Forum Discussion

bigshoedancer's avatar
8 years ago

Subs and Challenge contests

Two suggestions that might help draw more interest back into the game. 1. Subs- Allow players that sub the ability to attack other players WHEN attacked, the ability to add funds and spend funds. Both could generate more spending for some players. 2. The challenge contests. Have the challenge contests like every month or at the least every other month. Again this may increase the amount of funds players spend. Also make the challenge contests more appealing by having the bonus round last longer than just one to three days. The bonus should last at least as long as the challenge contest was long or a fixed time of 5 to 7 days after the challenge has ended. Again all of these suggestion could have some players spend more funds on here. Thanks.
  • Subs can already spend funds (but not buy them) if the original owner allows it.
    Allowing them to buy would require them to add a new method of payment or to be able to spend the money of others.

    More challenges would be welcome for some, but I would restrict the gains for vet servers to new worlds, ones create within the last year. It is too easy to be in the top 10 alliance for challenges when only 15 alliances are left active, similarly it is too easy to be in the top 100 when the number of active players is only 250.

    More variation in the challenges would be welcome. I would like to see an increase in Energy and credit production rates if the challenge is successful, boosting the ability of lower players to gain more bases and more competitive. Maybe the rate could be increased to a certain level - that way high producers don't gain.
  • Good points but to make it fair for all that play, it would almost have to be the same rules for every world. Not allowing some worlds to participate in challenges would probably have a negative affect on the game itself and speed up the inactivity on the other worlds. The challenge benefits do have to be increased/last longer than they have been. Thanks for the reply so quickly.
  • My intention was in fact to kill off dead worlds and speed up inactivity on the older worlds. It has never made sense to me to continue with worlds indefinitely. The Vet worlds in particular where there is only one place in the Hall of Fame do not need to continue, IMHO. If they do continue, a new season on that world should be started. (That's how I though it was going to be done.)

    The major thing I'd like to see, I've probably said it elsewhere already, is some real end of world endgame where the world players know the end is nigh and oblivion is coming.

  • I dont think EA had a clue what to do with worlds once other worlds kept being created. And at what point do you close down a world? When only 100 accounts become active? 200, 300, etc? Also it would almost have to be from the new worlds on since it would have to be known that the worlds will end after a certain amount of time/lack of active accounts, and etc. Not an easy choice to make without making some or a lot very unhappy, especially the ones that have paid into the sytem for a year or two on a world.

About Tiberium Alliances General Discussion

Talk with other players about what is going on in your Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances game.

1,184 PostsLatest Activity: 4 days ago