Fairer Competition for ranks 5-7

I've noticed that lots of non-premium people (myself included ) slow way down in their winnings when they hit rank 5, as the beginner room is then closed to them, and they are stuck with ranks 7-13, who take delight in destroying you the moment you join a game. To solve this problem, and also to create fairer competition, I suggest the admins make it possible for non-premiums to set the min./max rank limit, (which is currently only available for premiums) so they are able to play against only other people that are their own rank if they want ). Doing this would cause more players in the 5-7 ranks to advance more creating more coalitions/coalition wars, and more active players; this will also eventually lead to more premium members, as people are afraid to blow 40$, when it could be a waste of money if they are always up against 8-13's;; however, if they see they have a chance to at least continue advancing in the ranks, they will be more likely to support the game by getting premium.

No.

The Main lobby introduces you to the real gameplay. In a war scenario, you wont be expecting to face hostiles in comparison to your rank or your unit type. Just because you're a private (a foot soldier-infantry perhaps) does not forbid your opponent to drive a tank towards you, right?

The Beginner's room is where you get familiar with the game. Once you reach R5, you graduate and they deploy you to the battlefield. The Main Lobby offers you a variety of experiences; people with similar and predictable play styles to circumstances where the odds are never on your favour. The Idea is to spice the combatants on the theater of their choice and excuse from the devs to lure you from funding the game which is free, something we should thank them for.

To sum it short--challenge.

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 00:33

No.

The Main lobby introduces you to the real gameplay. In a war scenario, you wont be expecting to face hostiles in comparison to your rank or your unit type. Just because you're a private (a foot soldier-infantry perhaps) does not forbid your opponent to drive a tank towards you, right?

The Beginner's room is where you get familiar with the game. Once you reach R5, you graduate and they deploy you to the battlefield. The Main Lobby offers you a variety of experiences; people with similar and predictable play styles to circumstances where the odds are never on your favour. The Idea is to spice the combatants on the theater of their choice and excuse from the devs to lure you from funding the game which is free, something we should thank them for.

To sum it short--challenge.

But, the progress goes incredibly SLOW, as you only gain little bits of SP here and there from surrenders (and just maybe a win here and there). Doing this my way would create better (and more fun) battles with players playing against players with similar skills, creating more competition.

If people are always getting crushed by much higher ranks, then there is no incentive to play, and mid-rank people will leave. Otherwise, people who aren't very active have little-to-no hope of getting past ranks 5-6.

If this is truly a free-to-play game then there needs to be a way for non-premiums to avoid getting killed every time without spending real money.

If people want "spice" as you say, they can simply leave off the min./max rank limitation; in fact, most people probably won't want to use it, but at least they have the option at their grasp if they want...

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 00:59

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 00:33

No.

The Main lobby introduces you to the real gameplay. In a war scenario, you wont be expecting to face hostiles in comparison to your rank or your unit type. Just because you're a private (a foot soldier-infantry perhaps) does not forbid your opponent to drive a tank towards you, right?

The Beginner's room is where you get familiar with the game. Once you reach R5, you graduate and they deploy you to the battlefield. The Main Lobby offers you a variety of experiences; people with similar and predictable play styles to circumstances where the odds are never on your favour. The Idea is to spice the combatants on the theater of their choice and excuse from the devs to lure you from funding the game which is free, something we should thank them for.

To sum it short--challenge.

But, the progress goes incredibly SLOW, as you only gain little bits of SP here and there from surrenders (and just maybe a win here and there). Doing this my way would create better (and more fun) battles with players playing against players with similar skills, creating more competition.

If people are always getting crushed by much higher ranks, then there is no incentive to play, and mid-rank people will leave. Otherwise, people who aren't very active have little-to-no hope of getting past ranks 5-6.

If this is truly a free-to-play game then there needs to be a way for non-premiums to avoid getting killed every time without spending real money.

If people want "spice" as you say, they can simply leave off the min./max rank limitation; in fact, most people probably won't want to use it, but at least they have the option at their grasp if they want...

my impression is that most rank 5-7 play play custom maps or default, and most rank7+ play 3v3.
I must mention that not all non premium lose against premium users.
For example a non-premium high rank will easily beat a low rank premium, because of the upgrade for example.
Furthermore playing against more skilled players help you develop your own skills faster than playing against players of your level.
If we keep segregating low ranks it will be almost impossible to start a game in the future.

Written by Laozi, 29.04.2015 at 01:33

if we start to put more segeration it will be impossible to start a game.

This. There are barely any games at noon (GMT+8), further division between ranks ebbs gameplay.

Want you really want (OP) is having a free option to limit ranks in your respective game everytime you host. Ask the devs for that.
If you want to farm SP and be hated or hating yourself, try RP.

If this doesnt concern you, you will realize how horrible your idea is.

Written by Laozi, 29.04.2015 at 01:33

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 00:59

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 00:33

No.

The Main lobby introduces you to the real gameplay. In a war scenario, you wont be expecting to face hostiles in comparison to your rank or your unit type. Just because you're a private (a foot soldier-infantry perhaps) does not forbid your opponent to drive a tank towards you, right?

The Beginner's room is where you get familiar with the game. Once you reach R5, you graduate and they deploy you to the battlefield. The Main Lobby offers you a variety of experiences; people with similar and predictable play styles to circumstances where the odds are never on your favour. The Idea is to spice the combatants on the theater of their choice and excuse from the devs to lure you from funding the game which is free, something we should thank them for.

To sum it short--challenge.

But, the progress goes incredibly SLOW, as you only gain little bits of SP here and there from surrenders (and just maybe a win here and there). Doing this my way would create better (and more fun) battles with players playing against players with similar skills, creating more competition.

If people are always getting crushed by much higher ranks, then there is no incentive to play, and mid-rank people will leave. Otherwise, people who aren't very active have little-to-no hope of getting past ranks 5-6.

If this is truly a free-to-play game then there needs to be a way for non-premiums to avoid getting killed every time without spending real money.

If people want "spice" as you say, they can simply leave off the min./max rank limitation; in fact, most people probably won't want to use it, but at least they have the option at their grasp if they want...

my impression is that .

The issue is that the number of player in the main room is less important than in the begginer room and if we start to put more segeration it will be impossible to start a game.

Actually, as I said before, most people willl choose not to use it. Just the people who have a very hard time winning against 8-13. (mostly 5-6 and maybe a few 7s) Just because most rank 5-7 play europe 10k 3k without team and most rank7+ play 3v3, doesn't mean that it could be vice versa, etc. etc. How can you stop it using another way?

"Furthermore,a non-premium rank 10 will easily beat a premium rank 5,because of the upgrades."- Sator. " I never said otherwise " -12gsh

I'm not looking for segregation, and I fail to see how this would encourage segregation, but if this is truly a free-to-play game then there needs to be a way for non-premiums to avoid getting killed every time without spending real money.

You will kill the game if you dont give the devs an excuse to lure you to fund them.

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 01:54

You will kill the game if you dont give the devs an excuse to lure you to fund them.

Don't worry, buddy, I've noticed the main room at noon (GMT+8). It's barely got any games.

There are still tons of other premium features that I want, that I'm not asking for here: making private games, creating maps, unlock the "general", use rare units, use global chat, creating coalitions, starting scenario games, setting min./max alliances, new SP medals, and the line goes on and on... I'm asking for just 1 of the features: probably the least used too, if you think about it Won't kill the game in any way at all.

Ivan and Amaok said so themselves; "This is not a pay-to-win game" In other words: you do not have to pay money at all to win a lot, but you can have more fun with that game by getting premium.

I'll agree: All the other premium features are definately not necessary (though still cool and fun ), but without the min./max rank feature for non-premiums, then this game is starting to look like a pay-to-win game



This is the suggestion thread, nothing more, I'm not trying to force my idea on anyone, I'm just trying to make a point; but if no one supports me, then this idea is dead as far as I'm concerned. Good debate, but now I'm done with this topic

Random post just to reach 60 posts. Hehe

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 02:59

Random post just to reach 60 posts. Hehe

Wasn't a random topic. It was a suggestion, as the thread suggests. If you want to tinker with random posts, start a new thread by that title.

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 03:20

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 02:59

Random post just to reach 60 posts. Hehe

Wasn't a random topic. It was a suggestion, as the thread suggests. If you want to tinker with random posts, start a new thread by that title.

I meant the post you quoted. I posted it purposely to reach 60 posts. Duh T.T

If this topic was as un-important as you say, why did you bother to pick up it's pace by posting stuff? lol

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 03:21

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 03:20

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 02:59

Random post just to reach 60 posts. Hehe

Wasn't a random topic. It was a suggestion, as the thread suggests. If you want to tinker with random posts, start a new thread by that title.

I meant the post you quoted. I posted it purposely to reach 60 posts. Duh T.T

Wow, such a clever little boy isn't he?

I don't see why not, support.

People don't like to lose. Games are less fun if the odds are stacked too far against you. If R5s lose ten games in a row against some R8/R9 that just loves the easy SP from fighting novices, they will probably leave.

Although it's still a good idea to interact with higher ranks. So perhaps a solution is to allow non premium players to create rank limit, but that rank limit must include a rank higher than his own. That way, any innovations or discoveries (basically, things like 3-man wall, "rushes," Kiel Canal, etc) will kind of filter down the ranks. A R7 will learn from playing with a R8 player, an R6 player then learns it off that R7 player, and so on.

Written by International, 29.04.2015 at 03:24

I don't see why not, support.

People don't like to lose. Games are less fun if the odds are stacked too far against you. If R5s lose ten games in a row against some R8/R9 that just loves the easy SP from fighting novices, they will probably leave.

Although it's still a good idea to interact with higher ranks. So perhaps a solution is to allow non premium players to create rank limit, but that rank limit must include a rank higher than his own. That way, any innovations or discoveries (basically, things like 3-man wall, "rushes," Kiel Canal, etc) will kind of filter down the ranks. A R7 will learn from playing with a R8 player, an R6 player then learns it off that R7 player, and so on.

Finally!!! I got some support :) Yeah, I agree, like at least to rank 6 in my case, or 7 in yours. Thx man

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 03:22

If this topic was as un-important as you say, why did you bother to pick up it's pace by posting stuff? lol

We were in a violent disagreement to your idea and prompted how horrible it is but where in this thread have I considered or expressed it as "Un-important"? The two are worlds apart. You have conflicting personalities that is associated with sociopaths. Check your meds.

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 03:26

Written by International, 29.04.2015 at 03:24

I don't see why not, support.

People don't like to lose. Games are less fun if the odds are stacked too far against you. If R5s lose ten games in a row against some R8/R9 that just loves the easy SP from fighting novices, they will probably leave.

Although it's still a good idea to interact with higher ranks. So perhaps a solution is to allow non premium players to create rank limit, but that rank limit must include a rank higher than his own. That way, any innovations or discoveries (basically, things like 3-man wall, "rushes," Kiel Canal, etc) will kind of filter down the ranks. A R7 will learn from playing with a R8 player, an R6 player then learns it off that R7 player, and so on.

Finally!!! I got some support :) Yeah, I agree, like at least to rank 6 in my case, or 7 in yours. Thx man

It's just a little something I learned from playing board games with friends.
If I discover this wonderful new game which I want to play with my friends, what I do is that I let them win the first couple games. There is literally no better way to get someone hooked on a game than the sweet taste of victory.

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 03:29

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 03:22

If this topic was as un-important as you say, why did you bother to pick up it's pace by posting stuff? lol

We were in a violent disagreement to your idea and prompted how horrible it is but where in this thread have I considered or expressed it as "Un-important"? The two are worlds apart. You have conflicting personalities that is associated with sociopaths. Check your meds.

I'm not violent at all, you took this topic to that level. If you'll look up a few posts before this 1, you'll see that I intended to end the topic, but you dragged it out further.

The word "random" (you brought it up for the record) is also a casual (nice?) way of saying "worthless", "un-important (non-important)" , etc. etc. You get the idea.

I'm not wanting to fight with you, so please just leave it at that and move on. Continuing this topic after my post insinuates mental instability, etc.

I got better things to do than argue, and I'm sure you do too

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 03:39

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 03:29

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 03:22

If this topic was as un-important as you say, why did you bother to pick up it's pace by posting stuff? lol

We were in a violent disagreement to your idea and prompted how horrible it is but where in this thread have I considered or expressed it as "Un-important"? The two are worlds apart. You have conflicting personalities that is associated with sociopaths. Check your meds.

I'm not violent at all, you took this topic to that level. If you'll look up a few posts before this 1, you'll see that I intended to end the topic, but you dragged it out further.

The word "random" (you brought it up for the record) is also a casual (nice?) way of saying "worthless", "un-important (non-important)" , etc. etc. You get the idea.

I'm not wanting to fight with you, so please just leave it at that and move on. Continuing this topic after my post insinuates mental instability, etc.

I got better things to do than argue, and I'm sure you do too

Youre not very clever, arent ya?

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 02:59

Random post just to reach 60 posts. Hehe

I was referring to my POSTS. MINE. If you have better things to argue then why waste your time on me? Why did you even bother to flaunt back?

Tsk...

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 04:18

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 03:39

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 03:29

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 03:22

If this topic was as un-important as you say, why did you bother to pick up it's pace by posting stuff? lol

We were in a violent disagreement to your idea and prompted how horrible it is but where in this thread have I considered or expressed it as "Un-important"? The two are worlds apart. You have conflicting personalities that is associated with sociopaths. Check your meds.

I'm not violent at all, you took this topic to that level. If you'll look up a few posts before this 1, you'll see that I intended to end the topic, but you dragged it out further.

The word "random" (you brought it up for the record) is also a casual (nice?) way of saying "worthless", "un-important (non-important)" , etc. etc. You get the idea.

I'm not wanting to fight with you, so please just leave it at that and move on. Continuing this topic after my post insinuates mental instability, etc.

I got better things to do than argue, and I'm sure you do too

Youre not very clever, arent ya?

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 02:59

Random post just to reach 60 posts. Hehe

I was referring to my POSTS. MINE. If you have better things to argue then why waste your time on me? Why did you even bother to flaunt back?

Tsk...

Why did YOU bother to flaunt back? You scared for your reputation? (Technically, it wasn't even arguing until just now.) Idea dead. (for me at least).

If non-premiums allow to set the min./max rank limit this will killed the settings pack or also mush player won't buy premium

If you read the posts before this, you'll find several things that address your post, such as this:

"There are still tons of other premium features that I (and all non-premiums) want, that I'm not asking for here: making private games, creating maps, unlock the "general", use rare units, use global chat, creating coalitions, starting scenario games, setting min./max alliances, new SP medals, and the line goes on and on..."

No need to respond, though, as the idea is dead due to lack of support.

Written by Guest, 29.04.2015 at 05:21

If non-premiums allow to set the min./max rank limit this will killed the settings pack or also mush player won't buy premium

Agree, but basic settings, like defining rank limits could be available for rank 5-7... other settings (team games, extra cities, etc.) could be premium only.

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 01:54

-snip-

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 05:28

-snip-

Back to topic or it will be locked.

Written by Columna Durruti, 29.04.2015 at 07:48

Written by Yeomanry, 29.04.2015 at 01:54

-snip-

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 05:28

-snip-

Back to topic or it will be locked.

Thanks for your input, Columna. Actually, please do lock this topic, because people keep bringing it back up when the idea is already dead, due to lack of support; and it's kind of annoying as the author of a dead topic

Written by Columna Durruti, 29.04.2015 at 07:47

Written by Guest, 29.04.2015 at 05:21

If non-premiums allow to set the min./max rank limit this will killed the settings pack or also mush player won't buy premium

Agree, but basic settings, like defining rank limits could be available for rank 5-7... other settings (team games, extra cities, etc.) could be premium only.

I agree, players should have the option to play at their own level

I will be the first to admit though, high ranks die too

There is a time when players understand the basic game mechanics (r5-7) and need to learn. They will do this by playing with higher ranks.

12gsh, you will get better. Anyways, you only just got to rank 5.

Written by Sun Tsu, 29.04.2015 at 09:43

Written by Columna Durruti, 29.04.2015 at 07:47

Written by Guest, 29.04.2015 at 05:21

If non-premiums allow to set the min./max rank limit this will killed the settings pack or also mush player won't buy premium

Agree, but basic settings, like defining rank limits could be available for rank 5-7... other settings (team games, extra cities, etc.) could be premium only.

I agree, players should have the option to play at their own level

I will be the first to admit though, high ranks die too

Maybe against players their own or higher rank, but when's the last time you saw a R10 lose to a 5 or 6?

Written by Google, 29.04.2015 at 10:05

There is a time when players understand the basic game mechanics (r5-7) and need to learn. They will do this by playing with higher ranks.

12gsh, you will get better. Anyways, you only just got to rank 5.

Yeah, I guess, in time... Thanks.

Written by 12gsh, 29.04.2015 at 10:09

Written by Google, 29.04.2015 at 10:05

There is a time when players understand the basic game mechanics (r5-7) and need to learn. They will do this by playing with higher ranks.

12gsh, you will get better. Anyways, you only just got to rank 5.

Yeah, I guess, in time... Thanks.

Btw, trust me, i know how it is to get slaughtered every game. I remember whe I was rank 34567, but I also remember because I sucked so bad, I made me want to get better. If we make another rooms just for mid-ranks, it will decrease skill by like 60%