End Game Outlook

Allow me to assist with the Tiberium Alliances game definition of "End Game", it's a common reference in Tiberium Alliances game players use to "defeat the "tacticus", "kill the fortress", "destroy the fort", "badge", "accomplish the mission objective", "end-result of the teams effort" =End-Game...there are a few more but I think you get the gist of what the reference "end-game" refers to. Don't play dumb. It just isn't very fitting.
As to the "king of the hill" scenario, you're living in the dark ages with this reference. Find a way to make the game enjoyable again. Restore the PvP resources. Find another way to "punish" a player for full-filling the game objective, create alliances by any means necessary, move away from this "farmville" (sorry, never played that game but it sounds appropriate), sorry not buying into moving over to that envision game, what do you call it "rivals" and "drain the swamp" really, do you hate america that much Germany?
If a player kills the fort, lock his base down for a week or two, can't grow, can't attack, something to get rid of the "god" complex some of these players get. Find a solution to stop the abuse. Make this game Great again (Pun intended :-) )
Soxie...bullying is that guy that didn't do squat to help his alliance, avoided conflict, managed to wiggle his sorry butt into the leading alliance and post badging (completing the End Game), decides to declare him/herself as the "server god" and forces everyone to do as he/she says or else. Naturally, EA benefits from this "god" complex" player/bully and refuses to take action and you want to try to sell a lie by excusing this behavior as he/she has some sort of right to do so because he/she spent 2 dollars more than anyone else. Sad logic. It's a direct contradiction of your own rules. FYI @gamerdruid, if you want to know how to complete the end game and get a refund, send me a message, I have a buddy that did just that and still plays the game.

Furthermore, gamer's stick around post "end-game" not because they want to, you made it so the have to. If they leave the server for more than 30 days and just for the heck of it, lets say the entire alliance forgets to log in for 30 days, their "Hall of Fame" status disappears. You created this mess by removing an alliances "hall of fame" ranking.

I think, we missed an important thing while discussing about "Endgame".
- Reading the name of the game attentively.
The first word of the name says the important resource, the second word - Alliances - tells you the key-behavior for being a winner. If you get rid of the leader alliance, right after the fort, - you wil remove always the most experienced team.
You would not only punish the winner, but also the followers. On the one hand, they get nothing back for their help - on the other hand, not even the chance to master the right strategies under the leadership of the winner. So, double-nothing.
If we removed the winner, there would be no point in diplomatic relations, and in the end you would get a game - against everyone - with NO or slight chance to win.

I'm kinda leaning towards the No Diplomacy thing, take it away, diplomacy is a farce and should be addressed. Promises made by one alliance to another and not upholding their end of the deal. It's a farce, may be part of the game but it's created the by and far largest flaw in the whole system. Or better yet, limit the number of allies an alliance can have. Say 5 allies, an equal number of axis and then the "farm-villers"... or Switzerlands. Then there is a challenge to get to the fort 1st.

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!