Old worlds have been around for 10 years or so. It is tiresome to maintain old worlds with no new content. Can the developers either shut down the old worlds, or put new features? Probably better to shut them down.And no, leaving the world to enemy alliances is not an option.

He doesn't actually post "delete" - he posts something, sometimes quite a long post and then deletes it.

Can they do either of those things? Yes, they probably can. More importantly, will they?New content/features such as? It's unlikely they'll develop new content just for old worlds. Some worlds only have 30-100 accounts valid in the ranking now. They're not going to develop for such a small user base, especially as many don't spend on the old worlds and only visit sporadically.If there are enough players on a world to have 'enemy alliances' that are active then the world isn't totally dead. Ending a world: What about the few players still active with resources in storage? Some of which may have been bought, should they lose that?Transferring resources between worlds would be nice though, then killing a world becomes less of a resources issue.

There is almost nobody spending money in old worlds. Active players in enemy alliances consist of 1-2 players with subs of all remaining "active" accounts in their alliance.The point is that having 10 year old worlds where nothing interesting is happening is tiresome to maintain. Especially since killing the same 1-2 players for the 20,000th time is ridiculous. Player accounts with bases destroyed tens of thousands of times continue to respawn with no real penalty, and that is ridiculous.

And what happens if a world has nobody active? Some of the worlds are well on their way to having all players gone. Point is there must be an end point to this game, and not an "end point" where you quit the game.

"TBI1001;c-2211622" wrote:And what happens if a world has nobody active? Some of the worlds are well on their way to having all players gone. Point is there must be an end point to this game, and not an "end point" where you quit the game.I agree an end point to a world should exist. However, even Vet worlds, where an endpoint naturally exists and was originally announced as being at the end of the season don't end.Endpoints to a world need to be set at the start of the world, either some arbitrary date or number of fortress kills. Of course, those that wish to prolong a world for whatever reason would simple not kill the fortress for the (10th time) and control the centre forever, just as now.Even restricting the number of badges to 5 or 10 wouldn't stop players sticking around. The PTE is an example of that. You only get a badge for your first kill but the world changes frequently and the challenge is greater, but players generally remain on the PTE.Transferring resources would encourage players to move worlds, in my opinion.

Old Worlds | EA Forums

14 Replies

Soixie
4 years ago
Management / leadership have had the opportunity (for nearly a year now) to add max 80 with slight bump in outposts and POI to original worlds (no morale / no FA). Everything but the raw code was provided in an project outline to the development team to provide a successful transition, cloning the prior "level 65" upgrade. Unlimited upside potential, from customer morale to increased revenue for a publicly traded company and revenue share for the maintenance team.

Denied and rejected, all of it. To offer an explanation would be to invite reason where none exists.
nefrontheone
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
I also felt terrible that the oldest worlds could not be raised to levels 80 as previously they were raised to 65. Sniff, sniff.
gamerdruid
Hero+
4 years ago
Increasing the levels to 80 on forgotten attack worlds presented a major problem to those that were near the centre as the levels of the forgotten went from 65 to high 70's and 80. They got slaughtered!

Similarly increasing the levels 80 on morale worlds presented different problems with players finding themselves in areas where they had much more difficulty as the forgotten levels jumped but their corresponding offence levels didn't.

The only places where a level 80 increase is less problematic is the very old numbered worlds (where very few players still spend money) and even those found a problem with killing the bases that regenerated at a much higher level.

The only worlds with level 80 that are successful are those where it starts at 80, IMHO.
roofer4ever
Seasoned Veteran
4 years ago
in my opinion you guys are going the wrong way with this nonsense. dont increase the levels decrease the levels and simply end and restart servers after first -third fort kills. faster is always better because of the turn around and more ample opportunity to grow and learn quickly as opposed to some years long study on how to make it to middle. they made poi too strong so that there wouldnt be a stall in center between equally sized alliances. they want people to jump all on one side so they can win faster. but it will drive away the entire player base of the other side if this continues, it already has and even though i do think this game could be way better in the ways ive explained i dont think it will change at all and i think they would like to put this game to bed and move on with their lives. sad to say but this game has wasted many opportunities over many years to grow and match the player participation levels with each server. im rank 50 something in a dozen worlds ill never play in no fort will ever be killed in them again and its a sad sight. go ahead close em merge em into one or just dont do anything until we all leave but i hope someone comes along and picks this format up and does it right, cause this game can be fun as heck sometimes.

Forum Discussion

Old Worlds

14 Replies

About Tiberium Alliances General Discussion

Recent Discussions

New World?

growth rates need to be improved on certain worlds

Tired of morale worlds

missing relocation button

Censorship/gameplay settings