EA Forums - Banner

Major changes needed

I would like to bring up 2 very important issues.

1 . PvP : It would be FANTASTIC , IF , the "law of diminishing returns " is applied to the game , after all these years of playing . Functionality should be simple and straight forward :

I hit u ONCE, i get 100 % of your resources. . Twice within X time period (f.ex. 10 days after the first hit) , and i get 50 %. THREE times, well.. i get NOTHING - that's the breaks folks .. - + I GET A 6 HOUR PENALTY on move recovery and / or attack recovery.

2. The "Control Freak " Syndrome..

Case of fact : An alliance destroys the FF. Then , instead of moving OUT and (to a galaxy :) ) FAR FAR away so as to let the rest of the thousands of players (who INVEST funds) get the POIs, take their turn for the FF or fight each other for dominance on who goes next etc etc etc - that's the beauty of the game anyway - this Winning Alliance,
stays at the center, sits fairly on the POIs, and DICTATES who goes next , who comes and who goes, intimidating and of course power gaming with the rest of the alliances and even destroying some.

Solution.. THIS will in my opinion BOOST the game immensely AND correct a great injustice to all the fans of C&C TA..
a. Alliance XYZ destroys the FF
b. Along with the congratulations message "Well done Commander ETC ETC." , new text is added :
"Please note your Alliance must now relocate at least 200 squares away from the FF to allow for the oncoming Alliances to set-up & attack the FF. Alternatively , you will AUTOMATICALLY be RE-LOCATED 200 +1 boxes away, RANDOMLY, within the next 3 days. You will not be allowed to approach the FF within less than 150 boxes distance, for the next 30 days AFTER Re-location.".

So , the new rule implemented would be : Destroy the FF --> relocate 200 squares away (one way or the other) -- > Stay put at a distance > 150 boxes for 30 days for the NEW STATUS QUO to be formed.




  • gamerdruid
    5025 posts Moderator
    Once again the 'solution' offered to prevent others remaining in control is to punish them! If you lose, accept it and move on. If you're not in the winning family of alliances, accept it and move on. Don't expect the game to give you a free ride without the effort of digging to the centre and gaining valuable POI's or the effort of winning them from war.

    The alliances that maintain their position in the centre have earned that right.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Well, is this a personal opinion or EA's opinion ??
    and what a ridiculous, illogical answer this is ... The winning alliance has earned NO such rights.. to stop the others from hitting FF.. what on earth are u talking about..??
    They destroyed FF, end of story, move out and clear the space for others to follow.. Help them by offering your "heavy " players to join the next alliance in turn.. But not this..
    They do not OWN the server, do they now ? And who is punishing them ?? THEY are punishing the others by keeping them away from the FF as if it is theirs.. thousands of players, with funds invested i say again.
  • methuselah
    465 posts Senior Moderator
    It is his personal opinion and he is spot on. I'm going to guess here, and please take no offense, that you've never actually won a server? Think about it.....you work you **** off, you spend, you grind, you fight and you win a server. You take the fort down, you are first in the Hall of Fame on that server. As the game is currently constructed you then make a decision what happens from here. Do you facilitate or do you set fire to the entire thing?

    It's up to you, you won. I won't argue that it sucks for everyone else in the server that wants a go at the fort to have this happen. But what you are asking is for the developers of a game that is well over 5 years old to save you from your own defeat. I'm not saying the end game is perfect it isn't. Frankly I prefer the pre fortress end game to the current one but we've had this discussion over and over again and never found the exact right answer.

    As for PvP I'm in on anything that enhances PvP. The game has drifted WAY too far away from in IMHO, PvP is fun and should be a focus not something avoided because people found a way, at one time, to exploit it.
  • gamerdruid
    5025 posts Moderator
    edited July 2017
    It is a personal opinion - as stated at the bottom in my signature I don't represent EA or Envision and the views expressed are my own.

    I'm baffled, what is illogical about the winners winning the rights to do things. Generally they do not stop all others, just those they won against. I know of no world where the fortress has been hit only once and ALL other alliances are prevented from hitting the fortress.

    You obviously don't understand the concept of losing! You would be punishing them - what's the point of killing the fortress if you're being prevented from following that through with other control. What you'd get is an alliance controlling the centre, hitting the fortress for fun but not killing it so they aren't 'punished' by being forced to leave the centre. They'd just sit there.

    They effectively do own the server, they won the server.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Often a Alliance will have 1 or 2 even at times 3 Sister alliances or Alts

    When the MAIN (no1) Alliance has taken the fortress it often holds the ground so its next Ranked sister alliance can Take up position to attack the New Fortress and so on till all the Sister alliances have Badged
    and this is only fare

    so any change would make the Reason to help sister Alliance nul in void which is un fare
  • If this game existed in a "world" where it was the only one of it's kind and this issue had not been an issue in other platforms such as "StarCraft" then i would agree with those who say "don't change" BUT

    Staying the way it is ... : Thus the game is not attracting/keeping many new players and because of the "legacy benefit" which is much more important than "good play" or good players the game design is in effect rewarding "Gang stalking" in a way that is MUCH to real for many.

    Bottom line, in a world where there are many other choices for leisure time and disposable cash people are shying away from a game that is "won" at the whim of those in the top alliances.

    Not to mention that it has gotten to the point where lower alliances are told who they are allowed to have or keep in their alliance... and what Pois they may hold or not even if they have dug them out...

    The "new game design is really "NAP with and be obedient" and much less command and conquer... if you are really looking to badge.

    So, if they do not see the need to keep new players than I am wrong and those who say keep it the same are right... but

    servers need players....... so EA should not be afraid of a little change.

  • gamerdruid
    5025 posts Moderator
    Change the game by all means, anyway you wish but don't change it for existing worlds. That would test your theory. However, my feeling which I can't prove one way or the other, is that a change that removes the incentive to help other alliances to the centre and moves those that get there to the edge of the world would lose those players from the world instead. Again, without evidence, I feel that they will be the ones that invest cash into the game as they stay in the centre fighting to maintain their dominance.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Gamerdruid..... Yes I hear your fear and that of those who are at the "TOP" because they have real world relationships that they have built to sway the game in their favor...

    That is the real imbalance however and the reason this platform will die... Those at the top right now in a world I am in are dictating which players are allowed in alliances and much much more...

    New players are like "What" this feels bad... and they will not return...

    No new players = platform is dead..

    Don't be afraid of Change... New players of today do not pay money to be abused by "old guard top players" and the game design must reflect what the market wants.

    Simply put people will not pay money to be abused any longer so EA needs to do something or watch the continuing fall of interest drop below the line of no return.

    That is what you should be really woried about.
  • gamerdruid
    5025 posts Moderator
    In the real world there exists unsavoury bullies as you describe, why would the gaming community not have some too?
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Two things, 1. The real world is moderated by the first amendment..... here bullies live forever due to those that defend them and their rights to bully, rather than the profitability / popularity to a greater public... thus dooming the game to a "no future" future.

    2. If you were asked to invest in a game that was lets say "The new Plants v c&c" or this platform that is loosing numbers and will soon be in the red, Which would you chose? Trust me no one is going to invest in a game that chooses to not be appealing to new players (like this one is). NO CASH = NO FUTURE development /support

    3. What if you had a chance before it goes down the drain to save it but you had to allow a few small changes that curbed the "legacy" power and gang stalking and bullies.... (that you defend so much) and it turned the platform profitable so the game was appealing to more than just masochists, and thus the numbers grew would you take that chance and save the game or let it die out of unwillingness to allow for change? I imagine you would rather it die than curb the bullies.... but surprise me, prove me wrong and tell me that you see the need for change...
  • gamerdruid
    5025 posts Moderator
    In reply to your points - the First Amendment is a US amendment to their constitution. The real world does not consist of just the US! I'm not defending their right to bully, I'm saying no matter what happens, bullies exist in the real world and sometimes mechanisms to defeat them don't work.

    I'm surprised you know so much about the internal financing of an individual game operated on behalf of Electronic Arts. You seem to know what the numbers are to be able to say that it is losing numbers and that it will soon be in the red. You've given me no reason to 'trust you' as you haven't backed up these statements with evidence to prove their veracity.

    I don't defend the bullies and would welcome mechanisms that defeat them and don't punish the vast majority of successful alliances who take the centre and don't operate in the way you have experienced.

    I most definitely see the need for change, just not the changes that have I have seen suggested so far. I would like to see some mechanism means that bully tactics are eliminated from the game and that novice players can succeed as well as experienced ones.

    I've seen the need for change for a long time. Identifying the need and finding a solution are not the same thing unfortunately.

    What I think is needed is some definitive end to a world as was suggested for the Veteran servers but not implemented. If, once the world has been won the world exploded then that would be it, for everyone. If the winning of the world reduced but not removed the gain from POI's for a time for those players, it may be workable. If the winning players are unable to hit the fortress again, then that may help. But removing them from the centre, as I've seen suggested, back to the edge of the world simply makes space for a new set of bullies to come to the centre.

    I'd like to see concrete suggestions that don't punish those that win to the extent that their cash investment is essentially wasted once they have killed the fortress.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Lop sided thinking. The first alliance has no more challenges after beating the fortress. Why would they even need to spend money on the game? their advantage is insurmountable at that time. All they have left to do is sit around and be turtles.
    The first Alliance has such a huge advantage that being pushed to the edge would only temporarily hurt them.
    It would give the alliance another incentive to work their way back and match up against a team that can at least provide some challenge. second place alliances are usually so far behind that it will take them as long to build up to attack the center as it would take for the old alliance to get back to the center.
    I just don't get the Farmville mind set that doesn't want a continuously challenging game.
  • gamerdruid
    5025 posts Moderator
    edited August 2017
    AnnoyedMax wrote: »
    Lop sided thinking. The first alliance has no more challenges after beating the fortress.
    What of the challenge of keeping other alliances away from the centre while helping the alliances in the 'family' especially if there has been a hard fought war? No alliance takes the fortress without support, agreed or tacit, of other alliances. In return they are usually able to take 2nd and 3rd place badges. For some, 1st is all that matters, but not for everyone.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • My base was attacked. Now I can not move the base to a new location, I write "you can not move the base to enemy territory" ... And now what to do? This has been going on for several weeks. This is some kind of nonsense. What do the developers think?
  • Frummi
    123 posts Member
    My base was attacked. Now I can not move the base to a new location, I write "you can not move the base to enemy territory" ... And now what to do? This has been going on for several weeks. This is some kind of nonsense. What do the developers think?

    If you don't have any territory you can move to you should relocate to a new sector.
    Not working here anymore. Contact Tjapka for help.
  • topgazza
    3 posts Member
    edited August 2017
    I think the subject has missed one thing that also affects and spoils the game. Its those alliances that have captured the fortress then move down to the middle of the world and just attack much weaker alliances because....they can. There is a situation on Tib12 where a couple of alliances are openly doing that. Bases of 58-60 sat amongst the 44 base level area and just moving around destroying everything in their path. When asked why? they just respond "because we can". This is happening in many worlds and lots of my friends that were playing have moved off the game. I'm next when I get wiped out again by an impossibly powerful alliance hanging around the lower reaches of the game

    They don't even have to break sweat to destroy whole alliances and set people back days or weeks in growing. I don't see the fun in that and I suggest they should get a life if all that they want to do. Despite what the mods think I also believe alliances that defeat the hub should move on elsewhere rather than spoil the game for others. If EA want a game thats more biased towards PvP then set one up. TB is NOT that game the whole program is not really set up for that.
  • Massive Spammer ! Is it not obvious to you yet , that they do not care? Show them revenge on the Battlefield
  • Are you talking about my post ? Spammer ? What ?

    Of course I'm aware they don't care. Thats my point
  • This is no longer a war game, it is a farming game. And it has been for some time now.
    Also, this is a "King of the Hill" type game. It has been since day one. Those on top rule. Don't like it? Play something else.
    And, as stated so many, many times over the years, when the so badly named "EndGame" was initially activated, EA Phenomic informed players in the patchnotes that, the game wasn't over after defeating the fortress. Once the fortress was defeated, it was up to the winning players to stop their enemies from achieving the same. So, the object of the game is to 1) Defeat the fortess and then 2) Stop your enemies from marching on to the fortress.
    Some winning alliances do just that, others help those weaker alliances on their quest to destroy the pyramid. Whatever the winning alliance does, it is entirely up to them.
    Finally, some players cannot seem to grasp the concept of losing. Just because you play does not mean you get to take part in the awfully named "EndGame".

    All that said, like so many other players, I have also been calling for changes to the game. For years. Especially changes for the winners after the fortress has fallen. However, any change made cannot, must not, punish or in any way impinge on the winners.
    One day at a time...
  • methuselah
    465 posts Senior Moderator
    Disregard the spammer comments if they don't make sense, it generally means a post has been removed
    Sentry43 wrote: »
    This is no longer a war game, it is a farming game. And it has been for some time now.


    The king of the hill comment is also pretty spot on although most alliances take a different tact and facilitate their allies instead of getting in the way. The end game isn't perfect but neither is just dismissing the winner, in that scenario what is to stop that alliance from not taking the fort and employing the same strategy?

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

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