I dont doubt you. But the exploiters will.
Can you share a screenshot (and paint over the names?)
Thank you
Yeah let me get home. Give me 20 mins
The solution? Enemy factions should NOT be able to sign up for your wars or invasions at all, PERIOD.
It’s entirely contradictory, and can be abused, and takes away potential XP and rewards from your own faction members who lose a slot to another faction person.
No one can force you to lose the invasion because everone loses every invasion anyway lol.
You only win an invasion when the mobs get stuck and dont aggro the gates
Our company owns a city, we paid for the city, only we do the reduction infuelnce, and then someone cries that he can’t be in an invasion … In an invasion where he just runs confused. Thanks to such players, we lose up to five upgrades that cost us a lot of effort, money and an effort to prevent another faction from conquering the city. Apart from not being able to count one and one, Amazon certainly annoys players to do something in the game. Good work, your inability proves how the game runs out of interest, and only thanks to your inability.
[image]
They just need to remove the loss downgrades and not allow kicks. Then other factions can’t abuse it.
I think at the end of the day we can all agree even if we are for kicking or against, the system needs changing.
1 Like
I don’t know about you, but 2000 people aren’t signing up for each invasion. Most people who signed up and are in the controlling faction get in.
This isn’t them saying its an exploit or whether or not its a bannable offense. Still, the current system needs to be changed and punishing players for that is dumb. Anyone advocating the banning of other players are just mad that they got kicked.
No one wants players from another faction in there invasion because you can just steal there siege parts and sit and watch while the invasion fails then declare war while the fort is weak. This is a tactic thats being used a good bit. That’s why no one wants other factions in there invasions without knowing the opposite faction members well.
So I guess the banning everyone is asking for should apply both ways here. If you steal siege parts you should be banned and if your company declares war and you are the one who stole siege parts they should be banned as well correct? this is the road all this “ban people because I didnt get picked for invasions’” crap is going…
1 Like
This is exactly why Im not a fan of opposing faction from being in an invasion. Twice now, I’ve seen the opposing faction players publicly say they were hoping the invasion is a failure so they can watch the territory downgrade.
I’m sure not everyone of these factions are this way, but because of those that are, I refuse to take anyone not in my faction into these invasions, unless I know them personally.
disagree, but not totally
- Governors, have earned the right to the settlement. Thus, the governor of the town SHOULD have a large say on who joins.
- the leader of the settlement should have at least half if not slightly above half say in who joins 25-30.
- I believe non-ruling company members in the top 15-20 of influence or contribution(for devs to attribute how to do) to the settlement/town should have a guaranteed (they can give up or transfer) spot. These individual (must be in a company of 10 or more). This will add to the social aspect. The solo faction players could sill partake but only if they get given the spot by either, governing ruler or those who have earned one of the 15-20 spots from other faction aligned independent companies.
I hope that makes sense and I am willing to discuss disagreements in a respectful manner. I warn , if you talk nonsense to me and try to insult me I don’t mind being banned 
so please lets disagree or agree respectfully.
nah Bro. it is 100% violating the TOS. i mean it is mentioned several time that the ruling company can only select 10 members.
There is no room for interpretation here and this is 100% a bannable offense.
I think player will get away with it as it will be very hard to tell who did it and as A LOT of companies abused it, it would be a quite big number.
I also agree that the current system is lacking any real thought by AGS.
1 Like
Should not be as the main company has no control over the griefing done which is almost 100% of the time by the other factions who join. I think all other factions should be bared from invasions without approval of the settlement owner as they can easily sabotage the invasion for there own benefit.
Stealing siege parts and sitting there and watching while the invasion fails only to still get payout while the enemy faction is forced to take fort downgrades so you can attack and declare war soon after. yet everyone cries about being apart of another faction and getting kicked.
1 Like
As i said:
the invasion system does not make any sense.
The one actually hard PVE content that requires very good coordination, gear, communication andd teamwork to get anywhere near completion is also the one content where you cant choose your team?
BUT bad design does not give you a free pass to exploit the system as that gives you a giant advantage over companies following the rules.
what adventage when literally every single invasion so far has failed (besides 1 on bifrost when mobs bugged out) and has brought the company NEGATIVE INCOME because of damages
you loose less upgrades when you get to later stages.
or at least i am 95% sure of this. thats the only reason i can think of why we lost 5 upgrades in 1 invasion and other cities with similar upgrades lost 2.
it depends on the tier of the city and how far are you withing that tier. We defended until 4 min and until 8 min and we lost 3 and 4 upgrades on those invasions. 40k gold down the drain for a single loss