EA Forums - Banner


hi everyone, i looked at this game closely and after analysis asked myself if it was a true strategy game.
first of all take a look at a few facts, this game is about growing and who can the fastest, is this based on strategy?
most of the top players are funded.
in the 2 worlds i have played what comes to my attention is the size of alliances when going for the fortress.
my belief is how to level things up and give smaller alliances a better chance of stardom, who themselves have great strategists but smaller in size see the game end as soon as its begun. would this idea work where only a sole alliance limited to 32 players and 1 reserve would be allowed to hold hubs, whether it be wings or anyone else but unique and un-mixed, will a stronger emphasis on strategy over credits take place.
for me its about giving everyone a chance avoiding the constant mass merging of alliances. on world conversation iv'e seen people say they're bored and i get a feeling of knowing what they mean.
if you are a long time player maybe you could throw some light this way so i can see where my thoughts are wrong.
thank you for reading ringpull


  • just think of what would happen if you make alliances smaller
    groups that are now large would break up and bunch togethet into coalitions of alliances
    in fact with just 50 people it is so hard to protect center and beat the opposition already that it is common to form coalitions and be forced to split medals
    this means that the optimal size of alliances for controlling a world is larger than 50, not smaller
    the rest is human nature
    the grouping of players is primary, the size restriction on alliances is secondary, on competitive world's at least
    i.e. there is no way to make it easier for a small alliance to win, except by removing competition somehow
    regarding fun, there are ways to make the game more fun, but playing with the size of alliances is not one of them
  • BambiByte
    130 posts Member
    edited October 2019
    Team leader's ability of keeping the team together from the start of the world until the final success and "magneting" experienced players are also the part of the strategy. Leading others is responsibility.
    The human part of the strategy (beside the pure "math"), such as diplo sense and real ability of leadership is as important as individual abilities of players.
    Low number of players in the team may reflect the quality of leadership as well.
  • R1ngpu11
    1 posts New member
    i would just like to say thank you very much for your interesting comments, i cant disagree at all, and suppose i should simply close the curtains on a nagging doubt over the bigger picture.
    It's a hard game and amusing to think for some 16+ years spent playing not knowing how hard it could become, i sense EA denies it, and has allowed something to get out of hand, now perhaps unable,
    to control the equilibrium of this game, overshadowed by size.
    if i cant beat them...... join them, the cat overgrows its habitat, a need to clear some space..... done diplomatically,?
    but why should **** compromise.
    what happens to minority's is open to view not only here. why its 'agent smith'
    fair means; anyone stands a chance.
    so could EA change the world, i leave that open for those who decide.
    the end.
  • I see the title "Fairness" sorry but it annoys me when it is used to describe a war game.

    Guys it is a war game and fairness really is a tough word to use when mentioned next to war.

    Strategy is finding a system that works and deploying it effectively and efficiently.
    Unfortunately the game reflects real life the big dog gets most food. Little dogs fight for the scraps and if not careful they get eaten by the big dog.
    The small guy needs to step up to same level or settle for a prize that is more suited to his level.
    The big guys fund and spend more time playing and have good strategies deployed most effectively so in "fairness" they win most times. Its unfair to expect Gold when you play as silver or bronze.

    Sometimes we even see the greatest strategies being bombarded with complaints of cheating or abuse of the game mechanics and then deemed "unfair". Then we see EA are forced by the community to change things. What i say is let it be "Strategy is finding a system that works and deploying it effectively and efficiently" instead of changing the game to exclude a certain strategy the format should be changed or tweaked to give us a new challenge to beat.

    A crazy Clown example - we have 8 sectors on map make each sector have only one type of POI (7 different POI types) in the 8th sector why not introduce a new POI a $$$ POI ?? That is one difference then mix and match EA i am sure have some great minds to come up with some really good ideas without make monster (expensive) changes. This example would need a new strategy as your alliance would be all over the server not only in one sector ;-)

    But if you want "true fairness" there is only one real way to achieve this, an equaliser could be ZERO funding but that would also be our greatest defeat. No funding would kill the game, as i believe it must cost $$ to run servers, to adjust code etc etc etc and lets be realistic EA are not a charity they are running a business and its players funding that supports that no money no game.

    "Fairness" live and let live play at your own level and enjoy and have fun at that level.
    EA could potentially exclude all not funded players........ would that be fair?
  • BambiByte
    130 posts Member
    edited November 2019
    Wow. POI types per sector would be crazy! I can not even imagine how to win a server like that. :)
    ...maybe, more diplo at the start would help, but a close cooperation on the way to the Fort must end by a conflict at the gates for getting the badge first.

    "Zero funding" sounds like the old system. You buy a game and play it forever. It has been changed in all of game developer companies, all over the world. The reason is clear...
  • yeah Zero funding was only an example of potential equalisation not a choice i think should ever truly be considered for cnc we want change and change costs, we accept the cost and that the reason we fund we like change and new challenges we like it to develop etc etc

    Hehehe the POI suggestion, I did say it was a crazy Clown thought, and probably not a smart idea, but I am a Clown not a game developer, i'm sure EA got some new good ideas they could use or try.
  • gamerdruid
    3879 posts Moderator
    I like the idea of the POI restricted to a sector. Maybe develop it a little though......

    Unfortunately at the start players will look to see what POI's are in each sector and choose to land a new account in certain sectors.

    Maybe rings of POI's - at band low 20's (where forgotten are level 20-250) there is one type of POI, at high 20's another and so on and only a mix at level 10-20 and 45+

    Also, an idea to go with the original suggestion, a 'fog of war' where you can't see the rest of the world only the ring around your alliance's bases within 40 of each base. That way you'd not know where the POI's are until you start getting close.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • @gamerdruid

    Sorry but now you got me stated 🤡

    The fog idea (the old CnC games had that too - a good idea for the start of the server) but maybe it could have an even bigger role to play, make the fog thicker as you get deeper into the world.

    Fog might help reduce the POI scouts and introduce a bit of luck to things too ;-)

    Hows about fog for each alliance??? You can only see territory that your alliance clears?

    That then makes the idea of a spy (strategy) more interesting too lol.

    Just imagine you know your enemy is approaching just not sure how far away he is then BOOOOM war reaches out from the fog hehehe.

    Oh and fog needs to regenerate when its out of reach again.

    POI per sector was only a crazy Clown idea i don't ever expect it to be looked at more seriously however....... while speaking about crazy ideas and POI i would even go one step further lets mix it up even more, lets make the POI change valve after a set period of time. Example how about every 3 days the value of the POI changes?? One day you sit on a level 45 TIB POI then very next day it is now only level 15 lol that might introduce some PvP fun ;-) Be especially interesting when the level 15 turned into a 45 or whatever random number appeared. It would make sharing or handing down POI to a wing less common cause you might just be handing your wing what is maybe your biggest POI.....

    Random POI value might just mean that the best guys on a server don't always have the best bonus to play with and that might even be a bit of an equaliser and narrow the difference between the top teams.

  • gamerdruid
    3879 posts Moderator
    Let's go the whole way - make the forgotten bases random within certain limits - fix the level of the tunnels, make bases within 30 fields of the tunnel be +/- 10 levels up to level 20 tunnels then +/- 15 levels up to level 30 tunnels and then +/- 20 levels up to level 40 tunnels. That should make it very different to what it is now.

    Alternatively, add between 1 and 4 levels every time a forgotten base regenerates/respawns.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Hehehe pity nobody will actually read the ideas 🤡
  • gamerdruid
    3879 posts Moderator
    I think they get read.... in fact I know that they are read, but whether they'll be acted upon I have no idea! :smile:
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • so maybe instead of calling it Wrath or Tib world they could call is a Clown world instead lol
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!