How i think the WCS should be played
For many years i have felt that the world champ server is hardly a world champ server, firstly, the same guys team win every year regardless of how many try to kill him, so its a 1 horse race and EA ...
Forum Discussion
yes a compromise like this for rt and cp could work well indeed, it would be nice if EA would join this discussion and value the idea as our combined idea would revamp the wcs and the removal of pay to win and malus i think would bring a lot more players to the wcs also, i truly wish they would do this even just once to see how well it went
good points.
but here is my pessimistic self talking. the game would be long to the center but that does not bother me. what bothers me is that this game was designed to be played in a large social groups who are desciplined and understand character development around the actual game. an alliance must have a resilient character setting were its logic is defendable. so players must interact in a principled way or the strategy will implode like I'm sure so many have experienced.
this level of socializing does not happen so naturally the game is bent toward the fast rush. I m convinced that most early winning alliances are a few people with multiple accounts which are well funded. no big deal. even alliance defence is heavily biased to attackers as to get it over with quickly. a small attack group can **bleep** multiple alliances in 6 maybe 10 hours while the defenders are away. some people don't even bother to place artillery because what's the point? I mean you can't get 100 or 50 or 25 online "friends" to play and learn just for fun anyway...... so the first defense is likely the last.