EA Forums - Banner
CLOSURE ANNOUNCEMENT: The C&C forums will be closed on December 13th, 2023. Read more about the future of the forums here.

End Game Outlook

Due to the large issue of glitches throughout the many servers, and not to mention the bullishness of after
a fortress has been completed. I would like EA to consider ( and even develop of a vote area ) that once a player achieves to participate and destroys a Forgotten Fortress, that they should automatically be removed from servers which will #1 even up the opportunity for other alliances to have equal chances of taking on the end game goal of the Forgotten Fortress & also that it should eventually free up Bandwidth and resources for a server to preform easier. Also in the long run, it should also create more of a profitable margin for launching new servers and and have players re-funding their accounts.

A lot of players I have spoken to in relation to this suggestion agree with me. So " EA " what is your outlook on this suggestion?


  • inSepp
    33 posts Member
    Hi AustralianEffort!

    First of all, I will quickly quote @gamerdruid from this thread:
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    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!"

    Long story short, players invest a lot of time, effort and money into their accounts on a world. Put yourself in their shoes for just a second. Would you enjoy racing other players for months and spend amounts of money to become the best to eventually get deleted after you destroyed the fortress? Defending the middle after destroying it is part of the game's design and gameplay.

    If you can come up with suitable ideas, we are more than happy to discuss and later on implement them into the game.

    Cheers, inSepp
  • AustralianEffort
    20 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    Time! effort and funds! 1, I never log out of this game and also fund as well. But I would like the Endgame word explained! There is No end game as long as servers keep going. Just simply look at the Chaos happening in new servers now! for 1, firestorm 10. What is the use of supply crates when you can't even use them. If players were removed from servers after completing the " So called END GAME " it would not only offer fair play, but also assist in actually ending worlds so another world could be launched on the server.

    And to say further, All players that are removed from server should have whatever spent funds added to the new server they choose to start , so there is No waste of funds! But a time limit should be applied so they do not wait a month or more to start a new server. That would be fair play.
  • I don't know the where the term 'Endgame' came from in relation to this game. I do know that when first launched there were no fortresses to kill and it was a pure 'King of the Hill' control the centre type game. (You controlled the centre as that has the best tunnels (POI's didn't exist either I think).

    The current issues on FS 10 and others with crates is irrelevant to the discussions.

    EA are not going to, in effect, refund all you have spent to get to the centre when you kill the fortress as there would be no incentive to spend more.

    I do agree with you that the current scenario is poor but I have yet to see a workable suggestion that is going to please Alliances that win the fortress. You also forget that often they now have 'wings' where 3 or 4 alliances (or more) work together to get the fortress killed and everyone in the group a badge. Removing the fortress killers would penalise those that assisted them too.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Hope you stand by your comment about not knowing what Endgames, Because when I find I will place in General forum with your quote that it doesn't exist!
  • Of course I stand by my comment of not knowing where the term came from. I know what it refers to, a non-existent End of Game.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Not sure if mincing words will bring the discussion forward, but I guess Late Game is the more appropriate term here if you disagree on End Game. Which starts around the time of the first satellites dropping, and players nearing their level cap for their first bases.

    As for removing players from a server, that seems rather counter productive since its generally in our interest to have servers full, and players generally seem to gravitate to newer servers. So removing anybody who participates in a base takedown would only contribute to server depopulation.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • Yes, but not ending servers only drags down a server. How many drives in it? How much ram being used! HOW much money is EA losing to not freeing up space or bandwidth on a server and merely launching more massive problems! They Don't care about the gamers! Only the profits. 1 of our team mates worked in the U.K studio with EA. It's about time someone takes action as it use to fun playing, but now most servers are screwed with errors.

    Freeing up servers by removing players will not only make a different impact of the game it will also change the style of play! As Mod's you's should surely see many statements regarding this, but all it really is , is about making profits. In our country that's deception and is an illegal offense. but maybe you's use to be the school yard bully and still love it! When I come across within EA again about Endgame, I will gladly repost it to show that even Mod's don't know it all or just simply don't give a rats ****!
  • This dead horse again...

  • If it was economically sensible for them to close servers then they would be doing so. There must be enough life left in all servers to cover costs - as stated, EA are in it to make money so wouldn't keep a dead server (in terms of play) alive without a cost/benefit look.

    We, as players can't do that analysis as we have insufficient data.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • I propose Envision deactivate all non-paying accounts after the fortress has been killed.

    When the player attempts to log in, offer them the opportunity to purchase funds, or charge them 10k cr to play on that world for 30 days.

    Another option is to open up new servers with either 100% "free to play" (deactivate any and all options to use funds) or 100% pay to play. 100% P2P will drain your account 10000 CR / month to play on that world, which would grant you a base line 300 CP / 1 Day RT / 4 Pkg, but anyone could spend more.
  • I'm sure the pay 2 play idea aka subscription system has been considered. They wish to have a F2P, P2W game so are unlikely to follow your ideas.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • I-LiViNg-TaNk-I
    67 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    Elephterion have a look what you say about whats my money worth for you am not funding there anymore coz its waste n other players will also no pay anymore so infact coz of that guy in pic ea getting direct loss of money so i complained over n over again but nothing has been done . cheers
  • Elephterion plz contact me on pm i have made some info which you will be greatly interested in about this game n will only further interest of all players in this game n will make tons of money for ea
  • Soixie
    576 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    Complained about what? It looks like infighting with another alliance, whom labeled you as a permanent enemy for something YOU did that the leading alliance got upset over. There is nothing "wrong" here on any level. Welcome to war. War is good for business and business is good. The more people believe some sort of weird ethical or morality come into play, they get upset. Getting upset drives emotions, emotions drive the need for revenge or betterment of fellow man on the battle field, which drives profits, which is the entire purpose of these servers.

    You have two options
    1) dump a ton of money into the server and join 49 others whom do the same, take over the server
    2) quit and join a new server

    Maybe don't **** off the leading alliance next time.
  • yes we had war with them when that guy came to attack us i killed him on 6 occasions then he is upset about it there main won n just b4 they kill ff he joined n took medal n coz i killed him several times he is now harrasing me even if i left our alliance
  • Soixie
    576 posts Member
    edited September 2018
    that isn't harassment, he's killing you because it's a war game and you are his enemy. His reasons why are irrelevant, unless the two of you are in the same alliance, he can hunt you down and kill you repeatedly until the end of time.
  • lol let tos decide what is bullying you soixie must be bullying players thats y ur head in ur legs ur a player who is known as bark with no reason now keep ur thinking in ur back side n let management decide thats harrasment or not
  • I call a Spade a Spade while others call a Heart and somehow I'm the bad person.

    Good luck in the fantasy you live in.
  • soixie whats ur definition of bullying??? m with no alliance n joined other alliance n he threat them to kick me out is that enemy or bullying ?
  • Bullying is when has achieved all that's possible and they stay to endeavor to be like god. All END GAME players ( even though MOD's say they don't know what end games is ) stay behind to be utter D1ckwads and bully! do you need a more simplafide written quote?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.