EA Forums - Banner

Is it possible to have lvl80 level units on old worlds?

Replies

  • I'm sure when they're ready to announce a change then they will. I do know that it hasn't been forgotten about and they're still working on it.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • As @gamerdruid pointed out, this is still in development. Once we are ready to roll this out across older worlds, we will make annoncements for each world publicly.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • As @gamerdruid pointed out, this is still in development. Once we are ready to roll this out across older worlds, we will make annoncements for each world publicly.


    Any news yet?
    Seems pretty straightforward to me.
    I mean, when I first started playing this, many moons ago, there was no cap.
    EA introduced the level 65 cap about 8 1/2 years ago, much to the consternation of those who had spent small fortunes on getting levels ABOVE that, having them reduced down.
    This was in the days before the endgame was implemented. You had all the leading alliances camped in the middle but no Fort!
  • There is no set ETA on when we will increase the level for older worlds if that's what you are hoping for. We will announce ahead when we will increase the level of a world of course. We will likely start with the oldest worlds however.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • Soixie
    576 posts Member
    edited October 2020
    There appear to be little anomalous bugs creeping into the code from various unchecked dark corners being missed. I highly recommend rethinking the "all or nothing approach", take a step back and reign all the bugs. Far easier to focus on small wins through 3-5 patches;
    1. Increase maximum fortress level +15. Wipe fortress during patch, cause a new recalculation
    2. Increase maximum camp level +15. Move the "50 rule" to level 75
    3. Increase maximum base level (building/offense/defense) +15
    4. Increase maximum forgotten base level
    5. Increase maximum outpost levels
    6. Increase maximum POI level

    Can combine 1&2, 3&4, 5&6 etc. The most important is simply the building/offense/defense levels as they are directly associated with PVP. The rest should shortly follow, but are all minutiae.

  • As @gamerdruid pointed out, this is still in development. Once we are ready to roll this out across older worlds, we will make annoncements for each world publicly.


    Any news yet?
    Seems pretty straightforward to me.
    I mean, when I first started playing this, many moons ago, there was no cap.
    EA introduced the level 65 cap about 8 1/2 years ago, much to the consternation of those who had spent small fortunes on getting levels ABOVE that, having them reduced down.
    This was in the days before the endgame was implemented. You had all the leading alliances camped in the middle but no Fort!

    "small fortunes" heh - Devs called it an oversight. Players called it a clear exploit and haxor by insiders. After level 55, the return on upgrades became exponentially better. Effectively making the path to level 99, "free". It didn't last long and was emergency patched if I recall. The forums exploded.

  • Looks like Tiberian 46 is not happy with lvl 80... So bring it to Tiberian 16! We ask for it for almost a year!
  • gamerdruid
    4609 posts Moderator
    They've tried increasing levels on 'old' worlds but this had in foreseen consequences once the intended features of a level 80 world were implemented on a forgotten attack world mid-world.

    It's unlikely that any 'old' worlds will be increased to level 80, look out for new worlds with the new levels.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Polux37
    54 posts Member
    edited June 2021
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    They've tried increasing levels on 'old' worlds but this had in foreseen consequences once the intended features of a level 80 world were implemented on a forgotten attack world mid-world.

    It's unlikely that any 'old' worlds will be increased to level 80, look out for new worlds with the new levels.

    Perhaps if you do it the proper way, with previous announcement, on words when players can have time to preparation it will not be a problem. For example on world with experience player, and that’s by definition Veteran World or Championship Server.
    If it would be possible to increase world level to level 80 on the request of players, then you will be having many petitions for that action.
  • gamerdruid
    4609 posts Moderator
    Polux37 wrote: »
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    They've tried increasing levels on 'old' worlds but this had in foreseen consequences once the intended features of a level 80 world were implemented on a forgotten attack world mid-world.

    It's unlikely that any 'old' worlds will be increased to level 80, look out for new worlds with the new levels.

    Perhaps if you do it the proper way, with previous announcement, on words when players can have time to preparation it will not be a problem. For example on world with experience player, and that’s by definition Veteran World or Championship Server.
    If it would be possible to increase world level to level 80 on the request of players, then you will be having many petitions for that action.

    I think a vet world with level 80 and forgotten attacks with less POI would be an interesting experiment.

    I think they've learned the hard way that changing things on an existing world makes for a lot more work than originally envisaged.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Soixie
    576 posts Member
    edited July 2021
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    They've tried increasing levels on 'old' worlds but this had in foreseen consequences once the intended features of a level 80 world were implemented on a forgotten attack world mid-world.

    It's unlikely that any 'old' worlds will be increased to level 80, look out for new worlds with the new levels.

    Developers have never increased level cap to 80 on any old worlds (no morale, no FA) or at least to any of the original cluster worlds, ever. The team responsible choose not to, in an directed effort to not reward older servers in any capacity and to force those lingering to newer servers. Instead, developers choose to patch newer worlds with forgotten attacks. The work was botched hard as the patch was performed with zero cooperation from the community (much less communication), so terrible in fact it had to be reversed. However, instead of restoring the server from a back up a week prior, the dev team doubled down and simply re-patched the servers back to level 65. Player accounts and entire alliances were lost in the process and due to EA restrictions surrounding compensation, many (100+?) have quit the game over it as months (if not years) of work and farming were wiped out.

    The original dev team understood these pitfalls and was able to successfully patch +15 levels (50->65) with relative ease many years ago. With such grace and awe that players were completely unaffected by the changes and in fact, revered for their work. Today it seems, the dev team is unable to find that groove that provides any positive impact to the community. For several years now and nearly a year of R&D related to level 80, the developer team today cannot figure out how to make even the most basic changes to the game.
  • gamerdruid
    4609 posts Moderator
    Soixie is incorrect in stating they never have as CB2 was changed to a level 80 world for a short time. They reverted back although I'm not sure why. This is possibly due to level 65 bases of players being surround by level 80 bases and the loss of POI's in the centre as the players didn't have enough 'influence' on the high POI's. Whatever the reason, it reverted to a level 80 world.

    I agree the patching of a FA world didn't have the desired consequences.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • nefrontheone
    915 posts Member
    edited July 2021
    I remember perfectly when the change from level 50 to 65 was made, the forgotten attacks did not even exist.

    In worlds that do not have forgotten attacks the problem is, as @gamerdruid says, that POIs could be lost, no our bases from forgotten's attacks.

    In worlds where there are forgotten attacks, many players' defenses are set to withstand level 65 attacks. Upon transition to receiving level 80 attacks, hundreds of bases would be destroyed, as happened recently.

    I keep asking to raise the level in the ancient worlds without forgotten attacks but you have to put everything in a balance before making a decision.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • gamerdruid
    4609 posts Moderator
    One solution would be to raise things in stages - on a non-FA world, go from 65 to 70 for a year, 70 to 75 for a year and then 75-80 with POI's and the max on the fortress rising in line with the increases. If that worked, why stop at 80 - keep going to 255 in increments of 5 or 10. Why did I suggest a year? It was randomly chosen, but 6 months may be long enough at that level. Crates need to be adjusted too - the ones you buy are not much use when an increase costs multiple Tn and the crates are under 1T.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    One solution would be to raise things in stages - on a non-FA world, go from 65 to 70 for a year, 70 to 75 for a year and then 75-80 with POI's and the max on the fortress rising in line with the increases.

    Great idea!

    The one year time frame may be overly optimistic, going from level 64 to 65 takes a long time in the ancient worlds.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • Why not make a minimal change of:

    1) Max Level of Camps reach level 80
    2) In order for player to advance level beyond 65, they have to purchase an upgrade (using Credits and RP) per 5 levels. These upgrades are only available for those who have completed the fortress on that world.
    3) Also have purchase of resource multiplier upgrades (e.g. x 1.1, x 2). That multiplier applies to all package and continuous production, so that one can move to upgrade beyond 65 easier. Resource multiplier upgrades are also available only to those who have completed the fortress on that world.
    4) In light of declining number of players in older worlds, periodically reduce the number of POIs (i.e. destroy them) in the world while increasing their levels, so that one will get equivalent POI bonus with lower number of POIs to be held.
  • Soixie wrote: »
    "killing fortress" is irrelevant on old worlds. The flag is 100% meaningless and other than some mindless dull-drum of receiving a single entry into the Hall of Fame for said world. Even that is meaningless, most (if not all) alliances have no interest in making a new alliance so they can get "another entry" into the Hall of Fame. Which is, again, worthless even if 25 players took the time to create 50 alliances with alts to get a flag. Even if they did, it's meaningless.

    The main problem the veterans are facing is that mindless stragglers are approaching level 65 and wrecking complete havoc upon these servers with seasoned veterans. With a level 65 cap, veterans are getting backed into a corner as "the entire world" all become level 65. It's a nightmare.

    Yes. That is why at least in W25 all players must eventually join our group of alliances in some way, or die. That way, there are no "mindless stragglers"
  • TBI1001 wrote: »
    Soixie wrote: »
    "killing fortress" is irrelevant on old worlds. The flag is 100% meaningless and other than some mindless dull-drum of receiving a single entry into the Hall of Fame for said world. Even that is meaningless, most (if not all) alliances have no interest in making a new alliance so they can get "another entry" into the Hall of Fame. Which is, again, worthless even if 25 players took the time to create 50 alliances with alts to get a flag. Even if they did, it's meaningless.

    The main problem the veterans are facing is that mindless stragglers are approaching level 65 and wrecking complete havoc upon these servers with seasoned veterans. With a level 65 cap, veterans are getting backed into a corner as "the entire world" all become level 65. It's a nightmare.

    Yes. That is why at least in W25 all players must eventually join our group of alliances in some way, or die. That way, there are no "mindless stragglers"

    NO, thats why it should have never been let go like that for so long, ending the server earlier would stop that from happening. how many people do you think quit and never return out of late game frustrations? how many people would you assume will stay if given a fair chance at winning more often than is available? its way too deep of a learning curve and too long of an investment to gain satisfaction from this game. people can only stand to lose so much for so long without a glimmer of hope.
  • TBI1001 wrote: »
    Soixie wrote: »
    "killing fortress" is irrelevant on old worlds. The flag is 100% meaningless and other than some mindless dull-drum of receiving a single entry into the Hall of Fame for said world. Even that is meaningless, most (if not all) alliances have no interest in making a new alliance so they can get "another entry" into the Hall of Fame. Which is, again, worthless even if 25 players took the time to create 50 alliances with alts to get a flag. Even if they did, it's meaningless.

    The main problem the veterans are facing is that mindless stragglers are approaching level 65 and wrecking complete havoc upon these servers with seasoned veterans. With a level 65 cap, veterans are getting backed into a corner as "the entire world" all become level 65. It's a nightmare.

    Yes. That is why at least in W25 all players must eventually join our group of alliances in some way, or die. That way, there are no "mindless stragglers"

    NO, thats why it should have never been let go like that for so long, ending the server earlier would stop that from happening. how many people do you think quit and never return out of late game frustrations? how many people would you assume will stay if given a fair chance at winning more often than is available? its way too deep of a learning curve and too long of an investment to gain satisfaction from this game. people can only stand to lose so much for so long without a glimmer of hope.


    I was responding to players who sit in the middle and are suddenly beset by obviously hostile farmers who slowly farm their way to level 65 then attack. The veterans obviously cannot increase their levels further, and thus the problem arise when the veterans suddenly find themselves squeezed.

    Yes, by all means end the server earlier. I don't really worry about players quitting out of late game frustrations, since all players should have realized by now that the sure way to get a badge is to suck up to the #1 alliance and join their coalition.
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    One solution would be to raise things in stages - on a non-FA world, go from 65 to 70 for a year, 70 to 75 for a year and then 75-80 with POI's and the max on the fortress rising in line with the increases. If that worked, why stop at 80 - keep going to 255 in increments of 5 or 10. Why did I suggest a year? It was randomly chosen, but 6 months may be long enough at that level. Crates need to be adjusted too - the ones you buy are not much use when an increase costs multiple Tn and the crates are under 1T.

    A solution already exists, blueprints for a 100% successful level raise with zero bug errors is already in the dev manual. They have purposely chosen not to activate it, period. Who wants more money and active players in their dying game? Certainly not the management in control here, proven.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

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