You can transfer server or better yet, improve and become more organized.
Asking the devs to put in cool downs or penalize players for putting in the effort to be good and organize is absolutely asinine.
Sorry you don’t just get a participation trophy.
I don’t know what game your playing, but it’s not New World.
There is already a mechanic that basically prevents dominate companies from avoiding war.
After a few days the other factions get significant influence gains. I’ve seen it where 10 greens were running PvP missions and we would kill some, 5-8 turn ins gained them 5%, while 15-20 turn ins for us only did 1%. We would have to sit and camp the PvP missions to prevent it.
So unless your already on a absolutely dead server for some reason you haven’t transfered off of, then its not a game design issue.
There is 0 discussion here, people simply want to complain that they can’t flip a territory or win a war because they simply don’t want to organize and put in the effort to do so.
Ffs
Did you try organizing yourselves ?
Wars and Invasions are end game content. Think high level raids.
There is a fair point here that there is no low-stakes version for casual players. But there is low stakes PvP (open world, faction quests, fort fights, outpost rush) and PvE with a low barrier to entry (all of open world, dungeons, gathering, crafting, etc.) You can’t scale everything to casuals, or you diminish progression for everyone, including casuals.
Invasions are very much a weak point. In theory everyone level 50+ can do them with the 40 player random pick, but in reality, owning companies aren’t going to want randoms because the penalties for losing are severe. There is a design conflict here that I hope AGS resolves one way or another.
This thread reminds me about what i fundamentally dislike about all mmos. For some reason, there is this weird consensus that having best in slot gear needs to require a huge time investment. It usually requires zero skill, but a lot of time.
And now all the tryhards in this thread are raving all over the place about how good they are and how everybody else needs to git gud or eff off.
Newsflash: Being “good” and investing insane amounts of time are not the same thing.
Maybe I should just start playing FPS again. Because that genre is living proof that it doesn’t automatically make your game hugely unpopular if you don’t artificially gate your exciting content behind monumental timesinks.
The old “if you don’t like it you can quit” argument.
What if more than half the people don’t like it? Are you seriously suggesting that they should all quit? Maybe that is what is already happening?
Don’t you think it’s better to find a compromise instead of bull-headed ignoring of genuine concerns? There are problems with how the current system works; those problems are being exploited and often it is a minority that are doing the exploiting.
I didn’t tell anyone to quit, I said why stress myself over a system I don’t like. I don’t go into situations thinking man you know what? How can I change this so I can like it.
If I’m unable to fit into the game I try to find out why and work at fitting into it. In the example of World of warcraft I couldn’t just raid without a guild if I wanted good progression. So instead of going on the forums saying “it isn’t fair” I joined a non hardcore guild.
I’m not suggesting anyone quit I clearly said “I would quit” not that you or anyone else should.
I did suggest a compromise but I got told it wouldn’t work. I also didn’t “ignore” anything I tried to understand the problem and suggested something that could work.
If anything I’d say you ignored everything I said just to comment on the fact I don’t think it’s a problem.
What are these “problems” as far as I’m aware which I’ve stated before is eternal reign is in fact can be a problem. A person not wanting to play with other players in the capacity that the game laid out is not a game fault that’s a personal issue and that’s wanting the game to bend to your schedule.
I’m sorry but a lot of games don’t bend to your personal lifestyle. If you have kids, a wife or whatever and can’t find time to do dungeons, join a company ect that’s not a game fault.
I think it’s very reasonable for company X to own a town and want to handpick their company to defend said town. Why would anyone go through the trouble to secure a town if they can’t properly defend it? Why would I amass a force of pug players to secure a town.
Video games has been like this for years now. If you want quick content pick up pugs and don’t worry about the quality of players or who they are.
Again if I’m unable to join wars because I got debuffed or I’m hard limited after securing a town for defending “I PERSONALLY” will not play the game. If you want to petition for change go for it.
That’s debatable and subjective.
I can argue having a high KDA in shooters don’t make you “good” either or using X weapon takes “no skill” which is somewhat ridiculous to say. Everything requires “skill”.
I’m reading through and I can’t find any alternative suggestion.
There’s a lot being discussed here and there are conflations so I’ll clarify:
Wars over territory should be decided by those most invested. I.e the faction and company that control that territory. I don’t have a problem so much with companies having the final word with selection in those circumstances. And there are mechanisms that help destabilise dominant control anyway so it is down to companies/factions to use those mechanics accordingly.
Invasions are different. They are intended to be more available to the server as a whole. When controlling companies gate this event they horde a gold/azoth income and block other players from accessing it.
The main conflation is that wars are equal to invasions and that is simply not true. The penalties for invasion loss are high but nowhere near the same as wars so using the same justifications for hand picking invasions is disingenuous.
Controlling a territory already has a multitude of rewards. The ability to gate invasions shouldn’t be one of them.
I think they could put a 12 hour exhaustion on wars for individuals. This would reasonably block companies with small rosters from effectively controlling multiple territories with separate war times. This also might greatly increase the Value of mercenary players since they would need to be hired out to defend multiple territories and also would make it so offending teams could throw multiple territories into conflict and basically have a similar result. I think this would also cut down on people willing to cross faction collude help win a war for a buying company if it meant they would risk losing their A team due to exhaustion should they also be in conflict. It would definitely add a layer of politics and complexity to the game and would force companies to invite more casual players to fill the ranks.
End of the day. Idc. It’s a dumb system anyways because it lags horrendously and is a core feature of the game. I’m almost positive Defense win rate on my server is 90%. To me they aren’t wars, they are BORES. Just gate camping offense at the war camp, 1 hour long pre war meetings, no individual or small scale skill expression. It’s just zergs. Might as well make it non instanced and open world. So everyone can complain instead of the same 50 people on both sides.
This is because I noticed wars are set something around 2 days ahead, 3 day penalty would prevent people from jumping from one company to the other to move around 40/50 and 30/50 roster reqs when defing/attacking.
Here it is.
Invasions are pretty severe when lost and I’d argue wars and invasions are big investments and losing either can throw a gear in plans. Which is supposed to happen on a loss for sure.
Honestly I’d even be willing to give up the selection/kicking on invasions in favor of selection on wars.
Love it. On smaller servers we can only dream of such riches, and question why your members are so lazy they can’t be bothered to go gather the mats and have them made by the company crafters…
Not really. If you are on a high pop server you can replace one t5 a day and the maximum number downgraded is 5- and that is a mix of fort and stations so maybe 2-3 days for a high pop server - seeing as every company member would do the missions and fill the board in an hour.
The upgrade cost you won’t even notice with the huge piles of cash you generate on a high population server.
And that assumes you are stupid enough to try and dominate all stations rather than have 2 or 3 areas with different stations.
Invasions only really hurt on smaller population servers such as mine, where we started an upgrade on Monday after invasion and the town board still isn’t full. Plus the upgrade costs are a big proportion of our company income.
It’s pretty disheartening to get kicked as well. You win the lottery and get selected only to get booted because you aren’t best buddies with the leader.
War is a high stakes PvP scenario. Are you seriously surprised that the declaring company kicks out randoms to get people in who they know and may have strategies planned out with?
The OP is hilarious as well:
You will never win an unorganized war against a very well organized team.
No shit lmao.
One of the problems with invasions is finding the sweet spot. They need to have enough risk/reward attached to make them desirable but not so much as to make companies feel the need to block the wider community from participating. Also, bear in mind that the cost of replacing work stations after invasion loss are paid for from taxes. Taxes that have been accumulated from the wider server population already. Technically speaking, the company isn’t paying anything at all towards replacement and is merely managing how player taxes are spent. If anyone makes the argument about gold cost of replacement I will always point to taxes. No taxation without representation 
Giving up player selection for invasions to give full control over war selection is a fair partial solution to some of the wider problems, imo.
Wars, no. I’m not surprised and I don’t have a problem with that. Wars are indeed the highest stake mechanic in the game.
Invasions, however, should not be a good lads club.
Some invasions I’ve seen good players get kicked because the are “randoms” and be replaced by average players for the only reason being that they know the leader.
It is willful ignorance to believe that selection is only made based on skills and ability.
it IS crazy and it’s frankly abusive to those players thinking they’re selected. It 100% increases the toxicity of the player base interaction and leads to player loss.
… so the summary is - you re searching for a way to restrict successfull players?
The point I dont get - how are those players denying content for other players? “Those other players” can build up a clan and fight and play all the content they want. The content itself is open - organize a push and then go to war.
This is not an approach I would support at all. Time gating = nonsense. Restricting successfull clans/players = nonsense. Content is already open - its fine.
That’s exactly how it should be. Why should an unorganized group of brutes win again a well organized team? That wouldn’t make sense at all! If you want to win gather enough people that are able to fight as a team otherwise be a scrub for life!