End Game Outlook

I do know what END GAME means, we just don't have an end game yet. We have a fortress kill which isn't the end game despite some on here wishing it did.

I agree, the problems I identified can be resolved. How they are resolved is a choice for the developers. I'm sure there are many other issues too. No issue is unable to be resolved (in theory). As we have seen with patch 19.1, the implementation of a change may not match up to the expectations of either the developers or the players.

Merging worlds has been suggested in the past. Also closing older worlds after a certain stage has been reached such as less than 50 logins within a month or 6 month period.

There is no one endgame - where the game ends. It never ends! The phrase is used a lot, but never defined for this game. On any world there are players whose own end of game on that world is to obtain a 1st place badge. Some have an end of game target of getting a badge and then intend to leave. Some see the end of game as nothing more than getting everyone a badge, others the opposite ie preventing anyone but the main 1st badge alliance and it's wing getting a badge. There is no one end of game. With 50 000 on a world there could be 50 000 end of games. For some it will be when the money runs out, or when the wife/husband/partner realises how much time/money the game is consuming.

You can have your own end of game at any time, by leaving a particular world. This is a king of the hill war game, if you don't like it then don't play it and don't spend money on it.

The only End of Game that is certain is that when EA decide it costs more to maintain the servers than they receive in revenue it is time to pull the plug!

The only thing removing the 'official' diplomacy settings that would change, in my view, is the colour coding. Groups will still form, promises will be made and broken and the game won't change!

Hi AustralianEffort!

First of all, I will quickly quote @gamerdruid from this thread:

"gamerdruid;d-99996" wrote:
We've all seen many suggestions and some of them have been implemented, but none so far that address the problem that to become 'king of the hill' (controlling the centre) you need to spend a large amount of time and effort and as a result banishing members to the edge of the world or suggestions punish those that spent the most money. Which company in the world would alienate it's customers in that way - "the more you spend the more we punish you!"

Long story short, players invest a lot of time, effort and money into their accounts on a world. Put yourself in their shoes for just a second. Would you enjoy racing other players for months and spend amounts of money to become the best to eventually get deleted after you destroyed the fortress? Defending the middle after destroying it is part of the game's design and gameplay.

If you can come up with suitable ideas, we are more than happy to discuss and later on implement them into the game.

Cheers, inSepp

Time! effort and funds! 1, I never log out of this game and also fund as well. But I would like the Endgame word explained! There is No end game as long as servers keep going. Just simply look at the Chaos happening in new servers now! for 1, firestorm 10. What is the use of supply crates when you can't even use them. If players were removed from servers after completing the " So called END GAME " it would not only offer fair play, but also assist in actually ending worlds so another world could be launched on the server.

And to say further, All players that are removed from server should have whatever spent funds added to the new server they choose to start , so there is No waste of funds! But a time limit should be applied so they do not wait a month or more to start a new server. That would be fair play.

I don't know the where the term 'Endgame' came from in relation to this game. I do know that when first launched there were no fortresses to kill and it was a pure 'King of the Hill' control the centre type game. (You controlled the centre as that has the best tunnels (POI's didn't exist either I think).

The current issues on FS 10 and others with crates is irrelevant to the discussions.

EA are not going to, in effect, refund all you have spent to get to the centre when you kill the fortress as there would be no incentive to spend more.

I do agree with you that the current scenario is poor but I have yet to see a workable suggestion that is going to please Alliances that win the fortress. You also forget that often they now have 'wings' where 3 or 4 alliances (or more) work together to get the fortress killed and everyone in the group a badge. Removing the fortress killers would penalise those that assisted them too.

Hope you stand by your comment about not knowing what Endgames, Because when I find I will place in General forum with your quote that it doesn't exist!

Of course I stand by my comment of not knowing where the term came from. I know what it refers to, a non-existent End of Game.

Not sure if mincing words will bring the discussion forward, but I guess Late Game is the more appropriate term here if you disagree on End Game. Which starts around the time of the first satellites dropping, and players nearing their level cap for their first bases.

As for removing players from a server, that seems rather counter productive since its generally in our interest to have servers full, and players generally seem to gravitate to newer servers. So removing anybody who participates in a base takedown would only contribute to server depopulation.