Optimise
Member
|
The idea of having ranges/bands for leaderboards based on level isn't all too bad, however considering the current situation of ED it certainly will not work out as some wish it to be once implemented. We should mainly focus on maintaining the current population, then steadily add features that would bolster the current population - possibly attracting new players.
quote:
Cyber Dream wrote:
How about this. Lets have the divided leader boards with the level ranges. Each time you move up to the next range, you get an achievement. Now with each range, there will be a class leader board detailing who's the best player withing the range using a certain class. If you happen to become the best player within a certain class/ level range then you get an achievement. Though it will be harder to get at lower levels, you can still earn it when you max out. Now when you max out your level, things will change. Everything I just said will still apply to you when you max out and you will gain the chance to earn daily achievements. (most 1v1 wins, most 2v2 wins, etc) but instead of giving it to just one player, it will be given to 6 players. One for every class. Now to be determined the best player in a certain class, you have to have the highest w/l ratio with a minimum of at least 1000 matches fought.
The present-day playerbase needs to be taken into account when we are talking about suggestions such as this one. This suggestion will only scatter the playerbase to an even lower population as some would even feel isolated playing alone in one leaderboard, potentially leading to inactivity from boredom. Botting or alting should be dealt with via direct means rather than isolating those who are competing and playing legitimately. Not to mention that there would be no competition in certain ranges due to the low-population. For your information, there are as I type this only 250 players online, and that's with a war rally occurring.
I concur with the reasoning of low-level players should not be competing with higher levels. This suggestion doesn't really substantiate that point though as each range will be going for their own daily in their respective range, correct? If that is the case I would ask why a level 35 would be competing against a level 31 who is from another range? It is simply unfair and illogical as the level 35 will be picking up wins (quite easily) from someone who isn't even in their range, and vice versa. It will create unsporting competition.
You could re-direct my question towards me for the current situation of ED, and to answer this; we're all going for the same leaderboard/objective so it doesn't matter if we are fighting someone at a lower-level since there aren't separate leaderboards for each level range, meaning we're all competing against each other.
It will be somewhat ridiculous to see someone from a lower range where wins are faster is on the verge of transcending his current range (going to the next one) with 300 wins, and goes to the next range with those 300 wins to then possibly overtake the No. 1 in his new range. Fair? No. Competition? Not really.
Class leaderboard (someone with the highest win/loss ratio from each class on each range LB will be awarded the respective achievement) can be exploited at any level range - especially the lower-side of the ranges.
Here's a scenario, I am level 15. Majority in my level range are their starter classes (TM, BH, MERC) and cannot afford to switch to another class. Me? I am wealthy in terms of affordability, meaning I can switch to another class. I would have a look at the 1v1 (or any other battle mode) leaderboard to see that one or two (or even all three evolved classes) class not being worked. What does this mean? I switch class to the one that is not on the leaderboard, and do 1 (or even 10) win(s) (just before reset so no one can overtake me) so that I am rewarded the achievement. It is unfair for those who were playing with their original classes and could not afford to switch, is it not?
quote:
Cyber Dream wrote:
Now lets talk about factions, you won't be able to join a faction until you're max level or in the 35-40 level range. This will take away the ability for players to use lower levels for faster wins. All of this would increase competition despite the player base. There are more players playing ed than you think. They're just not all logged in at the same time.
Yes. Let's talk about factions. What would happen to the players that are competing below the level requirement for factions? It will isolate those who are playing legitimately at lower-levels, just for the sake of attempting to reduce botting/alting you are forcefully placing many many players below 35 in a boring and dull experience. Low level players will eventually reach a higher level, and how is that done? By winning battles. Those wins could contribute to factions, ultimately taking part in faction competition.
It could be argued that this will motivate those who are below 35's in the form of an incentive to reach higher levels, but would it really? Levelling up can be tiring for some and reaching level 35 would be a monumental task. Factions are an integral and essential part of EpicDuel in terms maintaining retention of the playerbase, at the same time providing players to play for something. This level requirement to factions will rather act as a deterrent to the player count. Factions create groups which boost player retention in the end. With this suggestion, players will feel bored and would have not much to play for, making them feel like quitting.
The war system (regardless of whether it's changed or not) is and always will be one of the main attractions of this game, and in order to fully take part in wars you are needed to join a faction. Everyone will always want to partake in wars regardless of whether they usually play competitive or not. This suggestion to restrict players from joining factions until a level higher will limit them from enjoying the game to it's fullest.
Even the alternative of this is not entirely beneficial for the entire playerbase, making it so people do not show up on LB's until 30's will consequently prevent the leaders from recruiting lower levels as they cannot contribute towards the actual goal. It will make the low-levels unwanted. The desire to quit will eventually over-weigh the motivation to level up or play the game, meaning the playerbase count will drop even further.
quote:
Cyber Dream wrote:
What competition? The only competition there is on the lb is seeing who can alt the most. You rarley see high leveled players on the lb. Your reasoning for not wanting to implement divided leader boards is because of the low player base which I think won't be a problem at all. Like I said, more players play ed than you think, I really wish we could seea traffic report. Having this put into the game can take away a major part of alting. High Leveled players could actually have a chance of competing again without worrying about being passed in the last hours by a low level alt. Now with my suggestion, I kinda took away the daily achievements from low levels but I compensated them with other new achievements. But in addition, I made it so where you can't really start competing until you reach a high level. This makes things fair, reasonable (imo) and strengthens competition since you can only win dailys when you hit 35-40. This way, you only fight experienced players. I doubt players that are actually new go for the daily anyways.
What competition? If not for competition we would not be discussing leaderboards here. Not sure where you got this misleading information from, but the ED playerbase is pretty low. It barely goes over 300 during peak times (war rally and whatnot). We are not running a website here where we would have to look at daily/weekly/monthly "traffic" reports to see how many visitors we had. The player count is there on the servers, and those who still actively play this game can agree with me on the fact that we have a low playerbase. I do not understand why you are asking for "traffic" reports where we already have the player-count outlined in the servers screen during the log-in process.
The evidence is there on the LB's as of the moment (the same every other day), and the leaderboards clearly imply we do not have a huge playerbase as you think - not many are competing as you can see from the pictures provided by the user above.
Achievement collectors will want to grab those low-level range achievements too, and unless they can reset their levels they will not be allowed to attain the new low-level achievements.
quote:
Cyber Dream wrote:
In this suggestion, I suggested that players shouldn't be allowed to join factions until they reach levels 35-40 because of the leaderboard suggestion. If players want them compete but are to lazy to get to level 35-40 then they don't belong in a faction. Coming for a former faction leader, it's a cancer to have lazy players in the fac while other players are working hard. Now an alternative I think would be good is to add in two type of factions, casual and competitive. Casual factions would be able to accept anyone in addition to giving up the option to compete for dailys. Competitive factions would require players to be 35-40 with the ability to compete for dailys. I would also like to make an acceptation for fame, this daily should be available to everyone.
In no way will this boost competition. This suggestion is one-sided and only thought-out to supposedly benefit higher levels. Lower levels will be rejected from competition due to this, and the consequences won't be beneficial to the game. It is also risky to simply assume there will be competition at higher levels with the implementation, without having a look at how the current competition is behaving.
Faction leaders who are below level 35 (or the set requirement), what will happen to them? Will those old factions be disbanded without consideration of the tasks they've carried out and their history. The idea of having casual factions sounds good but then again what was the faction created for if not for competing.
With all that being said I am not implying this suggestion is a waste of time or simply not good. It's a bright idea however considering the playerbase as it currently is, this simply will not perform well once implemented and will only prove to be an unnecessary obstacle for players. More direct methods should be suggested against cheaters rather than indirectly enforcing them (with this suggestion) whilst taking out the legit players. I could certainly see this suggestion being implemented during earlier phases of ED especially when we had a much larger playerbase. It would be better if the time that is to be spent (by the devs) on this was rather spent on something more worthwhile and effective.
< Message edited by Optimise -- 6/3/2016 12:40:35 >
_____________________________
Just because you're both but neither doesn't mean you're none
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
