As you know on 99% of worlds ppl from alliance who deserve to win world as 1st place shoot fortres again for the ppl from other alliances....Its looks like the secound ( sometimes even 4-5th rank place) alliance ppl who not have power to shoot fortress get badge without even give a one shoot to tacticus. to be fair to all ppl acording playing world ppl who shoot once tacticus and get bagde with big offs should be unable to get secound shoot to tacticus... i think they shoud be even unable to be inside main circle of HUBs to be fair.... i see few worlds where big offs stands inside main circle of hubs and block it .... so weak offs cannot get inside hubs and get more powerfull POIs to grow up....i think developers should look after situation like this and make some upgrades to game to make it more fair to all ppl who play this game...

It's the same discussion we've had many, many times ad infinitum!A world hasn't a true ending. Shooting the fortress isn't an end to a world, it's a step to controlling the world. Controlling the world isn't an end of the game but those that don't have control should accept they have 'lost' for whatever reason be it lack of skill, lack of money, lack time, lack of organisation, not 'cheating' (when the 1st alliance is believed to have done so) etc.

Why would anyone punish a winner for winning a king of the hill game? That makes no sense. This kind of games are designed like this is. You win, then you rule as long you want.

"justinsaidso;c-2083324" wrote:The reason you have so many loyal players, is that they know they can control a world if they kill the fortress first. It is "King of the hill" like Sal says. EA makes lots of money from people who pay lots of money to be the best.I suspect that if there were worlds that everyone was limited to 24 hours repair time and 500 command points it would make it much more competitive after the first fortress kill. I would also like to have worlds without buyable caps and RT. That would change it from pay to win into free to play. Sure you need to have 2d RT cap and 300 CP cap to be able to play for real. That would show skills over money, but I bet there would be many of the same players under the top like now. Just EA would earn way less money, so it will not happen.Another thing would be to have fix cost per month for such servers or something like server cost for this worlds to join them. So players choose to play with same caps and pay only once .... just thoughts ...

Maybe it would be better to close a finished world completly. Because why do you want to punish a world winner with something? If you play a game and you win you are the one who rules that world.

agree to thinking about killing a fortress its not a endgame of world... but shooting fortres many times for others are not so fair to rest ppll who loose... and are stronger than ppl who get badge for free and weaker than 1st alliance who lead a world.... making some resticted arena for ppl who finish tacticus and or make unable to make another shoot of fortress make world more efective for place 2-3rd becouse ppl will be have chance to fight for them.....

FORTRESS MULTISHOOTING | EA Forums

gamerdruid
Hero+
6 years ago
It's the same discussion we've had many, many times ad infinitum!

A world hasn't a true ending. Shooting the fortress isn't an end to a world, it's a step to controlling the world. Controlling the world isn't an end of the game but those that don't have control should accept they have 'lost' for whatever reason be it lack of skill, lack of money, lack time, lack of organisation, not 'cheating' (when the 1st alliance is believed to have done so) etc.
Salmoranes
New Spectator
6 years ago
Why would anyone punish a winner for winning a king of the hill game? That makes no sense. This kind of games are designed like this is. You win, then you rule as long you want.
Salmoranes
New Spectator
6 years ago
"justinsaidso;c-2083324" wrote:
The reason you have so many loyal players, is that they know they can control a world if they kill the fortress first. It is "King of the hill" like Sal says. EA makes lots of money from people who pay lots of money to be the best.

I suspect that if there were worlds that everyone was limited to 24 hours repair time and 500 command points it would make it much more competitive after the first fortress kill.

I would also like to have worlds without buyable caps and RT. That would change it from pay to win into free to play. Sure you need to have 2d RT cap and 300 CP cap to be able to play for real.
That would show skills over money, but I bet there would be many of the same players under the top like now. Just EA would earn way less money, so it will not happen.
Another thing would be to have fix cost per month for such servers or something like server cost for this worlds to join them. So players choose to play with same caps and pay only once .... just thoughts ...
Salmoranes
New Spectator
6 years ago
Maybe it would be better to close a finished world completly. Because why do you want to punish a world winner with something? If you play a game and you win you are the one who rules that world.
SzybkiBill88
6 years ago
agree to thinking about killing a fortress its not a endgame of world... but shooting fortres many times for others are not so fair to rest ppll who loose... and are stronger than ppl who get badge for free and weaker than 1st alliance who lead a world.... making some resticted arena for ppl who finish tacticus and or make unable to make another shoot of fortress make world more efective for place 2-3rd becouse ppl will be have chance to fight for them.....
gamerdruid
Hero+
6 years ago
The problem is they did have a chance and failed. It is fair that when multiple alliances work together then all get a badge. Sometimes 2nd place and 3rd place alliances protected the 1st place alliance to enable them to dig to the centre, so they deserve the badges.

The only suggestions I could make that would be to limit the badges for everyone such that after 6th place you don't get a badge. This may stop some worlds becoming controlled by a few players and would probably kill off the world quicker. ~The other idea is if you don't win a badge quickly, move to another world, or another game, as you were beaten in the game.
Salmoranes
New Spectator
6 years ago
Or just give the winning alliance the 1st badge and every helping alliance gets something like a no1 supporter badge, then there is no need to stick around ... I suggested it earlier in an own thread but I think it is to much of a change or just not a good idea ... only my personal thinking.
gamerdruid
Hero+
6 years ago
One problem with that suggestion (which I missed first time around) is that it assumes the 2nd & 3rd alliances are wings or supporters of the 1st alliance. On some worlds it is not so. Even if it were true on the majority of worlds, where would be the encouragement for opposition if your 2nd place badge said 'Supporter of XYZ alliance the 1st placed Alliance'?
Salmoranes
New Spectator
6 years ago
"gamerdruid;c-2081639" wrote:
One problem with that suggestion (which I missed first time around) is that it assumes the 2nd & 3rd alliances are wings or supporters of the 1st alliance. On some worlds it is not so. Even if it were true on the majority of worlds, where would be the encouragement for opposition if your 2nd place badge said 'Supporter of XYZ alliance the 1st placed Alliance'?

Needs to be something the cics have to agree in-game to. Something like accepting ally and some more details to agree to.
Salmoranes
New Spectator
6 years ago
"iMenac3;c-2082295" wrote:
Why???? Same reasons why pvp has been butchered to the max (no benefits whatsover), why the new sectoring rules went in effect, why teamplay was killed with new loot patches, why multiaccounting was addressed. Because someone complains about it. For same reasons why the OP is complaining about this not being fair.

Lol, that's just totally different. You referring to bugs which have been reported and removed. But beeing the winner of a world and able to rule it is no bug.

Forum Discussion

FORTRESS MULTISHOOTING

About Tiberium Alliances General Discussion

Related Posts

Star Fortress

Radstation Air Fortress

Chocolate fortress in sight

Fortress of Chocolatude

Fortress of loneitude

Recent Discussions

Public Test Environment

Kodiac upgrade

Vet with Malus?!?!

is it possible that EA hired players?

Done with game