EA Forums - Banner

High level ranking players

Dear Management of CC Tiberium Alliances, Developers and Players,

I am testing and playing this game for exactly 1 year on "Tiberium 21"-Server, i already though to invest money in this game, but now i am thinking to quit it.

And i am going to explain why exactly:

Problem 1:
Since this is a MMO game, there should be a penalty for high level players who are killing low level players. Let's say i decide to kill alliance who was nearly born. They would have no single chances to stand a battle and probably half of them will quit the game. In my case even if I played for one year, I can't do anything to defeat rank 1 player, and not because i am not skilled or because i haven't invested hundreds of euros in this game, just because this game cap is too high. Someone who played since server existed is always stronger, this is wrong. By penalty I mean, something like attacking a low level player will extremely lower my defense level or a player is not able to move for week or so.

Problem 2:
You expect alliances to battle for fortress, but how? if multiple alliances decide to be friends and hold fortress for themselves? Small alliances will never have any chance to come close and defeat them.
That's why you need to force all allied alliances who defeated the fortress to leave the area by creating a giant circle, which destroys their bases if they don't leave it, while other alliances can join it and fight for the fortress, this will motivate players and give them more reason to play this game.

Problem 3:
PVP should be balanced, brought to a point, where any average player can fight a high level.
Maybe army against forgotten should be same it is now, but not against other players.

There are many others problems with this game, but i think i named most annoying and reasonable.

Thanks for reading, hope you understand what I am trying to say.

Replies

  • Hiya, it's time to play an additional world. You can tell on a world in the first 10 days who the top players will be after that it's very difficult to work your way into the top 10. If you do not start the world the same day as the server goes live, or take to long for base 2 or 3 you will never catch up.

    I am starting a world soon you are welcome to come and learn. This game needs to be played over multiple worlds
  • Hiya, it's time to play an additional world. You can tell on a world in the first 10 days who the top players will be after that it's very difficult to work your way into the top 10. If you do not start the world the same day as the server goes live, or take to long for base 2 or 3 you will never catch up.

    I am starting a world soon you are welcome to come and learn. This game needs to be played over multiple worlds

    one more year to grow, no thanks, that's not the way how mmo game works, new world should not define how game ticks, the game rules and gameplay does
  • Every world only lasts about 90-120 days. This game is not a typical mmo. Have you gotten to the point of needing spreadsheets to keep up?
  • UnrealVH
    5 posts Member
    edited February 12
    Every world only lasts about 90-120 days. This game is not a typical mmo. Have you gotten to the point of needing spreadsheets to keep up?

    if it's so, why the hell servers are still active? what's the whole point? and the idea of fortress is getting lost, why not just stick to a server, where any time new alliance can be born and reach the fortress and also fight with players who are already playing there

    of course, i could just create a player on every single server and later just decide where to stay, but what for?
    from 30000 players who can join server, most of them are same, they are just using different account names, this is quite stupid and non-profitable for EA

  • There is a large variety of people that play this game. For some it's the Chess aspect of it. Some people like to keep accounts going for a long time. Thing is there is only one 1st place badge per world and those guys earned the top spot. If they decide to stay active on the world after the fort has gone down they can get very large.

    I personally like playing with the same group of people over and over. Find a good group and attack worlds that way.
  • There is a large variety of people that play this game. For some it's the Chess aspect of it. Some people like to keep accounts going for a long time. Thing is there is only one 1st place badge per world and those guys earned the top spot. If they decide to stay active on the world after the fort has gone down they can get very large.

    I personally like playing with the same group of people over and over. Find a good group and attack worlds that way.

    i have nothing against playing with same group over different servers, the ability to do so should stay as it is, what i am trying to say, mostly, these are same players who start game over and over, new players are not really welcomed in this game, you may see new players who try it, but in the end they will quit it, and reasons are same:

    - getting bored
    - unlucky alliance, no POI's or alliance is getting hit by high levels
    - waiting times
    - investing money, which i would support if problems I mentioned before would be solved

    with these improvements there will be:
    - no more multiple account creations over multiple servers
    - less trouble for developers fixing multiple servers
    - more alliances
    - more pvp between players in the middle
    - you would invest money knowing this will help you to reach the fortress and to defeat your enemy
    - more fun
  • gamerdruid
    1619 posts Moderator
    edited February 12
    @UnrealVH All of what you have said has been said before, many, many times.
    UnrealVH wrote:
    That's why you need to force all allied alliances who defeated the fortress to leave the area by creating a giant circle, which destroys their bases if they don't leave it, while other alliances can join it and fight for the fortress, this will motivate players and give them more reason to play this game.

    is actually implemented, although probably not with a large enough circle to satisfy you or to make much difference.

    It will always cause an issue in this game to change the gameplay or structure of the game in some way whilst a world is playing. Those that win the fortress 1st badge (and even 2nd and 3rd) have spent a very large amount of time and money to do so.

    All suggestions I've seen so far are seen as punishing those that win. The main thing that is needed, IMHO, is something post-fortress that will attract the winners to behave in a different way.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    @UnrealVH All of what you have said has been said before, many, many times.

    It means EA is not listening to the community.
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    is actually implemented, although probably not with a large enough circle to satisfy you or to make much difference.

    It's not implemented. Once i hold fortress no one will ever can come close, only if i allow to.
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    It will always cause an issue in this game to change the gameplay or structure of the game in some way whilst a world is playing. Those that win the fortress 1st badge (and even 2nd and 3rd) have spent a very large amount of time and money to do so.

    If multiple alliances decide to reach it together, they don't need to spend any money, only when they really reached the fortress.
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    All suggestions I've seen so far are seen as punishing those that win. The main thing that is needed, IMHO, is something post-fortress that will attract the winners to behave in a different way.

    With giant circle, which destroys bases, who already destroyed fortress, farming near Fortress would be impossible.
  • I obviously didn't understand your circle idea - you're talking about an exclusion zone.

    I was referring to the revenge attack circle, now clearly different things. I now understand.
    However, I still haven't seen anything suggested that will 'attract' the winners to behave in a different manner. What is suggested will force them to do so with no benefit to them. They need a benefit to change their behaviour as without some benefit they will be truly and reasonably annoyed that the winner takes all part of the game has changed after they started to play the game on the world and invested hundreds of Dollars, Euros, UK Pounds or whatever is their currency.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    without some benefit they will be truly and reasonably annoyed that the winner takes all part of the game has changed after they started to play the game on the world and invested hundreds of Dollars, Euros, UK Pounds or whatever is their currency.

    I do agree, that those who made it to the fortress first should be rewarded. I would suggest a gift package, something like 100 Command Points and repair time supplies. Also this kind of gameplay could break the idea of multiple alliances to become friends.
  • Unreal come join the next world they start. I can promise you a home with people that will have your back and a big fight eventually. We fight for first and dig hard we will be running multiple alliances.

    Also gamerdruid i would like to play another world with you. The one we played together we lost badly and I have not forgotten.
  • @MainelyYoda I now only play the PTE seriously (but not too seriously as it's a test world) and dabble in other worlds
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • sussudio88
    2 posts Member
    edited March 29
    the Circle of exclusion is an amazing idea. I'm going to post how I think it should work and I think it is similar to how OP imagined it :

    - The Fortress emits some kind of radioactive force that destroys previous fortress conquerors, 100 fields radius of the Center

    -When you defeat fortress, you will be badged as appropriate and then auto-relocated 100 fields away

    -This stops big players/alliances bulling others after they are done

    -This allows more exciting badging after the hardcore best players get their #1, maybe even more pvp as we all know it always ends up a big hugging contest in the middle where they all share #1,#2,#3 in a controlled bullying fashion

    -This stops big players hoarding the best POI in middle

    -If fortress winners want to carry on playing, they can do what they want as long as they are away from the radiation zone.

    -will stop big player account sharing/giveaway aswell. This is where a big player (x) is bored of the game or inactive but weaker player (y) takes his account to enforce the 'world order'
  • gamerdruid
    1619 posts Moderator
    Instead of punishing those that win the fortress early on by relocating them, make them move. Days of recovery are needed if you have a level 60+ base, and with 25+ bases it takes a lot of time. Those wishing to remain on the world will move however as they amass terabytes of crystal and tiberium to get to the next base.

    Make them move by extending the period of the fortress revenge attacks as well as the range until the shields drop again. That way they can't be in the centre and if it is an enemy that takes over, they can only attack from the edge of the revenge area. Maybe increase the revenge attack time and range every time the fortress falls forcing them further and further out from the centre.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!