Firstly you scabs don't what to know my thoughts!!!!!But having said that you have designed over the years a complex and engaging game one that many imbeciles can't grasp, but for the 10% or so that do I suggest that once you have gained your badge on a world you are automatically deleted from that world Many reasons for you to implement this but unless it is making you more money you will do nothing SCABSAt the moment 2 worlds I am playing are being controlled by the top 5 alliances who are intermingled with the CIC's/SIC's being members of the the leading alliance, so without their permission lower alliances can never gain a badge unless they bow and scrape to the powerfulAs time goes on and some ask should I get funded I see an increasing number of responses saying no don't waste your money even the idiots realize they can never win they leave and you lose potential revenue (maybe someone needs to analyze new players joining and current ones leaving ) from disgruntled players and they are even spreading the word to friends and associates that the game is a total waste as no matter how long you play you can never winSurely you know that if you can't get a result you lose interest and with social media flames build quickly.Moderators who claim they have no affiliation (so no kick back I don't believe that why would they waste their time) with EA games my not even let this through to the cowards who should be able to defend their creationI await the next world without spending my money this time to see what happensIn the meantime I estimate 1 hour and 38 minutes just from Facebook for this to go virile not to mention the other onesYour and one of many undervalued customers

This suggestion has been offered many times. You are in effect punishing the winners by cancelling all their hard work to win a world, sometimes through a long and expensive war.Yes, many worlds are controlled by a few players. The older numbered and language specific worlds in particular are in reality dead. No new players are joining. It is never worth joining a world after even a few days as the best players have invested heavily in time, energy and money to become the best players.I have no affiliation with EA/Envision, I enjoy my time as a moderator and don't play other games online except for a few games of Microsoft Solitaire for free. Why do I enjoy being a moderator? I like to feel I am helping out others as I do elsewhere in real life. I'm retired so have plenty of time and seem to have the skills required (whatever they are) to help. You may see it as a waste of my time, I certainly don't and I believe those that I've helped and that others have helped would see moderators as necessary part of the forums. I've even seen suggestions for in-game moderators to help reduce conflicts around the use of multi-accounts and other perceived exploits.How long it takes to go viral on Facebook isn't my concern!

Regarding end of the game: I have a good option that can satisfy everyone- after the fortress is killed, all winers (badgers) become imediattelly 5 level lower. In base, in deffence in atack the winners will be reduced with 5 levels.- with this option the game will be all the time relaunced and will no possible more abuse like is now.

Not a bad idea but one step further they are relocated to the outer rim of the world

I personally like the suggestion made somewhere on the old forum of players with a badge can't hit the fortress or get a new code. They could still control the world and their, sometimes many, alt accounts could still get through to the centre.The main issues are, as I see it:1) multi-accounts used in various ways as a way to help the main account and not played for their own sake and benefit2) No 'endgame' option after the fortress is available.The game is basically still a 'king of the hill' game and as such the biggest 'kings' control a world. We've all seen many suggestions and some of them have been implemented, but none so far that address the problem that to become 'king of the hill' (controlling the centre) you need to spend a large amount of time and effort and as a result banishing members to the edge of the world or suggestions punish those that spent the most money. Which company in the world would alienate it's customers in that way - "the more you spend the more we punish you!"The veteran servers were an attempt at providing alternatives for old world players to move over. In my view they were implemented poorly in terms of gameplay to do that. Everyone starts with one level 45 base (or enough resources to get to that level) and from then on it becomes a similar game. The VP scoring helps and was intended, so I believe, to attract players from other worlds.I would prefer seeing players being able to nominate a world and move all their bases (or maybe 6 or 12) from another world. Everything tried so far hasn't, in my view, worked out as intended.

would b cool to bring in from other worlds,have always wanted to do, an may a nuke or 2

Suggestion | EA Forums

gamerdruid
Hero+
8 years ago
This suggestion has been offered many times. You are in effect punishing the winners by cancelling all their hard work to win a world, sometimes through a long and expensive war.

Yes, many worlds are controlled by a few players. The older numbered and language specific worlds in particular are in reality dead. No new players are joining. It is never worth joining a world after even a few days as the best players have invested heavily in time, energy and money to become the best players.

I have no affiliation with EA/Envision, I enjoy my time as a moderator and don't play other games online except for a few games of Microsoft Solitaire for free. Why do I enjoy being a moderator? I like to feel I am helping out others as I do elsewhere in real life. I'm retired so have plenty of time and seem to have the skills required (whatever they are) to help. You may see it as a waste of my time, I certainly don't and I believe those that I've helped and that others have helped would see moderators as necessary part of the forums. I've even seen suggestions for in-game moderators to help reduce conflicts around the use of multi-accounts and other perceived exploits.

How long it takes to go viral on Facebook isn't my concern!
krabukarbone
8 years ago
Regarding end of the game: I have a good option that can satisfy everyone
- after the fortress is killed, all winers (badgers) become imediattelly 5 level lower. In base, in deffence in atack the winners will be reduced with 5 levels.
- with this option the game will be all the time relaunced and will no possible more abuse like is now.
RemoCure
8 years ago
Not a bad idea but one step further they are relocated to the outer rim of the world
gamerdruid
Hero+
8 years ago
I personally like the suggestion made somewhere on the old forum of players with a badge can't hit the fortress or get a new code. They could still control the world and their, sometimes many, alt accounts could still get through to the centre.

The main issues are, as I see it:
1) multi-accounts used in various ways as a way to help the main account and not played for their own sake and benefit
2) No 'endgame' option after the fortress is available.

The game is basically still a 'king of the hill' game and as such the biggest 'kings' control a world.

We've all seen many suggestions and some of them have been implemented, but none so far that address the problem that to become 'king of the hill' (controlling the centre) you need to spend a large amount of time and effort and as a result banishing members to the edge of the world or suggestions punish those that spent the most money. Which company in the world would alienate it's customers in that way - "the more you spend the more we punish you!"

The veteran servers were an attempt at providing alternatives for old world players to move over. In my view they were implemented poorly in terms of gameplay to do that. Everyone starts with one level 45 base (or enough resources to get to that level) and from then on it becomes a similar game. The VP scoring helps and was intended, so I believe, to attract players from other worlds.
I would prefer seeing players being able to nominate a world and move all their bases (or maybe 6 or 12) from another world. Everything tried so far hasn't, in my view, worked out as intended.
XxxDeathDealerxx
New Spectator
8 years ago
would b cool to bring in from other worlds,have always wanted to do, an may a nuke or 2
Awdammit
New Spectator
8 years ago
Are there any plans at all to bring back RP for PvP? Or was the removal of RP done in order to make the game more peaceful? Without the RP, those who play pvp or those alliances who get into wars suffer IMMENSELY due to the lack of research ability the RP affords.
gamerdruid
Hero+
8 years ago
As I remember, it was done because of whole alliances exploiting it and farming other player bases.
Down_Satan
8 years ago
I say make a big change in the game,Make the roster in every alliance with 100 players,command points at 200 repair time at 1 day,Make power transferable to any base,And boost up the RP in game,And make a new offence unite for GDI & NOD with more power to kill forgotton bases and pvp,This would bring in more players and make the game fun an bring in funded players back to the game.So get to work on my new idea guys time for a new change on this game to old as it is,Change will go a long way and pay out, I wish i was able to make games like this i would be rolling in cash lol,If you guys need good idea"s i can help you out :)
lordofcb1
Seasoned Newcomer
8 years ago
The whole 'must get new satellite code' after fortress has done nothing but complicate and slow down the game. It was a failed attempt to stop center control and hasn't worked.. why not just remove it again back to how it was before. There are many people like myself who like to hang around and actually help others get their fortress badges, having to either quit alliance before the fortress falls or keep bases in the satellite code zone to get new codes is nothing but a major inconvenience to players. Same goes for the 'fortress attacks back' option.
Trying to stop or handicap players from multi fortress hits will only cause them to want to control the center and keep anybody out.
Awdammit
New Spectator
8 years ago
Restoring RP for PvP would be nice.
This is a war game that punishes war: I don't understand that concept.
Perhaps a diminishing return on same player/base kills to mitigate the farming issue?