High quality gameplay

I think we all agree that the rules for pvp have to change to make the game exciting again! I already have made some proposals in a different thread.

Reducing the rep time for pvp could be one solution. @EE_Elephterion told us he is open for any kind of discussions -> again there was not a single answer by him.

"Uub666;c-2212939" wrote:

hey what should, EA moderator said only to me, basically it is ne gray area but not really forbidden. That means the only way to defeat projects in other worlds, do the same and also work with alts

One must have obsessive playing behaviour to use more than 1 or 2 alt. accs.
It requires a lot of time, energy, money... but i don't think is inherently wrong as the game presents itself.

yes if EA does not restrict or tighten it, everyone should decide for themselves to do it or not. But this is the only way to stop the project people I think

i had the hope that bruell will just stop playing after this shit wcs...

"chrissischuldt;c-2212969" wrote:
i had the hope that bruell will just stop playing after this **** wcs...

you shouldnt hope anyone stops playing, hope for the chance to defeat him in battle instead and hope for some changes in game mechanics which prevent mass assimilation from taking away the competitive aspect of this game. ive stopped playing because of this massive tide of players tipping the boat to one side for easy medals. project cant even call t53 a win, no competition means no game, this isnt even feeling like a game anymore its just a hobby, like solitaire or farmville.

"InfamousPapita;c-2212949" wrote:
> @Uub666 said:
> yes if EA does not restrict or tighten it, everyone should decide for themselves to do it or not. But this is the only way to stop the project people I think

I find it difficult for EA to solve the use of alternates ... It would be very interesting a server without morals where alternates are not used (but I know it will not happen). Uub666, talk to Bruell so that the next server with morals can make a vs. .. your team vs. the project.

Correct! So what is the solution? Correct -> you have to stop that bullshit /change your behaviour!

Kucharson (you can also take so many other players) today in worldchat: "EA has to find a solution for the Alts. We are doing what is somehow permitted to do". LOL.

EA will do nothing because they don´t care about the game. Everybody knows that. What do you expect from a different Ally? to open 200 more alts to beat you? Thats nonsense and will not happen for good reason.

1. You guys have to change your attitude!

2. Envison has to wake up and make PVP more interesting again (as told so often!!!)

otherwise that game is done (perhaps already it is)!

I've seen your recent suggestions for PVP, but I was hoping for a bit more discussion in the community be for we chime in. We will try and tackle the issue if PVP incentives in the new year.

-deleted-

"EE_Elephterion;c-2213002" wrote:
I've seen your recent suggestions for PVP, but I was hoping for a bit more discussion in the community be for we chime in. We will try and tackle the issue if PVP incentives in the new year.

It’s not considered cool to write in forums these days maybe cause of the troll label,maybe for fear of being picked apart or disagreed with, monitor the activity in the next year and if there is a reduction of participation it may be because of the monotony an unchanging meta presents to the veteran players.

The next few FA no morale servers will likely look the same as t53 and I would bet reaching server capacity will eventually not happen in that format. Nobody that is on the winning team is going to complain but it’s the same people over and over again and why would they want anything to change.

There are ways to freshen up the environment without changing basic functions, for example in CnC Rivals they fluctuate the amount of damage units can do to various targets. Move/ reaction speed can change and unit costs and damage rewards being changed force players to find and adapt to different strategies.

There is a better balance between PvP and farming that can be achieved easily by increasing PvP loot or adding RP loot rewards for defending from attacks much like farming waves in FA servers. Patches are already in place that reduce the viability of exploiting that but I could see players which use many multi accounts abusing this by attacking themselves.

Research and unit costs should also be lowered so people that don’t want to wait 1+ years can actually test out the various upgrades before a server is won. The penalties for being destroyed and the lockdown timers for engaging in pvp are very restrictive, move timers attached to higher level bases make for clunky wars that usually look exactly the same every time they happen, one sided and over in a day or 2.

The forts could be easier and quicker to attack. Having alliances reach the middle sooner and at a more even strength could be fun. Being able to race to kill the Fort and needing only one or two hubs instead of securing the entire middle or controlling 4 hubs and waiting to capture 40 codes. Alliances can still cooperate, take turns winning or switching teams.

The distribution of only 1 winning alliance reward could reduce this mass cooperation trend and might encourage more team building. Maybe start servers that can be restarted at a set time soon after first Fort kill to develop rivalries that may not always be one sided which has clearly resulted in the dissolution and combination of many teams.

Maybe the numbers are not indicative of the need for change but there seems to me to be less and less competitive options for teams and diplomacy and that clearly has resulted in fewer actual teams per server. Before everyone had scripts, before everyone knew and played with each other for years and not being as capable, the winner of the server was not as predictable or clearly evident in the first weeks as it is now. Most players could imagine themselves winning and get excited, but now I’m able to predict the winning alliance within the first week of the server start. It’s just not exciting to start a server and compete against 6-8 alliances all clearly working together with a 2 hour head start.

I’m considering not even posting this right now because I’m just repeating myself but I wouldn’t want to just waste my last rolling paper on a story I’ve written only to delete it. And they all lived happily ever after, the end.

@chadthurston @EE_Elephterion
It’s not considered cool to write in forums these days maybe cause of the troll label,maybe for fear of being picked apart or disagreed with, monitor the activity in the next year and if there is a reduction of participation it may be because of the monotony an unchanging meta presents to the veteran players.

Agree – i´m not sure about the reasons but for sure most of the players are not paying attention to the forum. Probably you (@EE_Elephterion) should write an in-game message to all players about the discussion. Suppose more people will join the discussion in that case.

The next few FA no morale servers will likely look the same as t53 and I would bet reaching server capacity will eventually not happen in that format. Nobody that is on the winning team is going to complain but it’s the same people over and over again and why would they want anything to change.

Agree – without any changes to that game every new server will be the same. Boring and not even close to max. server capacity. Because of that some guys have asked for more servers -> change the dynamic. You know the winner of each single server after 3-7 days (at the latest) – that’s bad for everybody.

There is a better balance between PvP and farming that can be achieved easily by increasing PvP loot or adding RP loot rewards for defending from attacks much like farming waves in FA servers. Patches are already in place that reduce the viability of exploiting that but I could see players which use many multi accounts abusing this by attacking themselves.

That’s the most important aspect of the game that has to be changed! But let´s use the new pvp thread.


The forts could be easier and quicker to attack. Having alliances reach the middle sooner and at a more even strength could be fun. Being able to race to kill the Fort and needing only one or two hubs instead of securing the entire middle or controlling 4 hubs and waiting to capture 40 codes. Alliances can still cooperate, take turns winning or switching teams.

Agree – at the moment waiting for 40 or more codes is nonsense. Teams are running to the center – they don´t care about codes. First if they are safe at center + the bonus is so big that nobody can beat them they move back to get the codes.

The distribution of only 1 winning alliance reward could reduce this mass cooperation trend and might encourage more team building. Maybe start servers that can be restarted at a set time soon after first Fort kill to develop rivalries that may not always be one sided which has clearly resulted in the dissolution and combination of many teams.

In my opinion in makes no sense to have servers for 5,6,10 (or whatever) years. Start new servers with a given lifetime of 12 month (as an example – not sure what´s the best value).Only reward for the first winning alliance? Not sure – a lot of players could quit the world very quickly. Because there are no new servers quickly lot of players could leave the game forever. I understand and support your idea to reduce the mass cooperation – the way has to be discussed.