EA Forums - Banner

FORTRESS MULTISHOOTING

As you know on 99% of worlds ppl from alliance who deserve to win world as 1st place shoot fortres again for the ppl from other alliances....
Its looks like the secound ( sometimes even 4-5th rank place) alliance ppl who not have power to shoot fortress get badge without even give a one shoot to tacticus.
to be fair to all ppl acording playing world ppl who shoot once tacticus and get bagde with big offs should be unable to get secound shoot to tacticus... i think they shoud be even unable to be inside main circle of HUBs to be fair.... i see few worlds where big offs stands inside main circle of hubs and block it .... so weak offs cannot get inside hubs and get more powerfull POIs to grow up....
i think developers should look after situation like this and make some upgrades to game to make it more fair to all ppl who play this game...

Replies

  • Maybe it would be better to close a finished world completly. Because why do you want to punish a world winner with something? If you play a game and you win you are the one who rules that world.
  • gamerdruid
    2943 posts Moderator
    It's the same discussion we've had many, many times ad infinitum!

    A world hasn't a true ending. Shooting the fortress isn't an end to a world, it's a step to controlling the world. Controlling the world isn't an end of the game but those that don't have control should accept they have 'lost' for whatever reason be it lack of skill, lack of money, lack time, lack of organisation, not 'cheating' (when the 1st alliance is believed to have done so) etc.

    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • agree to thinking about killing a fortress its not a endgame of world... but shooting fortres many times for others are not so fair to rest ppll who loose... and are stronger than ppl who get badge for free and weaker than 1st alliance who lead a world.... making some resticted arena for ppl who finish tacticus and or make unable to make another shoot of fortress make world more efective for place 2-3rd becouse ppl will be have chance to fight for them.....
  • gamerdruid
    2943 posts Moderator
    The problem is they did have a chance and failed. It is fair that when multiple alliances work together then all get a badge. Sometimes 2nd place and 3rd place alliances protected the 1st place alliance to enable them to dig to the centre, so they deserve the badges.

    The only suggestions I could make that would be to limit the badges for everyone such that after 6th place you don't get a badge. This may stop some worlds becoming controlled by a few players and would probably kill off the world quicker. ~The other idea is if you don't win a badge quickly, move to another world, or another game, as you were beaten in the game.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Or just give the winning alliance the 1st badge and every helping alliance gets something like a no1 supporter badge, then there is no need to stick around ... I suggested it earlier in an own thread but I think it is to much of a change or just not a good idea ... only my personal thinking.
  • gamerdruid
    2943 posts Moderator
    One problem with that suggestion (which I missed first time around) is that it assumes the 2nd & 3rd alliances are wings or supporters of the 1st alliance. On some worlds it is not so. Even if it were true on the majority of worlds, where would be the encouragement for opposition if your 2nd place badge said 'Supporter of XYZ alliance the 1st placed Alliance'?
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    One problem with that suggestion (which I missed first time around) is that it assumes the 2nd & 3rd alliances are wings or supporters of the 1st alliance. On some worlds it is not so. Even if it were true on the majority of worlds, where would be the encouragement for opposition if your 2nd place badge said 'Supporter of XYZ alliance the 1st placed Alliance'?

    Needs to be something the cics have to agree in-game to. Something like accepting ally and some more details to agree to.
  • iMenac3
    3 posts New member
    what about these suggestions to try and give the opposing teams a chance to compete against the wings or sisters of the winning alliance.

    Once the fortress is down or killed by winning team:
    1) Penalize winning team or gold players a 14 day pvp ban so they can't secure the center for their wings and also disable their supply points to give opposing teams and sisters/wings a chance to catch up.
    AND/OR
    2) Or sector out the winning team immediately after fortress is killed. Sector them out in same sector they are in but 100 spaces away from center and ban them from entering within 100 spaces of center for 30 days. This will disallow the holding of the center for their wings/sisters. This will also allow opposing teams to compete for the center.

    This should make the server more competitive and allow it to retain players after the rank #1 wins because there's hope for the opposition to win silver,etc.
  • Why would anyone punish a winner for winning a king of the hill game? That makes no sense. This kind of games are designed like this is. You win, then you rule as long you want.
  • iMenac3
    3 posts New member
    Why???? Same reasons why pvp has been butchered to the max (no benefits whatsover), why the new sectoring rules went in effect, why teamplay was killed with new loot patches, why multiaccounting was addressed. Because someone complains about it. For same reasons why the OP is complaining about this not being fair.
  • iMenac3 wrote: »
    Why???? Same reasons why pvp has been butchered to the max (no benefits whatsover), why the new sectoring rules went in effect, why teamplay was killed with new loot patches, why multiaccounting was addressed. Because someone complains about it. For same reasons why the OP is complaining about this not being fair.

    Lol, that's just totally different. You referring to bugs which have been reported and removed. But beeing the winner of a world and able to rule it is no bug.
  • SzybkiBill88
    13 posts Member
    edited August 15
    Salmoranes wrote: »
    Lol, that's just totally different. You referring to bugs which have been reported and removed. But beeing the winner of a world and able to rule it is no bug.

    its not about wining a world and rule.... this topic is about multishooting FORTRESS
    people please.... this topic is not becouse someone loose world or win it.....
    i got few winning worlds as well and i not agree on each one to get multishooting Tacticus.... and siting inside main circle of hubs....

    ofcourse... alliance who win as 1st will be lead a world till they not stop playing.... And rest allliance dosent matter if that support alliances of 1st place or not they should have get chance to get badge 2-3 as well...
    all of you win and loose some worlds and all of you know how it is when some hard BIG players shooting fortres as place 2-3 with off 7-10lvl stronger than strongest player from 2nd alliance... that not fair!!!!

    and ofcourse alliance who support 1st alliance deserve to get BADGE but by self.... Not by get badge becouse ppl with big off shoot it for them... that not fair for all alliances who want get somethink and thy cant becouse ppl who exacly shoot fortress stand inside hubs and shoot fortress....

    circle inside hubs and hubs should NOT be opened for ppl who shoot tacticus.... that not eliminate ruling serwer by the winning team but only change a chance to geting others inside hubs circle for place 2nd and 3rd as well and even place 4,5,6 etc.

    thats only a sugestions... and moderators should look after that to make game more effective to all badget places...
  • I am szybkibill on this issue. I stil vote for the removal of the winning alliances. Once you have shot the fort, all your bases are removed from the server. The winner can rule the world while they are nr 1, then they are gone after shooting the fort, and the game goes on for the other alliances left in the server. The winner and other main alliances may start treating their wings better, so they are nrs 2 and 3 ... when they shoot the fort. It will give a different dynamic to the game . It is possible to allow your wings to grow, we have seen that in wcs. Schaffa main did not suffer, their wings are now proper nrs 2 and ... . Wings work hard for the main alliances, usually they don't get treated very well by their main alliances . As I mentioned in a former reply to this idea in another thread, it could be an idea to lower the level of the fort, after it has been shot, since the 2 nd, 3 rd, ... are usually weaker alliances then the nrs 1. The nrs 1 get the easiest forts of the server.
  • gamerdruid
    2943 posts Moderator
    edited August 15
    thats only a sugestions... and moderators should look after that to make game more effective to all badget places...
    Moderators have no role within the game, only here on the forum! Maybe there is a case for 'in-game' moderators, but we don't have them at the moment.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • The reason you have so many loyal players, is that they know they can control a world if they kill the fortress first. It is "King of the hill" like Sal says. EA makes lots of money from people who pay lots of money to be the best.

    I suspect that if there were worlds that everyone was limited to 24 hours repair time and 500 command points it would make it much more competitive after the first fortress kill.
  • The reason you have so many loyal players, is that they know they can control a world if they kill the fortress first. It is "King of the hill" like Sal says. EA makes lots of money from people who pay lots of money to be the best.

    I suspect that if there were worlds that everyone was limited to 24 hours repair time and 500 command points it would make it much more competitive after the first fortress kill.

    I would also like to have worlds without buyable caps and RT. That would change it from pay to win into free to play. Sure you need to have 2d RT cap and 300 CP cap to be able to play for real.
    That would show skills over money, but I bet there would be many of the same players under the top like now. Just EA would earn way less money, so it will not happen.
    Another thing would be to have fix cost per month for such servers or something like server cost for this worlds to join them. So players choose to play with same caps and pay only once .... just thoughts ...
  • Salmoranes wrote: »
    The reason you have so many loyal players, is that they know they can control a world if they kill the fortress first. It is "King of the hill" like Sal says. EA makes lots of money from people who pay lots of money to be the best.

    I suspect that if there were worlds that everyone was limited to 24 hours repair time and 500 command points it would make it much more competitive after the first fortress kill.

    I would also like to have worlds without buyable caps and RT. That would change it from pay to win into free to play. Sure you need to have 2d RT cap and 300 CP cap to be able to play for real.
    That would show skills over money, but I bet there would be many of the same players under the top like now. Just EA would earn way less money, so it will not happen.
    Another thing would be to have fix cost per month for such servers or something like server cost for this worlds to join them. So players choose to play with same caps and pay only once .... just thoughts ...

    agreed a subscription server with everyone on same playing field . will show the players who can play with skills and those who fund to win .... mite see a few changes in the ranking lists of players and alliances
  • methuselah
    376 posts Senior Moderator
    edited August 20
    Salmoranes wrote: »
    Maybe it would be better to close a finished world completly. Because why do you want to punish a world winner with something? If you play a game and you win you are the one who rules that world.

    No. The fortress is not the end for everyone, I played this game for over a year when there were no forts.

    1) What if you've played, and invested, in a server for six months, someone kills the fort is it fair for that player for all that investment to go down the drain?

    2) What if your goal is not the fort, say it is to get a 65/65/65 base. Is if fair for that player to have the server shut down because the fort falls?

    I could go on here but you get my point. I will not disagree with the o.p. perhaps we should consider once you've gotten a fort kill in a world you are done with fortress killing......but shutting down the worlds at that point is a big no for me.

  • PunkiePunk
    38 posts Member
    edited August 20
    Salmoranes wrote: »
    Maybe it would be better to close a finished world completly. Because why do you want to punish a world winner with something? If you play a game and you win you are the one who rules that world.

    Why the need to rule a world? If you win , you have badge nr 1, all servers you play everyone will see you have a nr 1 badge. If you treat your wings right from the start of the server, they can still get nr 2,3,... badges. You can move on to the next server, win again, the rest of the server can go on if they want. And I would not limit the nr of badges, if you lower the lvl of the fort, no helpers will be needed. All alliances left on the server can keep playing that server for real . It will make it more fun and interesting for those who stay .
    Something else I would like to add about the winners ruling the server. Please do not ever force your wings to share their badges again. Your first wing deserves the highest ranked badge. If the winners make a coalition and want to share badges, no problem for me, but then go by rank . Change a few members if necessary. Forcing the nr 4 alliance to give up 42 badges, just because there are more wings than 1, or more than 1 winners with more than 1 wing, it does not work .
    Tib 37 at a complete standstill for 3 months, after the 3 mains badged. Fort 4, the first shared fort with 5 wings, 1 alliance lost all their codes, not just the 8 or 12 that badged, but the whole alliance! Their bases were killed by the fort too, while not being in the fort alliance at any time . How and why is a mystery. O, and it is hell to organize >:) So if this how you want to rule a server, please hang around to organize the hell :D
    Post edited by PunkiePunk on
  • PunkiePunk wrote: »
    Why the need to rule a world? If you win , you have badge nr 1, all servers you play everyone will see you have a nr 1 badge. If you treat your wings right from the start of the server, they can still get nr 2,3,... badges. You can move on to the next server, win again, the rest of the server can go on if they want. And I would not limit the nr of badges, if you lower the lvl of the fort, no helpers will be needed. All alliances left on the server can keep playing that server for real . It will make it more fun and interesting for those who stay .
    Something else I would like to add about the winners ruling the server. Please do not ever force your wings to share their badges again. Your first wing deserves the highest ranked badge. If the winners make a coalition and want to share badges, no problem for me, but then go by rank . Change a few members if necessary. Forcing the nr 4 alliance to give up 42 badges, just because there are more wings than 1, or more than 1 winners with more than 1 wing, it does not work .
    Tib 37 at a complete standstill for 3 months, after the 3 mains badged. Fort 4, the first shared fort with 5 wings, 1 alliance lost all their codes, not just the 8 or 12 that badged, but the whole alliance! Their bases were killed by the fort too, while not being in the fort alliance at any time . How and why is a mystery. O, and it is hell to organize >:) So if this how you want to rule a server, please hang around to organize the hell :D

    I agree partly.
    We (UM) normally make sure to have our wings in line and have them strong enough to do next endgame .... but we also help them to defend their position so they can do it fast as possible. After 2nd endgame is done it is the job of the wing to help out next ally and so on ...
    But I still don't see a reason why ppl should leave a server if they won it ... they can stay and play how they want. I personally don't stay for long ... normally I leave a world after 2nd endgame, but others like to keep playing.
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!