more servers?! any changes?

"xxsly;c-2213390" wrote:
I've plated with and against Sana and co. before and yes, multi accounting does give an advantage but I don't believe it's anywhere near as beneficial as everyone makes it out to be.

Is it an issue that needs to be addressed? Yes. Is it as bad as everyone complains about? I don't think so. You have your own opinions and that is ok, I'm not bashing you for it. But I also have my own opinion.

multi accounting is the only reason most of the same people are always in the top rankings every server they play. there are very few players left that use only one account from the start and can remain top 50. the issue is mainly prevalent in FA no morale servers. most veteran players not just project members specifically abuse alts for the benefit of a main account because any advantage you can get will mean the difference between approaching and securing the center and all pois before another team. the first team to approach and control center map gains an overwhelming advantage from having the bonus of high level poi for an extra couple days. using alts saves you those days in the beginning and maintaining a tight tunnel plus poi availability and player success does not separate evenly matched teams as much as the over use of alts at the start.

"xxsly;c-2213390" wrote:
I've plated with and against Sana and co. before and yes, multi accounting does give an advantage but I don't believe it's anywhere near as beneficial as everyone makes it out to be.

Is it an issue that needs to be addressed? Yes. Is it as bad as everyone complains about? I don't think so. You have your own opinions and that is ok, I'm not bashing you for it. But I also have my own opinion.

Yes, I agree with this and also Chertosha's point. With the introduction of patch 19.2 and subsequent updates thereafter, the benefit of preshooting has greatly been diminished with the side of effect of killing team play. In Tib53, i started that world with no alts. Though i did borrow a couple of shots on a few hard bases i needed GDI help. And then also a friend quit and i used his accounts for awhile to help the team (which i played like regular accounts), but nowhere near feeding my own main. Point is, I stayed in top 7 throughout that server and kept up with those who had 5+ alts. Another example, Cherosha and lviv in WCS, no alts and their mains are almost the size of the largest accounts. So yes, the benefits of using many alts to beef up a main account is greatly exaggerated in these forums. All these suggestions about IP/mac blocking, etc, will just hasten the death of this game. I think the devs have done a decent job countering multis and IMO just leave it at that. Because as someone said, a patch is introduce and so does some unwanted side effect and new exploits.

"inzomn1a;c-2214938" wrote:

"xxsly;c-2213390" wrote:
I've plated with and against Sana and co. before and yes, multi accounting does give an advantage but I don't believe it's anywhere near as beneficial as everyone makes it out to be.

Is it an issue that needs to be addressed? Yes. Is it as bad as everyone complains about? I don't think so. You have your own opinions and that is ok, I'm not bashing you for it. But I also have my own opinion.

Yes, I agree with this and also Chertosha's point. With the introduction of patch 19.2 and subsequent updates thereafter, the benefit of preshooting has greatly been diminished with the side of effect of killing team play. In Tib53, i started that world with no alts. Though i did borrow a couple of shots on a few hard bases i needed GDI help. And then also a friend quit and i used his accounts for awhile to help the team (which i played like regular accounts), but nowhere near feeding my own main. Point is, I stayed in top 7 throughout that server and kept up with those who had 5+ alts. Another example, Cherosha and lviv in WCS, no alts and their mains are almost the size of the largest accounts. So yes, the benefits of using many alts to beef up a main account is greatly exaggerated in these forums. All these suggestions about IP/mac blocking, etc, will just hasten the death of this game. I think the devs have done a decent job countering multis and IMO just leave it at that. Because as someone said, a patch is introduce and so does some unwanted side effect and new exploits.

the problem with it is the start of a server when they are used en masse to gain a huge advantage early clearly nobody from project understands this or is willing to admit it. you say it yourself by the end of the server the better players mitigate the advantage alts have, so you do understand that some players are taking advantage and it all happens at the start of a server and once everyone else has been beaten then yes the better players are free to show skill and seperate themselves from the others while also catching up to the ones that just abuse them. this all comes from that initial advantage and it is clearly shown in depth by the end of week one, the distance will remain the same after because all alt abuse starts to become mitigated. its funny that you say the same thing but dont even get it.

delete

We've been told in the past that new servers come when the previous one is nearly full - but even that isn't a strict rule.

"gamerdruid;c-2211554" wrote:
We've been told in the past that new servers come when the previous one is nearly full - but even that isn't a strict rule.

everybody knows that - you don ´t have to repeat it again and again.

We try to explain why this „rule“ should be changed!

"Kinshasa551;c-2211557" wrote:

"gamerdruid;c-2211554" wrote:
We've been told in the past that new servers come when the previous one is nearly full - but even that isn't a strict rule.

everybody knows that - you don ´t have to repeat it again and again.

We try to explain why this „rule“ should be changed!

You know that but I'm not sure 'everybody' does!
My comment was in direct response to the this question posed:

"TheSpainishRat2;c-2211545" wrote:
Agree with above
so come on Time between Dropping new worlds, is not written in stone. or is it !!!!

Obviously you didn't read or understand that!

As for why the rule should or shouldn't be changed. I personally think a lot more worlds could be launched, more special worlds with unusual settings as Firestorm worlds, a Vet world and a number of simultaneously launched worlds with limited numbers of places, maybe even as small as 2000, but with large world settings. Even more level 80 worlds, maybe with a start level of 30 as they have done in the past on the PTE would prove interesting.

However, I don't have a voice in the discussions that take place and don't know the contents of the contract between EA and Envision in any respect so can't predict or change anything any more than the rest of the people posting here!

"JabbaTheHutt1000;c-2211692" wrote:
Not sure how many posts i´ve seen the last years´s about required changes to the game. Ofc there have been some small updates - but thats nothing. Its a waste of time to write anything because Envision is not willing to put any intense work into that game. Finally you have to accept the game is the way it is. If you´re bored of that play look for a different game. Don´t hope for changes - it will not happen.

You´re right.
"We are open to feedback and discussion what can be done to incentivise PVP again"

Not a single answer. I don´t care about that game any longer.

The regular basis being that a world is nearing its capacity but we may consider another Firestorm.

"EE_Elephterion;c-2211484" wrote:
We will start worlds on a regular basis parallel to WCS, that has always been the case.
We are open to feedback and discussion what can be done to incentivize (sorry had to correct that spelling error) PVP again, without rolling back the various fixes to exploits and other loopholes.

make a server with only 1 badge to earn, doesnt mean you have to change anything just dont give anything to reward a second or third place finish, so that multi alliance cooperation is not as enticing to people who only need a participation ribbon to feel happy.

"EE_Elephterion;c-2212979" wrote:
The regular basis being that a world is nearing its capacity but we may consider another Firestorm.

from the looks of the last few servers, i dont think nearing capacity will be a viable trigger for new server starts for much longer, 50% of the player base has all jumped on one side pretending to be friends for easy wins. less and less people are going to be willing to entertain spending time in an environment like that for long, and even less willing to spend money on no competition or no chances of playing a fair game against half the player base. how fun is t53 everyone? is the wcs going to be exciting? i hope you all enjoy yourselves while im sitting here bored looking for a new game to play.