When is next new world?

I think we all agree with EA prioritizing the Funds functions way ahead of the game itself... But as you wrote yourself, the Moderators here DO NOT WORK FOR EA... What do you suggest they do?
I would like to thank the Mods for spending as much time in here as they do.
If you have read enough posts you will see that the 'owner' of the board from EA: s9841121 haven't even logged in here since august 2017 and have 1 post...
So I don't feel it's right to blame the Mods for EA being slow, bad or anything like that.
They read the forums, try to help us all as much as they can with no inside capabilities at all, but they do have a quicker message channel in to EA system in the way that EA probably (hopefully) take notice when they tell them about a problem... But no matter how often or how angrily they tell EA the Mods have no power over EA at all! so stop blaming them! Please!

Thanks
/Key

"gamerdruid;c-1948818" wrote:
Captain Obvious will do :tired_face: or Captain 'Sick of this whole mess like everyone else' if you prefer!
Some expect new worlds all the time.

I wasn't blaming the mods, or at least wasn't my intention. Gamerdruid, you are one of the most active mods around, and I appreciate your quick responses very much. It is definitely not your fault that EA doesn't give you enough information to share with us.

The thing that mostly bothers me, is the almost complete ignorance of us C&C TA players from EA. For example, starting of the next Vet season would be nice, but knowing when to expect it, even roughly, would be even nicer. EA needs to put some effort into publishing information, whether it's good or bad! C&C TA fb page has been quite dead for ages for example. If EA can't afford (lol) to hire a professional publicist/spokesman/press secretary, what ever you want to call the person, at least try giving these forum mods some proper information so they can do that job for you. I sure hope not for free though!

People appreciate knowing when the game they love(d) will work again, or at least knowing that the problem has been noticed and someone is actually doing something about it. And that was not about the current problem, but every problem that occurs. When several people say they're having a problem, what ever it is, and no one answers anything, they tend to get frustrated. And that spawns a lot of 'sure, you take my money, but do you actually work for it' comments. It is not hard, 'We are aware of this and this problem, our team in xx is working hard on it. We expect results in xx hrs/days/weeks' and then follow up as soon as you know more. All this in the forums, facebook and twitter. Hearing from you is one key to happier customers. Not breaking the game is another :smiley: I have played this game since World 32, 5-6 years? (uhh), and let me tell ya, things have changed a lot, and not all, not even close, for the better.

My personal opinion is, that you actually launch worlds too often. You overestimate your own skills or the time you give your developer team and server capacities, and make people not stay committed. That said, I naturally don't mean the Vet Seasons :D :p They need to have a certain rapid continuum.

-tre-

Don't need a new world, I need a New game , well lets hope for a new real c&c game, what about new c&c TW 4 , because that c&c fake TW 4 crap without basebuilding was so .....................................................shitty.
Maybe work on Generals 2 and finally get it out.

"MissTre;c-1949003" wrote:

I wasn't blaming the mods, or at least wasn't my intention. Gamerdruid, you are one of the most active mods around, and I appreciate your quick responses very much. It is definitely not your fault that EA doesn't give you enough information to share with us.

...

I sure hope not for free though!

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, all the mods do the work here for free!

People appreciate knowing when the game they love(d) will work again, or at least knowing that the problem has been noticed and someone is actually doing something about it. And that was not about the current problem, but every problem that occurs. When several people say they're having a problem, what ever it is, and no one answers anything, they tend to get frustrated. And that spawns a lot of 'sure, you take my money, but do you actually work for it' comments. It is not hard, 'We are aware of this and this problem, our team in xx is working hard on it. We expect results in xx hrs/days/weeks' and then follow up as soon as you know more. All this in the forums, facebook and twitter. Hearing from you is one key to happier customers. Not breaking the game is another :smiley:

I couldn't agree more!!!

My personal opinion is, that you actually launch worlds too often. You overestimate your own skills or the time you give your developer team and server capacities, and make people not stay committed. That said, I naturally don't mean the Vet Seasons :D :p They need to have a certain rapid continuum.

-tre-

I also agree, launching worlds days apart doesn't make sense to me either. (Eg Tib and Wrath)

They announced they were going to do Firestorm as 'special' worlds, but then no more once the first was launched!

From what I can see in the pattern of launches, it is often when the last world reaches a set proportion (something like 90% or 95% full) that the next is announced.

With the Vet servers, I still don't understand why they let old ones run - the original announcement of them said they wouldn't. There again I don't know why anyone would play them either with some still active on Vet 1 after how many months?

"gamerdruid;c-1949183" wrote:

From what I can see in the pattern of launches, it is often when the last world reaches a set proportion (something like 90% or 95% full) that the next is announced.

...

I think you are right... But they should look at some stats for that world first to see how active some guys are in there.
I am on most of them, and have started on many to try to get my game-start better, get my 2nd base faster etc.
Many people start a new world and quit it if they don't get a good enough start, as have I sometimes.
But if they would have a PTE server that started with a base at lvl1, or even a training server where you could decide for yourself what values you should start with, I could have trained on my game-starts there instead of in real games.

If I get a really bad start in one world, and then see a new one starting up in a couple of weeks I'd rather try to get a better start there.

But usually (until the new login and not being able to play several accounts at once that is), I would play maybe 3 worlds actively. If they had sent me a message in game stating that I was not active enough in that world so my bases would be ghosted, or removed, or reset or what ever, I would have understood that.
I do have arguments for why that would be wrong too as I had spent funds on getting my bases to that level, and I do see a red flag for complaints being made from such a system...

My point is; even though a world is 90% full do not mean it is 90% active.
It would be better to have fewer worlds but having more activity on them I think.


/Key

"Keyser_888;c-1949341" wrote:

"gamerdruid;c-1949183" wrote:

From what I can see in the pattern of launches, it is often when the last world reaches a set proportion (something like 90% or 95% full) that the next is announced.

...

I think you are right... But they should look at some stats for that world first to see how active some guys are in there.
I am on most of them, and have started on many to try to get my game-start better, get my 2nd base faster etc.
Many people start a new world and quit it if they don't get a good enough start, as have I sometimes.
But if they would have a PTE server that started with a base at lvl1, or even a training server where you could decide for yourself what values you should start with, I could have trained on my game-starts there instead of in real games.

If I get a really bad start in one world, and then see a new one starting up in a couple of weeks I'd rather try to get a better start there.

But usually (until the new login and not being able to play several accounts at once that is), I would play maybe 3 worlds actively. If they had sent me a message in game stating that I was not active enough in that world so my bases would be ghosted, or removed, or reset or what ever, I would have understood that.
I do have arguments for why that would be wrong too as I had spent funds on getting my bases to that level, and I do see a red flag for complaints being made from such a system...

My point is; even though a world is 90% full do not mean it is 90% active.
It would be better to have fewer worlds but having more activity on them I think.

I am on many of the new worlds (I now try to start every world to be able to monitor it's availability) and can see your viewpoint on the number of inactive players.

The PTE is for them to test - and yes, a training world would be good where you start at your own level. I'm sure, however, given the way some play on the current PTE, that some group would go there with the intention of winning the world! On the PTE when you could set the level everyone chose to set it at 65 to race to the centre. It was only when the fortress was level 95 that the realisation sunk in that it wasn't a good strategy for all bases of all players to be 65.

hehe... some people just have to win no matter what :grin: ... even in a test environment :persevere:
Reset the PTE every 2 weeks then ;)
And the training world could have a setting to choose what players and/or allies that could attack you so you could be left alone if that's needed for your testing/training... Maybe even that other players can't even move closer than 10 fields from you... Or of course make the test/training server virtual so every player/alli can choose themselves who is allowed into them, but that involves a lot more work.

no new servers for me ... end for me ....not getting anymore ££££ $$ from me