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

IMHO AGS should set up fixed war times.
For instance, Wars will happen every Tuesday and Thursday, 8pm local time.
Since you cant be in two places at the same time:

(i) more people would have access to Wars
(ii) companies would prioritize territories even more, making it easier for smaller companies to conquer other cities;
(iii) more gold flowing between companies, as a result of B. Less money concentration = better for the game

1 Like

Yes, I agree. The solution to this problem is very complex no doubt.

1 Like

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, for example:

You could make it a percentage - or a lower cap than 50. You could say 60-70% need to be from the company…or 35-30…and let the rest be filled from within the faction or they sit empty. The intent should be to force the shell companies out of the game.

Is there some company size threshold below which this would make settlement ownership impossible? Yes. Is that a bad thing? It may just be the cost for marginalizing shell companies.

All valid points for discussion. Well done.


agreed. Wars are the only semi serious PVP we have in NW. Outposts and Arenas wont be taken seriously until rankings/rewards are created.
If Amazon keeps the system as is, how are new players ever supposed to get in a War?
AGS has nothing to lose by doing this, but only to gain. More people involved in end game activities = bigger player base.

But the companies being outbid are being paid gold when they lose. Eventually they will have the gold to win the bid or they are being compensated by being paid for losing.

I don’t like the fixed window because it causes groups of people who play late night or earlier to be at a disadvantage. The real problem is how you can hold a territory under a shell company and anyone can help defend that territory. Limiting how many wars someone can be in makes more sense as it prevents the same people participating in stagered wars to the same effect without making it only ideal for people who happen to play during the declared window AGS chooses as the universal time slot.

Alternatively, wars could be made up of squirmishes instead of being one big war. Maybe you have squirmishes that are completely random mix of players using the war format in the hours leading upto the war. Like 2 hours of squirmishes and then the war. Have the outcomes of the squirmishes determine the starting conditions for the wars themselves.

Maybe you lose 5 slots from your side of the war based on the outcomes of the random squirmishes that took place before.

Ok Proxy Companies Flaws

So folks have alts on same server due to merging and other have 2nd accounts. Company hopping is not something that needs to addressed. Breaking up shell companies control is something that is very hard to get around because of the two issues i already listed. Yet there is a simple solution that will help combat it. Company only wars which will force people to join companies to get into wars instead of sitting in solo member companies and shell companies. Now for those who want to merc for a company sure there can be an option for that where the Company pays them via the war board for their efforts allowing the Attacking/Defending Company to open up a merc (up to 10) slot for a set about of coin. I would say about 5k per slot (+3k for out of Faction) would be a fair starting point. Now this could develop into interCompany Faction standing. This new process would show your standing to those of the company you are aiding. So after X numbers of wars your standing could grown and grant discounts for you slot if accepted. It could even get to the point when you look at the war board you could see the cost of each ally and their cost to slot them. Now at this point you have to have at least 40 company members to go to war and that would help (not fix) break up shell companies

I love this idea - It could be done if we could instance the pvp system so that it would work like OPR - Only Company A vs Company B could join this que and do a 5-10 man street fight in a Instance based version of the town. The Objective would be to steal company documents from the governor table and escape as well as from other locations in town. Or you could have someone on one team hold that item and attempt to keep it away from the attackers for a 15 min window. This event would happen every night leading up to the fight and only during the siege window. Then either side would get either 1-7% Empowered (attackers) or Fortify(defenders) for each time they were successful

If what you say is true, that would happen now. But it doesn’t, does it?
Most people actually have a life IRL. It’s actually hard for companies to even muster 50 people.
These shell companies have already poached the no-lifers. They are certainly in the minority compared to the rest of the player base.

On top of that the defending company can choose to set the war window at some stupid time (often to overlap system maintenance even). During Christmas, people were asking for a Christmas break for example – because people have a life.

If New World demands that you cancel your work, social, and relationship schedule, guess who’s sticking around to pay to play something like that?

Please lock Wars from Christmas - General Discussion / General Discussion - New World Forums

The best solution to this issue is to not have too many complicated rules around War.
Player influence over Settlements is a single bad design idea that creates so many other issues and exploits and then people fall over themselves trying to make up even more rules to try and make it work but really just keep making it worse.
Just delete all player influence from Settlements. Rework War into something more similar to instanced PvP with higher accessibility similar to OPR.

Better PvP by completely separating player influence over Settlements - Game Feedback / Game Feedback - New World Forums

Here’s a suggestion:

Remove territory income and create a company leaderboard with weekly/monthly gold incentives.

Upon winning a territory, the territory will generate points for the company towards the leaderboards. Subsequent defenses award more points every period the company holds the territory. Companies only gain points from one territory so in order to get a lead, they will need to break the streaks of others by winning successful attacks.

Companies are limited to one territory so that winning an attack while also already holding a territory would mean the company would need to pick which one they want to keep.

At the end of each leaderboard period, the top companies are awarded gold. How many companies and how much gold is up for discussion. In order to be eligible for the rewards, the company has to be created/registered before the leaderboard period. Players can only choose to war for one company per season.

Open to any suggestions/improvements/critiques. Just throwing ideas around while considering the shelling problem and animosity towards gold income

Even as a non pvper i disagree. The idea of owning territory and all that comes with that was and is one of the few things great about this game.

Iterative refinement to make that more accessible to more people and a deeper experience of things to improve and decide as govenors is what they lack.

They never invested on improvingvthe system to protect against abusive companies.

I took a bit of time yesterday to read through this thread and several others about shell companies in addition to multiple conversations in discord. I organized what I found on a Miro board, which to those not familiar, is basically a virtual whiteboard.

What I’ve noticed is that there are two solutions often suggested:

  1. A Company Roster requirement
  2. A Company Change cooldown

Hopefully, AGS will consider one/some solutions to work towards solving this issue.

This should be reworked asap.

1 Like

Given how many posts there have been here and on Reddit in the past few weeks alone (I know it’s been an issue for a while), I would be surprised if they are not working on something.

I would love to be proven wrong too.

1 Like


Just saw this on a post on the NW Reddit:

David Verfaillie: Yes we consider this an issue. We don’t believe a small group of players should be able to exert undue influence over the territory control game by using shell companies or other loopholes. We are testing a few different strategies to resolve this, things like requiring a certain number of members from a company to participate in a war, or a war cooldown that limits how many wars a player can play per server each day. Once we have a solution we feel works, we’ll test in PTR.

Source: Vitae Aeternum: New World interview on Summer Medleyfaire, solo play, housing, and more | Massively Overpowered

Short-sighted solutions.
@Aenwyn kindly remind David Verfaillie that shell companies were a LATER development and extension of server-wide-griefing by toxic companies. Long before they developed shell companies, they were squatting on high-income settlements to milk them for RMT money. They let towns degrade then took the money to another server.

Even if you disable the shell company exploit, that just allows MORE but different companies to sit on settlements, collect RMT money, and destroy servers.

The one best and simplest solution is to delete player influence over settlements. This not only solves the shell company exploit, but makes it impossible to do other settlement-related exploits, AND opens up Wars to be experienced by more than 100 cherry-picked people on a server, plus other benefits.

At a minimum, all server transfers must be permanently disabled. It was the introduction of server transfers that set off all these exploits, which are ultimately related to RMT, botting, duping, and other wealth transfer to new markets. Without the ability to transfer wealth out of a server, there was less to no need to slash-and-burn clear-cut a server for gold then leave it ruined before transferring out.

Better PvP by completely separating player influence over Settlements - Game Feedback / Game Feedback - New World Forums

1 Like

These are stupid approaches.

Just make the details below and there it is, problem solved?

  • Whenever a player leaves a company (be it by kick, own decision, etc…), create a cooldown of 3 days before he/she can join another one;
  • Only members from the company are allowed to attack/defend.

This topic was automatically closed 21 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.