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.
Cheers
THORAX40
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.
Cheers
THORAX40
0
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
The alliances that maintain their position in the centre have earned that right.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
If you don't have any territory you can move to you should relocate to a new sector.
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.
Of course I'm aware they don't care. Thats my point
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.
This^
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?