You are kidding us right?

"tokenting;c-2214289" wrote:
Not reporting on the WCS is like not sending cameras to the World cup. We should be kept up to date on the news like in previous WCS servers.

Reporting on the WCS progress is fine, but it is down to players to do the reporting as always.

As it was assumed that one particular group of alliances/players was going to win even before the bungled launch I'm surprised anyone wishes to know the progress they are making!

Thank you @chadthurston for providing a succinct report.

"gamerdruid;c-2214321" wrote:

"tokenting;c-2214289" wrote:
Not reporting on the WCS is like not sending cameras to the World cup. We should be kept up to date on the news like in previous WCS servers.

Reporting on the WCS progress is fine, but it is down to players to do the reporting as always.

As it was assumed that one particular group of alliances/players was going to win even before the bungled launch I'm surprised anyone wishes to know the progress they are making!

Thank you @chadthurston for providing a succinct report.

you are welcome and i apologize for it not being in the appropriate thread

You are a real noob. What should I see there? That this account didn't kill a single base? Well, yes, your main account killed them. You upgraded your account to two bases, which means you shot from it. You will convince us that you just upgraded your account by farming camps, so that you can then keep POI by playing on the WSC. How stupid this is.

Inzo first of all, I'm not angry, I didn't mean to offend you in another thread. It's just that I'm tired of hearing that alts doesn't provide an advantage. Alts in the right hands gives an advantage that cannot be beaten. Secondly, I simply will not play a broken game, and now it is completely broken. From the fact that I will not play, nothing will change and rightly so. What amazes me is how people here complain that the developers are not getting any income from the game. There is no income because the balance in the game is completely destroyed and the players do not want to play. tib 53, wsc , firestorm 17 just look online. Three empty servers and all the talk that the developers are trying to fix something empty words. If the players are not playing the game, then something is wrong with the game.

Inzo, You write about 2019 when there was the first attempt to fix the problem with alts now it is already 2022 3 years have passed and smart players have learned how to farm with alts at a higher level. They start the game not even in the main alliance, but join it after they place the 3rd base. Obviously, no matter how well you play on one account, you will never be able to beat a player with alts, this is primarily an economic strategy, and then shooting and PVP. So why am I writing this, what have the developers done in three years? Any company that releases a strategy should keep an eye on the balance in the game. In this game, the developers don't think about balance at all. I can say with a high probability that the problem of alts will not be solved in the next half a year. But I'll be very happy if I'm wrong.

"gamerdruid;c-2214522" wrote:

"Kinshasa551;c-2214509" wrote:

pad3000;c-2214508 wrote:
I can say with a high probability that the problem of alts will not be solved in the next half a year. But I'll be very happy if I'm wrong.

Unfortunately you´re right. By reading all the comments from EE_Elephterion about changes to the game everybody should have realized that nothing important will happen. There will be some small changes (new worlds with different settings or something like that) but they will not sort out the problems of alts + pvp + high costs for funds et cetera. So lets stop thinking about a better future for that game. It will not happen. And you know what - there are similar games where you have to spend only 30-50 Euro for thousands of hours fun ;)

I think you are both right in that no major changes to the game will be released, not just in the next 6 months but I'd say in the next decade and beyond!

Yes, changes will happen, as mentioned, such as different settings for the worlds but they won't be addressing the problem of alts+pvp. As for the cost of funds I think that is beyond the scope of the developers and down to EA.

If you enjoy the other games where you can spend 30-50 Euro for a lot of fun then I suggest that is what you do. I enjoy this game and very few others and I think the majority of players probably are the same. Only a few come on here and complain about anything (considering even with alts worlds have had 1000's of players online) and simply accept it the way it is. Not everyone wishes to have 1st place badges or even 10th place badges, but come online to the worlds for the comradeship that the game provides, even when not in a winning alliance.

i agree nobody really cares anymore, its not a game as much as it is a community engaged in activities within environments they have complete control over. nobody that can take advantage of that would be willing to change it, nobody oblivious to the frustrations of a few forum trolls will care at all. this is not a friendly environment to competitive players and the lack of change may diminish the player base a little but in the end nobody really cares about that either.

"TheFuhrerHister;c-2214545" wrote:
BTW nobody "won" this WCS, it will forever be remembered as the WCS that never was.

oh it was something, maybe not a reflection of what they intended the wcs to be. maybe not what people playing this expected but the next FA no morale world will certainly contain a lot of new accounts with gold badges that you can expect to see regularly and with players that possess and share a lot of valuable information and tools about the game to each other and that is something that is good for the game overall.

when we saw those players from shaffa mara nvidia/projekt, it motivated many others to try and attain a gold badge. now that there are more of them in existence spread between more players and in more world types, it provides a better example to others and motivation for everyone to try and earn one as they seem WAY WAY WAY WAY more easily attainable now. all you have to do is all play on the same team to win!!!! take advantage of this while the meta allows and next wcs you can enlist more players than the other teams to easily dominate the environment and win.

a lot of accounts in the next FA server will also be well funded and if a continued lack of competition remains, there will be a steady decrease in purchased funds and possibly a drop in revenue for a much longer span than anyone may anticipate. the opinions of us few forum trolls complaining about the current meta is not echoed in the frustrated player base because they have decided to move on instead. i think it is a shame that druid shut down your ruleset server proposal but who are we really fooling here but ourselves if we think anything will change without you also doing something.

people try to tell me about how this server is and that server is but they are all the same in almost every way, every single time it and it has not and will not change. these slight variations to server size, poi distribution, malus% and level max will not have enough of an effect on the game state to please people that want to pvp and maybe not fall so far behind and enemy that will most likely comprise of every other alliance on the map working together and 50% of your own alliance members as well.

if we can get everyone with a similar mindset together and simply ask for more servers at once to dilute the mass cooperating veteran player base, we will see fairer and closer games and if they can simply find ways to speed up the process of interaction and completion we will be able to play more often and cry less when we lose and also have the time and space to grow learn and advance in skill to be able to challenge the other 3/4s of the player base that has been working together for years now taking turns winning servers. i would love to see an even fight again somewhere soon. this next server starting will likely not be different as we see many servers coming to their conclusions as first fort kills are imminent and all winners and the badge orders in all servers at present are already determined.

more servers more often and dont ask for anything more, nothing else will change. if we can get a few diluted servers than i believe it can reinvigorate the competitive spirit in all players new and old. it can challenge us in unique ways and show how many possibilities for strategy and battle tactics really exist outside of using mass cooperation and poi bonus disparity to win.

More servers more often is what i have been asking for several months, unfortunately i think even that is too much to ask.

So i guess any and all future servers will be a copy and paste of what has recently been witnessed, many many alts and ensured victories and all decided by the time the server is one week old.

The list of badge numbers will also be concluded within first two weeks of the new server, so get in quickly and you will get a low badge number hehehe. Rinse and repeat ;-( A very sad demise for a once great tactical war game and pretty sure the only new players that this game is now attracting is armies of alts. False stats because maybe you gain 10 players today but if only one of them quits you lose 10.

As each month passes with little or no change then the less the game will appeal. I for one have not started a new server since Tib50 and will not until i see something different. I don't need to badge and we got enough enemies on Tib50 to keep us entertained for a long time. hehehe i know how to keep an enemy tied to a server so that he continues to entertain us. It keeps a server busy but really is not so good for EA, as funding will be low, funding just enough to keep things interesting. How many other funding players are no longer funding as much as they once did? I can see many players on Tib50 that don't play new servers (some of them really good players too) this is all very sad, EA waken up, make a change, don't let our game die.

Clown