Happy start to the 2023 year developers! I have a small(ish) wish list to provide some functionality to the game. A lot of these features are already being done in the form of scripts, but it would be much better to formally introduce these features as part of the game: 1. Increase markers available. I believe the maximum is 10 per alliance and 1 per player. This needs to be expanded. I recommend 10 for each type of alliance marker as a starting point. Additionally, players should have more than 1 marker available other than a reservation marker. Each player should be able to add 5 markers. 2. Provide officers the ability to mark up to 50 NPCs at one time for planning purposes. This feature should allow alliance offers to mark a base for shooting. A generic term such as "Target" or "Shoot" along with the Forgotten NPC lettering to change color which will help differentiate the targeted NPCs from nontargeted NPCs (similar to the blue background when players save formations). 3. Tunnels should "glow" green or red when a player uses the move function. This will help players determine if their base will activate a tunnel or not. 4. A count of qualified NPCs should be provided during the move function to provide players information on how many waves the move will place the base into. 5. Limited NPC layout sharing should be added. There is a nifty script called Baseshare. Essentially, any alliance member can view a base further away as long as another alliance member base is within range of the base. This feature should be incorporated into the game. It doesn't take away from the essence of the game, but it does provide a more enjoyable experience for the player.

@EE_Elephterion, @enigm, @gamerdruid I have an idea for a World Series! I think it’s doable, but feel free to rain on my parade. Over the course of the year, EA/TA releases 3 small worlds:1. Forgotten world;2. A morale world;3. A unique world.The unique world is the final world. No RT, CP, or packages can be purchased. Rather, EA assesses a “fee” to join this world (have the financial department determine equivalent fee needed to cover costs + profit). Each of these worlds are graded on a points system:1. First, second, and third place badges;2. Most PvP and PvE done by an alliance.After completion of all three worlds, whichever team has accrued the most points wins first place and Tiberium Alliances World League Champion badge. Also award individual awards:Tiberium alliances World League Champion - Most PvE / PvP badges. This would be weighted by calculating the total hit points of player or NPC bases. This would eliminate players gaming the system of hitting low level bases to try to win by hit count.Honestly, I feel this would inject some competitive life into the game. Create a bracket system of qualified worlds (similar to a Premier League concept) and have teams battle it out on worlds throughout the year. You’ll need to make the worlds small enough where they can be reasonably completed within 3 months or less so there are buffer months for alliances to regroup and strategize before the next world starts.

Imagine a world with a limited number of badges and a smaller alliance size, say 15 members max.Not sure how it would work balance wise but it would make holding POIs a lot more difficult and potentially spur on a bit more competition.

They haven't implemented any suggestions in these forums for a decade and you think they are going to start now with your alien invasion nonsense? never gonna happen.

"zrine;c-2228522" wrote:The drama to this game political wise is only up to the point of the first fortress kill. The 1st winning alliance retains huge bases, becomes the 'big daddies' that dictates who is next and so forth. Obviously they continue to stick around to help their alternate accounts to thrive. I will like to suggest that once a player's account has successfully participated in killing the fortress, all bases for that player are permanently destroyed and these accounts are locked out from that server. They can enter to watch but they can't participate. In this way all the high valued POI is again open for grab and the drama continues. No big daddies around to dictate the sequence. The alliance that lost out to the 1st winning alliance still has a chance to take the second spot. They don't have to walk away empty handed. And please do not increase the Fortress level with each Fortress kill. I think there will be a lot more chaos and PVP with such model.This is not a new suggestion and it has been rejected by both players and developers. One of the arguments put against this is that the alliance that controls the server (the one that could kill the fortress) would simply take the centre and hold it (as they do now) and not kill the fortress thus controlling the world forever (as they do now). When the game first launched there was no fortress to kill and I'm told that this is exactly what happened (I wasn't on the first 30 or so servers!)

New worlds are typically announced 2 weeks before launch. I agree, a Twitter and Facebook announcement of launches would be good. Maybe it's something the new member of staff @EE_kalyn could handle.

2023 Wish List of Features for Developers to Implement Into the Game

SpeirFein
2 years ago
@EE_Elephterion, @enigm, @gamerdruid

I have an idea for a World Series! I think it’s doable, but feel free to rain on my parade.

Over the course of the year, EA/TA releases 3 small worlds:
1. Forgotten world;
2. A morale world;
3. A unique world.

The unique world is the final world. No RT, CP, or packages can be purchased. Rather, EA assesses a “fee” to join this world (have the financial department determine equivalent fee needed to cover costs + profit).

Each of these worlds are graded on a points system:
1. First, second, and third place badges;
2. Most PvP and PvE done by an alliance.

After completion of all three worlds, whichever team has accrued the most points wins first place and Tiberium Alliances World League Champion badge.

Also award individual awards:

Tiberium alliances World League Champion - Most PvE / PvP badges. This would be weighted by calculating the total hit points of player or NPC bases. This would eliminate players gaming the system of hitting low level bases to try to win by hit count.

Honestly, I feel this would inject some competitive life into the game. Create a bracket system of qualified worlds (similar to a Premier League concept) and have teams battle it out on worlds throughout the year.

You’ll need to make the worlds small enough where they can be reasonably completed within 3 months or less so there are buffer months for alliances to regroup and strategize before the next world starts.
xxsly
2 years ago
Imagine a world with a limited number of badges and a smaller alliance size, say 15 members max.

Not sure how it would work balance wise but it would make holding POIs a lot more difficult and potentially spur on a bit more competition.
tokenting
2 years ago
They haven't implemented any suggestions in these forums for a decade and you think they are going to start now with your alien invasion nonsense? never gonna happen.
gamerdruid
Hero+
2 years ago
"zrine;c-2228522" wrote:
The drama to this game political wise is only up to the point of the first fortress kill. The 1st winning alliance retains huge bases, becomes the 'big daddies' that dictates who is next and so forth. Obviously they continue to stick around to help their alternate accounts to thrive. I will like to suggest that once a player's account has successfully participated in killing the fortress, all bases for that player are permanently destroyed and these accounts are locked out from that server. They can enter to watch but they can't participate. In this way all the high valued POI is again open for grab and the drama continues. No big daddies around to dictate the sequence. The alliance that lost out to the 1st winning alliance still has a chance to take the second spot. They don't have to walk away empty handed. And please do not increase the Fortress level with each Fortress kill. I think there will be a lot more chaos and PVP with such model.

This is not a new suggestion and it has been rejected by both players and developers. One of the arguments put against this is that the alliance that controls the server (the one that could kill the fortress) would simply take the centre and hold it (as they do now) and not kill the fortress thus controlling the world forever (as they do now). When the game first launched there was no fortress to kill and I'm told that this is exactly what happened (I wasn't on the first 30 or so servers!)
gamerdruid
Hero+
2 years ago
New worlds are typically announced 2 weeks before launch. I agree, a Twitter and Facebook announcement of launches would be good. Maybe it's something the new member of staff @EE_kalyn could handle.
b97cbae3213388ee
Seasoned Newcomer
2 years ago
I've mentioned elsewhere but, defensive artillery calibration times could be much shorter. Like 75% shorter come to think of it since they increased it should be more like 80%...
chadthurston
2 years ago
i agree with #3 and #4 for sure, people that use the scripts have way too much of an advantage over the players who will not or cannot use scripts. It would be nice to know how many waves of attacks I will face from forgotten attacks and if my base is in fact activating a nearby tunnel. however i do not agree with players being able to see into shielded bases or being able to see targets out of range, as the script mentioned provides. i also do not agree with players being able to see when an enemy player is online using a script. I also dont agree with the economy control scripts that choose the appropriate upgrades based on maximizing return on investment or the auto repair scripts that heal base damage for you while away. It may seem harsh but i also dont agree with scripts that find layouts and list them according to desired features. i think these scripts have made this game way too easy for some and at the same time increased the difficulty exponentially to their adversaries, not that there any. now pay attention to the servers played over the past few years and see that potential adversaries have diminished to a point of no return and the large group of players using the scripts are cooperating to such an extent it really doesnt even matter what changes are made to this game. before the cooperating masses jump down my throat for my opinions, they are just opinions and not demands. As for the markers in point #1, i believe there should be a new subset of command markers and each player should be given an extra marker to reserve an intended attack target and move position.
b97cbae3213388ee
Seasoned Newcomer
2 years ago
Maybe a fog of war environment for the continent map that diplomacy or some reconasence feature would remove....
chadthurston
2 years ago
"b97cbae3213388ee;c-2225700" wrote:
Maybe a fog of war environment for the continent map that diplomacy or some reconasence feature would remove....

wouldnt really work in this game since diplomacy connects all cooperating alliances and all alliances cooperate, when i say all alliances cooperate my main references are the last wcs and the newest server. lol
chadthurston
2 years ago
my wish is that this development team would put an end to rewarding mass collusion. i know people have free will to do as they like but rewarding players for being agreeable cooperative and passive has turned this game into a bore fest to say the very least. my only wish is for an environment with choice. every alliance in the new server is on the same side and even if it shows that there are alliances set as enemy, undoubtedly someone will likely run in here to try and prove, we all know that those players have cooperated in the past and will in the future. my point is that there are players actively working to establish mass cooperation as a strategy to win, usually it works and it is the easiest way to get a badge and has become a bit of an embarrassment if you ask me. i dont agree that alliances and players should be rewarded for participating in that type of collusion to such an extent as the entire server ends up on the same side. if those players come in here and argue that it is not a problem i can understand that, its the only way they can ever win, i dont want to take that away from them at all i swear i just wish for server that only gives 3 medals. it really is the simplest solution to take away the reward for players jumping on the same boat. in my opinion this boat will sink if we continue to see servers full of one team.