FORTRESS MULTISHOOTING

"Salmoranes;c-2082345" wrote:

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.

its not about wining a world and rule.... this topic is about multishooting FORTRESS
people please.... this topic is not becouse someone loose world or win it.....
i got few winning worlds as well and i not agree on each one to get multishooting Tacticus.... and siting inside main circle of hubs....

ofcourse... alliance who win as 1st will be lead a world till they not stop playing.... And rest allliance dosent matter if that support alliances of 1st place or not they should have get chance to get badge 2-3 as well...
all of you win and loose some worlds and all of you know how it is when some hard BIG players shooting fortres as place 2-3 with off 7-10lvl stronger than strongest player from 2nd alliance... that not fair!!!!

and ofcourse alliance who support 1st alliance deserve to get BADGE but by self.... Not by get badge becouse ppl with big off shoot it for them... that not fair for all alliances who want get somethink and thy cant becouse ppl who exacly shoot fortress stand inside hubs and shoot fortress....

circle inside hubs and hubs should NOT be opened for ppl who shoot tacticus.... that not eliminate ruling serwer by the winning team but only change a chance to geting others inside hubs circle for place 2nd and 3rd as well and even place 4,5,6 etc.

thats only a sugestions... and moderators should look after that to make game more effective to all badget places...

I am szybkibill on this issue. I stil vote for the removal of the winning alliances. Once you have shot the fort, all your bases are removed from the server. The winner can rule the world while they are nr 1, then they are gone after shooting the fort, and the game goes on for the other alliances left in the server. The winner and other main alliances may start treating their wings better, so they are nrs 2 and 3 ... when they shoot the fort. It will give a different dynamic to the game . It is possible to allow your wings to grow, we have seen that in wcs. Schaffa main did not suffer, their wings are now proper nrs 2 and ... . Wings work hard for the main alliances, usually they don't get treated very well by their main alliances . As I mentioned in a former reply to this idea in another thread, it could be an idea to lower the level of the fort, after it has been shot, since the 2 nd, 3 rd, ... are usually weaker alliances then the nrs 1. The nrs 1 get the easiest forts of the server.

"SzybkiBill88" wrote:

thats only a sugestions... and moderators should look after that to make game more effective to all badget places...

Moderators have no role within the game, only here on the forum! Maybe there is a case for 'in-game' moderators, but we don't have them at the moment.

"Salmoranes;c-2083337" wrote:

"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 ...

agreed a subscription server with everyone on same playing field . will show the players who can play with skills and those who fund to win .... mite see a few changes in the ranking lists of players and alliances

"Salmoranes;c-2081127" wrote:
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.

No. The fortress is not the end for everyone, I played this game for over a year when there were no forts.

1) What if you've played, and invested, in a server for six months, someone kills the fort is it fair for that player for all that investment to go down the drain?

2) What if your goal is not the fort, say it is to get a 65/65/65 base. Is if fair for that player to have the server shut down because the fort falls?

I could go on here but you get my point. I will not disagree with the o.p. perhaps we should consider once you've gotten a fort kill in a world you are done with fortress killing......but shutting down the worlds at that point is a big no for me.

"Salmoranes;c-2081127" wrote:
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.

Why the need to rule a world? If you win , you have badge nr 1, all servers you play everyone will see you have a nr 1 badge. If you treat your wings right from the start of the server, they can still get nr 2,3,... badges. You can move on to the next server, win again, the rest of the server can go on if they want. And I would not limit the nr of badges, if you lower the lvl of the fort, no helpers will be needed. All alliances left on the server can keep playing that server for real . It will make it more fun and interesting for those who stay .
Something else I would like to add about the winners ruling the server. Please do not ever force your wings to share their badges again. Your first wing deserves the highest ranked badge. If the winners make a coalition and want to share badges, no problem for me, but then go by rank . Change a few members if necessary. Forcing the nr 4 alliance to give up 42 badges, just because there are more wings than 1, or more than 1 winners with more than 1 wing, it does not work .
Tib 37 at a complete standstill for 3 months, after the 3 mains badged. Fort 4, the first shared fort with 5 wings, 1 alliance lost all their codes, not just the 8 or 12 that badged, but the whole alliance! Their bases were killed by the fort too, while not being in the fort alliance at any time . How and why is a mystery. O, and it is hell to organize >:) So if this how you want to rule a server, please hang around to organize the hell :D

"PunkiePunk;c-2083589" wrote:

Why the need to rule a world? If you win , you have badge nr 1, all servers you play everyone will see you have a nr 1 badge. If you treat your wings right from the start of the server, they can still get nr 2,3,... badges. You can move on to the next server, win again, the rest of the server can go on if they want. And I would not limit the nr of badges, if you lower the lvl of the fort, no helpers will be needed. All alliances left on the server can keep playing that server for real . It will make it more fun and interesting for those who stay .
Something else I would like to add about the winners ruling the server. Please do not ever force your wings to share their badges again. Your first wing deserves the highest ranked badge. If the winners make a coalition and want to share badges, no problem for me, but then go by rank . Change a few members if necessary. Forcing the nr 4 alliance to give up 42 badges, just because there are more wings than 1, or more than 1 winners with more than 1 wing, it does not work .
Tib 37 at a complete standstill for 3 months, after the 3 mains badged. Fort 4, the first shared fort with 5 wings, 1 alliance lost all their codes, not just the 8 or 12 that badged, but the whole alliance! Their bases were killed by the fort too, while not being in the fort alliance at any time . How and why is a mystery. O, and it is hell to organize >:) So if this how you want to rule a server, please hang around to organize the hell :D

I agree partly.
We (UM) normally make sure to have our wings in line and have them strong enough to do next endgame .... but we also help them to defend their position so they can do it fast as possible. After 2nd endgame is done it is the job of the wing to help out next ally and so on ...
But I still don't see a reason why ppl should leave a server if they won it ... they can stay and play how they want. I personally don't stay for long ... normally I leave a world after 2nd endgame, but others like to keep playing.

Best solution.
After u beat the fortress, just open a teleport to another world (this world only have players that beat the fortress)
All players can choose the ammount of bases to teleport and have 1 week to do so.
They go with all resources they choose. After that, they can only teleport to another world if they they beat the fortress again.
The credits would work for both worlds... But not the rest of resources.
If you go with few bases, you get weak in the new world that only have experienced players.
If you go with all, the enemies will go after you...

In many other threads this has been suggested (or variations of it). It depends on the aim of a player, is it to kill the fortress as many times as they can, is it to rule the world, is it..... and the list goes on!

One major flaw, when this is first introduced there would be only 50 players (or maybe 55-60 if they rotated to inject) and they would immediately rule an empty world.

One reason that multishooting of fortresses happens is the mechanism that determines fortress level. If previous winners just keep farming for fun, the next fortress will keep growing, so wings often simply cannot kill fortress without help, or have to grow to 65. It is the demand for help, not the supply, that matters most, I think.
One way to deal with this is to compute fortress level based on offense levels of those that have not killed it yet. Of course, with this change, though more people would stop playing after winning, others will stay so that they can one shot the fortress. So those that shot it once should not be able to send attack again. I think that would fix this problem.

This solution does not affect the king of the hill at all. If the king really won they can be doorkeepers, but can't shoot it themselves. If a competing alliance is still strong, it can prevent wings from shooting fortress by keeping growing, so potentially king can be thrown off throne and second alliance could be a competitor of winners wings and second medal can mean something.