EA Forums - Banner

Removing players once they take fortress

Prev1345
What i am seeing happen is the group that takes the Fortress runs rampid an prevents other from attacking fortress , Alliance that kills the fortress should be removed from that world in order to keep the game interesting for others.

C

Replies

  • Maybe the top players who kill the fortress should be warped into another world, this time with a bigger forgotten fortress to tackle. I'd say lvl. 55 bases at start and the forgotten bases and fortress would be at about 80 to 100.
  • gamerdruid
    1780 posts Moderator
    There have been many discussions about post fortress features, but all fail to recognise that the group of 50 players who killed the fortress won a war game.

    Frequently a part of the group stay behind and help 'wing' alliances to get the fortress kill for that world too so transporting them off world would stop alliances working together in this way.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • methuselah
    245 posts Senior Moderator
    druid is right, if you warp people out of a server they just won't kill the fort. I agree this is a problem when you wind up with a cantankerous alliance that does not help whomever is next in line......but it is their right to do that, they won the server.

    No easy answer here.
  • gamerdruid
    1780 posts Moderator
    The Vet servers were initially intended to attract fortress winners, but now they seem to have a following of their own. No easy answer, I agree - in fact I doubt if there is an answer.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Maybe it should be an option for the player (once the alliance killed the fortress) to warp in to another world inside the same server and try to take on a bigger fortress. Some who are left in the other world, would help wings defeat the fortress again.
  • glc49
    2 posts Member
    edited July 26
    The players who destroyed the fort should be removed from that world even if they used personal funds to do so. Yes, this a war game, but the war was to destroy the fort on the world. They accomplished their goal. I have 3 badges and my experience is that many people who own multiple badges are funded players and they have formed personal groups and they begin to create their own rules...they only allow their friends to be next in destroying the fort. Some of them are really nasty! This is contrary to the basic rules of gaming. Allowing badge winners to stay and control the world (the game) is wrong. Their friends get unearned help and non-friends get screwed and this should not be allowed by C & C TA. I suggest new badges be created for multiple badge winners to reward them and to encourage them to move.
    Post edited by glc49 on
  • Soixie
    147 posts Member
    Killing Fortress simply requires the following;
    1. 32, 40 or 48 individual accounts
    2. An offense to drop Fortress within n*2.5 minutes, where n is 32, 40 or 48. Without getting too deep into the calculus, it's generally: Fortress level minus 30 for 45 accounts. Ex. If Fortress is level 85, you will need 45 accounts all level 55 to drop fortress. There are much deeper factors, but this is a high level example.

    Players need to cooperate with another players for world domination and those that are unable to do so, lose. Fortress flags are not a guaranteed participation server trophy just because you created an account on the server, something most kids today were wrongly instructed. Flags are handed out to winners, not losers. The older servers which have become more akin to the game capture the flag or king of the castle. Both of which are some of the oldest physiological strategic games available to children, for well over 1,000 years.

    Players have the option to pay funds, or not. Players have the option to join a winning alliance and be a part of something greater than themselves and help others or they can be a bull in a china shop attempting to do and play however they want. The latter generally don't last long. Life (and gaming) is about choices and consequences and figuring out how to advance and succeed in both. One doesn't get to make $20k/month simply because they turned 18 years old, even though society coddled them growing up instead of teaching them life lessons. Cooperate with others to achieve goals greater than the individual is able to accomplish on their own. Players shall either become part of something greater than themselves to "win" or they will lose, period.
    glc49 wrote: »
    The players who destroyed the fort should be removed from that world even if they used personal funds to do so. Yes, this a war game, but the war was to destroy the fort on the world. They accomplished their goal. I have 3 badges and my experience is that many people who own multiple badges are funded players and they have formed personal groups and they begin to create their own rules...they only allow their friends to be next in destroying the fort. Some of them are really nasty! This is contrary to the basic rules of gaming. Allowing badge winners to stay and control the world (the game) is wrong. Their friends get unearned help and non-friends get screwed and this should not be allowed by C & C TA. I suggest new badges be created for multiple badge winners to reward them and to encourage them to move.

    Your experience's are your own and no one else's, this game is played on several continents and several dozen countries. Your opinion isn't shared by the rest of the world.

    "...they only allow their friends..." <--- absolutely, welcome to real life
    "...some of them are really nasty! This is contrary to the basic rules of gaming." <
    Not sure where you learned this from but, this is false. Gaming is about winning, period. Research "sore loser" or poor sportsmanlike conduct. Online gaming has been this way since the dawn of the internet when MuDDOS ruled the earth. Go play World of Warcraft, Everquest, Call of Duty or any number of other MMORG today. It costs money, cash and hard currency to create and run a game. EA rewards players who pay money to play with advantages over free loading players who believe in some fantastical universe they are entitled to equal rights and privileges, wrong.
  • thecloser99999
    41 posts Member
    edited September 23
    ......
    Post edited by thecloser99999 on
  • Soixie
    147 posts Member
    edited August 4
    Free to play players (freeloaders - parasites) do not get the same advantages as those who pay money into a system that costs real life dollars to run and maintain. If a player doesn't want to cooperate with others on the server, much less contribute (pay) to the entertainment they are receiving for free, they have absolutely no rights to the rewards.

    Everyone that plays the game has an equal opportunity to perform the necessary work required to obtain a badge.
  • thecloser99999
    41 posts Member
    edited September 23
    ......
    Post edited by thecloser99999 on
  • I would rather be a parasite than someone who has to pay to win. Your type does not have to work at anything because you do not have a life except to spend your money playing these games and your main goal it appears at least on W22 is to be the school yard bully's and destroy everything after you have taken the fortress. So to Soxie go ahead and be a jerk you fit right in with those who cannot win without buying the win.
  • Normally when someone destroys the fortress is dedicated to provide help to other players that led to his victory.

    They can be sister alliances, friends or whatever.

    In the world where I am, those who threw the fortress in the first place helped their friends to be second. Then they left another alliance that could destroy the fortress and immediately attacked to destroy them and remove them from the center.

    The first and second winners failed to beat the third parties and the third ones decided to help two other alliances to pull the center ahead of their enemy alliances.

    The first three alliances in destroying the fortress spent a lot of money on funds but the rest of the players from the following alliances won their medals without spending on funds, just for their help and dedication to the game.

    When only two important alliances remained, a merger between the two was proposed so that they could destroy the center. One of them was not happy but seems to accept the conditions. The enemy alliance of the current world leader did not want, in any case, to adapt to the required conditions.

    Therefore, it is not defined that only the players who spend their money can destroy the fortress because many who played for free also got it.

    Everything depends on the behavior of people, not the game itself.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams
    My comments are only mine.
  • Soixie
    147 posts Member
    edited August 7
    This game isn't "free", if you believe this then go open your own online game. Usually the only players believing online gaming is free are children or people completely oblivious to reality of life. F2P is a successful business model allowing people a taste of what is available by test playing a highly restricted version of the full game, without actually charging them. Like test driving a tank without the main gun working, then complaining about the main gun not working. The F2P model adds population to an MMORG that might otherwise have a low population, also referred to as background noise. If you enjoy being nothing but a tester running around with 100 CP and 12hr RT in this game, that's cute and all but the rest of us enjoy what the full game has to offer. Again, test driving a tank without the main gun, then complaining the main gun doesn't work.

    Normally when someone destroys the fortress is dedicated to provide help to other players that led to his victory.

    They can be sister alliances, friends or whatever.

    In the world where I am, those who threw the fortress in the first place helped their friends to be second. Then they left another alliance that could destroy the fortress and immediately attacked to destroy them and remove them from the center.

    The first and second winners failed to beat the third parties and the third ones decided to help two other alliances to pull the center ahead of their enemy alliances....
    .

    ^^^This right here.

    I help run two worlds and we've seen both sides, one similar to above and another that I'm afraid will be forever PVP.

    On one world; We were first to center and subsequently led nearly a dozen more Fortress kills for anyone that wanted a flag, including 5th string alts. World peace, members enjoy 65 camps with no fear of dying anywhere. Anyone without a flag on this world made a conscious decision not to cooperate and be a team player in any capacity. They wanted to be CIC and dictate terms, power, control and pretty much FU to anyone that didn't agree with them. Those players were PVP'd repeatedly and pretty much removed from the server. Again, we're talking about 12-15 players that refused to cooperate to obtain a flag from us. Them killing fortress was impossible, under any scenario, period.

    On the other world; We were first to center during a three way world war, the only means to obtain a flag was a semi-truce where the top three alliances banned together against the fourth. The fourth alliance was PVP'd off the server, the remaining 3 alliances killed fortress 3x within 6 months. A new alliance was formed out of the top three, retirements etc and a year later fortress killed a fourth time. Peace was enjoyed for about a year, then a faction of 6 got bored and split off - causing destruction and chaos at center starting with level 45 POIs. Words were exchanged, "threats", unrepeatable world chats, the stuff you don't forget or forgive. They burned bridges, they choose to act like 5 year olds and they choose their path. Like cockroaches, they refuse to give up - still under some mythical fantasy the 6 of them are going to somehow beat our alliance, remove us from center (we're 10x their size) and once that's done - somehow defeat fortress with 6 mains and 12 sub/alt accounts.

    .....

    Therefore, it is not defined that only the players who spend their money can destroy the fortress because many who played for free also got it.

    Everything depends on the behavior of people, not the game itself.
  • methuselah
    245 posts Senior Moderator
    glc49 wrote: »
    The players who destroyed the fort should be removed from that world even if they used personal funds to do so. Yes, this a war game, but the war was to destroy the fort on the world. They accomplished their goal.

    yeah no sorry. Perhaps that was your goal, it was not mine. I've been playing this game since day 1, years before there even was a fortress. The fort was never my goal, speak for yourself.

    Please do not misinterpret my comment, I'm not diminishing this as an issue I'm simply saying you are applying your individual viewpoint on a situation that isn't nearly that simple.

  • simple answer ... NO ACCESS TO SAT CODES NO ACCESS TO THE GUARDIAN HUBS KILLING OR NO ACCESS TO THE FF ...... and all bases within the 45 base area to be terminated by the FF even if the FF is shielded and that will deter the players from hitting FF or helping again .......
  • nefrontheone
    84 posts Member
    edited August 8
    simple answer ... NO ACCESS TO SAT CODES NO ACCESS TO THE GUARDIAN HUBS KILLING OR NO ACCESS TO THE FF ...... and all bases within the 45 base area to be terminated by the FF even if the FF is shielded and that will deter the players from hitting FF or helping again .......

    I begin to have the same feeling as Methuselah, ScareyBillie26 tries to put his personal opinion above others (veterans or not).

    I hope that I am not misunderstood, each one of us can and we should have our opinion, but that is not always the right or correct one.

    We are not talking about how to prevent some players from repeating their attack on the fortress, we are talking about whether that idea is good or not.

    And for my side, NO, it's not a good idea!
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams
    My comments are only mine.
  • No point showing up to gun fight with a sword, and then complain that you lost because you did not have a gun!

    Perhaps a solution to make all happy is for EA to provide at least 1 or 2 world a year sans funding, so that the players can demonstrate their "skills", although my definition of skills include coming prepared for battle, and in this particular gaming model, those skills include arriving with $$$ to cover server costs and EA profits.
  • thecloser99999
    41 posts Member
    edited September 23
    .......
    Post edited by thecloser99999 on
  • thecloser99999
    41 posts Member
    edited September 23
    ......
    Post edited by thecloser99999 on
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!