Obviously, there will be more suggestions for improvements that can not be realized at the same time in the same world, and the power ratios should be kept proportional between GDI and NOD. Taking all these and resources for development into account, multi-stage construction is the most appropriate. This allows for the avoidance of rough errors as well as the design of the multilevel elite worlds I mentioned earlier.
I've enhanced the thread title to reflect the discussion better that we have arrived at. And my question was partially open to everyone, as anyone can chime in with their ideas what they'd want from a world that is labeled Elite. So anyone is invited to provide their ideas here.
In my opinion, the player base in this game has become so depleted due to all the changes which negatively effect gameplay, no 'elite' world is needed. What we seem to have each world is the same core group of players and their handfuls of alternate accounts they continue to find ways to use to gain some advantages.
We gave pages of suggestions to the previous developers via the SLACK system player trueadm brought in, but most were either ignored or gradually dropped due to problems in the complexities of implementing them.
Most of the changes in recent history only seem to increase the length of worlds and bring in more funds. For example, I can not even remember the last time one of the offensive or defensive weapons of NOD or GDI have been changed or added to. There are plenty of things that could be done to breath life back into this game. These loot splitting changes on world T39 are another bad idea that nobody wanted or needed.
when the tacitus is killed by an ally, why dont you transfert all the team in a wharp zone where they can fight all the "veteran" who killed a tacitus? on the 16 world, we have a team played by 3 or 4 guys since 2 or 3 year and who killed the game by deciding who have the right or not to take the fort, they have the password of the account and they play whitout any other interest than decide who have the right to kill the center, is it, the way you consider the other player who fund and try to achieve?? On another hand, i played a lot of universe, and allways see coalition which is not the ionterest of that game, if you are not in the good one, you can wait a very long time to achieve, with no other interest than farm^^
It's worth reading the whole topic, even if it's long.
Also take into account that without the help of the strongest players, there would be even fewer badge players in the same amount of time.
As many replies throughout the discussion on what to do after a fortress kill have said, removing a player from a world for being on the winning team seems like a punishment, especially if you have spent hundreds or thousands of Dollars/Euros/Pounds (replace with whatever currency you use).
World 16 (old world or Tiberium world) is an old world. If you're not in the 'favoured' group, then move on to a new world. I don't see the development team moving players off one world onto another forcibly. What is needed, as has already been discussed at length here, is something to encourage them to move. If no encouragement works then it just has to be the way it is!
I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
As many replies throughout the discussion on what to do after a fortress kill have said, removing a player from a world for being on the winning team seems like a punishment, especially if you have spent hundreds or thousands of Dollars/Euros/Pounds (replace with whatever currency you use).
World 16 (old world or Tiberium world) is an old world. If you're not in the 'favoured' group, then move on to a new world. I don't see the development team moving players off one world onto another forcibly. What is needed, as has already been discussed at length here, is something to encourage them to move. If no encouragement works then it just has to be the way it is!
well many things were added to original idea, i let it go anyway as players wish it, but I would add also following:
if you read my first post, you will understand, that i suggested to "teleport" a player to a new server, not to start from scratch, because you have badges. All MMO games have areas for players with different level.
Possible motivation to play on new worlds:
- Advanced factions, new units
- New faction
- Levels beyond 65
- Maybe different areas, no more forgotten bases, something new
- Maybe a possibility to invite 3 players from standard world
One issue is how does the system cope with
a) players that badge on more than one world - do they get multiple copies of their groups of bases or just one set - if just one set it is still removal.
b) worlds kill the fortress at different times, once a player on world A kills it they 'teleport' to world XA. But what happens to players that kill the fortress two weeks later on world B? - World XA is now controlled by an alliance of 50 strong players. They've had 2 weeks (or months etc) to build up beyond level 65 etc.
The idea of getting new units or morphing into a new faction is interesting, along with stronger opposition from the forgotten.
The forgotten are needed (or some other faction) to slow progress to whatever goal is set on the new world. Consider the various PTE's that have existed, there has been a race to the centre on every one and with the in-built cheats the forgotten do not present a delaying mechanism. Some mechanism will be needed on world Xx
'Something new' is interesting, but a little vague!
Invitations to others from a standard world..... welcome to 3 alts of every player!
I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
One issue is how does the system cope with
a) players that badge on more than one world - do they get multiple copies of their groups of bases or just one set - if just one set it is still removal.
something like set of bases could be integrated on elite server, so you select your set which you want to play with, making set is quite clever, because you won't be able to take care of all sets, so it's up to you and your time
b) worlds kill the fortress at different times, once a player on world A kills it they 'teleport' to world XA. But what happens to players that kill the fortress two weeks later on world B? - World XA is now controlled by an alliance of 50 strong players. They've had 2 weeks (or months etc) to build up beyond level 65 etc.
I already wrote about this, there should be a freeze time for an alliance, unless 3/4 other alliances join elite server, the area where alliances land has nothing to progress with, so no POIs, only their camps and restricted movement, once 3/4 alliances joined, all of them are released and can proceed to the center.
Either be 4 or more, this could be a good idea, as they will start from different sides N, S, W, E.
'Something new' is interesting, but a little vague!
ok, you want my creativity, here ya go, there are already infected camps, which look completely different and cool, so I think it would be cool, if instead of forgotten bases, there would be infected like bases, which mimic different player bases from other worlds. So when you would play on elite world, you would see real player defences from other worlds, but with high level. Also they could also mimic armies and this would make progression much interesting and harder, if they attack you like real players would. It's like you joined PvP world, but these bases are PvE.
Invitations to others from a standard world..... welcome to 3 alts of every player!
with low level alt, you won't be able to progress on that high level elite server
also invitation would solve the problem with allied alliances, so you could invite your friends and sister alliances
consider also the problem, that players become inactive or disappear with time, invitation could be a good solution for that
Interesting discussion here !
Sounds like a good idea, all for removing or teleporting badged players to the next world, and making that next world more interesting. If this ever gets implied, I would lower the level of the fort every time it is shot, since usually, the lower ranked alliances, are smaller then the higher ranked ones. Then no high level helpers would be needed. Since they have moved to the 'elite world', they will not be available to help anyone.
Till that is implied, a suggestion to the points / badge system: the helper teams that stay on a world to help other alliances badge, should get a different kind of badge, whith allocated points to each fort they help shoot. I would use a reverse rank system here: the first one gets less points than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th , ... they help kill in the same server of course ! e.g. 1 st fort they helped: 1000, 2 nd 2000, 3 rd 3000, etc .
And why not create a 'Sandbox server', a place where you can go and practice as much as you want? An elite world for the best or badged, and a sandbox, free for all, to practice , grow, reset your lvl , ...
All these ideas do not fix the fundamental problem here. The game is one-note. If you PVE really well, it will cover up the lack of PVP skill. The game has completely nixed PVP. It's secondary to PvE. The best PVP players in the game are the best PvE players because the game is based on a power law progression.
Since EA dev's refuse to fix PvP because of problems with cheating, an artificial fix must be added. Reverse morale for PvP. The game checks to see the largest of either defense or offense in the defending and attacking base. If the difference between max levels is 4 then zero morale. For every level higher than 4 levels, morale increases by 10%.
Also, make SW more impactful. The easiest way is to make SW cost cheaper by player score. This will allow weaker players to increase SW with up to a 50% discount.
These artificial PVP morale additions are needed since PVP has been severely reduced in the game.
Sandbox server not needed. PTE server accomplishes that goal, and helps devs out.
This is nice in theory... would only work as intended if the "multiple account" problem is fixed.
Allow only 1 or 2 logged in players at one time from a single IP. Make a 1 hr "loading screen" for new sessions
elite world idea or teleporting fortress killing alliances to a new world was being discussed with even a bit of interest from developers. to have this soixie person come in and just say dont beat a dead horse and close the thread is an insult the the very idea of sharing thoughts with others on the improvement of the game state. i would have like to share my thoughts on that particular thread but since it has been shortsightedly locked i thought id share my idea in a new thread. 1 fort kill only per world on a specific rule set type world. this would not take away from the diplomatic aspect of the game at all because most of the players already know each other or teams and alliances between them have mostly been established. this server type should be accessible to all but i wouldnt rule out some exclusivity based on prior experience. 1 badge only on a server would help team building out a bit and take away some of the early advantages gained by larger groups of coordinated players by encouraging a competitive game state. perhaps this could be achieved by making teams smaller or larger than the current count to suit the preference of the other players or established teams. this is where i think some people can come together and maybe even create a poll. how hard is it to test these ideas? could we pick a low extreme of both choices and try? say 100 player teams 1 fort kill and need to control all hubs? or 25 player teams and control 2 hubs. if we arent going to talk about the game evolving then lets at least acknowledge its the dying horse and not just our ideas and thoughts about it. i have been playing almost 3300 days this game and i love cnc very much. i also dont like using capitol letters or these things'''' so i apologize for that.
Replies
We gave pages of suggestions to the previous developers via the SLACK system player trueadm brought in, but most were either ignored or gradually dropped due to problems in the complexities of implementing them.
Most of the changes in recent history only seem to increase the length of worlds and bring in more funds. For example, I can not even remember the last time one of the offensive or defensive weapons of NOD or GDI have been changed or added to. There are plenty of things that could be done to breath life back into this game. These loot splitting changes on world T39 are another bad idea that nobody wanted or needed.
on the 16 world, we have a team played by 3 or 4 guys since 2 or 3 year and who killed the game by deciding who have the right or not to take the fort, they have the password of the account and they play whitout any other interest than decide who have the right to kill the center, is it, the way you consider the other player who fund and try to achieve??
On another hand, i played a lot of universe, and allways see coalition which is not the ionterest of that game, if you are not in the good one, you can wait a very long time to achieve, with no other interest than farm^^
Also take into account that without the help of the strongest players, there would be even fewer badge players in the same amount of time.
World 16 (old world or Tiberium world) is an old world. If you're not in the 'favoured' group, then move on to a new world. I don't see the development team moving players off one world onto another forcibly. What is needed, as has already been discussed at length here, is something to encourage them to move. If no encouragement works then it just has to be the way it is!
well many things were added to original idea, i let it go anyway as players wish it, but I would add also following:
if you read my first post, you will understand, that i suggested to "teleport" a player to a new server, not to start from scratch, because you have badges. All MMO games have areas for players with different level.
Possible motivation to play on new worlds:
- Advanced factions, new units
- New faction
- Levels beyond 65
- Maybe different areas, no more forgotten bases, something new
- Maybe a possibility to invite 3 players from standard world
One issue is how does the system cope with
a) players that badge on more than one world - do they get multiple copies of their groups of bases or just one set - if just one set it is still removal.
b) worlds kill the fortress at different times, once a player on world A kills it they 'teleport' to world XA. But what happens to players that kill the fortress two weeks later on world B? - World XA is now controlled by an alliance of 50 strong players. They've had 2 weeks (or months etc) to build up beyond level 65 etc.
The idea of getting new units or morphing into a new faction is interesting, along with stronger opposition from the forgotten.
The forgotten are needed (or some other faction) to slow progress to whatever goal is set on the new world. Consider the various PTE's that have existed, there has been a race to the centre on every one and with the in-built cheats the forgotten do not present a delaying mechanism. Some mechanism will be needed on world Xx
'Something new' is interesting, but a little vague!
Invitations to others from a standard world..... welcome to 3 alts of every player!
something like set of bases could be integrated on elite server, so you select your set which you want to play with, making set is quite clever, because you won't be able to take care of all sets, so it's up to you and your time
I already wrote about this, there should be a freeze time for an alliance, unless 3/4 other alliances join elite server, the area where alliances land has nothing to progress with, so no POIs, only their camps and restricted movement, once 3/4 alliances joined, all of them are released and can proceed to the center.
Either be 4 or more, this could be a good idea, as they will start from different sides N, S, W, E.
ok, you want my creativity, here ya go, there are already infected camps, which look completely different and cool, so I think it would be cool, if instead of forgotten bases, there would be infected like bases, which mimic different player bases from other worlds. So when you would play on elite world, you would see real player defences from other worlds, but with high level. Also they could also mimic armies and this would make progression much interesting and harder, if they attack you like real players would. It's like you joined PvP world, but these bases are PvE.
with low level alt, you won't be able to progress on that high level elite server
also invitation would solve the problem with allied alliances, so you could invite your friends and sister alliances
consider also the problem, that players become inactive or disappear with time, invitation could be a good solution for that
Sounds like a good idea, all for removing or teleporting badged players to the next world, and making that next world more interesting. If this ever gets implied, I would lower the level of the fort every time it is shot, since usually, the lower ranked alliances, are smaller then the higher ranked ones. Then no high level helpers would be needed. Since they have moved to the 'elite world', they will not be available to help anyone.
Till that is implied, a suggestion to the points / badge system: the helper teams that stay on a world to help other alliances badge, should get a different kind of badge, whith allocated points to each fort they help shoot. I would use a reverse rank system here: the first one gets less points than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th , ... they help kill in the same server of course ! e.g. 1 st fort they helped: 1000, 2 nd 2000, 3 rd 3000, etc .
And why not create a 'Sandbox server', a place where you can go and practice as much as you want? An elite world for the best or badged, and a sandbox, free for all, to practice , grow, reset your lvl , ...
Since EA dev's refuse to fix PvP because of problems with cheating, an artificial fix must be added. Reverse morale for PvP. The game checks to see the largest of either defense or offense in the defending and attacking base. If the difference between max levels is 4 then zero morale. For every level higher than 4 levels, morale increases by 10%.
< 4 Levels: 0 % Morale
+5: 10%
+6: 20%
+7: 30%
+8: 40%
+9: 50%
+10: 60%
+11: 70%
+12: 80%
+13: 90%
>14: 100%
Also, make SW more impactful. The easiest way is to make SW cost cheaper by player score. This will allow weaker players to increase SW with up to a 50% discount.
These artificial PVP morale additions are needed since PVP has been severely reduced in the game.
Sandbox server not needed. PTE server accomplishes that goal, and helps devs out.
This is nice in theory... would only work as intended if the "multiple account" problem is fixed.
Allow only 1 or 2 logged in players at one time from a single IP. Make a 1 hr "loading screen" for new sessions