EA Forums - Banner

Issues with 'pro players / alliances'

Prev1
It seems to be the same alliances dominating every world from what I can see, something needs to be done to tackle this... Myself and a lot of players with a few years of experience have all expressed the same views, that constantly being the alliances thrown to the side and having to wait for 5th/6th/7th etc badges is just becoming monotonous and pushing us away from the game, to the point where a lot of us have the same view that we may just pack up the game in the near future. I personally have spent around £90-£120 in the last 4 months on this game, which is crazy money when you think about it, compared to other games.... Yet I find myself in an 11th placed alliance on Tib 47, sat behind the main alliance and then its many sub alliances, of which the same players in each world that are ruling it! I'm so close to packing in the game and I know many others who are too!

My suggestion, is why not have worlds where only players without the #1 badge can join? These worlds would be geared towards players who maybe aren't as experienced, or don't fancy remortgaging their home to try to come close to these 'super alliances' that dominate every world? The pro players could continue to play on new worlds that they can dominate, but other players that have not had a chance to get the #1 badge would be given a chance, eventually, even if it takes a few '#1 badge holders banned' worlds to do it, to get their own #1 badge... This suggestion doesn't penalise anyone at all, it only offers a solution to a problem! It also might draw some newer players to the game, as they're not being catapulted in to a world where they quickly drown through inexperience!

Replies

  • gamerdruid
    4752 posts Moderator
    Worlds for those without a badge or #1 badge will attract players with alts that are experienced. For example, Always1stAtFortress, a player who is in the winning alliances many times, will add a player Now1stAtFortress or Always1stAtFortress1 etc.

    However, refining this suggestion, a world where only those with 1st/2nd and 3rd badges can play would, I think, attract players who spend heavily!
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    Worlds for those without a badge or #1 badge will attract players with alts that are experienced. For example, Always1stAtFortress, a player who is in the winning alliances many times, will add a player Now1stAtFortress or Always1stAtFortress1 etc.

    However, refining this suggestion, a world where only those with 1st/2nd and 3rd badges can play would, I think, attract players who spend heavily!

    I agree somewhat, as in trying to separate the player base from the heavy spenders with only 1st to 3rd badges will definitely pull the top level players one way... But... I kind of disagree with the other suggestion that players would continue to make new accounts just to be peevish towards new players, maybe a few gits would do, but certainly not full alliances of top level players... My suggestion is specifically targeted at stopping these super alliances/spenders from dominating players who don't want to spend as much or who haven't got the same level of experience...

    Just remember, every time a new 'no #1 badge players' world has the first fortress killed, another one starts, so the existing #1 badge holders and the newly crowned #1 badge holders from that world cannot now join the new one that starts, some players may stay on that world to finish it as they have help from the #1 alliance, or whatever, some may decide to pack in and start the new one... I can't understand why any top level alliance would specifically start a new EA account for every one of the new worlds, purely to stop lower level players getting the #1 badge? These accounts would be good for a single use, as once they kill the fortress on that world, they then cannot join another one of them and have to go with the normal worlds, or just stop using the account (which would be the more likely scenario)... Players play with the same accounts to build up badges and achievements, so these 1 use accounts wouldn't really be of any use to them, other than to stop 1 non-pro world
  • Chris, I think you are missing the point of the game. Why not up your own game to challenge these 'dominating' alliances. I think It's possible with a bit of imagination and diplomacy and maybe a bit of espionage. If you end up dead then at least you tried. No one owes you a 'world' just because you spent some money.
  • tokenting wrote: »
    Chris, I think you are missing the point of the game. Why not up your own game to challenge these 'dominating' alliances. I think It's possible with a bit of imagination and diplomacy and maybe a bit of espionage. If you end up dead then at least you tried. No one owes you a 'world' just because you spent some money.

    Quite the opposite, after playing this game nearly every day for the last 4 years, I have got quite a knack for playing the game... The dominating alliances are there because they pump large sums of money in to the game, that is just how it is! You can have as much imagination and diplomacy as you want, but a) you've no chance of beating an alliance that are at least 10 levels above you in defence and attack and b) the problem with diplomacy is that these dominating alliances have 2-3 or more of their sub alliances before you even get a sniff at the middle! If you're not 'in' with them then you're tossed to the bottom of the pile... We have our alliance and the only other option would be for us to go alone (losing game friends we have played with for years) and hope one of the top alliances gives you a spot

    Who said anyone 'owes me a world'? I referenced money for one reason only, to give the devs a nudge and tell them that me and many others who spend money just like me are sick of ploughing money in to a game that we are slowly starting to not enjoy because of the way every world is now... I'm on the edge of just stopping playing, which if I do loses the revenue I provide, so yes, I pay/play with my hard earned money and I am well within my rights to make a suggestion as I have done, up to the devs as to how they want to deal with this issue, but if I leave I won't be coming back
  • ....The dominating alliances are there because they pump large sums of money in to the game, that is just how it is! You can have as much imagination and diplomacy as you want, but a) you've no chance of beating an alliance that are at least 10 levels above you....

    I have a desire for a new Lambo, but doesn't mean I'm entitled to one for free.

    Welcome to the real world. You need to find 49 friends and coordinate a winning war strategy. This may come as a shock, but not every player deserves a 1st Fortress kill badge. The badges are reserved for the best of the best of a server and to be quite honest, has absolutely nothing to do with "pouring unlimited funds" into the game.

    I suggest finding a winning alliance, or creating one.

  • Soixie wrote: »
    ....The dominating alliances are there because they pump large sums of money in to the game, that is just how it is! You can have as much imagination and diplomacy as you want, but a) you've no chance of beating an alliance that are at least 10 levels above you....

    I have a desire for a new Lambo, but doesn't mean I'm entitled to one for free.

    Welcome to the real world. You need to find 49 friends and coordinate a winning war strategy. This may come as a shock, but not every player deserves a 1st Fortress kill badge. The badges are reserved for the best of the best of a server and to be quite honest, has absolutely nothing to do with "pouring unlimited funds" into the game.

    I suggest finding a winning alliance, or creating one.

    Bad analogy really... Costs the devs **** all to release a world where players with 1st badges are not allowed to play, a Lambo costs a **** tonne of money and for one to be given to you would seriously put someone out of pocket, so they are entirely different... My suggestion was purely to give players who haven't had a chance at a 1st place badge to fight it out for one, it isn't even guaranteeing them the badge, it is just giving them a slight bit of protection from top players who will dominate them! I wonder how many players start playing the game and then drop off because they just can't compete? Imagine if they had a world where they could get good at the game whilst being able to keep up with the other players on the world? Oh yeah, such as stupid idea....
  • Folcoch
    4 posts New member
    the world you want is for it to be with a ceiling of funds, for example 50k maximum, and there would be an additional strategy, it is how to invest your funds intelligently, but hey, it is not possible since that would touch the wallet of ea et Cie, but I confess that they would be funny to see a world like tha t;)
  • Bad analogy really... Costs the devs **** all to release a world where players with 1st badges are not allowed to play, a Lambo costs a **** tonne of money and for one to be given to you would seriously put someone out of pocket, so they are entirely different... My suggestion was purely to give players who haven't had a chance at a 1st place badge to fight it out for one, it isn't even guaranteeing them the badge, it is just giving them a slight bit of protection from top players who will dominate them! I wonder how many players start playing the game and then drop off because they just can't compete? Imagine if they had a world where they could get good at the game whilst being able to keep up with the other players on the world? Oh yeah, such as stupid idea....

    giphy.gif

    We would just create new accounts to join the server... you do know that don't you?

  • kevinfla
    2 posts New member
    if we limit the players so once they medal they can no longer be in an alliance or attack/hold poi's. Only can watch as a ghost . Then the next best team can attack the center. This will remove those games bullies.
  • gamerdruid
    4752 posts Moderator
    I doubt that it would work. They would simply control the centre and not claim the 1st place badge but prevent others from getting a badge.

    Also, remember that on most worlds, the 1st place alliance is supported by a number of wings which are then assisted in killing the fortress for 2nd, 3rd and even 4th place badges. Your plan would mean it wasn't possible.

    I've yet to see plans that don't 'punish' those that kill the fortress first by doing something to them. Maybe those that aren't good enough to get 1st place should work to be stronger.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • kevinfla
    2 posts New member
    My last 4 worlds has been the medal 1 taker would take all of the pois for #2 bonus and #1 bonus for defense after killing the fortress and then control the world. If we make them decide between #1 medal or world bully. Most will take the medal and move one. The last world the #2 medal was given to the #4 team in rank. (sister to the #1) if the #1 group had been banned after their medal then there would be a fight for #2 medal . Making is so you can't pvp once you medal would remove the bully threat.

    Currently the fight is only for the #1 medal . 2,3,4 is determined by the #1 medal team. This is why so many players quit as soon as they lose the ability for a #1,#2 or #3 medal. it not worth the money.

    Try it on one world and lets see how it works.
  • RedK8
    31 posts Member
    edited October 27
    An alternate idea would be to make it where you can't buy Tiberium, Crystal, Power or Credits.
    You can only buy Command Points, Repair Time and Packages..
    This would make everyone have to work, instead of buying there way up.
  • RedK8 wrote: »
    An alternate idea would be to make it where you can't buy Tiberium, Crystal, Power or Credits.
    You can only buy Command Points, Repair Time and Packages..
    This would make everyone have to work, instead of buying there way up.

    Uh, this is dumb... I can guarantee you, any 'veteran' player worth complaining about would never, ever, ever buy any package other than CP crates, and CP & RT Caps...
  • > @Soixie said:
    > I have a desire for a new Lambo, but doesn't mean I'm entitled to one for free.
    >
    > Welcome to the real world. You need to find 49 friends and coordinate a winning war strategy. This may come as a shock, but not every player deserves a 1st Fortress kill badge. The badges are reserved for the best of the best of a server and to be quite honest, has absolutely nothing to do with "pouring unlimited funds" into the game.
    >
    > I suggest finding a winning alliance, or creating one.

    It does take a lot of teamwork yes but the speed people beat the fortress with? Like 2 months or so, that is heavy funding. Maybe a few alts too. I think the moral is stick around a server and play at your place. You may not get there first but you will get there....
  • And consider all things equal. The inter alliance war would be brutal with the smaller alliances or unalligned suffering in the wake.
  • Just look at the new server Tib 57 already the players in the TOP 3 alliance have only after 2 days of server starting all have Dropped there 2nd bases.
    HOW much did that cost.
    This game has developed in to MONEY RULES not Skill
    The out come of the server has alredy been decided
  • Just look at the new server Tib 57 already the players in the TOP 3 alliance have only after 2 days of server starting all have Dropped there 2nd bases.
    HOW much did that cost.
    This game has developed in to MONEY RULES not Skill
    The out come of the server has alredy been decided

    it costs about 5 dollars to have a 300cp capacity or more which would enable you but not exclusively to drop base 2 on the 3rd day of a server. money has no bearing on progression in the early stages except for the added benefit of having increased cp cap and extra packages for the first couple nights. the outcome of the server has indeed been decided but it's not money that was the determining factor it was the mass cooperation that comes along with a system that rewards it. there are player guides which detail the steps taken to land base 2 within the first 3 days, alternate accounts being one of the main tools but also not exclusive to the process. it is possible for a single unfunded player to research base 2 in about 48 hours, it takes careful target consideration, knowledge of base building transitions to maximize credit income and diligent cp rt consumption. next time a server starts pay careful attention to the regular players in top teams to see how exactly they move into the map at the start, and you will see how easy it really is to satisfy the requirements of researching b2 like a pro.
  • > @Soixie said:
    > I have a desire for a new Lambo, but doesn't mean I'm entitled to one for free.
    >
    > Welcome to the real world. You need to find 49 friends and coordinate a winning war strategy. This may come as a shock, but not every player deserves a 1st Fortress kill badge. The badges are reserved for the best of the best of a server and to be quite honest, has absolutely nothing to do with "pouring unlimited funds" into the game.
    >
    > I suggest finding a winning alliance, or creating one.

    It does take a lot of teamwork yes but the speed people beat the fortress with? Like 2 months or so, that is heavy funding. Maybe a few alts too. I think the moral is stick around a server and play at your place. You may not get there first but you will get there....

    i think it's time to update those suggested requirements for a winning strategy from needing 49 other friends to a more reasonable amount of, wait let me check how many project ttd alliances and allies they have in t57... hang on its a high number ... almost calculated just have to carry the 9... ok and answer is... drum roll please... 499 just to equal in size the current ally list of our dear old project TTD conglomerate. ignoring all other player affiliation and taking into account the total lack of willing competitors its reasonable enough to assume nothing is going to change in any of the servers they may start. congrats to everyone involved in the high jacking of the environment here, your immense level of cooperation coupled with the proliferation of 3rd party tools has cemented your status as this games true administration. even the developers and owners couldn't possibly unseat project as the defacto rulers. It all just makes FA servers completely unplayable for me personally, i don't understand how any other group of 50 not affiliated would even bother trying anymore. let people kill forts until the cows come home on a server but take away the rewards after 3rd place and maybe we would see a reduction in mass cooperation a new dynamic in these environments, but we all know the damage is done, don't we?
  • gamerdruid
    4752 posts Moderator
    edited November 8
    What exactly are the rewards for 4th place and higher? I'd be surprised if out of those 499 players very few care about the badge, they have so many. A 4th place badge or higher number simply means to me you stuck around long enough and joined a 'team' that can give you a badge by killing the fortress.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • why are you guys assuming that OOC won't win t57, that team looks amazing. There are 23 full alliances there, only 6 are TTD from what i can see.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.