The recent dev blog wrote:
There have been some complaints about War happening too often. There is a 24 hour cooldown between Wars, and with the War windows, that means War happens at most every 2 days per territory. Players can also delay that through the influence race, which is now much more viable since we fixed the escalating influence issue. Overall, we think a War every 2 days is a good cadence, but please continue to let us know what you think. We are seeing War fatigue from Factions which funnel a group of players into every War. While we love this cooperation, having one company (or one company’s worth of players) own multiple territories should be very hard and is not what we are balancing War cooldowns toward.
On my server, Amano Iwato, our population wasn’t super high, more around 800 until many companies decided to leave recently.
But what we saw was that basically the same people were controlling the wars.
When population isn’t high, it stands to reason that you’ll have a smaller number of highly skilled pvp players, and they can leverage that power differential to control wars and politics.
We basically had Green establish an alliance of 3 companies, and then would demand 25k gold to defend any other Green territory in War.
Then 2 of them flipped to purple when that got bored, but we still had the last Green present in every war with the same twitch streamer calling the shots.
Also notably, before this transition Purple on our server was just as populous as Green, they just didn’t have leadership. In wars they’d fall apart and only one leader ever seemed to step forward to help them, and it wasn’t enough to compete.
War fatigue makes a lot of sense, and I’ve been wondering about that.
Obviously twitch streamers get paid to play games all day long, AND they are pre-set for being leaders to strong companies and factions. So WHY isn’t it understood that they will naturally become dominant forces that have presence in controlling wars for their faction as a whole rather than just one territory?
This is only mitigated at the moment on larger servers where there is a great deal more healthy competition between companies of the same faction.
Another issue with territory exchange right now is how some territories are won by a given faction but not really fought for by the company that declared - and so in some cases a company can receive a territory without really even doing much for it outside of running influence at the right time and paying the gold.
Is it possible that making War participation more exclusive to the company members that will benefit or experience loss is a way to help address this?
Currently if the design intention is to actually prevent the same ~50 players from dominating wars for every territory, I’d say that isn’t working, and war fatigue isn’t an adequate obstacle.
So it seems a more tangible limitation is needed, as well as something that gives more weight for the two companies attacking and defending.
The protection racket thing was also likely serving to dampen the potential for these other companies to step up under their own power, and instead of companies rising and falling until we get a company that has grown, we get the whole server oppressed by the same 50-100 players.
Higher pop servers may not have these issues, but servers with medium pops do, and it is frustrating to always go up against the same forces in wars. Our Yellow company formed a strong alliance early on and defended our territory well until they all hit 60 before us and took it away. Ever since no matter what territory we go for they have been sure to man their best players against us, because they knew we were a solid group that needed to be taken seriously. In the end they also only needed to exploit res+onyx+healing to ensure their defense prevented us from ever taking a victory. Now we’ve basically disbanded because it’s all just futile, and meanwhile the server has gone from 800 active to 300 with all the invested companies leaving the server.
Some mechanics to help wars feel more meaningful and specific to the battle between each company would be very welcome. Is it unfair to suggest that a company going to war needs to be able to show a minimum representation within that war, and that other companies also have a limit on how many they can send?