I agree about offense spawning closer. I think the points shouldn’t be spawn points for anyone. I think both teams should spawn in their respective forts.
This post was amazing, completely agree the nerf is too much… Definitely should spawn at the ramparts or outside the doors? Imagine a long respawn timer on top of spawning in fort, if your team wipes once its done.
I love that AGS is listening about defense being too overpowered but I feel like after this patch, ATTACK will be too overpowered… I hope they find the sweet spot on these respawn locations.
4 Likes
You’re upset that it’s now going to be a more fair fight?
Defenders will still have an advantage if they’ve bothered to do fort upgrades, and now perhaps now they’ll need to actually defend their territory when influence runs happen.
Imagine needing a good plan to defend a territory instead of just throwing your life away over and over because you can just respawn at a point you need to defend.
Defenders have had it way too easy for a long time and raked in the benefits for barely having to show up. Now that it’s going to be a real fight I suspect there will be a lot of companies with millions in their treasury crying bloody murder.
Get the popcorn ready.
1 Like
I think I would be ok with BOTH sides to not be able to spawn on points (making things a little bit more realistic and forcing you to pay more attention to death) until all points are taken.
The current change instead is a nonsense, unbalancing things on the attacking side. There’s serious risk of changing things too much and losing even more player base.
They could do a lot of things to help attackers, included giving them good siege weapons instead of the current useless ones, maybe even stronger than defensive ones.
The reply above also contains interesting suggestions.
It’s like AGS didn’t even spend 5 minutes thinking how to improve the situation and just went for the worst solution they could make in those 5 minutes.
War design in general is lazy and wrong. It’s pretty obvious that it was implemented with minimal effort under a time crunch just for the sake of having a war/territory system
1 Like
Them spawning in fort makes the 3 points 50/50. As both will have to run back to the wargrounds. Sorry you can’t see the bigger picture. But this will make it Company overall player skill vs Company overall player skill. No longer can bad companies be cushioned on defense bc of respawn on points.
You don’t need point A, B, or C to win a defensive war. All the matters is the fort. You still have the MAJOR ADVANTAGE of spawning in the fort during the last point capture. The attackers have to run all the way from outside of the fort back to inside of it.
If your team was evenly matched with the attackers, you 100% will defend that fort.
You are just upset, possibly because you are in a weak company compared to strong opposing faction companies.
1 Like
If you want fairness I want to be able to batter down the gates of the war camp and shit on you in your spawn.
Lets do it. Fairness away!
There is more and more Attackers who flip territory since last patch . I noticed they changed how fast you capture point as same as OPR ( way faster than before ). Also attackers bow don’t rush for points but go for controlling spawn ( inside or outside forts) . I really have a hard time with this heavy nerf to defender. At the moment, if the attacking team is better than defensive team they will win territory .
it is such a bad design i cant help but laugh.
its basiclly all an open field, stock respawns and 3 points + a fort.
no attrition. no strategy. no potential high ground and cover for attackers, all the same distance, zero fog of war, no decisions to be made besides go to a b or c and sweep.
the best thing to do is just gain momentum and pushtrough each point as fast as possible with grav well tactics and dumping large AOEs into clumps.
there are tactics yes. but only one viable strategy. and that is lame beyond all means for a WAR.
1 Like
Agreed, I would have preferred a more sandbox approach where attackers lay siege to the fort to gain access, similar to eso keep sieges.
The real weakness of attacking forces in new world is that the only strategy we’re allowed is that of the direct offensive attack on a strongly held enemy position, while they’re ready for it, down the line of greatest expectation, against an opponent of exactly the same numerical strength that we have.
It’s a perfect storm of terrible military strategy. All of the worst options combined into one attack. It could only be worse if the defenders had a moat or an air force.
The only tools available to overcome the downsides of that terrible strategy are:
Coordinated tactical maneuvers on the small scale. (mobility)
Having better gear
Individual Player skill.
There’s all of one actual tactical remedy, the rest are circumstantial and generally out of the control of the general/shotcaller.
As they should??? Why should the better team be forced to lose?!? If the defense team is equal to the attackers in skill, they will defend the fort.
1 Like
What I mean is if a company is really better than defender ( even on live server) , territory will swap. And yes better company / players should win . I just think they nerfing defense way too hard. We will see at end of March because we all know they won’t change anything from PTR
1 Like
How long has it been since you people have been in an attacking war?
Do you not realize that right now, you could respawn in the back of the warcamp, very far away from the gates?
This!!! It’s not like you can do literally anything else. It’s massively one sided.
1 Like
I won attacking war 3 days ago, and we lost 2 defending war this weekend also against better players. Good players / company don’t need this change Edit : I’m on Castle of Steel and a lot of calogonor pvp company came here and are really good , we will see tonight they are attacking EF vs OG CoS
Spawning on top of the fort would be the best idea.
If we want better wars, we need more tactical options and on the bigger scale, strategic choices.
Fiddling with spawnpoints is not going to do it.
Changes to capture points and how they work, where they are located and how many exist in total, would be a much more welcome change and it would increase the replayability of the content and increase the variation and different tactical dispositions we see in wars.
Having a choice other than “take those 3 points right there” would give the attackers flexibility and the ability to use indirect approaches and surprise to their advantage.
They could actually do something unexpected.
Simply putting another capture point behind the fort would give you the ability to attack from the rear and upset their forward facing defense. Wouldnt even need to change the rules… You still need 3 caps to then force the gates, but give us more choices of which point to capture and you’ll see some really cool changes to war happening organically as emergent gameplay.
Something as simple as that would change the pivot point of your entire defending army and base it more in the actual center of the fort, instead of out in the open plane in front of the fort.
You would need to be able to rotate around to defend your ass, which is hugely important in war.