EA Forums - Banner

Automatic relocation after Fort kill to edge of world

I've started the game on the Tib 39 server so I am pretty new in this game, but I do like the game.

There is one major thing that bothers me though.

The strongest players get to kill the fort first and that's fine. Problem however is that they have no other objectives left and the less honorable players from the winning alliance start to bash much lower ranked players. With this, they heavily interfere with the gameplay of the other players. Some payers quit or stop playing that server, some players move to alliances that are more favorable to the winning alliance. They steal POI's they don't need and leave them unused. Killing everyone who dares to take it back.

I like the element of PvP and wars are good to be part of the game. But in the normal situation, war comes with a price. You can't progress as much as you can without war. The players that already killed the fort don't have a reason anymore to progress and therefor, they don't have to pay the price for war.

As I said in the beginning, I am new to this game so maybe there are better solutions, but what I can think of is:
- Automatic relocation to the edge of the world after a Fort kill with only slow possibility to get back to the center (even when breaking down buildings etc or relocating again).
- Move the alliance that killed the fort to a restricted area where you can only go after the fort kill where you might introduce a 2nd quest.
- Disable the accounts (or disable PvP somewhat) of those who completed killing of the fort as they obtained their badge already anyway.

In most games I've played, bashing is not allowed or not even possible. Maybe you even find it desirable (I hope not though :P)

Kind regards and curious about your response,

SplashyFlip

Replies

  • S3r4ph1M
    5 posts New member
    the game brings the possibility of the winning alliance helping allies that are important for this victory, few alliances can reach victory without supporting alliances, preventing action after the break would make it impossible for allies to help, I believe this makes their question unfeasible, the best way of getting to the center not being the winner is through diplomacy which is an extremely present item in any kind of war, I see this game as the most complete war game there is, involving everything a real war has, money, diplomacy , cheating, intrigue, time, war for resources and the greatest of all motives that a modern war vies for power! haha ha
  • You can have your preferences. I respect that. However, the arguments you use are oversimplifying the real world. Sure, stronger nations can get away with more than weaker nations. But in the real world we implemented rules to protect the weak.There is international law and humanity have implemented several conventions and oversight organisations to do so.

    I understand by now that there has been a lot of discussion about this already in the past and that EA chose to let this game be more of a Mad Max world where only power is relevant as long as you don’t (get caught) cheating. So I guess it is any further discussion is obsolete.

    Improvise. Adapt. Overcome ^^
  • S3r4ph1M
    5 posts New member
    dim of course, but all of this is also possible in the game by simply establishing diplomatic standards between the alliances, I've played worlds where war was not welcomed and it was agreed that the best dig / evolution would be the first break and who would be contrary attempted to destabilize peace on the server was contained by the strongest even though they were not the winners, but each world is different
  • gamerdruid
    2940 posts Moderator
    I've started the game on the Tib 39 server so I am pretty new in this game, but I do like the game.

    ... snip....

    As I said in the beginning, I am new to this game so maybe there are better solutions, but what I can think of is:
    - Automatic relocation to the edge of the world after a Fort kill with only slow possibility to get back to the center (even when breaking down buildings etc or relocating again).
    - Move the alliance that killed the fort to a restricted area where you can only go after the fort kill where you might introduce a 2nd quest.
    - Disable the accounts (or disable PvP somewhat) of those who completed killing of the fort as they obtained their badge already anyway.

    In most games I've played, bashing is not allowed or not even possible. Maybe you even find it desirable (I hope not though :P)

    Kind regards and curious about your response,

    SplashyFlip
    As suggested these ideas have already all been discussed in the past.

    All of them 'punish' the winning alliance. What is needed is not punishment but a reason to move to another world and not stay.

    The only suggestions I've ever seen that doesn't look like punishment are the ones that encourage different behaviour to the behaviour that others dislike.

    Some include:

    Restricting the number of times a player can shoot at the fortress - maybe 2 or 3 times allowed.
    Removing a 1st, 2nd or 3rd place badge if a player shoots a fortress at a later date and giving them the badge for that position. Players would not wish to lose a higher level badge.
    Transferring (but not compulsorily) them to another world where the starting levels and maximum levels etc are much higher and the fortress more difficult by having a much, much higher upper limit.
    Decreasing the gain from POI's after the 3rd kill for those with a badge. (Although this does seem to be a delayed punishment). Alternatively, boosting the gain for those without a badge.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • nefrontheone
    390 posts Member
    edited August 13
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    As suggested these ideas have already all been discussed in the past.

    All of them 'punish' the winning alliance. What is needed is not punishment but a reason to move to another world and not stay.

    The only suggestions I've ever seen that doesn't look like punishment are the ones that encourage different behaviour to the behaviour that others dislike.

    Some include:

    Restricting the number of times a player can shoot at the fortress - maybe 2 or 3 times allowed.
    Removing a 1st, 2nd or 3rd place badge if a player shoots a fortress at a later date and giving them the badge for that position. Players would not wish to lose a higher level badge.
    […]

    We destroy the fortress two or three times before wing is ready to attack. For me this is a punishment.
    If we help our wing and we lose our first badge is a new punishment. What do we need allies for then? To help us and then abandon them?
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • gamerdruid
    2940 posts Moderator
    You need allies to fight others while you dig or prepare for the fortress by collecting sat codes
    - the only thing you'd be 'punished' for is being in the same alliance as the previous 'ally'.

    Whatever is done, it will always be seen as punishment by some groups as style of play is different.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • nefrontheone
    390 posts Member
    edited August 13
    Maybe I didn't explain myself well in the second point that I answered.
    We threw the fortress in third place, then destroyed the fortress several times as our wing grew.
    Some of us (the greatest) went to our friendly alliances (not only wings) to help them in the attack on the fortress and thus reward their help so that we could obtain the third position medal.
    If these few who went to help lose the previous medal and give us a fourth (fifth, sixth…) position medal, it is promoting that the wing not be helped. Or in other words, it is being promoted that there are no wings or allies because afterwards you will not be able to return the favor without leaving us harmed.
    Added: I see it as if you were saying "You help me destroy the fortress but then I won't help you when your turn comes"
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • The solution is so simple, don't allow a player that won a badge to hit the fortress a second time. After 1st badge this game becomes no longer worth playing because of the fortress being destroyed by the stronger player. As long as this is allowed there is no honor, let alone a feeling of accomplishment in 2nd and 3rd place badge. Another easy solution would be do not allow swapping of players once the fortress has been attacked.
  • What is to stop a powerful alliance saying " We can only kill the fortress once, so we'll not do it quickly, we will wait until our friends (other accounts we control) and allies are big enough"? This will prevent any alliance killing the fortress for a very long time and stop anyone but 'friends and allies' getting a 2nd or 3rd place badge - or any other place badge.

    An alliance that is strong enough and organised enough to win the 1st place badge is strong enough and organised enough to control the order of who hits the fortress. If you're not in a 1st, 2nd or 3rd alliance then you either play for fun or grow big enough over time. You don't deserve a badge until you can beat the 1st, 2nd or 3rd place alliance to control 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!