Major changes needed

In reply to your points - the First Amendment is a US amendment to their constitution. The real world does not consist of just the US! I'm not defending their right to bully, I'm saying no matter what happens, bullies exist in the real world and sometimes mechanisms to defeat them don't work.

I'm surprised you know so much about the internal financing of an individual game operated on behalf of Electronic Arts. You seem to know what the numbers are to be able to say that it is losing numbers and that it will soon be in the red. You've given me no reason to 'trust you' as you haven't backed up these statements with evidence to prove their veracity.

I don't defend the bullies and would welcome mechanisms that defeat them and don't punish the vast majority of successful alliances who take the centre and don't operate in the way you have experienced.

I most definitely see the need for change, just not the changes that have I have seen suggested so far. I would like to see some mechanism means that bully tactics are eliminated from the game and that novice players can succeed as well as experienced ones.

I've seen the need for change for a long time. Identifying the need and finding a solution are not the same thing unfortunately.

What I think is needed is some definitive end to a world as was suggested for the Veteran servers but not implemented. If, once the world has been won the world exploded then that would be it, for everyone. If the winning of the world reduced but not removed the gain from POI's for a time for those players, it may be workable. If the winning players are unable to hit the fortress again, then that may help. But removing them from the centre, as I've seen suggested, back to the edge of the world simply makes space for a new set of bullies to come to the centre.

I'd like to see concrete suggestions that don't punish those that win to the extent that their cash investment is essentially wasted once they have killed the fortress.

Lop sided thinking. The first alliance has no more challenges after beating the fortress. Why would they even need to spend money on the game? their advantage is insurmountable at that time. All they have left to do is sit around and be turtles.
The first Alliance has such a huge advantage that being pushed to the edge would only temporarily hurt them.
It would give the alliance another incentive to work their way back and match up against a team that can at least provide some challenge. second place alliances are usually so far behind that it will take them as long to build up to attack the center as it would take for the old alliance to get back to the center.
I just don't get the Farmville mind set that doesn't want a continuously challenging game.

"AnnoyedMax;c-1658152" wrote:
Lop sided thinking. The first alliance has no more challenges after beating the fortress.

What of the challenge of keeping other alliances away from the centre while helping the alliances in the 'family' especially if there has been a hard fought war? No alliance takes the fortress without support, agreed or tacit, of other alliances. In return they are usually able to take 2nd and 3rd place badges. For some, 1st is all that matters, but not for everyone.

Massive Spammer ! Is it not obvious to you yet , that they do not care? Show them revenge on the Battlefield

Disregard the spammer comments if they don't make sense, it generally means a post has been removed

"Sentry43;c-1675752" wrote:
This is no longer a war game, it is a farming game. And it has been for some time now.

This^

The king of the hill comment is also pretty spot on although most alliances take a different tact and facilitate their allies instead of getting in the way. The end game isn't perfect but neither is just dismissing the winner, in that scenario what is to stop that alliance from not taking the fort and employing the same strategy?

I am all for the King of the Hill format: To the victors go the spoils."
Just as in life, there are winners and losers. If you are on the losing side of a server war because you failed to win; deal with it and move on to the next server in the hopes that you can do better if it bothers you so much.
Now, I would like to suggest to EA, PLEASE bring back RP for PvP. This is the only war game that punishes players for fighting each other.
Yes, I know there are some who have exploited the system with multiple accounts but a rule of diminishing returns seems to be a reasonable counter.
Perhaps a time frame of 7 days whereby the 1st attack/kill=100% RP/resources, 2nd=50%, 3rd=0.
Of course it is not going to stop the exploitation but it does diminish the incentive. It is also easier to spot those cheating by the number of attacks over a period of time.
Upon discovery of a cheater, Impose HARSH A** Sanctions: 1st offense-3d lockout with NO resource production, 2nd Offense-Removal from server. If they try it on another one, let them be banned permanently after the 2nd offense on a subsequent server.
I present those ideas in the hope that the developers can work something out in order to make PvP fun and worthwhile again.
I'm not going to quit the game or anything stupid like that for lack of RP because I have all research completed and levels maxed out on the world I badged on so I dont need RP. Indeed, I can indulge myself in the sheer joy of trying to outwit my opponents' defenses just as they do mine.
However, I have no incentive because I don't want to be punished for PvP.

That last line in my post should have read: I have no incentive to play on a new server because I don't want to be punished for PvP.

after we see a lot of players exploited with mults and have proofs... like forcewolf on WCS against nvidia, or bloody, guys on this new WCS, and other guy who was posted by me with prints and others proofs.. We just see one answer: "sorry we cant do anything". forget about ban, any hope in this direction is just lost of time

"VagabondWatchman;c-1687934" wrote:
This is the only war game that punishes players for fighting each other.

I'm just going to quote this because....well I 100% agree. IMHO TA totally lost its way at some point trying to stop exploits. It went from an all out combat game to more of a farmville model and the game is lesser for it.