• Dear forum reader,

    To actively participate on the forum by joining discussions or starting your own threads or topics, you need a game account and to REGISTER HERE!

City negative ranking points for placed expansions

Heymrdiedier

Well-Known Member
I realize this suggestion might sound silly to many, but hear me out:

my suggestion would be to give negative ranking points to every placed expansion in ratio of current chapter. Kinda like an tax, keep it empty then you loose ranking, put something good on it, and you ofcourse go it the plus.

right now some top notch players are not getting a spot in a top FS because they dont have enough rankingpoints, and the FS itself cares about ranking points.
But there is no way to compare an efficient city of a players, who maybe decides to stay small or isnt far enough in the tech tree yet to have all expansions unlocked, to a end game player who fills his city with every highest rankingpoints building, but is so inefficient it cant even produce anything. It would also maybe help new players to not think the nr1 players is an impossible mountain to climb.

Because we all know its not the size that matters, but its what you do with it ;)
 

Bor de Wolf 1965

Well-Known Member
If an FS is only looking at the ranking points they don't deserve the good players that just stay below their limits and those players are better off in a fellowship that doesn't care about ranking points.

Keep in mind that ranking points not only come from the size of your town and the buildings you have placed in it but also from the tournaments you have played and got in to the top 100.
And with some wonders you can get extra points as well for just doing the tournaments.

So for my opinion, a big nononono, don't ask for that.
 

Lovec Krys

Well-Known Member
my suggestion would be to give negative ranking points to every placed expansion in ratio of current chapter
Forget it.
That is the only polite answer i can give you for this suggestion.

ps: This has 0 chance to be implemented since there are only two options to get all the available expansions - either to slowly get them with the ingame diamond income, or get them with bought diamonds.
Your suggestion would lower the revenue for Inno, therefore no chance of implementing (besides the fact, that this would cause many rage quits of top ranking players, myself included).

Maybe you're just looking for the wrong FSs, i play on 3 servers and on 2 of them are in top 10 FSs (cz1,beta) and neither of them cares about fellowship ranking points (which means, they would accept even low chapter city if it can finish the Spire and play it's share in tournaments to get at least 10 chests).
 
Last edited:

Alcaro

Well-Known Member
taxing the rich? :D :D NO

but I have to add something:
- top notch players staying forever in a lower chapter aren't very desirable. I have 1 city like this and all mana, seeds, orcs, sentient goods can be wasted in Spire or tournament since I do not have another need for them. Ofc, I have no problem to top the spire and get 3K in tourny and more if is needed.
- a FS has also other needs than Spire and tournaments, such as partners for trades of sentient and ascended goods. Also one FS can have only so many "kids" and if they decide to be forever young, their achievements suddenly aren't THAT attractive.
 

Moncsociusz

Well-Known Member
I don't see any merit to this idea. This would punish everyone who is placing expansions? And ranking points are mostly independent from expensions anyway. You get from scouting, tourneys, wonders, buildings. But from wonders you have loads.


And as the others are saying, with a more advanced city, you have a better community. Better trades, similar goals. I think everyone can find their own place where they fit in perfectly. But it is totally fine that more competitive fellowships are looking for someone more ambitious. Why punish that, when it is all about consensus. The are great fellowships who don't care about rankings.
 

Vaeri

Ex-Team Member
@Heymrdiedier Thank you for your suggestion and sorry for letting you wait with our decision to reject the idea or start a poll.
I decided to reject the idea because it won't have a good chance against other ideas to get implemented, while many players would dislike the idea. I totally see your standpoint though, but maybe there are other ways to make the competition more fair.
 
Top