EA Forums - Banner

championship improvement

2Next

Replies

  • Multiple accounts were not an issue on the last WCS due to the patch, so it's unclear what the justification is for putting even more restrictions on the game that will turn off a good number of players. Setting a five 1st place badges requirement is frankly ridiculous, considering that competitive servers take an average of 6-8 months to finish. There are very few teams with a roster that could meet those requirements, so this would basically be EA trying to pick a winner ahead of time. As well as penalize top players who may not play as frequently or only started playing in the last 1-2 years.

    Not to mention that multi-accounting could be addressed simply by adding malus to WCS that would make using alts extremely difficult to gain an advantage from. There may be a good argument for limiting WCS to badges 1-8 (vs. having any badge), but having some insanely severe requirement just to fix the alt 'problem' would have more negative consequences than positive ones. It would discourage and dissuade a large percentage of the customer base from playing, maybe for good, lead to accusations and perceptions of EA trying to rig the game again, and it ignores simpler more effective solutions. EA should be encouraging and welcoming newer players to the game, not trying to come up with restrictions that do the opposite.
  • If you re-read my posts the suggestion for EA to do an analysis to come up a more suitable number or restriction. Also, the main reason wasn't to fix the the 'alt problem', it was an 'in passing' it may contribute to helping with that 'problem'.

    I've looked at a random selection of players who are not in the schaffa family and until you get to rank 500+ there are many players who would qualify, only a few won't, with the restriction at 5 or a restriction of top 8 alliances.

    Unless you're a dedicated player in one of the top 10 alliances from the start you're not going to win the WCS (or come 2nd or 3rd) no matter what restrictions exist or don't exist.

    It was an idea - only you have railed against it strongly, so does that mean it's a good one or a bad one to the rest of the community?
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • ScareyBillie26
    219 posts Member
    edited November 2019
    the only way for the WCS to be made more competitive is to do away with the current format ...... and morph it into the veteran server style .... and make it a pvp style WCS .... so to put to bed this or these silly accusations and maybe this mite sort the men from the boys .... or ladies from the girls .... before i get a tangent of sexism here :smiley:

    as we know the ones who are currently winning are compenent playes ... so we need another way .....
  • Master161822
    21 posts Member
    edited November 2019
    @gamerdruid

    My concern was your suggestion of putting in 'severe restrictions' like five 1st place badges, and the negative downsides and consequences that would arise. Sure you could do an analysis but if the ones making the final decision have a goal to restrict something severely, the end result will be the same. A requirement to have a top 5 or top 8 badge (vs. just any badge) is not an issue and I even said there's a good argument in favor of it...but that's NOT what you were advocating for in your post lol.

    And no idea what that last remark is supposed to mean. The forum is for debating ideas. It's not like I have the developers coming to my personal Teamspeak so I can only point out here some of the downsides I see with yours. Don't take it personally, I agree with other ideas you've posted about, just not this one.

    Btw, you posted 4 times trashing the original post of this thread, and were the only one railing against it lol.
    Post edited by Master161822 on
  • My concern was your suggestion of putting in 'severe restrictions' like five 1st place badges, and the negative downsides and consequences that would arise. Sure you could do an analysis but if the ones making the final decision have a goal to restrict something severely, the end result will be the same. A requirement to have a top 5 or top 8 badge (vs. just any badge) is not an issue and I even said there's a good argument in favor of it...but that's NOT what you were advocating for in your post lol.

    And no idea what that last remark is supposed to mean. The forum is for debating ideas. It's not like I have the developers coming to my personal Teamspeak so I can only point out here some of the downsides I see with yours. Don't take it personally, I agree with other ideas you've posted about, just not this one.

    my idea is to completely do away with the fortress style server and make it like the veteran servers ... legacy points etc .....as the current style is shrouded in accusations and there will never be a perfect storm to solve the king of hill etc scenario .......and other issues ........ something has got to give ...
  • @ScareyBillie26 Yes this is what the thread was originally discussing but somehow got hijacked.

    This issue is complicated because there are good arguments on both sides. Players who aren't part of the winning coalition often get locked out of badging in the top 5 when the no. 1 alliance decides to stay, and this creates serious unhappiness and frustration in the game. On the flip side, diplomacy and building winning coalitions is an important aspect of the game. Smaller alliances only have an incentive to help a bigger team if they get help hitting fort later. What you see as a king of the hill scenario and a top alliance being a bully, can also be viewed as that top alliance simply wanting to uphold its promises and help the allies who supported them during a war. I don't think that's inherently unfair or bad.

    It's great that EA developed a new type of server (vets) that some players seem to enjoy very much, but I am wary about applying that model to everything. Many players like and prefer the fortress style server and they should continue to have that option.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.