championship improvement

Zhulong006 · September 8, 2019 3:09AM

For most games, the #1 winner is not allowed to remain and assist other teams, either by joining other teams or by fighting and disrupting other competitors. Suggestion: After winning a badge, those players must go dormant for 10 days (no bonus, no attacks, move away from poi). Let the other teams have a real chance for success. Also, would need to reduce amount of fortress increase. Note: After becoming the dominant (largest) players and winning their badge, the need for them to continue to spend money and buy resource is pretty much gone. After 10 days (or so), they can come back if they want to.

gamerdruid · September 8, 2019 9:45AM

Once again, where is the incentive to kill the fortress? If you're the dominant alliance then you're punished for winning. What is needed, as said many times in these forums, is something that will be an incentive to the winners, not to punish them.

Zhulong006 · September 8, 2019 2:31PM

when you get the gold medal, you have proven your skill and strength. Take a short vacation before you punish other players. Taking a short vacation is not punishment to the winner.

gamerdruid · September 8, 2019 6:23PM

Taking an enforced vacation will be seen as punishment by those forced to take it.

RAYMONDRONALD · September 8, 2019 11:08PM

Think we should have a Referendum on it, then challenge it in the Courts :0))))))
Then Ignore what the Majority of Members want

XU_UX9 · September 14, 2019 5:24PM

Don't think you get the entire point druid. His point is, as a WCS and real prizes being awarded for its completion, why is it allowed for the number one, strongest Alliance (who already has proven as victorious and received real prizes) to remain as an active manipulator on the outcome of who will be awarded the 2nd badge? This issue, does not really apply to regular servers because the outcomes are just worth the bragging rights of a 1st place badge. I have the opinion, since it is a competition for real prizes, it should be a more balanced approach, as we all know the number one alliance will have the strength to assist whoever they desire to achieve the 2nd and 3rd places alliances for those real prizes. With this in mind, maybe it could be addressed, and this is not even considering the rampant use of shared log in info and other bias that many do to have the edge. Many of these rules overlooked and ignored as if enforces the Cash cow may become hungry. Just say n...

gamerdruid · September 14, 2019 6:23PM

Maybe I missed the point. He is saying enforce a vacation which enforces a punishment. My guess is that many of the same players are in 1st, 2nd and even 3rd place alliances with shared account information. An enforced vacation won't change the balance very much indeed for ordinary players.

Mediv88 · September 23, 2019 2:03PM

Zhulong006 wrote: »

For most games, the #1 winner is not allowed to remain and assist other teams, either by joining other teams or by fighting and disrupting other competitors. Suggestion: After winning a badge, those players must go dormant for 10 days (no bonus, no attacks, move away from poi). Let the other teams have a real chance for success. Also, would need to reduce amount of fortress increase. Note: After becoming the dominant (largest) players and winning their badge, the need for them to continue to spend money and buy resource is pretty much gone. After 10 days (or so), they can come back if they want to.

If even anything like this would be introduced. It is very easy to bypass. If Nr.1 alliance would have known, that they get 10 day of vacation, they would have just waited with the fortress kill.

Wait until the first wing is 2nd strongest alliance, while destroying other alliances and then kill the fortress.
Only effect of this is, that the server goes 1 month longer.

the-baelrog · October 21, 2019 5:09AM

Back to WCS. Schaffa won #1, they stayed on the largest poi and got even much, much stronger, then went around destroying all competition to allow their sister alliance to take badge #2 (still maintaining the best poi and getting even stronger. While maintaining complete dominance, they secured badge #3 for their third sister alliance. Now, schaffa members are moving around and destroying any competition so their chosen friends can badge #4. Clearly, if the #1 team is allowed to permanently control the center and become strong enough to destroy any competition, then there is no reason to spend any money to stay on this server and be repeated destroyed. 50 members get badge #1, please give the other 1,000 of us a chance at #2 or #3. After an alliance wins a badge, force them to move away from all poi and the center completely (some minimum time). 50 members earned their badge, make it a game for the other +1,000 still playing. Not fun being repeated destroyed by the bully that has already taken #1 and stayed and stayed and stayed there.

the-baelrog · October 21, 2019 5:40AM

after you win a badge, forced retirement.... an athlete wins a race, they cannot hinder or damage other athletes so that their friends can win, that is just wrong.

gamerdruid · October 21, 2019 9:07AM

It is 'King of the Hill' game, long live the King!

(Or King of the Fortress Castle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Hill_(game)

It was that way at the start of the majority of worlds, so it is not going to change. The reason people stay beyond the 1st three badges is up to them, but to be expecting to win a badge if they're not associated with the 'King (or Queen) alliance' then they're not being realistic.

the-baelrog · October 21, 2019 9:48AM

we know that EA 'tweaks' the game to make improvements, like the recent 'loot sharing penalty'. i didn't know that this 'adjustment' was 'unrealistic' and not worth considering. not even to try on a test server. Thanks for the feedback, now i know.

EE_Elephterion · October 21, 2019 11:36AM

the-baelrog wrote: »

we know that EA 'tweaks' the game to make improvements, like the recent 'loot sharing penalty'. i didn't know that this 'adjustment' was 'unrealistic' and not worth considering. not even to try on a test server. Thanks for the feedback, now i know.

Just for clarity, this was tested and available on our PTE in advance to everyone.

Salmoranes · October 24, 2019 9:44AM

Every few weeks the same topic ... Lol. If you say it is unfair if someone rules the server after winning maybe consider to quit cause you lost a server.
Another solution could be to give out place 1 to 3 at the time the fortress is killed. And after that there is just nothing else to reach, no 4th to 10th rank badge nothing. Ppl can hang around and play the game or quit.
Doing that there will be a fair game till the fortress kill and all alliances will try to reach the best place. Sure the leading ally tries to help the wings etc .... but that's simply part of the game.

ScareyBillie26 · October 24, 2019 1:51PM

Salmoranes wrote: »

Every few weaks the same topic ... Lol. If you say it is unfair if someone rules the server after winning maybe consider to quit cause you lost a server.
Another solution could be to give out place 1 to 3 at the time the fortress is killed. And after that there is just nothing else to reach, no 4th to 10th rank badge nothing. Ppl can hang around and play the game or quit.
Doing that there will be a fair game till the fortress kill and all alliances will try to reach the best place. Sure the leading ally tries to help the wings etc .... but that's simply part of the game.

thats not a bad idea ... but also add to that .. lock out the winners of fortress to not able to go attack again .......no getting sat codes , no fortress hitting ........ they done it .. no need to do again ...... can advise .. but not partcipate on ...

gamerdruid · October 25, 2019 9:18AM

I've felt for a long time the provision of badges at 11th and 12th badge makes a mockery of the badging system. Badges 1-3 OK and then if players wish to be in the Hall of Fame list with their alliance they can keep killing the fortress, but no badge.

Badges 4-6 may be justified too but as by the time the 6th fortress comes around the players in that alliance have often been assisted a great deal the value is much reduced.

Iggy-Edwards · October 31, 2019 8:45AM

one of the worst game ive played, do you not know how games work, is too long and over powered players shooting smaller, will ask again do you not know how games work, so many servers ive played an not been arsed to finish them. that there is clue you have got it wrong why cant we have what we asked for why leave it to these goons who know nothing.

PunkiePunk · November 14, 2019 10:02AM

hi Gamerdruid, that would be completely unfair to first time players. Newbies need to learn the game, spend a lot of time (and money) and want to get a chance to shoot the fort. Other people are not as good at the game as nr 1 members, others are, but get no chance to move up the ladder, etc. Those also deserve a chance to shoot the fort ! It is their choice to go for a lower badge or not. I strongly vote for badged members to be removed from the map, the suggestion to move their accounts to an 'elite' server, is a good idea, the bullying would stop. All respect to the winners, but no reason to stay on a server just to bully others. Maybe EA can test the idea on a new server, announce your account will be removed after you shoot the fort, so the bullies can choose not to play that server, and only those who want to play and try to win will start it, and after the win, move on , play a new server or the elite one, ... That way all high poi are available, no helper team, real competition for nr 2, 3, ... If the winners want to delay forts, they can, but it will cost them a lot of time and money too, wonder if that is really what they want.

gamerdruid · November 14, 2019 11:21AM

They would still get the chance to have the 'fun' of shooting the fort, just not get a badge.

The 'Championship' server and Veteran Servers were attempts to create an elite style world. Unfortunately, in my view, they have set the level too low. I'd make it something like 'have 5 1st place badges' for 'Championship' worlds and 'Have reached top rank (General/Hand of Kane) on at least 3 worlds' plus current system for vet points for the veteran worlds.

That way only the dedicated players would get on those worlds.

Salmoranes · November 14, 2019 12:36PM

But you won't have enough players on the wcs then maybe. On a good side you will make it harder to join with multiple accounts...

gamerdruid · November 14, 2019 4:37PM

I'm sure they could collect the stats to show if it was a viable idea. They could collect enough to know which accounts would qualify and if they are still active.

To make the WCS a true championship world I think there is a need to severely restrict who can join, in part to cut out multiple accounts. My idea can be tweaked some from the detailed analysis.

championship improvement

Replies

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links