EA Forums - Banner

End Game Outlook

13Next

Replies

  • 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.
    I didn't specifically mean that the fortress would force all players who attacked it to teleport back to the edge. What I meant is the fortress would target bases who attacked it and teleport them towards the edge should they be still within the range of the post reconstruction counter attack. This would get all players to move quickly to claim the void, whether wings or not of an alliance. A wing should be given the chance to attack it on their own without their main alliance's intervention. This is unless there was a base with an offense army that did not attack the fortress during the initial raid.
  • nefrontheone
    388 posts Member
    edited March 11
    I didn't specifically mean that the fortress would force all players who attacked it to teleport back to the edge. What I meant is the fortress would target bases who attacked it and teleport them towards the edge should they be still within the range of the post reconstruction counter attack. This would get all players to move quickly to claim the void, whether wings or not of an alliance. A wing should be given the chance to attack it on their own without their main alliance's intervention. This is unless there was a base with an offense army that did not attack the fortress during the initial raid.

    a) At the moment the fortress realizes a reconstruction and happens to the attack of all the bases that attacked it and are in its radius of action. That is why the alliance that destroys the center must move away as soon as its attack ends.
    b) Any alliance can move and take the space left by the bases that destroyed the fortress, as long as there are no previous agreements between alliances and / or wings.
    c) A wing will have the possibility of doing what it has agreed with its main alliance, playing alone or with its support. If the fortress has been destroyed in the midst of a war, in which the wing was helping, it would be considered a betrayal to abandon the wing so that it alone will continue the war against enemies who may be much bigger than them. Now, the strategy of each alliance is defined by each alliance, it must not be defined by the game.

    As I always say, this is my personal opinion.
    Post edited by nefrontheone on
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • Allow me to assist with the Tiberium Alliances game definition of "End Game", it's a common reference in Tiberium Alliances game players use to "defeat the "tacticus", "kill the fortress", "destroy the fort", "badge", "accomplish the mission objective", "end-result of the teams effort" =End-Game...there are a few more but I think you get the gist of what the reference "end-game" refers to. Don't play dumb. It just isn't very fitting.
    As to the "king of the hill" scenario, you're living in the dark ages with this reference. Find a way to make the game enjoyable again. Restore the PvP resources. Find another way to "punish" a player for full-filling the game objective, create alliances by any means necessary, move away from this "farmville" (sorry, never played that game but it sounds appropriate), sorry not buying into moving over to that envision game, what do you call it "rivals" and "drain the swamp" really, do you hate america that much Germany?
    If a player kills the fort, lock his base down for a week or two, can't grow, can't attack, something to get rid of the "god" complex some of these players get. Find a solution to stop the abuse. Make this game Great again (Pun intended :-) )
    Soxie...bullying is that guy that didn't do squat to help his alliance, avoided conflict, managed to wiggle his sorry butt into the leading alliance and post badging (completing the End Game), decides to declare him/herself as the "server god" and forces everyone to do as he/she says or else. Naturally, EA benefits from this "god" complex" player/bully and refuses to take action and you want to try to sell a lie by excusing this behavior as he/she has some sort of right to do so because he/she spent 2 dollars more than anyone else. Sad logic. It's a direct contradiction of your own rules. FYI @gamerdruid, if you want to know how to complete the end game and get a refund, send me a message, I have a buddy that did just that and still plays the game.
  • Furthermore, gamer's stick around post "end-game" not because they want to, you made it so the have to. If they leave the server for more than 30 days and just for the heck of it, lets say the entire alliance forgets to log in for 30 days, their "Hall of Fame" status disappears. You created this mess by removing an alliances "hall of fame" ranking.
  • oghuck
    5 posts New member
    tastes like looser tears, trust the devs. appreciate their work. gg
  • BambiByte
    117 posts Member
    edited July 12
    I think, we missed an important thing while discussing about "Endgame".
    - Reading the name of the game attentively.
    The first word of the name says the important resource, the second word - Alliances - tells you the key-behavior for being a winner. If you get rid of the leader alliance, right after the fort, - you wil remove always the most experienced team.
    You would not only punish the winner, but also the followers. On the one hand, they get nothing back for their help - on the other hand, not even the chance to master the right strategies under the leadership of the winner. So, double-nothing.
    If we removed the winner, there would be no point in diplomatic relations, and in the end you would get a game - against everyone - with NO or slight chance to win.
  • I'm kinda leaning towards the No Diplomacy thing, take it away, diplomacy is a farce and should be addressed. Promises made by one alliance to another and not upholding their end of the deal. It's a farce, may be part of the game but it's created the by and far largest flaw in the whole system. Or better yet, limit the number of allies an alliance can have. Say 5 allies, an equal number of axis and then the "farm-villers"... or Switzerlands. Then there is a challenge to get to the fort 1st.
  • gamerdruid
    2938 posts Moderator
    The only thing removing the 'official' diplomacy settings that would change, in my view, is the colour coding. Groups will still form, promises will be made and broken and the game won't change!
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
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!