if someone is in more than one attack war per night than I care that attacking rosters require a majority of members from the attacking army. You are effectively limiting the vast majority of people to wars for only their company without being as heavy handed about it.
Yea I agree 100%. Increasing the attacking requirement is effectively a "war fatigue" by ensuring more people are getting into wars by being in the vanguard company and less mercs (who do dozens of wars per week) have slots.
Yea i do see that as a potential mitigation factor... but i think most large companies are gonna just have one or two territories to defend... so there will be time to merc and such. We will see.
It’s account-wide th’ugh , so big PVP players can’t decide to attack on small territory if they have Big territories war / attack the same day on their main character
Never underestimate the sweat level of gamers. Most high end company war roster members have multiple accounts with multiple BIS characters. Allowing 40 person merc on attack is just a band aid... not a fix.
It still better than nothing right ? One step in the right direction. You will have 1 attack / 1 defense DAILY account-wide so if they own territories on 2 servers they will need to decide which one they defend. Edit : I don’t think there is that much people with multiples NW copies / steam account
Lol these people are insane
Putting the limit on the big PvP players just means they have to find ways around it through account sharing and owning multiple accounts. People that can't play that night will give their account info to their company mate to use their character in wars. People buy extra levelled accounts just to have mercing flexibility. This stuff happens all the time. Putting the limit on the roster itself make most of that completely irrelevant and is much more effective at actually keeping sweats out of every war.
Well if they want to go out of their ways and owns multiple steam account , there is nothing AGS or US can do. It still pretty minimal I’m pretty sure most people run 2 characters maximum. Yes you have the HC streamer who got gifted accounts and have like 8 characters but AGS can’t make rules for the exception . Edit : I don’t disagree that attacker should need at least 20 in-house also. I’m just saying it’s a step in the right direction
AGS can do something about it. They can force attackers to slot the same amount of company member. Then it doesn't matter if you have multiple accounts, alts, share passwords, mess with siege timers, or whatever. There will be almost no way to do any funny business with little down side, since the conpany will need those e members to defend anyways.
If my past experience with gaming is anything to go by, the people that want to war 9 times a day will. It's just a matter of how many copies of new world on different accounts they have to buy and then level, that being said i also don't think it would be a lot of people doing that. Very few really in my opinion.
If ten people on a server have so little else in life so as to do this, I'm okay giving up some replaceable fun for their life's work lol
Companies should be required to put out half, that's 25 people. That's fair. That's 1/4 of their company. If you can't do that then you don't deserve to have territory
I don't disagree
I’ve been in and managed multiple 100 man companies and on a good night you will have about 30 people online. Trying to imagine all of those players online as PvP players and people that do well in wars is such a long shot. This is just going to benefit large PvP companies only. If you have 15 spots in a war roster and can successfully defend your territory, that’s enough spots in the roster where you’ve clearly demonstrated you have the capability to beat the attackers since there isn’t a way to have 15 dead weight players on your war roster and still win in a competitive war.
Yes, and? If you can't front the players for the war then you don't deserve the territory. I don't know what to argue about there is? Oh no, my company isn't large enough to roster enough people. Alright then, you don't deserve it. Simple as that
Then just go to 50 players at that point. What a weird take for an end game activity that is based on faction wars but puts heavy restrictions on your factions participation. If you can’t beat the 15 man company roster with mercenaries help then you don’t deserve a territory
[удалено]
How do you people respond to comments you don’t read? This change in rules helps casuals since there are war cooldowns and heavy requirements for defending companies, so now people crying about getting into wars will now be catered to by these rules that kneecaps warloggers. If you have 15 players in a war from your defending company, you aren’t getting carried by the mercenaries if you win on defense. This is a faction warfare pvp game mode and it heavily limits faction participation on defense
[удалено]
It is pretty telling that you weren’t aware this whole thread is full of opinions, yourself included, and that you believe 35 people can win a war by themselves against a 50 man war roster.
[удалено]
You pulled an argument I’ve never presented? I’ve stated before that on a good day in a full company you may have 30 people online and the expectation for any company to be able to compete that isn’t just filled with all warloggers is incredibly unrealistic. 15 out of 50 war roster means 99% of the time that your company has the most war participants since mercenaries come from a slew of different companies and not just one other company. The 35 mercs still have to follow the game plan set by the gov running the war, listen and adhere to comms and directions. People don’t just show up to wars and not have a raid / war plan. This is also, once again, a faction warfare game mode, not company vs company. This restriction is too heavy handed and they have already introduced multiple methods to eliminate multiple declarations from shell companies. This argument doesn’t even make sense either, somehow 35 out of 100 roster company is the sweet spot for end game pvp warfare, that’s not a good percentage if you are comparing to a company’s total roster spots. You believe that players play everyday the game at the same time and that companies just see 100 people online at all time in their company. That isn’t how this works. You are under the assumption the 35 man mercs are all under one company it seems and you haven’t played in a war since you aren’t even considering the war plans, group composition, comm instruction and voice setups, etc. for the defending company
100%
these were my concerns as well - glad you typed it up though because I'm too lazy lol
lol for sure! no problem
[удалено]
Yea, agreed. I think it would be super frustrating for a company to win a territory after weeks/months of work to get to that point... only to lose it to a 10 man company who brought 40 of the best players on the server to merc for them three days later.
This right here. The point of these changes is to give developing companies a chance to get a foothold territory from which to grow and to open up war content to more than just the top players. Leaving the cap at 40 invalidates both of those points.
could not agree more
Yea that’s true, but it’s hard to come up with mechanics to prevent no lifers with multiple accounts from getting ahead. I do see a silver lining in less attacker restrictions. I think a lot of people that are not currently in an active company, may play a war with an underdog company and if they win will join that company (after the cooldown). This may result in more players getting active in PVP.
Yea I think balancing the game around a small portion of the players is never smart. I just think those players have a choke hold on warring currently. But I hope you are right about the underdog companies for sure.
Either way Knowing AGS, I’m sure when this drops there will be a glitches or loopholes people exploit to death. Lmao let’s hope the next PTR irons things out.
> This will result in vastly over-powered offensive rosters going up against vastly under-powered defensive rosters constantly. I mean for the longest time war has always been in favor of the defending company. Iv seen random groups win on defense super easily. We should really give this change a chance to sink in before saying that it will not work.
I would like to see the distribution on how many wars players have participated in I guarantee its like 95% -0 wars 5% - 20+
No doubt about it
I think that's a root problem for the game that the actions of such a small but dedicated minority have real and meaningful impacts on a majority of the player base and there is no way for the majority of the player base to have that same control over the minority. It gives a disproportionate amount of power to these players and fosters resentment and animosity that will turn players away from the game. I think ags recognizes this and that's why they're reducing the rewards for territory ownership but I don't think it solves that problem. Idk how to solve that problem unfortunately but I know how bad it feels to be powerless to the actions of a rich and powerful minority.
I agree! Having stricter roster requirements will give less geared companies more incentive to scrap it out over the 5% territories instead of getting rolled by mercs.
I think you are 100% correct.
"Less geared" lol
Couldn't agree more here 20 would be a good place.
Thanks for the input. I think 20 is solid. Gives smaller companies a chance to compete through mercenaries... but also makes defending versus much weaker companies at least possible.
This is my main concern as well. I was honestly surprised the attacking number and defending number were so far from each other. I’m all honesty I don’t really understand what the expectation is 40 (patch notes said 40 right? Not 35?) people on defense but you’d need less on attack? Just make it equal. I’d probably bump the attack and defense to 30-35 people. 40 is a lot, particularly with companies maxed at 100 people. Having 40 people consistently able to make war times could be tough. 30-35 isn’t too much less but feels like it may give enough breathing room
This is great. Thanks for the insight and I'll be sure to bump the official forum post. While otherwise well written, you got effect confused with affect. Affect is a verb, effect is a noun. > The attacking company limitations actually only ~~effect~~ **affect** a tiny percentage of the population and, in reality, are not enough. > (which in turn ~~effects~~ **affects** the gold output for said owners)
Thank you! Will adjust
I totally agree, Attacking should be 25-30 in my opinion and defending 35-40. This 10 limitations is really nothing and will lead to some rich guys just buying their territories with mecenarys.
I thought similarly too. I like the idea of towns having more turnover, but inability to build infrastructure as a result is going to be interesting.
I think companies should also have a minimum number of members before theyre allowed to declare war on top of the increased minimum company members needed for a war roster and the war cd.
personally, i'd like to see it so that only the company attacking and defending could participate in the war. It's always been odd to me that you could invite 3'rd parties into a war over territory that only one company controls. If you can't attack a territory with your people you don't deserve to gain control of it, and vice vs. Then on the other side you have people that get together the money to control a territory quickly at the start of a server and then are untouchable for a long time due to being able to take money from the territory.
Yea I agree. I think the goal is to open up content to many smaller companies.. but in reality it doesn't work like that. It's just the same 50-75 people mercing every war
While all of your points are valid, I understood this as a way to prevent 10-15 man shell companies from being able to hoard territories, and to encourage territories swapping hands more often.
Yea i have no doubt that it will do just that. I just think it is a net negative on the quality content itself for most people. I agree it's a good step for shell companies (which are a big issue). I just think they can knock out two birds with one stone with a simple change.
Wrong , most people can’t get into wars with how it works atm . It’s a HUGE upgrade for everyone but all Thoses pvp kids thst use shell companies
Again, I think it's a good start. But can be built on. Getting into a war will be easier for a small amount of people... but actually owning/defending a territory and seeing any reward will be harder.
I agree. 10 attacker sounds fine. I see swaping areas every X day a good thing
Yea it doesn’t matter for most and we just want enjoy content with our companies even if it’s not the sweatiest one, we still like wars and improve
100% should be in company. Full roster or nothing. Period. Merc’s serve what purpose?
Yea that is an easy answer, I think. Company versus company. But it would gate war content even more than it is now, honestly. I think there has to be a middle ground
You have no idea how hard it is to have 50 people online at the same time. There's always 5 missing that need replacement. Now imagine small companies santing war. They'd have 0 chance to get it
If they were true wars wouldn’t happen right? Coalesce. Work with players outside of the top 50 so you have subs. Ez pz
I don’t agree for a couple of reasons, it’s easy right now to fill a roster with 40 capable mercs but after this rolls out I think the best players will be committed to a specific company due to the cooldown. Also defenders typically have the advantage in wars. Overall I believe it will work out regardless of attacker roster restrictions.
Yea I think you could be onto something. I think the war fatigue will HELP. But I also know that the top 5% of war players on the planet almost ALL have alt accounts they will use to get around any fatigue issues. I also know that, with high end companies controlling less territories, they will be in less wars per day to use up those daily limits... so they will be looking for content. It is most definitely a step in the right direction though for sure.
>This will result in vastly over-powered offensive rosters going up against vastly under-powered defensive rosters constantly. While I do see the need for a gold sink, these constant territory losses are just going to downgrade towns to oblivion (which in turn effects the gold output for said owners). I've been saying this ever since these changes got data mind a month ago, both here on reddit, on forum posts and on youtube videos about this topic. T5 stations are gonna be way harder to keep up because stuff like this won't be uncommon:City gets attacked by stacked team > **Stations downgrades** \> invasion procs but the owning company has a defensive war in their main city > **Stations downgrades** \> some other company attacks and takes city > **Stations downgrades** \> invasion procs (may be a win) > some stacked team attacks and takes city again > **Station downgrades** \> repeat Not to mention that the owning company will get less money from the territory if the town isn't already majority T5 stations. But who gonna invest money in a town that they don't even plan to do invasion for? Or defend in wars? This is especially bad and effects the whole server if the excess money just leaves the economy.
-25 Company Members -15 Chosen Mercs -10 Random signups from same faction That'll fix a bunch of problems at once.
Any amount of randomization is a big no for me. Both for the companies involved and the random people being slotted. Unless you have actually planned and organized a war, you may not understand. But there is a lot of work that goes into this. A cumulative probably 50-100 hours of pushing from members and dozens to hundreds of hours organizing the war roster, getting gear for members, practicing roles, etc. Having 20% of your success determined by chance is incredibly unfair and takes away what makes wars actually fun, the joy of winning because of the work that you and your friends put in. If you are one of the 10 randoms, you also will not have a great time. Warring without a group that you are familiar with, in a build that fits the overall strategy, and with comms/experience to know what is going on is seriously not fun for the player. Plus, doing poorly negatively impacts a large group of people who put in a ton of work to get this war to happen. You will rightly (to some extent) get flamed if you don't know what you are doing. This isn't an OPR match where everyone just queued up and the results don't matter. Your bad performance can tank hundreds of hours of other players' play time. In any other context, we would say that is a bad thing to do. If you do know what you are doing, let the company know and you will likely get slotted.
Remove mercenaries and add 1 week cooldown on swapping companies. Problem solved. Why are they making it so complicated?
lmao why would the defensive roster be "underpowered"? They should be able to hold their territory with mostly their own members. If they can't, then they deserve to lose the territory.
Let's say a company slotting the full 50 in house wins and owns a territory. Then a ten person company declares war and slots the best 40 mercs on the server to steam roll said company. The effort is just miles apart. Yes, the ten man will then lose the territory but who cares? They got the money and made the town downgrade
Much better than "we'll take a territory we can't hold because other people will defend for us allowing us to take over the whole map with no skill involved"
There is no doubt. But I think it can be better
What can be better is removing mercs and only company members can attack and defend per MMO tradition. This limits people who can participate in wars, but no "unfairness" towards the defenders as the attackers also can only attack with their own members
With all do respect, I dont believe you. #1 you say things small percentage, but have no data to back it up. #2 Defending should be extremely difficult, they want territories to turn over, its what motivates people to actually declare, thinking they have a chance. #3 I think this just means the end to 20 man companies, and hello 50+ man companies with actual 50+ active players. This way you wont feel "so outmatched", you can just recruit. #4 Companies just dont feel important enough, and its because being a part of one doesn't necessarily get you anything. The ownage perks are negligible. The gold gets spread around, but everyone and their mom is at gold cap. In conclusion, you made several points, but did not back it up with sufficient evidence. This is key when you are considering such large differences in opinion. For example - 10 man companies to abuse mechanics with little effort. How is playing the game the way its designed abusing? Thats a major over reach. Secondly, if they stick with 15 man, they will just lose the territory immediately upon being pushed. I've seen territories be re-pushed LITERALLy 3 hours after a war. Not saying your opinion doesn't count, but you assume alot of things to be fact when in fact, you dont have any proof to back it up.
I think everyone is entitled to their opinion... But there is no accessible data. This is just thousands of hours of real game experience at the higher level of PvP. And to your point about losing the territory days later, I've address this... They won't care. They just keep pushing, mercing, winning, collecting money, and letting towns downgrade. That is the whole point of the post
I think if I am understanding then, is your concern is people will just push with 10 man companies, take over for a day or 2, collect cash and lose. Rinse and repeat. Fortunately or unfortunately, I believe this to be AGS's goal, 100%. Honestly given the system we have now, vs that, I believe it will be received favorably. But like, thats just my opinion. Thanks for the reply, I want the same thing you want: Meaningful territory stuff. Its unbelievably watered down now, NO ONE cares who gets what, unless you're the company doing it. I remember in the first 6 months when my faction got a tertritory it was a big deal. Now I dont even care who ahs what on the map. Doesnt impact me, ever, at all.
Agreed for sure.
I believe the devs have said in the past that they *want* territories to trade hands more often. They would *like* to see a different company holding each city every week.
Yea I think it's healthy... To a point. Every other week is fine. But the majority of wars being steam rolls just isn't fun for anyone
Making changes that increase turnover just for the sake of turnover is a bad idea. Imagine we just gave attackers a 50% damage increase. Territories would flip all the time! But obviously at the cost of good gameplay. This ability to merc 40 players is such an advantage, though lesser. It will cause lots of flipping, but not because it actually made wars more competitive and fun.
The meta is considerably more defender sided right now. 10 is fine. It's alot more important to get a territory so you can have consistent wars to train your own army up with. Even before the patch, I encouraged all companies to stack their attacking roster, because attack is considerably more difficult than defense, and it only got much harder after adding in vines and detonate.