All most done with my rant. Think what ever you want because the simple fact is I came here to play but instead I am in forums because there is nothing here to play. How many times has that happened in the last month?
..... They need to make it worth joining a server late or they need to open up more short term server's. Many games reset servers on a daily or weekly basis.......... Get better at resetting servers and don't be afraid to just reset old versions. At least people played them.
Out of the 'rant' I agree with these points, almost. I'd say set each world a 'season time limit' and close it down at the end, like they were intending to do with the Vet servers - only they didn't close them!
It's still not too late to set a 'season time limit' for old worlds. Simply pop up a 'season timer' with and explanation underneath that at the end the world will end, any unused cp/rt/packages time and any resource packages etc will be converted into funds which can then be spent on new worlds. That way those that are still funding lose out at the end.
I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
..... They need to make it worth joining a server late or they need to open up more short term server's. Many games reset servers on a daily or weekly basis.......... Get better at resetting servers and don't be afraid to just reset old versions. At least people played them.
Out of the 'rant' I agree with these points, almost. I'd say set each world a 'season time limit' and close it down at the end, like they were intending to do with the Vet servers - only they didn't close them!
It's still not too late to set a 'season time limit' for old worlds. Simply pop up a 'season timer' with and explanation underneath that at the end the world will end, any unused cp/rt/packages time and any resource packages etc will be converted into funds which can then be spent on new worlds. That way those that are still funding lose out at the end.
I would be happy if they just made the fortress easier to kill at least it would be worth sticking around
Easier to kill? Why? It is supposed to be the ultimate "win" in the entire game it is supposed to be really hard.
Easier to kill so that more people stick around to play. As it stands it isn't worth sticking around if you are not in the top 4 finisher's. this means if you don't start in the first couple of days of the server starting then there is no point in playing other than killing time until the next server. Making it easier to kill will take away the need to leave a server every time a new one starts. Being third to kill fortress is hardly an ultimate win. First is the only ultimate win the rest are leaches living off the main.
I play this game for several years now, well i played 3 years ago a long time and now again ;-)
My only problem with the game is the downscaled PVP-system. Like several people said, it was really more fun in the old days, with gigantic wars every now and then.
It's not that i need more ressources then from farming, just give us some research points back (getting 0 really sucks) and slightly increase the ressources. Better: The player get the ressources stored inside that base. It give the game a tactical note aswell: Shall i store so many Ressources when enemy can approach? It will increase skirmishes and ofc there will be people complaining (safed up a lot of ressources and got raided), but i bet that plenty of players would love the change (not just the ones that raided a big hort of ressources).
I would be happy if this game gets some fresh wind and a "reviving" factor.
Ah also: If a player is longer thatn 3 weeks or 1 month inactive on a server: Kick him. Like on the newer worlds there are like 30k players, but 10.000 with only 1 base (Fort is already killed one time). Espacially at the start, you can sort out inactive one.
Ah also: If a player is longer thatn 3 weeks or 1 month inactive on a server: Kick him. Like on the newer worlds there are like 30k players, but 10.000 with only 1 base (Fort is already killed one time). Espacially at the start, you can sort out inactive one.
There is a mechanic that hides a player from the world and the ranks if inactive a certain amount of days, but I don't remember the exact number, although I belive it is more than 30 (is it 60???). I think 30 days should be the maximum amount before being flagged as inactive, and even better with 3 weeks as you say.
Iv been playing this game for 5years ther abouts..... dealing with the unwelcome changes and patches, as of the last year iv been having more fun reading the forums than playing the game!!
I've been playing since 2012 and I have to agree with iggy-edwards and lordofcb, the game has gone down-hill severely and I have contemplated calling it quits quite a bit of late. I understand and I get the need for the patches, there are way too many players taking advantage of exploits, at the same time, I don't see EA doing much about it and when they do run maintenance or add a patch, the information is so vague and distorted, it is aggravating due to all of the system crashes. Give us info on what scripts are not approved and which ones are approved. At minimum, add in some detail to help prevent/avoid all of the system crashes and allow the authors of "authorized" scripts to make the appropriate and necessary changes to their scripts so as not to impact "legit" players, feel free to put the screws to all of those illegit scripts.
So, here is my 2 cents worth; that is if ea wants to make this game interesting again; 1st...ea needs to "lock" accounts that have defeated the fortress for a minimum 30 days (preferably 60), the players can still log on, play but their accounts accumulate "0" zero points in all areas (except CP/RT) for 30 days after defeating the fortress, this prevents them from declaring themselves "server gods" and defining the "attack order" or making any other decision that impedes, impacts or forces other players from achieving their goal/objective based on their preferences.
2nd, add in an option to the PvP side ... since this is a war game and we get "punished" for warring, give the winner of a PvP activity the option to either "destroy" the base or "capture" the base for 24 hrs. The base cannot be altered, used for PvP or anything other than the transfer of resources (tiberium and crystal only) accumulated in that 24 hr period). After 24 hrs, the base is released and the original owner can re-spawn at his/her leisure. If the "attacker" fails to defeat the "defenders base, reward the defender a bit better and remove any "punishment" factors for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why should the defender be punished? I just don't get EA's logic on that one, if I'm attacked and defend myself and defeat the attacker, I should be rewarded, not punished. To further that concept, I get that there should be some type of punishment factor in play for attacking an "no relationship" base/alliance, it simply doesn't make sense to be punished for attacking an alliance deemed an "enemy".
I like the idea of 'capturing' a base and think that could be developed further. Maybe by making it an option at the start of an attack so that you have to decide on your first attack within 12h whether you wish to capture the base (and territory) or destroy it. If you decide to 'capture' then of course you don't wish to destroy the whole base, but must get a unit all the way to the back of the base with 50% strength remaining. The base repairs in it's normal timeframe (some can take 2d+ to repair). During that time you hold the base, but once it has fully repaired then the base reverts to a ruin. I'm sure others can see different progressions on the original idea some of which will be better!
The first idea of locking the successful base is again punishing the player for winning. I understand the logic of the locking the bases but feel it isn't the 'right' answer. I've not seen the 'right' answer yet. All the suggestions I've seen so far look and feel like a punishment for winning. What is needed is a reward that outweighs any negative impact winning the fortress has.
I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
Is the game dead? In game rankings would say nope, still alive.
But if its a reference to how worlds quiet down after the first couple of weeks then yes that does happen. People can still join later on and play but if their goal is the center or to race for POI's then an early start is pretty important.
I agree entirely, if you don't start a world within the first few hours you're going to fall behind quickly and unless you obtain help from an organised group are unlikely to make up the lost time.
I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
The game has several problems and many other games have those as well. Against some you can do something, against others you can't.
1. The game for new players:
Someone sees the game, registers and starts playing on a server that already started a few weeks ago. A potential long term player will be like "nice game mechanics" and a bit excited about the base building, but he only got camps to shoot at the start. He will play a bit on the server and soon find out that he needs to start on a new server right from the start with everybody else to have a chance to compete. He will start there, without a team, still only with super basic knowledge on the game and will get in a slightly better alliance, but still nothing close to a good one. He will fall back very early against and will have nothing really to kill but camps. He learns a bit from others what is necessary to play a world successfully, maybe reads a guide on the forum and finally gets an idea how to really do it. The third server would be one where he can finally try what he learned from guides and might get a decent enough start to play in the wing of a proper team. But again even then the positive feeling, the success is barely there. With little experience in effectively shooting bases and properly building army he won't be able to keep up as the game is extremely complex and the only way to get to the top is grinding on the extreme. But he got an idea how the game works.
And on the 4th server he might be able to play really competitive and actually be part of one of the competitive old alliances and add a significant part to the cause to defeat other old alliances.
With the long times between the servers it will take easily half a year before you know the game well enough so you can play it competitively. But that is completely against what new players want. They want a cool game for some fun in the off time. They are willing to put in some efford to learn how to play the game, but within reasonable limitations.
If you really want to find out how difficult it is to get into the game, then task a complete newbie to play the game while giving him no help. Maybe a new trainee. Tell him that one of his jobs is to play the game. He will get a little time at work for that, but he should experience the game like somebody does that has no clue about the game.
I say that games like this one depend on success feelings and that CNCTA has hardly any to offer at the start for new players. After defeating the first camps and maybe another player there is a long long void. A lot of work for the players for very little success.
2. The game for old players:
It is all about grinding the extreme out of the game. Getting bombers the earliest possible (12-14hrs is possible), getting base 2 earliest possible (shortly after the day 2 mark, 48hrs, is possible) Going for first POIs, going for base 3. All those little milestones are fun to compete against. But you need the time. If you don't have the time, then you are what is called a slow starter and need to catch up later on. On most worlds you have a few opponents, but a strong and well coordinated alliance will usually outrun the few others competitively playing alliances to a point where the others just give up.
Or you run into another old established team that is comparably good. Then the server is decided between the two teams. The team that can use the existing exploits more properly will win. Here I am not talking about the WCS. More about worlds before it with the extreme Multi account abusers and significantly smaller alliances that won over bigger ones using PVP lockdown. The WCS was a surprisingly balanced server. There were other flaws, but I think those were discussed very emotionally in another thread already.
For the old players the game is some fun as you have your routine, you have your friends to play with and you have proper chances to win a server. Exploits like Multi accounting and PVP lockdown are factors that can threaten an alliance that is superior and is a reason why old players stop playing the game.
Some will always stop "I've played 10 servers, I need a new game" or "there is this new game, I will try that one out" are probably some reasons. And you won't be able to stop those players. If you have a look at other browsergames that were big once you will see decreasing member counts.
I like the idea that nevermore mentioned. Steam is a very powerful platform. A mixed experience, like a Steam Client with the full graphical experience + a browser/app version where you can do things simplified sounds good.
The fighting system is the key of this game, even though it has flaws like PVP lockdown (there are ways to fix this as well). It is unique and good. Keep it or add a third faction. PVP should be equally important to the game as PVE. In CNCTA these days you only need to do 90% PVE and have a little PVP at the end to secure your victory. PVP needs to be more important for the whole growth progress.
I have not played in some time now, lost interest for various game play/ mechanic reasons....but I played a heck of a lot over the years and could not agree more with what someone (meth maybe) had said. The most fun I ever had playing this game by far, was before they brought POI's into the game. I think POI's wrecked the game, gave too much advantage too soon and if you don't have them...your screwed.If they should ever fire up a server without them, I would definitely be interested in playing again
Replies
Out of the 'rant' I agree with these points, almost. I'd say set each world a 'season time limit' and close it down at the end, like they were intending to do with the Vet servers - only they didn't close them!
It's still not too late to set a 'season time limit' for old worlds. Simply pop up a 'season timer' with and explanation underneath that at the end the world will end, any unused cp/rt/packages time and any resource packages etc will be converted into funds which can then be spent on new worlds. That way those that are still funding lose out at the end.
I would be happy if they just made the fortress easier to kill at least it would be worth sticking around
Easier to kill so that more people stick around to play. As it stands it isn't worth sticking around if you are not in the top 4 finisher's. this means if you don't start in the first couple of days of the server starting then there is no point in playing other than killing time until the next server. Making it easier to kill will take away the need to leave a server every time a new one starts. Being third to kill fortress is hardly an ultimate win. First is the only ultimate win the rest are leaches living off the main.
My only problem with the game is the downscaled PVP-system. Like several people said, it was really more fun in the old days, with gigantic wars every now and then.
It's not that i need more ressources then from farming, just give us some research points back (getting 0 really sucks) and slightly increase the ressources. Better: The player get the ressources stored inside that base. It give the game a tactical note aswell: Shall i store so many Ressources when enemy can approach? It will increase skirmishes and ofc there will be people complaining (safed up a lot of ressources and got raided), but i bet that plenty of players would love the change (not just the ones that raided a big hort of ressources).
I would be happy if this game gets some fresh wind and a "reviving" factor.
Ah also: If a player is longer thatn 3 weeks or 1 month inactive on a server: Kick him. Like on the newer worlds there are like 30k players, but 10.000 with only 1 base (Fort is already killed one time). Espacially at the start, you can sort out inactive one.
Greetings
There is a mechanic that hides a player from the world and the ranks if inactive a certain amount of days, but I don't remember the exact number, although I belive it is more than 30 (is it 60???). I think 30 days should be the maximum amount before being flagged as inactive, and even better with 3 weeks as you say.
So, here is my 2 cents worth; that is if ea wants to make this game interesting again; 1st...ea needs to "lock" accounts that have defeated the fortress for a minimum 30 days (preferably 60), the players can still log on, play but their accounts accumulate "0" zero points in all areas (except CP/RT) for 30 days after defeating the fortress, this prevents them from declaring themselves "server gods" and defining the "attack order" or making any other decision that impedes, impacts or forces other players from achieving their goal/objective based on their preferences.
2nd, add in an option to the PvP side ... since this is a war game and we get "punished" for warring, give the winner of a PvP activity the option to either "destroy" the base or "capture" the base for 24 hrs. The base cannot be altered, used for PvP or anything other than the transfer of resources (tiberium and crystal only) accumulated in that 24 hr period). After 24 hrs, the base is released and the original owner can re-spawn at his/her leisure. If the "attacker" fails to defeat the "defenders base, reward the defender a bit better and remove any "punishment" factors for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why should the defender be punished? I just don't get EA's logic on that one, if I'm attacked and defend myself and defeat the attacker, I should be rewarded, not punished. To further that concept, I get that there should be some type of punishment factor in play for attacking an "no relationship" base/alliance, it simply doesn't make sense to be punished for attacking an alliance deemed an "enemy".
The first idea of locking the successful base is again punishing the player for winning. I understand the logic of the locking the bases but feel it isn't the 'right' answer. I've not seen the 'right' answer yet. All the suggestions I've seen so far look and feel like a punishment for winning. What is needed is a reward that outweighs any negative impact winning the fortress has.
Why not !??
b) The amount of time (and therefore money) it would take probably isn't going to make it a financially worhtwhile project.
c) Envision work on the Patches and small enhancements. It's probably not in their contract to develop new factions and new weapons.
But if its a reference to how worlds quiet down after the first couple of weeks then yes that does happen. People can still join later on and play but if their goal is the center or to race for POI's then an early start is pretty important.
I like the idea of at least giving them an option to move with everything in place from a previous world. I'd like it better if they could achieve it!
1. The game for new players:
Someone sees the game, registers and starts playing on a server that already started a few weeks ago. A potential long term player will be like "nice game mechanics" and a bit excited about the base building, but he only got camps to shoot at the start. He will play a bit on the server and soon find out that he needs to start on a new server right from the start with everybody else to have a chance to compete. He will start there, without a team, still only with super basic knowledge on the game and will get in a slightly better alliance, but still nothing close to a good one. He will fall back very early against and will have nothing really to kill but camps. He learns a bit from others what is necessary to play a world successfully, maybe reads a guide on the forum and finally gets an idea how to really do it. The third server would be one where he can finally try what he learned from guides and might get a decent enough start to play in the wing of a proper team. But again even then the positive feeling, the success is barely there. With little experience in effectively shooting bases and properly building army he won't be able to keep up as the game is extremely complex and the only way to get to the top is grinding on the extreme. But he got an idea how the game works.
And on the 4th server he might be able to play really competitive and actually be part of one of the competitive old alliances and add a significant part to the cause to defeat other old alliances.
With the long times between the servers it will take easily half a year before you know the game well enough so you can play it competitively. But that is completely against what new players want. They want a cool game for some fun in the off time. They are willing to put in some efford to learn how to play the game, but within reasonable limitations.
If you really want to find out how difficult it is to get into the game, then task a complete newbie to play the game while giving him no help. Maybe a new trainee. Tell him that one of his jobs is to play the game. He will get a little time at work for that, but he should experience the game like somebody does that has no clue about the game.
I say that games like this one depend on success feelings and that CNCTA has hardly any to offer at the start for new players. After defeating the first camps and maybe another player there is a long long void. A lot of work for the players for very little success.
2. The game for old players:
It is all about grinding the extreme out of the game. Getting bombers the earliest possible (12-14hrs is possible), getting base 2 earliest possible (shortly after the day 2 mark, 48hrs, is possible) Going for first POIs, going for base 3. All those little milestones are fun to compete against. But you need the time. If you don't have the time, then you are what is called a slow starter and need to catch up later on. On most worlds you have a few opponents, but a strong and well coordinated alliance will usually outrun the few others competitively playing alliances to a point where the others just give up.
Or you run into another old established team that is comparably good. Then the server is decided between the two teams. The team that can use the existing exploits more properly will win. Here I am not talking about the WCS. More about worlds before it with the extreme Multi account abusers and significantly smaller alliances that won over bigger ones using PVP lockdown. The WCS was a surprisingly balanced server. There were other flaws, but I think those were discussed very emotionally in another thread already.
For the old players the game is some fun as you have your routine, you have your friends to play with and you have proper chances to win a server. Exploits like Multi accounting and PVP lockdown are factors that can threaten an alliance that is superior and is a reason why old players stop playing the game.
Some will always stop "I've played 10 servers, I need a new game" or "there is this new game, I will try that one out" are probably some reasons. And you won't be able to stop those players. If you have a look at other browsergames that were big once you will see decreasing member counts.
I like the idea that nevermore mentioned. Steam is a very powerful platform. A mixed experience, like a Steam Client with the full graphical experience + a browser/app version where you can do things simplified sounds good.
The fighting system is the key of this game, even though it has flaws like PVP lockdown (there are ways to fix this as well). It is unique and good. Keep it or add a third faction. PVP should be equally important to the game as PVE. In CNCTA these days you only need to do 90% PVE and have a little PVP at the end to secure your victory. PVP needs to be more important for the whole growth progress.