EA Forums - Banner


Firstly you scabs don't what to know my thoughts!!!!!
But having said that you have designed over the years a complex and engaging game one that many **** can't grasp, but for the 10% or so that do I suggest that once you have gained your badge on a world you are automatically deleted from that world
Many reasons for you to implement this but unless it is making you more money you will do nothing SCABS
At the moment 2 worlds I am playing are being controlled by the top 5 alliances who are intermingled with the CIC's/SIC's being members of the the leading alliance, so without their permission lower alliances can never gain a badge unless they bow and scrape to the powerful
As time goes on and some ask should I get funded I see an increasing number of responses saying no don't waste your money even the idiots realize they can never win they leave and you lose potential revenue (maybe someone needs to analyze new players joining and current ones leaving ) from disgruntled players and they are even spreading the word to friends and associates that the game is a total waste as no matter how long you play you can never win
Surely you know that if you can't get a result you lose interest and with social media flames build quickly.
Moderators who claim they have no affiliation (so no kick back I don't believe that why would they waste their time) with EA games my not even let this through to the cowards who should be able to defend their creation
I await the next world without spending my money this time to see what happens
In the meantime I estimate 1 hour and 38 minutes just from Facebook for this to go virile not to mention the other ones
Your and one of many undervalued customers


  • gamerdruid
    4149 posts Moderator
    This suggestion has been offered many times. You are in effect punishing the winners by cancelling all their hard work to win a world, sometimes through a long and expensive war.

    Yes, many worlds are controlled by a few players. The older numbered and language specific worlds in particular are in reality dead. No new players are joining. It is never worth joining a world after even a few days as the best players have invested heavily in time, energy and money to become the best players.

    I have no affiliation with EA/Envision, I enjoy my time as a moderator and don't play other games online except for a few games of Microsoft Solitaire for free. Why do I enjoy being a moderator? I like to feel I am helping out others as I do elsewhere in real life. I'm retired so have plenty of time and seem to have the skills required (whatever they are) to help. You may see it as a waste of my time, I certainly don't and I believe those that I've helped and that others have helped would see moderators as necessary part of the forums. I've even seen suggestions for in-game moderators to help reduce conflicts around the use of multi-accounts and other perceived exploits.

    How long it takes to go viral on Facebook isn't my concern!

    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Regarding end of the game: I have a good option that can satisfy everyone
    - after the fortress is killed, all winers (badgers) become imediattelly 5 level lower. In base, in deffence in atack the winners will be reduced with 5 levels.
    - with this option the game will be all the time relaunced and will no possible more abuse like is now.
  • Not a bad idea but one step further they are relocated to the outer rim of the world
  • It is true that many worlds are ruled by the 2-3 top allies which are mostly friends and they block all others to get a badge.
    For many of us it does not make sense to join another new world as we also invested a lot of time and money to be on this world in a certain position. But it is like in real life, some a bullying other without even playing on other worlds. I do not understand why this players are still on this worlds, even they have already 15 bases and all of it level 65. What chance other have to play here???
    Sending to the outer rim of the world does not make a big change. Players with a badge should be blocked or deleted. In this case everyone has to make his own way and can not hope of the help of badge winners to help them to kill the center.
    I always thought that the idea was to fight the forgotten and to kill the fortress.

    Thanks for reading till here. Good raiding, fair enemies and always loyal allies and team mates.

    Have a good one

  • gamerdruid
    4149 posts Moderator
    edited May 2017
    I personally like the suggestion made somewhere on the old forum of players with a badge can't hit the fortress or get a new code. They could still control the world and their, sometimes many, alt accounts could still get through to the centre.

    The main issues are, as I see it:
    1) multi-accounts used in various ways as a way to help the main account and not played for their own sake and benefit
    2) No 'endgame' option after the fortress is available.

    The game is basically still a 'king of the hill' game and as such the biggest 'kings' control a world.

    We've all seen many suggestions and some of them have been implemented, but none so far that address the problem that to become 'king of the hill' (controlling the centre) you need to spend a large amount of time and effort and as a result banishing members to the edge of the world or suggestions punish those that spent the most money. Which company in the world would alienate it's customers in that way - "the more you spend the more we punish you!"

    The veteran servers were an attempt at providing alternatives for old world players to move over. In my view they were implemented poorly in terms of gameplay to do that. Everyone starts with one level 45 base (or enough resources to get to that level) and from then on it becomes a similar game. The VP scoring helps and was intended, so I believe, to attract players from other worlds.
    I would prefer seeing players being able to nominate a world and move all their bases (or maybe 6 or 12) from another world. Everything tried so far hasn't, in my view, worked out as intended.

    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • would b cool to bring in from other worlds,have always wanted to do, an may a nuke or 2
  • awdammut
    3 posts Member
    edited June 2017
    Are there any plans at all to bring back RP for PvP? Or was the removal of RP done in order to make the game more peaceful? Without the RP, those who play pvp or those alliances who get into wars suffer IMMENSELY due to the lack of research ability the RP affords.
  • gamerdruid
    4149 posts Moderator
    As I remember, it was done because of whole alliances exploiting it and farming other player bases.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • I say make a big change in the game,Make the roster in every alliance with 100 players,command points at 200 repair time at 1 day,Make power transferable to any base,And boost up the RP in game,And make a new offence unite for GDI & NOD with more power to kill forgotton bases and pvp,This would bring in more players and make the game fun an bring in funded players back to the game.So get to work on my new idea guys time for a new change on this game to old as it is,Change will go a long way and pay out, I wish i was able to make games like this i would be rolling in cash lol,If you guys need good idea"s i can help you out :)
  • The whole 'must get new satellite code' after fortress has done nothing but complicate and slow down the game. It was a failed attempt to stop center control and hasn't worked.. why not just remove it again back to how it was before. There are many people like myself who like to hang around and actually help others get their fortress badges, having to either quit alliance before the fortress falls or keep bases in the satellite code zone to get new codes is nothing but a major inconvenience to players. Same goes for the 'fortress attacks back' option.
    Trying to stop or handicap players from multi fortress hits will only cause them to want to control the center and keep anybody out.
  • Restoring RP for PvP would be nice.
    This is a war game that punishes war: I don't understand that concept.
    Perhaps a diminishing return on same player/base kills to mitigate the farming issue?
  • I witnessed the whole farming issue on W92 . However, there is surely another way to fix the problem. Like the Diminishing return rule. If same alliance kills same base within 7 days, use a diminishing return along the lines of 1st-100%, 2nd-75%, 3rd-50% 4th-25%. Any other kills after 4th yields 0% within 7days of LAST kill.
    It would also allow the developers to observe any patterns of abuse and implement appropriate sanctions.
    At least consider something besides a blanket punishment for fighting wars.
  • Yes, this is a war game. You PVE and PVP to get a badge. You spend money and time to achieve success.
    How many competitive sports allow you to cross the finish line, then turn around and block others from finishing. Answer: NONE. Why? It's called sportsmanship (AKA integrity/dignity). No moderator can justify otherwise. However it can be justified by those who lack dignity/integrity. No moderator should be allowed to play this game. This is a conflict of interest. I believe moderators are compensated. Maybe not cash but compensated in some way. Why would they defend those that have badge to control and disrupt a server? It is to help EA drag out a server because EA does not want to spend money to open another.
    I realize now, many that play and control this game are typical of current social society. No dignity.

    If EA wishes to make this a war only game, why have a center (finish line) as a goal)?
    Yes the word is out, not a recommended game to spend money on to get a virtual (fake) trophy.
    As a retired athlete, I have trophies I can touch and my friends can see. I know how to win and lose with honor.

    If EA addresses the issue of badge players continuing to control server, I will be very surprised.
  • Maj Transfert de Ressources

    L'idée des cases à cocher n'est pas mauvaise en soi :
    - on peut en cocher plusieurs et ça aurait dû vouloir dire que le transfert se répartissait sur les bases sélectionnées
    - bin non : si de bases sont sélectionnées, y'a pas de transfert : une seule peut être choisie

    Dans ce cas, il fallait utiliser des boutons radio (un seul possible) et dans ce cas, on avait la désélection automatique d'une base précédemment choisie dès lors qu'on en choisissait une autre. Bin non.

    Autre truc qui aurait été sympa : dès qu'un des bouton Tib / Cristal a été cliqué ou qu'une base a été sélectionnée, le contrôle de saisie devrait avoir le focus => ça éviterait de devoir cliquer dans la zone... Bin non.

    N'oublions pas qu'une des devises des programmeurs est "Pourquoi faire simple, quand on peut faire compliqué"...

    Donc cette maj n'apporte rien mais ça complique... et ça devient lourd...

  • I like the current format. It is challenging. Although it can be frustrating when you pick the wrong alliance and end up locked out of the middle. However, a confederation of alliances can overpower a controlling alliance if they really want to fight for it.
    But to just throw your hands up and cry about the winners is not very sportsmanlike either.
    It simply comes down to how bad you want the middle. As real life kings are dethroned, so too can server kings.
    You just gotta fight.

  • i dont know if this has been said before, what about , roll with the allaince u came with, an do not allow, moving from allaince to allaince, because u pvp an an pvp ,lose rank an move your main farm alt to go to main, spys may not like, have all the sister allainces u want , but stay loyal to the allaince u came with , an make player kills like vet server, ,but better rp,
    just throwing it out thier,
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!