EA Forums - Banner

End Game Outlook

Replies

  • gamerdruid
    2908 posts Moderator
    I do know what END GAME means, we just don't have an end game yet. We have a fortress kill which isn't the end game despite some on here wishing it did.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • soixie whats ur definition of bullying??? m with no alliance n joined other alliance n he threat them to kick me out is that enemy or bullying ?

    Bullying is when has achieved all that's possible and they stay to endeavor to be like god. All END GAME players ( even though MOD's say they don't know what end games is ) stay behind to be utter D1ckwads and bully! do you need a more simplafide written quote?

    Please learn how to comprehend and understand written language and not behave like some 5 year old. @WarriorXG had an excellent post related to this topic. Perhaps you missed the 7+ page thread on the topic.

    https://forums.ea.com/en/commandandconquer/discussion/comment/2012907/#Comment_2012907
  • World Championship World Setup

    - 5000 players
    - Fixed starting layout for the first base
    - Open only to players that completed the endgame at least once ( DOES THIS SAY ENDGAME??????? ☺)
    - Forgotten Attacks enabled, Morale-Malus disabled
    - No Repair Time Bundles for Sale

    The WCS 2019 will launch on March 29th, 4 p.m. UTC.
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    If it was economically sensible for them to close servers then they would be doing so. There must be enough life left in all servers to cover costs - as stated, EA are in it to make money so wouldn't keep a dead server (in terms of play) alive without a cost/benefit look.

    We, as players can't do that analysis as we have insufficient data.
    I have a question about those worlds where there are few players left. Is it feasible to just 'merge' the world so as the last few players in the old Eco worlds have more people to play with? I mean all active players in olds worlds gets relocated to a near empty server that has forgotten bases scattered here and there. There won't be enough frgotten bases to cover territory. All we have are players from various worlds complete with all their bases, resources and RP. If two bases spawn next to each other, both will be destroyed but they will not lose their resources nor require repair time.
  • gamerdruid
    2908 posts Moderator
    It may be possible, I don't know. If it is technically possible then one issue is 'How do you deal with a 2 worlds that have the same player?'

    A number of players are active on a few old worlds, it's not always just one. If I had 30 bases on world A, and 25 on world B but still log in and fund both, how would that be dealt with? The present 31 base max would be breached if all bases moved to a new world.

    Other problems - on world A I'm in an alliance with 10 other active ones, on world B it is 44 due to mergers. Which alliance do I get moved to?

    On world A I'm in the centre around the fortress so in multiple sectors, on world B I am in south sector, except for 6 bases in the centre, spread unevenly between sectors. Where do I get moved to and to which level of base?

    If I am moved from the centre, my bases will take days or weeks to move back as my bases are at the max 65 on all but 3 bases.

    All these and other issues can be solved, the solution would need to be public before the move. I do like the idea of merging worlds.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    It may be possible, I don't know. If it is technically possible then one issue is 'How do you deal with a 2 worlds that have the same player?'

    A number of players are active on a few old worlds, it's not always just one. If I had 30 bases on world A, and 25 on world B but still log in and fund both, how would that be dealt with? The present 31 base max would be breached if all bases moved to a new world.

    Other problems - on world A I'm in an alliance with 10 other active ones, on world B it is 44 due to mergers. Which alliance do I get moved to?

    On world A I'm in the centre around the fortress so in multiple sectors, on world B I am in south sector, except for 6 bases in the centre, spread unevenly between sectors. Where do I get moved to and to which level of base?

    If I am moved from the centre, my bases will take days or weeks to move back as my bases are at the max 65 on all but 3 bases.

    All these and other issues can be solved, the solution would need to be public before the move. I do like the idea of merging worlds.
    Well it all depends on choice. I see the issue is regarding your bases across two worlds that were chosen to be merged. If there is more than 1 instance per world, you get to choose with account to play in the merged world. Also maybe you could choose which faction, and from there choose from all the bases you have in the worlds to be merged. The bases you have would also show where their respective coordinates are. You could choose base 1, 5, 8 and 9 for world A and base 1, 3,7, 9 and 11 for world B. You would then claim them on the world on where their position last was.
  • gamerdruid
    2908 posts Moderator
    I agree, the problems I identified can be resolved. How they are resolved is a choice for the developers. I'm sure there are many other issues too. No issue is unable to be resolved (in theory). As we have seen with patch 19.1, the implementation of a change may not match up to the expectations of either the developers or the players.

    Merging worlds has been suggested in the past. Also closing older worlds after a certain stage has been reached such as less than 50 logins within a month or 6 month period.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • ok .. we splitting hairs on the word endgame/fortress kill .. jeez once you done server . killed fortress why not have so no way of rehitting it ... jeez i seen some players on wrath 7 still dictating the server now from alliance number 1 .. ...and they killed server long time ago ..
  • gamerdruid
    2908 posts Moderator
    but killing the fortress isn't the endgame, it's a part of it but not the final endgame.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • But what about a change in perspective. After one kills the fortress, the world expands and the outer edges are surrounded by forgotten bases.
    Lets say for 10,000 player world, the lead alliance kills the fortress. After this occurs, the world expands by half its diameter. On the newly created space is a danger zone of lvl 60+ very special bases. These bases do respawn and come with upgraded units like the fortress.
    Its the rest of the forgotten faction retaliating to an attack on the fortress! They also have twice the attack range of normal forgotten bases.
    When left unchecked, a base spawns on its own after every hour per sector. They will slowly fill the world unless the players can slowly push them back and remove all the special lvl 60 bases.
  • gamerdruid
    2908 posts Moderator
    A nice idea - although I doubt it is possible on existing worlds.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    but killing the fortress isn't the endgame, it's a part of it but not the final endgame.

    so what is the ENDGAME .. tell me .. i thought killing the FF in centre and getting badge is ENDGAME !!!

    i want a detailed description please .. explain to me and the hundreds of noobs then who dont know !!
  • gamerdruid
    2908 posts Moderator
    edited March 5
    There is no one endgame - where the game ends. It never ends! The phrase is used a lot, but never defined for this game. On any world there are players whose own end of game on that world is to obtain a 1st place badge. Some have an end of game target of getting a badge and then intend to leave. Some see the end of game as nothing more than getting everyone a badge, others the opposite ie preventing anyone but the main 1st badge alliance and it's wing getting a badge. There is no one end of game. With 50 000 on a world there could be 50 000 end of games. For some it will be when the money runs out, or when the wife/husband/partner realises how much time/money the game is consuming.

    You can have your own end of game at any time, by leaving a particular world. This is a king of the hill war game, if you don't like it then don't play it and don't spend money on it.

    The only End of Game that is certain is that when EA decide it costs more to maintain the servers than they receive in revenue it is time to pull the plug!
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    A nice idea - although I doubt it is possible on existing worlds.
    First thing to try is to have in the PTE, maybe a lvl 30 fortress and a few hidden bases on the edge of the world. I left out last time due to the fact it was a mistake for me to bring an alt.
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    You can have your own end of game at any time, by leaving a particular world. This is a king of the hill war game, if you don't like it then don't play it and don't spend money on it.

    The only End of Game that is certain is that when EA decide it costs more to maintain the servers than they receive in revenue it is time to pull the plug!
    King of the hill? So the best players control the center... I wonder if it's even possible to invert the scenario and see who's the fastest to reach the edge of the world. Lets say we spawn in the center and there's no fortress. Bases are here and there in such a way, that you can win if you dig your way back to the edge. The base levels are also inversed, so near the center are lvl 12 bases, and at the edge are lvl 60.
    That 2nd statement is definitely the scariest comment I've seen. The last thing I want to go back to the community only to realize its already dead. All the servers taken down and the TA forums entirely removed. I bet the cost for such a tragedy are the servers with 50 to 100 players left playing. I mean per year, EA gets to maintain a additional 5 barren servers (One where the players won't be spending money on). Keep this up and TA may be too risky to maintain and old (and possibly new) servers could start a permanent shutdown. EA should really do something will all those barren servers.

  • gamerdruid
    2908 posts Moderator
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    A nice idea - although I doubt it is possible on existing worlds.
    First thing to try is to have in the PTE, maybe a lvl 30 fortress and a few hidden bases on the edge of the world. I left out last time due to the fact it was a mistake for me to bring an alt.
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    You can have your own end of game at any time, by leaving a particular world. This is a king of the hill war game, if you don't like it then don't play it and don't spend money on it.

    The only End of Game that is certain is that when EA decide it costs more to maintain the servers than they receive in revenue it is time to pull the plug!
    King of the hill? So the best players control the center... I wonder if it's even possible to invert the scenario and see who's the fastest to reach the edge of the world. Lets say we spawn in the center and there's no fortress. Bases are here and there in such a way, that you can win if you dig your way back to the edge. The base levels are also inversed, so near the center are lvl 12 bases, and at the edge are lvl 60.
    That 2nd statement is definitely the scariest comment I've seen. The last thing I want to go back to the community only to realize its already dead. All the servers taken down and the TA forums entirely removed. I bet the cost for such a tragedy are the servers with 50 to 100 players left playing. I mean per year, EA gets to maintain a additional 5 barren servers (One where the players won't be spending money on). Keep this up and TA may be too risky to maintain and old (and possibly new) servers could start a permanent shutdown. EA should really do something will all those barren servers.
    I've suggested something similar in the past with no response. I also suggested the random placement of the valid hubs, much like the Vet server. With the fortress moving each time it is destroyed. It could move to a random edge or close to a random set of hubs.

    Technically I think the entities we talk about as servers or worlds are actually virtual servers. From the url makeup it is on 6 actual server arrays that are public facing. That is why when a problem arises a group of worlds experience the issues.

    My comment about EA pulling the plug was meant to mean pulling the plug on ALL worlds not just barren ones, ie closing the game down. They have launched a successor, C&C:Rivals. I don't know how successful it is, but it is difficult on a phone to play (for me).

    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • EE_Elephterion
    1251 posts Envision Developer
    edited March 6
    I think its safe to say that "end game" in Tiberium Alliance is a loop that gets repeated. It starts around the time the first satellites drop and ends with the destruction of the fortress, then its back to satellites and codes for hubs...

    I don't think it was originally intended that way but it was concluded to allow for some more utility and longevity of existing worlds, so players could keep playing.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • I think its safe to say that "end game" in Tiberium Alliance is a loop that gets repeated. It starts around the time the first satellites drop and ends with the destruction of the fortress, then its back to satellites and codes for hubs...

    I don't think it was originally intended that way but it was concluded to allow for some more utility and longevity of existing worlds, so players could keep playing.
    How's about we add a little twist to the endgame scenario. Each time the forgotten fortress gets destroyed, when it re-spawns, it would increase by 5 levels (same thing happens with the guardian bases). Also instead of it retaliating with an attack, it will forcefully teleport all players who attacked it back the edge of the world. This makes it a priority to quickly get out of the way lest you want to spend weeks getting back to the center. The ensuing panic allows another alliance to take its place in killing the fortress.

  • Like the Suggestion The Alliance that kills Fortress is sent to the Back
    It eliminates the King of the Hill and Bully Outlook that some Alliances have
    and gives others a sporting chance
  • nefrontheone
    379 posts Member
    edited March 9
    This solution is not the best when an alliance destroys the fortress with the help of its wings and wants to reward them for it, helping them in their attack to the center and giving them the POI available to them.
    It would be something like helping the main alliance to later receive no awards, no help.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • The Wing Alliances of a level to retake the Fortress next and SHOULD be Close to the Main
    so when the Main is sent back to Start line the Places and High POIs it Leaves SHOULD be Picked up by the Wing Alliance

    The Main can then start to move to Middle again to give support IF needed
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!