Everyone hate proxy-companies and servers dying, besides the players inside those companies, so... [+ SOLUTION]

See

Now you just limited the amount of players able to attend wars. Not many companies have 50 active players capable of warring…or are even interested in it.

Small servers will never have full rosters

2 Likes

Game probably needs to scrap the company control system and go to faction control with set war times for each settlement that are staggered throughout the day. Players that are online randomly get pulled in like invasions. Remove control to kick or manage roster.

Only players matching the attacking defending color can receive invites. Randomly roll which color faction gets the attack dec.

This would solve a lot of issues. Profits from tax revenue go to all faction players for all revenue as a dividend. Figure out a way to pay for town upgrades from factions. Maybe require faction laps or missions to pay for the upgrades.

4 Likes

As a 2.5k hours player maining NW playing in most populous and competitive servers in EU I got a few observations.

  1. all systems can be flawed. 2) the problem is invasions and people not wanting to attend them 3) people try to find money as much as possible so big companies move around to get WW EF BW 4) BiS gear is a nicehave but isn’t the reason you can’t get a major territory in 50v50 but game balance and war rules influence the outcome of the war a lot of times.

If you balance wars a bit more, so attackers have advantage over defenders, then you will see a lot more territory swapping hands, therefore everyone will get more money=> more people will be happy.

If you match that with a bit of spreading taxes around settlements to pay upkeeps (or just spread taxes around the map) so major territories get a bit less and side territories a bit more then majority of servers will be better. Don’t have to scrap factions or companies as players will play to the fullest extent and try to bend the rules regardless

Who cares about proxies when you are about to lose. Declares and 10% don’t really matter if you push with one or 10 companies as realistically it’s the same chance, the war timers matter

1 Like

Hm, that’s not true,

The sweaty players will fight for the capitals, companies that don’t have 50 players will have to hire/merge with others, and what’s the problem about it?

I agree 100% with you that this should be done, but didn’t want to talk about this in the same topic as it would be too much.

But yeah, we do need a spread to other territories, as some of them are just useless compared to Capitals.

A lot of servers died because of the shell-companies system, fighting this mechanic would bring more people once again, and yeah, small servers should be addressed by AGS ASAP with merges and etc… no one likes to play with other 199 ppl in a game like this.

increase company size to 150-200, force roster to be made up for at least 25-30 players from the company declaring or defending, one company change per week.

I guess allowing only company members to the roster is a good thing.

I will say, being on the receiving side of Proxy companies I absolutely hated the concept. But after being in a few. There is a general reason why people do this. The method of selecting the warring company is fucking RNG and awful. A singular company can put in 90% of influence and then another company pushes 10% and gets the declare. Where is the sense in that? Proxy companies are created to give the company pushing the most influence a better chance at actually getting a declare. PVP missions absolutely SUCK and no one wants to do them. (Especially you, Mourningdale). Choosing a War Declaring company is an aspect of the game that needs worked on.

2 Likes

A lot

I agree. The problem is, that based on the dev video, their average age is about 50. It feels like many of them did not play any MMO or game before, and are just sticking around because of connection and that they can flex they work in Amazon. Otherwise I cant really understand why this wasn’t discussed before. And the dev saying the economy is healthy? What a joke.

2 Likes

The problem lies solely with the dev team who have not even acknowledged that they want to change this.

Can come up with solutions all day everyday and if they dont see it as a problem even though a lot of people do, nothing will change.

Ggs lets get next

1 Like

Yeah… that’s a big concern.

It should be solved!

This right here, the problem is that they’re just kind of accepting the answer ‘there is a problem’ rather than actually seeing that problem for what it is.

As a result I don’t know if they actually feel any of these features are flawed, and don’t just think the players are ‘using them improperly’ or some bull argument.

Real solution

  1. Company swap cooldown lasting a week.
  2. You can only choose people from your company for war. If there are slots left, they are filled using rng.
1 Like

Couldn’t agree more.

Maybe you missed:

If Easy Company pushes a territory and gets the WarDec then under this scenario, as suggested, only members of Easy Company would be able to fight on the attacking side.

With a company swapping CD added to that it would limit participation to swappers who knew they could not be in a war for another company for X days.

I don’t even participate in wars and I think this it going to far. Building community and alliances within your faction and supporting one another is something that should be supported. The goal should be to exclude people because they aren’t in a specific guild but to address shell companies and prevent the same 50 people from holding 3 territories and being able to defend all 3 simply because they subvert the mechanic of having a common siege window by having shell companies hold the territories.

The problem is being able to participate in multiple wars per day.

This is on the right track but isn’t targeted enough. Make it so a player can only participate in one war per day. Then there is simply no reason to have shell companies, you can’t defend two territories at two times that day.

This would cause more people to band together to both attack and defend territories or it would cause a much higher rate of turnover. Either would be healthy for the game.

This would allow companies to hold one territory reliably but make it incredibly difficult to defend two different territories with an elite squad of players abusing the siege mechanics to hold multiple territories.

I like the 1 war per player per day option. Even if all of the sweaty try-hards have alt accounts it still limits the number of wars that can be kept exclusive to the top 150 players on a server.

I also think they should change the way that territory influence works for war declares. Make it a function of how much work you put it, without the diminishing returns, and you get rid of one of the main purposes of shell companies. So instead of 10% chance for pushing 10% and 20% chance for pushing 30%, just make it a 10% chance for every 10% you push. So if you push 80%, you have an 80% chance of getting a declare. That means everyone can stay in one company and push to try to get the declare without having to mess around with shell companies. Combine that with a company switch cooldown (or being ineligible for war for 48 hours if you switch companies) and the previously mentioned 1 war per day limit, and you’ve solved most of the shell company problems.

Then you set an Alliance system where companies can have an alliance with up to 4 other companies in their faction, and can only pull for their war roster from those allies. And for an alliance to form, they all have to have the same siege times for any territories they hold. It should be easy enough to hold a single territory, but it should be much harder to hold multiple, and it should be impossible to control an entire map.

This might get rid of the war-loggers, but honestly, I won’t mind that. Maybe having the opportunity to participate in wars will help convince more players to come back when they open up Brimstone Sands.

1 Like