War Cooldown Suggestion

Game Feedback Game Feedback
5

People keep making this suggestion assuming that putting other people on a cooldown will somehow validate them and get them slotted, it is a really bad conclusion. Making wars guild based will likely have that intended effect, but outside of that i cant really see anything added to this system to get that effect for a new player.

Cooldowns are not the right approach for getting new, or lower performing people into wars.

Guild related changes, or some sort of political system will do it.

For example if there as a larger “entity” in the game, a company of companies (we can call them alliances) and the restriction was “you and your alliance can only slot for wars”, you’d see a solution to this problem mainly. Also if we go this way it will take a long time because its a lot of work to add that system. That system should be set up to only be faction specific, so alliances can only be had internally.

I do have another suggestion that might be interesting.

That would to enable another faction to exist called “mercenaries” that could NOT claim territory but can be slotted for any factions wars (better yet if the game had some sort of “pay gold to hire” a guild type concept for that faciton).

6

This would be extremely toxic to PvPers who are casual.

What you are suggesting is a pvp version of orbs, and we all know what kind of impact that had.

My reponse to that is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IT SHOULD BE ADDED

7

This does not seem toxic, you are given the oppurtunity to attack and defend or attack attack defend defend once per day. Farming is not toxic either, New World is a big beautiful game created to be explored and utilized for all types of content.

Yes orbs had their flaws but this is alot different since the amount of dungeon runs people needed are exponentially greater due to leveling GS. On average every server has about 3-4 wars a day, 2 is a generous amount.

8

What is “this” in this statement?

Yes it is. It is the most common complaint about the game. Hardcore players like us do not care, but many of the casual players do, and they care a lot; in fact, they care enough to leave the game because of it.

You are so extremely wrong about this i cannot express how completely wrong you are. In fact one of my major arguments against the orb system was just this, namely, that “we apply orbs to pvp and see how long the game lasts”. EVERY person i have used this argument on, on discord has instantly said “no thanks” but in a less polite way.

Ever players recognize how EXTREMELY destructive this suggestion is. IT will be instant death to the game and i’d like to hope that after warning the ags team about orbs and it killing their game for 5 months (Yes, i warned them before it was an issue) that they’d grow wise enough to know just how HORRIBLE that system is.

Primary forms of content (PvP (arena, wars, etc) and pve (dungeons, Raids, etc) Should never be “content locked” behind some "mechanic (ie orbs, keys, systems, etc). PERIOD.

I will fight you with all my power and energy on this, and i have 23 years experience, almost 13 of which is on the most successful mmo in a senior position that is specifically designing and managing these systems.

Like it or not, I am telling you as a designer, your suggestions for orbs on pvp in what ever version you want to spin it WILL ABSOLUTELY kill the game.

No its not. In fact even war experienced players that perform well and contribute to strat calling like myself do not even get slotted. It happens because of politics, not because people can “spam wars”. First its guild members and friends, then its well performing people (ie good reputation people), then its faction, then who ever.

You need to come to terms with that.

1 Like
9

Look Sir, I appreciate your thorough explanation and back up. The moderator asked me a question and I answered him, in no way am I pushing for this solution or trying to go back and fourth with you so please save your power and energy and leave your credentials at the door it does not justify your view being expressed to a stranger. I enjoy this game enough to voice myself even if my solution is wrong atleast AGS will know something is wrong.

I will say tho that some kind of solution is needed. The 150 who are doing every war are nothing in numbers compared to those who would leave if nothing is done. I do my best to stay positive but the same content over and over again is becoming dull. Myself and many others feel the same way about not being slotted.

10

I agree completely, I just don’t agree with your approach. A lot of people who want access to this content are excluded, and i find that to be a very big issue. I have considered making it a normal pvp option (in rotation with opr) but i suspect it may in ways invalidate that guild-based pvp.

Restricting what factions can access what factions wars is a start, but we need more beyond that. I would recommend you look at ways to address it on that level and i would support you strongly if it was guild based as i feel they are the heart of the game and all content should be based around it.

1 Like
11

@ImmortalRuler

How would you feel about war exhaustion reducing the respawn timer of people instead of preventing them from being in the war outright?

Say if you have exhaustion you always hit max respawn time? So any time you die, you always get 30-45 second timer.

1 Like
12

Hey that is not a bad idea at all. I am also trying to think of some ideas its pretty tough to be honest alot of cascading outcomes. However I do think guild based warfare does seem pretty neat. The guild that I am presently in is very “sweaty” I am more than decent at pvp and BIS geared up but since I am not top tier in duels I am in a way treated like an outcast, it is very toxic and unencouraging. However I do have alot of friends that are in the same guild I have grown with and I really only stay for them.

13

Yea, I just cant get behind hard-locking people from pvp content for a few reasons. For example if there is no other options the entire raid suffers from getting a full roster. Also, this really destroys the war-focused approached and potential that some players can have. Its a highly competitive alternative to ranked pvp which is extremely good. Imo, Wars are the strongest and best form of content ags has made. They are not perfect (especially around who/what gets on the roster) butt hey are some of the best pvp i have seen.

my thought process is that by doing something like a soft-restriction (similar how we have hard cap and soft caps in games), we can somehow discourage the use of the same people over and over, and encourage new playesr to come in.

This sort of mechanic would punish a guild that runs the same people 100% of the time, and strongly encourage it but can also provide some room for a few of the same people to join, for example the members that are leaders or excel at war; this will leave room for people that need experience or a chance to prove themselves.

1 Like
14

I completely agree, and I have to admit that prolonged respawn is really sinking in I like the idea of it. I have another idea, I doubt anyone would be a fan of it lol but here it is. War slots categorized by build but not confined to any particular order - for an example

Group 1
Melee
Melee
Mage
Tank
Healer

What if players can only participate as one class per war, meaning the second or third war they will be in they have to choose different classes. Haha I feel like this might be a bit harsh, just throwing out ideas here. I seem to turn to the more restrictive solutions :sob:

15

I think slot assignment by role is to restricting on meta potential. I would definitely be open to something like a limit to specific types of weapons.

So 20 ga for example.

2 Likes
16

The whole system essentially needs to be evaluated, it was especially concerning when the devs proposed the 40v40, without understanding that war is already limited to less than 1% of the player base, and most of those players ONLY login for war - and that territory owners making 3 million a week have a significant advantage - regardless -

I would propose only companies that get the declare can be slotted for the war, and there is a cooldown to leaving and joining new companies. This would solve so many issues - bottom line is if you don’t have the roster or team to take a territory, you shouldn’t be declaring anyway - first thought would be that might limit players even more? Not necessarily, I’ve not seen many companies with more than 50-100 active players - right now it’s too easy to pull the same players in or the “best of the best” to your wars or defends - this would encourage players in each company to actually get on and push - in the companies I’ve been in, the main roster again only log in for the wars and does not push the territory, but they still get to play because they are deemed the “best” in their class.

The companies that I’ve seen that do slot a majority of their own players, are usually the most successful, but again it does become unfair for the other 25-50 people in the company, this would at least encourage them to go out on their own, or actually have companies “build up” there players who are deemed “not as good”. Either way this is a tough one to fix, but hopefully something that can seriously be looked at.

1 Like
17

By making 4h war cd ( only wars not invasions) you will completle destroy shell companys wat is 100% right desision :slight_smile: becose now one xompany can easy defend 4 teritorys bexose of diferent war times :slight_smile:

18

Yes i agree 100 proc, well 20 ga is still to much , oweral is hard bexose ppl wana use like exsample bow and ig, or ga and ig, so wixh tipe it is ?;DD

19

@ImmortalRuler Thank you for idea regarding a Token system. I do recognize the feedback regarding how it can be prohibitive to players who solely want to focus on Wars. Hopefully a happy balance can be found. These are important discussions to have. I will share this with the team.

20

This is not true, people take shell companies for many reasons.

I have addressed this topic in another post. A few changes need to happen to fix this problem. For example, one of the reasons is people use them for “banks” to by-pass the gold cap mechanic. Another one is that people use them because companies have their own vulnerability timer instead of zones.

Changing companies to scale their gold storage size based on members is a good way to stop the gold-bank alt companies, or simply making a “bank” for gold to be stored in and leaving the cap on the character at 500k

Setting zones to have timers instead of companies is also another way of reducing the concept of shell companies.

21

24h war cooldown.
24h for being able to join another company after leaving.

Story time:
Yesterday we had 2 wars in the same day and for the first one we invited all guild members regardless of the gear-score or level. These players come to push influence with us regularly but experience wars very rarely(for some it was the first time they were in a war after months of playing). It was so fun and enjoyable to just have everyone together and fight against another company. It is a shame that we have to choose between having fun and winning…
Side note - we fought 2 different companies but the same players. It’s always the same 50-100ppl that we fight against and it is so disappointing.

22

This is a really big topic.

Players like yourself are seeing that the problem is related to mechanics, but that may not exactly be the case. You may want to diagnose this as “i cant get in to wars” or “new players cant get into wars” but that is not factual. Actually, I have seen and experienced myself many companies slotting their guild members with little to no war experience and readiness for wars.

This tells me that the problem is likely NOT related to the mechanics.

There is problems related to mecahnics however, with wars. For example a green “shell” company that is owned by an orange company using claims to transfer ownership by “throwing”. This situation can only really be fixed by either setting wars victory/defeat on a “score” (or example if people kill get points and at the end of the timer the most points wins), or by banning players of offending companies and disbanding related guilds.

There is a mechanical issue we can address and that is green slotting all oranges. In fact most of us are in agreement orange should not be able to fight in green wars (or some variation of faction to faction relationships).

Reducing or adding scaling mechanics to wars would help smaller guilds engage in such content. The question is " how do you do that with out fundamentally destroying the gameplay experience of wars?" or maybe even if you want to do that.

when we talk about hard-lockout mechanics for wars, we should really understand what we are saying and how strong of an effect this will have. This mechanic will destroy peoples focus in wars, not help it.

Imagine if people who are war dedicated can only do that one 45 minutes of content once a day, or week. They would play very rarely if at all. You are advocating to destroy not only a persons gameplay as a war-focused individual but you are also advocating the destructions of wars themselves through mechanics that will invalidate any serious attention from a company; and even if you don’t manage to do that, you will significantly destroy the value of it.

LOCK-OUT war exhuastion is not a good move. We need something more subtle and soft. We need a “softcap” approach, not a “hardcap” approach.

23

This is a very interesting point of view, thank you!

If the game can offer only war content for war dedicated players, maybe the problem is not mechanics but rather the lack of content itself. But until more massive pvp-oriented content is added a quick-fix is in need. A war cooldown, even 1-4h one, will solve all the issues you have listed. If greens queue for orange war then they will not be able to defend their territories and vice versa. War oriented company will still have to defend their territories and(if they want more faction-owned territories) help allied companies organize their wars with strategies and influence pushes.

I see your concern here and losing more players is definitely something I do not want. I myself don’t have problems getting in wars and know how much fun they are. From my perspective I just wish more players can enjoy that content and thus have a reason to upgrade their armor, work on their battle skills, work on teamplay, etc, etc.

Whatever you do, player agreements may happen and bad actors will always act in a selfish manner. But an end-game content to be available only to 200-300ppl out of 1500 I don’t see as fair.

24

Just get your own company, push a territory, and slot whoever you want.