EA Forums - Banner

Ranked Worlds/Elite Worlds Idea

Prev1
UnrealVH
8 posts Member
edited May 22
I want to suggest something new and something cool, Ranked Worlds.

A year ago i suggested to give penalty to players who destroyed the fortress, now i have a better idea.

The idea behind "Ranked Worlds" is, that after player gets the fortress badge, it will be deleted from the server and teleported to a new ranked server, which you can join only with badge after destroying the fortress. There should be no other way to join ranked server, but to destroy the fortress and get the badge.

Let's say:
There are 5 Basic Europe servers. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
And there are 2 Ranked Europe servers: 1, 2

All alliances from 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 who will get the badge first, will be deleted from these servers and will be teleported to a ranked server where real battle between the winners starts. Players just continue to play NOT from the beginning, but with all their resources and same level on this server.
Post edited by EE_Elephterion on

Replies

  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited May 18
    Interesting but not so cool. I think.
    - What will the 1st team do for - very long - months without other team on the "ranked" world?
    - What if the 2nd badged team is from the same alliance family?
    - What is the real purpose? Being away from the original server?
    - Getting removed from a server right after the badge would prevent all the "diplo" relations even before the badge. You will not help other alliance, since they can not help you - paying back your efforts.
    Without diplo layer of the game, it would be boring.
  • > - What will the 1st team do for - very long - months without other team on the "ranked" world?

    they will probably leveling, but it is not difficult to restrict their movements before some other alliance joins, maybe there could be a restriction, that 3 alliances should join to release everyone from movement, also forgotten with high level bases won't make it easy to get in the middle of ranked server.

    > - What if the 2nd badged team is from the same alliance family?

    2nd alliance family should be good enough to take the fortress, to vanish or to level until they are prepared.

    > - What is the real purpose? Being away from the original server?

    There will be no more high level players who dictate the rules.
    There will be no more rogue players and bullying, who destroy low level players for fun.
    There will be no more ONE player alliances.
    There will be no more alliance prioritization over other alliances, they will be mostly equal, more fun to play.
    No more badge give over to their sister alliances, not players should decide who will get the badge, the game should decide it. If you are bad at strategy game, you lose, all strategy games work like that.

    > - Getting removed from a server right after the badge would prevent all the "diplo" relations even before the badge. You will not help other alliance, since they can not help you - paying back your efforts.
    > Without diplo layer of the game, it would be boring.

    Yes indeed, players will behave differently, it will change the common type of game to more competitive and it requires alliance to work as a team. If you afraid of "diplo" relations changes, it means, that you like it when high level players dictate the rules to you.
    I don't think, that many players eagerly will want to leave the server, as they know, that playing on ranked server SHOULD be harder. All forgotten bases on ranked server forgotten should be at level 50.
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited May 18
    Winner team with stricted movements for months - say leveling the armies from 65 to (what level)? - is not so interesting to keep the activity on a healthy level.
    - The tactics would be changed on the original server, not else. Winner would wait with badging until the whole alliance family is strong enough to repell all the attempts of dethroning.

    You fear of high level players, but I do not know the reason since you have the same circumstances to be as big as they are.

    Penalty for being a winner is not a so good idea. Following your thoughts, you shall be fired from your workplace if you are the most succesfull worker - to give place for the lazy and less smart ones. This way, the workplace would be lack of real challenge and the quality would be lowered in every branches of the operation. In real life, the well educated and motivated person would never have a chance to get the position what he deserves.
  • gamerdruid
    2834 posts Moderator
    edited May 18
    UnrealVH wrote: »
    > - What will the 1st team do for - very long - months without other team on the "ranked" world?

    they will probably leveling, but it is not difficult to restrict their movements before some other alliance joins, maybe there could be a restriction, that 3 alliances should join to release everyone from movement, also forgotten with high level bases won't make it easy to get in the middle of ranked server.

    > - What if the 2nd badged team is from the same alliance family?

    2nd alliance family should be good enough to take the fortress, to vanish or to level until they are prepared.
    And the 1st alliance won't kill the fortress until they are.
    > - What is the real purpose? Being away from the original server?

    There will be no more high level players who dictate the rules.
    Why not? 2nd and 3rd alliances will still be there and they will be high level compared to many
    There will be no more rogue players and bullying, who destroy low level players for fun.
    nothing to stop that in what you have proposed. It is not always those from the top 3 or 5 that behave in this way
    There will be no more ONE player alliances.
    There will be no more alliance prioritization over other alliances, they will be mostly equal, more fun to play.
    No more badge give over to their sister alliances, not players should decide who will get the badge, the game should decide it. If you are bad at strategy game, you lose, all strategy games work like that.
    None of this follows from what you've proposed.
    ...snip...


    Any forced resettlement wouldn't work (just as in real life).

    The only way to do anything post-fortress is to make it interesting and worthwhile, in other words, something that players actively want. Anything else is going to be an obstruction to current systems of play and alliances.

    Another question too, what of those players who are in the 1st alliance on 3 worlds, do they get 50 or more bases to 'work' with - and possibly a mix of GDI and NOD.

    On the other hand, I like the basics of the idea. It needs to be different from the WCS (which you can only go to if you have badge) or a vet server (where success in challenges, fortress and previous vet servers count).


    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited May 18
    The top - say pro - teams should not be "kicked" from normal servers. This is not the right way.
    They should be motivated to play mainly on higher level of servers to have enough veteran or other even higher level of badge - to take part on the next WCS.
    If they are focusing on more valuable badges, "greenhorn" players and teams would have a more balanced race on "normal servers".

    Instead of kicking top teams, it would be more interesting to have limited number of badges on normal servers. You can have only one badge on a world, so why can you have more than 10 badges on normal worlds? I think, 10 badges are enough for learning period before you can take part in really serious competitions.
  • gamerdruid
    2834 posts Moderator
    Curious - you can only gain one badge per world, do you mean that there should only be a limited number available?
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited May 19
    I mean, after a few badges you are an experienced player, but still not "forced" to play on harder type of worlds. Limited number of available badges will redirect the "pro" players to the special worlds like Veteran ones - where you can achieve more respected badges, usable for competitions or other else...
    The restriction of the number of badges would affect only the "normal worlds".
    Players who are not sure about their experience may play on a normal world to be even better, but they should not get more badge there.
    Other point where this soft redirection would work is a table called "Hall of Fame" where the winners of veteran and other special high level competitions should be placed. by type of competitions yearly.

    ///
    One badge per world, but limited number of badges on normal type of worlds (altogether).
    Veteran badges or other higher level of badges would not be restricted.
    Let's say, you can get only 5 badges on normal worlds... 5 badges is more than enough for a simple player even without alts.

    During the transition period, the old players with many badges could still earn two more, or the amount missing to get the 5th.

    (sorry for my poor English)
    Post edited by BambiByte on
  • gamerdruid
    2834 posts Moderator
    What you are suggesting seems to have evolved. (Your English is understandable.)

    Players to gain a maximum of 5 badges, on standard worlds and then they can access advanced worlds.
    (I like this better than forcing them to move.) I'd place a restriction so that the badges need to be 1st to 3rd place. They'd be unable to join new standard worlds if they have the 5 required badges.

    Players without the required level of badges can join only standard worlds.

    This seems possible as they already have restrictions on access to the WCS and Vet servers - the code may need altering, but the basis is in existence already.

    The next part would be to make advanced worlds attractive to experienced players and to those who aspire to be experienced players.

    They would need to be sufficiently different to make the harder (but not impossible) to progress but sufficiently similar to remain the 'same game'. Suggestions welcome!
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    The optimal solution is somewhere between yours and mine.
    - Some of the players may have badges 1st to 3rd, but it does not mean automatically that they are already experienced. They might had been only small players in a strong team... This is why I did not mentioned restriction about joining again to a normal world with (say) 5 badges. Almost all teams - even the strongest one - have beginner player(s). They would be in a strange situation on a high level world where almost all the players are pros comparing to them.
    - The prohibition may discourage participants, while the availability of a reward or lack of it will redirect them to the right way. Ways of rewarding should be enhanced so that the desired change is more attractive to them.
  • gamerdruid
    2834 posts Moderator
    edited May 19
    Very few 1st place to 3rd place badges are for inexperienced lowly players I would think. By the time they have 5 badges of the correct rank they would be experienced, even if not skilled, players. They would know how the fortress works, how to play as a team, how do defend POI's and hubs and other players.

    If 5 is too few (or too many) then that number could be different.

    The problem will come from how to deal with the current situation with multiple players having multiple badges for old worlds ranked 5 - 20th kill of fortress.

    Maybe a system of awarding points, as listed below (or some variation) similar to a POI's growth in value.

    100th-21st kill of the fortress 0 points (or even negative numbers so there is a disincentive to kill it the 30th time!)


    20th 1
    19th 2
    18th 3
    17th 4
    16th 5
    15th 10
    14th 20
    13th 30
    12th 40
    11th 50
    10th 150
    9th 200
    8th 250
    7th 300
    6th 350
    5th 500
    4th 1000
    3rd 1500
    2nd 2000
    1st 5000

    You could then get onto the advanced/elite world with 6500 points (1st place badge plus 3rd place badge or a combination to add up to the same points) and once you get to 15000 you can't get on a standard world but can only join and advanced/elite world.

    (I don't know of any worlds where the fortress has been killed 20 times, but the system has to allow for it!)

    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid
    2834 posts Moderator
    One problem you could not prevent would be someone creating a new account to be able to get onto a standard world when their main account can only get on an elite/advanced world. They would need to be determined, as once a system such as described is implemented, they'd quickly accrue points and have to start again with any purchased credits not being transferrable.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited May 19
    It is a good idea with that point system - I like the nonlinear parts. It will manage the availability of veteran worlds. I can not decide if it is good enough or not, but it is possible to find out that how many players have at least one badge for 1st place (I think, not so much - the distribution of the first places is not linear at all). I guess, a player has to play years for getting entitled to join a veteran server...

    - I would rather bind veteran rights to having a 3rd or better place once, or the equivalent points together. This would be the max badges what you can earn on normal wolds as well.

    The transition period should make it possible to gain two more for old players with enough points - let's say, from now on...

    After these all, weeping would not exist about who is king on normal and veteran worlds :)

    'Normal' worlds should be called and mentioned as "boot camps". Many of the games have difficulty levels, so players would accept is easily.

    Points should be kept and accumulated also on veteran worlds for new possibilities and rewards.

    Post edited by BambiByte on
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited May 19
    You mentioned the problem with alts on normal worlds. If you do not want to use force - and scarcely controllable difficult systems - it would be a 'backdoor', but the effect on 'bootcamps' would be lowered definitely, since a badge from a normal world wouldn't give you prestige.
    Alts will also go through the system fast and will be converted to veteran alts within a short period, since the owner is already well experienced.
  • gamerdruid
    2834 posts Moderator
    One way to deal with legacy kills of the fortress is to track new kills on the older worlds (numbered and tib/firestorm/wrath). So although a kill of the fortress on an old world would not contribute to the badges a person has if they already have one, any new kills will contribute to the points after a certain date - say 1 month after the introduction of the new system. A new kill would give them X x 1000 points where X is the number of times the fortress has previously been killed. I know this is less than the points in the table for 1st-3rd kills, but one thing that I dislike is rule changes in the middle of a game!

    By not penalising existing kills it gives the developers time to come up with new features on the advanced/elite worlds. You would need to kill 7 more fortresses to gain entry to the advanced/elite world from existing worlds, or less if you moved to new worlds after the introduction of the new system.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited May 20
    Killing 7 more fortresses really gives time for developers. :) Mainly if a player does not play on multiple worlds paralelly.
    e.g. My badge for 4th place on Tib26 took a year - so I will play on an advanced world in 7 years, in 2026. Right? ;)

    New rules should come alive for players after introducing the rules, on the world what a player chooses next. (allowing 2 more badges on normal worlds max, if he/she already has the necessary points for playing on elite worlds.)

    When the new rules are published, the notice could contain the date when they will be valid from. This date should give enough time for developers. Existing badges from Veteran worlds shall be counted with multiplier.
    This is also a possibility for players to have elevetad rights sooner, if they join an elite server in the transitional period. ...not to mention that it will speed up the planned sorting of pro and beginner players.
    Post edited by BambiByte on
  • gamerdruid
    2834 posts Moderator
    BambiByte wrote: »
    Killing 7 more fortresses really gives time for developers. :) Mainly if a player does not play on multiple worlds paralelly.
    e.g. My badge for 4th place on Tib26 took a year - so I will play on an advanced world in 7 years, in 2026. Right? ;)
    No - you don't need to kill 7 more fortresses if you can get into top alliances killing it in 1st - 3rd places.
    New rules should come alive for players after introducing the rules, on the world what a player chooses next. (allowing 2 more badges on normal worlds max, if he/she already has the necessary points for playing on elite worlds.)
    New scoring only comes in for worlds announced after the introduction of the new rules.
    When the new rules are published, the notice could contain the date when they will be valid from. This date should give enough time for developers. Existing badges from Veteran worlds shall be counted with multiplier.
    This is also a possibility for players to have elevetad rights sooner, if they join an elite server in the transitional period. ...not to mention that it will speed up the planned sorting of pro and beginner players.
    Badges from traditional Veteran worlds (after the new rules) could score points in the same way as killing a fortress. Existing badges counting with a multiplying factor, as with existing fortress badges.

    Once you are able to join an elite world, you get no additional or elevated rights. New badges, new features, new AI~ enemies with new weapons to battle are what you get.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    ok, I understand now. Sounds good! :)
  • EE_Elephterion
    1220 posts Envision Developer
    well this is certainly an interesting discussion! However I am just not quite sure what would veteran players fully convince to join such an Elite world. What are the best incentives in your mind?
    I like the score system for badges, thats a neat idea.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited May 21
    You should rather ask them about their ideas. :) Lack of more badges on normal worlds is a first "push" towards the worlds with elevated rank. After the first Veteran (elite) badge, the player could not even join a normal world again...
    Of course, alts will remain for a short period on normal worlds, but they will go through the system quickly, since these accs are more valuable if they serve the owner on veteran worlds beside main acc....
    It's worth thinking about a big amount of upgrade options and specialities. Much more, elite worlds might have also levels for more motivation! Players would have more than one step to reach the best worlds.
    This way, beginners, advanced players and pros could really play separately. --> no more weep about kings :)
    Post edited by BambiByte on
  • gamerdruid
    2834 posts Moderator
    BambiByte wrote: »
    It is a good idea with that point system - I like the nonlinear parts. It will manage the availability of veteran worlds. I can not decide if it is good enough or not, but it is possible to find out that how many players have at least one badge for 1st place (I think, not so much - the distribution of the first places is not linear at all). I guess, a player has to play years for getting entitled to join a veteran server...

    - I would rather bind veteran rights to having a 3rd or better place once, or the equivalent points together. This would be the max badges what you can earn on normal wolds as well.

    The transition period should make it possible to gain two more for old players with enough points - let's say, from now on...

    After these all, weeping would not exist about who is king on normal and veteran worlds :)

    'Normal' worlds should be called and mentioned as "boot camps". Many of the games have difficulty levels, so players would accept is easily.

    Points should be kept and accumulated also on veteran worlds for new possibilities and rewards.

    As there are 50 players from each world where the fortress has been killed that have 1st place badges - with over 400 worlds that would be a large number of unique players - There maybe less with 2nd and 3rd place badges because of the assistance and the way alliances help wings - but if even 20 new players gain 2nd and 20 gain 3rd place badges that's 90 players per world.

    Of course the number of players with more than one 1st, 2nd and 3rd place badges will be considerably less than the potential 90x400 (36000) badge holders. How much less I don't know and only a determined script writer or developer could get that information.

    @EE_Elephterion asks what would be special on the elite worlds? And @BambiByte replied ask the elite players. I agree with @BambiByte - it is the elite players that should have an input on features to improve, change, remove and add. On Units to improve, change, remove, add etc.

    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!