Settlement Ownership GD

Currently, there is a problem with companies holding the best settlements or multiple settlements for extended amounts of time. One company on our server has held Everfall for almost two months. This is driving other companies to quit the game as there is no more competition.

There needs to be changes to war. However, a quick and fun idea that aligns with the story would be to implement some Governor corruption mechanism. My idea would be to implement a stacking -10% damage debuff on defense for each successful defense of the territory. This way eventually the territory must swap control.

For story purposes, the greed of the Governor opens the door to corruption and creates infighting within the company and finally leads to less efficiency in wars. Only once the settlement is lost can the Governor realize how close they were to becoming corrupted.

Posted in game feedback as well.

1 Like

Don’t know if it’s a good idea but I think all they need is to allow players to recoup their housing cost and allow players to buy a new house at a discounted rate if they already have 2 or more houses.

This then allows the players to relocate to their faction city. This work in two folds:

  • the relocated players can support their faction and the governing companies since housing fast travel boon is much much more accessible than just cutting down the bonuses through fort control.

  • with the relocation, players now have agency to eff off tyrannical companies hell bent on squeezing every single gold from the players.

While it might not be much, but if a large group of players that arent the same faction suddenly up and leave the main two cities, their business will be taken up by their own factions, allowing their faction to grow.

It’s that or just funnel the taxes to the town itself, rather than the governors coffers. That way, the taxes paid are exclusively for town upgrades, rather than personal gain.

Of course, both might mean that there could be lesser impetus to control a settlement but ultimately, its about fairness isn’t it?

2 Likes

Cool idea on the surface, but there’s already a significant issue of organizations with companies on multiple factions, passing territory amongst themselves to avoid conflict with opposing orgs (if the server even has orgs strong enough to usurp the multi-faction megacorp).

It may be smarter to achieve this goal, despite the counterintuitive nature of the statement, that defending be made broadly more difficult than attacking.

This would require a significant redesign to the war battlefield instance, which needs a redesign anyway. If attackers have the advantage, I believe you’d have a situation where the familiar company names are always somewhere to be found on the map, but their home base shifts around more often than what we see right now. Giving more companies the opportunity to collect from the jackpot cities.

As far as how specifically war should be redesigned, I’ll leave those questions to the team. But I would say that we’ve reached and destroyed the limits of 50v50 capture point “stand on the flag” – “get off the flag” meta gaming. There’s gotta be some way to put more unique valid strategies for more character builds.

@Phxxit

Thats not really a solution lol. Progressively penalizing a company for successful defenses is a terrible idea.

Right now the defending side is heavily favored and according to AGS wins about 80% of the time. Perhaps thats a little excessive, maybe they could dial things back so it’s closer to 70%.

I wouldn’t mind seeing some changes to make it more competitive but your suggestion is just a compounding mechanism to force a territory to flip no matter how organized a territory holding company is.

Your response is not constructive.

My suggestion creates a landscape where companies are constantly fighting to hold territory for a few days or week, rather than 2 months. Right now you have companies that have essentially won the server and loads of people have quit since we can’t dethrone. They also continue to widen the gap with how many resources are pulled in. Creating a territory flip mechanism prevents this and gives other companies a chance to hold territory. War has stagnated so let’s mix it up.

Another thought would be to allow attackers to pick the war time. When in history have defenders dictated when they will be attacked. Just another way to mitigate factions from controlling all major territories.

2 Likes

@Phxxit

It creates a situation where no one will fight for territory knowing the game is going to force it’s loss no matter what they do.

And the idea of letting the attacker pick the time doesn’t work either. People have real lives and the defending side needs to be able to field a defending team as well.

The way you got it set up you would have company’s on west coast servers comprised of east coast players exploiting the time difference.

On my server WW makes 14mil a week. I’m 100% confident that companies will fight to hold the territory through multiple defenses.

To your point regarding East coast exploiting West coast… well it goes both ways. The West coast gamers could just schedule the next attack really late.

Again, not constructive nor valid rebuttal. Offer a better solution than mine. The current process is broken and I am offering a change that would work.

Perhaps introducing an open world pvp mechanic where a couple of POI’s pop up in the province being attacked can be fought over an hour or so before the scheduled war could be implemented.

If the attacking side wins over, say a POI that is the “supply train” for the fort, then the defenders are penalized with a minor increased respawn time. Or another POI “weapon stockpile” that if attacking side takes out will slightly reduce the attackers damage.

This would all of course require serious work on getting right and balancing, but it would maybe help this dilemma while allowing players who don’t normally get into wars a form of participation.

1 Like

Yes, just like ESO. I like this idea.

@Phxxit

I already offered a better solution lol.

AGS says they want defenders to have the advantage in wars. They say their data shows about 80% of defenses win.

AGS could dial things back so the odds aren’t so lopsided in the defenders favor.

But the idea of forcing territory flipping no matter what makes no sense. You want territory put on your big boy pants and win it.

@ravensworn

I like this idea and it makes sense. We should be able to effectively sell and relocate. It would be cool if your housing score influenced the resale value of your house.

Going hand in hand with this would be to allow resets for territory reputation points.

Another great way to mitigate mega companies from holding all of the profitable territories.

“Dial things back” is all you said. What does that mean to you? @Deadmarsh

On our server a company owns all main towns. To secure this, they splitted in different sub-companies for different war timers.
Because of that they have so much gold, they pay 60k and more for mutation keys, to max their Gear Score first. How are you supposed to beat that? :smiley:

They even exploit A LOT… But AGS doesnt care… :frowning: Their leader got a 1 day(!!!) ban for using the “Topas / buff food-exploit” - wtf… A lot of their members used it in wars, just one member gets a ban and just for 1 day… Its so absurd, they are know for their exploiting on the while server…
But well, thats another topic xD

Still, it shouldnt be possible to split into sub-companies and hold so much towns.

2 Likes

@Phxxit

Make changes so the defenders only win on average 2/3rds of the time, instead of 4 out of every 5 wars.

Forcing territories to flip by instituting a compounding penalty is the ultimate in cheese. By your method eventually no matter how well a company defends they will lose their territory. Not by being outplayed but by being overwhelmed by a penalty imposed on them for successful defenses

@anonymoussupporttoon

Yes, I eluded to the need for redesign in my original post. This was the “quick fix” option that I presented. I do believe that settlements need to flip more often to keep people interested and fighting for something.

My suggestion for war would be to have a way to mitigate war horns. Currently, horns are very powerful and if you aren’t using them, then you are missing a huge resource.

My idea would be for attackers to place “rend” flags such as the ones used by some lost and corrupted mobs. We would place them on a control point and it would mitigate all horns either until destroyed or for a set timer.

And what if there’s no territory to relocate to? WW / BW / EF is held by same company, rest are split between shell companies with extreme taxes or some fringe companies that don’t have enough income to sustain workbench upgrades.

2 Likes

@Deadmarsh

Do you fight in wars at the highest level currently?

If you do, then you would know that the companies holding Everfall and Windsward through housing tax decrease made loads of money. This lead to huge power gap between them and other companies. It is no longer skill based as they all have BiS gear from rolling 10s of millions in gear. This was compounded with the Umbral release as they are able to complete M9 and M10 in the first week while most others cannot progress past M8.

My suggestion prevent this power gap and allows for a more balance wealth distribution, and as a result creates a more competitive landscape.

2 Likes

@Solry

That is up to the companies and individuals to organize and create opportunities. AGS just needs to give us the right tools.

Another idea is to have set capital towns for each of the factions. You will have lesser territories to take over but you ensure that the faction balance and the control that mega companies have are somewhat curbed.

And no, the starting zones aren’t a good idea for the faction Capital either since WW is one of them, which of the faction then gets it without uproar from the other?

Also, it doesn’t give any incentive for the companies to fight for territories if let’s say the Syndicate capital is WW. The best location for faction capitals are based on lore itself, Cutlass for Marauders, BW for Covies and Fens for Syns. Its technically balanced, since the forts for fast travel are located far to the south, while Fens and BW are closer to the endgame zones.

Just a thought process. It’s what we want to achieve at the end that is important. Cutting down company influence on the game system is good but there needs to be incentive for the companies too for them to want a new territory.

That’s the thing, it’s a question of whether do you support your faction war effort or are you just wanting to play according to your own needs?

If you do relocate en masse, given that some companies are shoving high taxes on housing, then isn’t it much better to give your taxes to another company who needs it more?

Again, I based this on my server, where while the Covies hold Everfall and have not fallen, they ONLY have that territory because the rest of the territories are actually held by companies that have a lot of support from their members. (Abandoning houses and moving over.) Imagine if the houses were able to be let go and you are able to move.

It’s a hassle but what’s the difference now? Especially if you are paying through your teeth for the housing tax and paying all those crafting and trading tithes to a company that aren’t aren’t uour faction?