Feature Request: Limit PvP Influence After Alliance Has Destroyed the Fortress

I’d like to suggest a change to what happens after an alliance has successfully destroyed the Fortress and secured the #1 position on a world.

The problem

At present, an alliance can effectively win the world and then continue dominating it.

On a number of worlds, we’ve seen very strong, organised groups destroy the Fortress and secure #1, but instead of considering their campaign complete, they remain heavily involved in PvP and centre progression.

This allows the winning alliance to:

• Police access to the centre and attack alliances that are still trying to progress.
• Use Support Weapons and high-level players to determine which alliances are allowed through.
• Escort weaker wings or friendly alliances into the remaining ranking positions.
• Prevent genuinely competitive independent alliances from progressing.
• Effectively decide who receives the #2, #3, #4, #5, etc. badges after already securing #1 themselves.

The result can be absurd. Strong alliances containing active players who have invested considerable time and money into the world can be forced to wait, fight an alliance that has already won, or simply quit, while considerably weaker wings are escorted through to ranking positions they could never achieve independently.

It also encourages the creation of large multi-alliance blocs. Winning isn't necessarily the end goal anymore; controlling the world after winning becomes part of the strategy.

Proposed solution: “Victor” status

Once an alliance destroys the Fortress, the players who participated in that victory should enter a Victor status for the remainder of that world.

They should still be able to play. I do not think they should simply be removed from the world or made completely inactive.

However, their ability to influence the remaining competitive rankings should be restricted.

For example, players with Victor status could:

• No longer initiate or participate in PvP against players who are still competing for their ranking.
• No longer use Support Weapons to assist PvP or centre progression for other alliances.
• Continue playing PvE content, farming, chatting and participating in other non-competitive activities.

Crucially, Victor status should attach to the individual player/account, not simply the alliance.

Otherwise the obvious workaround would be:

Destroy Fortress → leave winning alliance → join wing → continue fighting on their behalf.

A player who participated in the Fortress victory should therefore retain Victor status even if they subsequently change alliances.

Why?

Destroying the Fortress and securing #1 should mean you have won the world.

The reward for winning should be the #1 badge and the associated rewards—not the ability to spend the remainder of the world deciding who is permitted to finish #2–5.

This would also make the remaining rankings far more meaningful.

After #1 has completed the Fortress, the next strongest alliances would have to compete against each other, rather than against the already victorious alliance and its network of wings.

It would reduce server policing, discourage dominant groups from dragging multiple weak wings through the rankings, and give independent alliances a genuine reason to continue playing after the Fortress falls.

Most importantly, it doesn't punish the winners by removing them from a world they've invested time and money into. It simply recognises that their competitive campaign is complete and prevents them from continuing to determine everybody else's result.

I think this would make worlds considerably more competitive and enjoyable, particularly in the period after the first Fortress destruction.