It is highly unlikely that anything on old worlds will change. Some worlds only have around 100 or less validated accounts on them now due to the policy of removing accounts where they're not logged in for around 2 years. The work involved in making changes to these worlds can't be justified in terms of the monetary gains (negligible) due to so few playing.
It has been suggested many times that there should be a way for a world to actually come to an end other than withering away and dying, but this seems to be not in their plan either.
I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
ah well, it worked out great in my mind. As you say the change doesn't justify the number of players but I did think of it from a business point of view. So, these aliens (only 50 armies strong would eventually become stronger and attempt to kill the forgotten fortress. I think some of the few players still playing would call for reinforcements and look out to some buddies for help. Those buddies join the world and more money starts coming in for EA. How about giving it a try on a very stagnant world and see what happens.
They haven't implemented any suggestions in these forums for a decade and you think they are going to start now with your alien invasion nonsense? never gonna happen.
The drama to this game political wise is only up to the point of the first fortress kill. The 1st winning alliance retains huge bases, becomes the 'big daddies' that dictates who is next and so forth. Obviously they continue to stick around to help their alternate accounts to thrive. I will like to suggest that once a player's account has successfully participated in killing the fortress, all bases for that player are permanently destroyed and these accounts are locked out from that server. They can enter to watch but they can't participate. In this way all the high valued POI is again open for grab and the drama continues. No big daddies around to dictate the sequence. The alliance that lost out to the 1st winning alliance still has a chance to take the second spot. They don't have to walk away empty handed. And please do not increase the Fortress level with each Fortress kill. I think there will be a lot more chaos and PVP with such model.
The drama to this game political wise is only up to the point of the first fortress kill. The 1st winning alliance retains huge bases, becomes the 'big daddies' that dictates who is next and so forth. Obviously they continue to stick around to help their alternate accounts to thrive. I will like to suggest that once a player's account has successfully participated in killing the fortress, all bases for that player are permanently destroyed and these accounts are locked out from that server. They can enter to watch but they can't participate. In this way all the high valued POI is again open for grab and the drama continues. No big daddies around to dictate the sequence. The alliance that lost out to the 1st winning alliance still has a chance to take the second spot. They don't have to walk away empty handed. And please do not increase the Fortress level with each Fortress kill. I think there will be a lot more chaos and PVP with such model.
This is not a new suggestion and it has been rejected by both players and developers. One of the arguments put against this is that the alliance that controls the server (the one that could kill the fortress) would simply take the centre and hold it (as they do now) and not kill the fortress thus controlling the world forever (as they do now). When the game first launched there was no fortress to kill and I'm told that this is exactly what happened (I wasn't on the first 30 or so servers!)
I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
At least there is life if I look at the discussion. How about updating the Facebook and twitter social media with at least the new worlds that will be released so that one can plan a bit. I sometimes struggle to land on the home page for some reason and it would be nice to just check in on Facebook or Twitter to get an idea of upcoming worlds
New worlds are typically announced 2 weeks before launch. I agree, a Twitter and Facebook announcement of launches would be good. Maybe it's something the new member of staff @EE_kalyn could handle.
I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
there are allways some good ideas, small changes which would improve the game a lot or make it more excited.. But dunno, the guy who do the upgrades maybe never reads the forum, or they dont wanna change too much on the coregame
I've mentioned elsewhere but, defensive artillery calibration times could be much shorter. Like 75% shorter come to think of it since they increased it should be more like 80%...
I've mentioned elsewhere but, defensive artillery calibration times could be much shorter. Like 75% shorter come to think of it since they increased it should be more like 80%...
For PvP? Yes.
As for forgotten it will have an effect only if multiple bases calibrate their artillery on a forward and exposed base I guess then leaving themselves exposed?
And I think that maybe the 24hr cool down before a base can attack once destroyed is too long a time.
If it remains a cumulative penalty it can be as short as 1 or 2 hours.
Replies
It has been suggested many times that there should be a way for a world to actually come to an end other than withering away and dying, but this seems to be not in their plan either.
For PvP? Yes.
As for forgotten it will have an effect only if multiple bases calibrate their artillery on a forward and exposed base I guess then leaving themselves exposed?
If it remains a cumulative penalty it can be as short as 1 or 2 hours.