Creator Rank System — A Proposal to Fix the Economy

General Feedback & Requests
, ,
1

Hey everyone :waving_hand:

I’ve been creating UEFN islands for 2 years and I want to share something I’ve been thinking about for a long time — and I’d love to hear what the community thinks.

THE PROBLEM WE ALL KNOW

Let’s be honest: most of us are making around $30/month. Meanwhile, the discovery feed is flooded with low-effort islands that get there not because players love them, but because someone bought sponsored traffic.

The Sponsored Content system has created a situation where volume beats quality every time. Publish 30–40 mediocre islands, sponsor them all, and statistically a few will hit — covering costs and then some. It doesn’t matter if the content is good. The system rewards spam.

Those of us who spend weeks or months building something genuinely good? We get buried.

A PROPOSAL: CREATOR RANK SYSTEM

I wrote a detailed proposal to Epic, and I want to share it here to get your feedback and — hopefully — your support.

The core idea: replace the Sponsored Content system with a merit-based Creator Rank system.

Rank 0 (Default)
Everyone starts here. No guaranteed payout. Clean slate for all.

Rank 1
Unlocked by hitting real milestones — for example, 5 million play minutes and 20,000 favorites.
Reward: $1,000/month base + % of in-island purchases + % of playtime earnings.

Rank 2
Requires 12+ months at Rank 1, strong sustained metrics, a portfolio review by Epic, recommendations from existing Rank 2 creators, and a non-refundable application fee (~$500) as a serious intent filter.
Reward: $5,000/month base + higher revenue share.

And so on for higher ranks.

ABOUT THE RESET

Yes — I’m also proposing a full stats reset when the new system launches.

I know that sounds scary, but think about it: almost all of us are at $30/month right now. A reset means we all start equal, and the path to $1,000/month is open to everyone who earns it through quality. Inactive legacy accounts with inflated metrics would no longer block the feed or distort the system.

The people who built real audiences will rebuild fast. The rest — probably shouldn’t have been at the top anyway.

WHY I’M POSTING THIS HERE

Epic listens to the community. We’ve seen it before — when enough creators speak up about the same issue, things change.

If you’re tired of spending months on a quality island only to watch it die in the algorithm while spam maps get pushed to the top — this proposal is for you.

If you agree with any part of this, please:
:white_check_mark: Leave a comment with your thoughts
:white_check_mark: Share this post with other creators
:white_check_mark: Upvote so Epic’s team sees it

The more voices behind this, the harder it is to ignore.

Let’s build something worth playing — and make sure the system rewards us for it.

Creator account: n8na
Island code: 4920-6836-9571

CREATORS SPAMMING MAPS TO APPEAR IN DISCOVERY
2

Very VERY VERY BAD idea.

3

genuinely curious — what specifically concerns you about it? would love to hear your perspective, maybe there’s something i’m missing

4

I believe those are two different problems.

I don’t know. This will just make it harder for new developers and put older developers at a major advantage. This won’t address the first issue. The second issue can be addressed by this, mainly spamming islands from multiple accounts, since every new account needs to be established to ever earn. Spamming from the same account won’t be affected, though.

All of this said, I still feel like both issues are on Epic. They need to have better moderation. Your proposal has more negatives than positives.

This seems to be the real issue that you’re trying to address, but in your system, new developers won’t be able to survive long enough to earn a living. Note that new developers need to learn the tools and the many skills that goes into publishing an island.

I am not a big fan unless this is done every new season or something. Established developers will definitely not like it. If this is done once, it will benefit the new developers at that time.

Established creators are already rewarded followers and favorites. I think a ranking system is an overkill.

If we really want to promote high effort islands, why not just delicate a special provision for islands that meet a certain quality standard? (Epic Picks?)

If we want the earning to be better distributed across developers, why not apply a tier system to earnings? Those that earn more, feedback more into the pool (an idea that was proposed on X).

  • 0% on the first 1k
  • 20% on the next 9k
  • 40% on the next 90k
  • 60% on the next 900k
  • 80% on the remaining

I don’t think Epic is short on ideas. This all depends on their plans for this platform.

Back to this point, assuming the islands are well-made, I think the issue is marketing to be honest. The selling point of UGC platforms is their convenience. A lot of stuff are already set up and can be directly used to build something really quickly. Fortnite is no exception. I think what we are really missing is marketing convenience.

It would really be nice if Epic does award the 50k impressions needed to get islands seen regardless of sophistication score (some people keep reporting that they get nothing). This works for islands that appeal to the current Fortnite playerbase.

For islands that don’t fit the mold, a dedicated marketing team hired by Epic, paid from the pool markets islands on Epic’s channels (YouTube, TikTok, etc.). This will be an alternate option, so developers can pick between the on-platform 50k impressions or the marketing campaign. I think this is the missing convenience that will allow the platform to succeed. Developers are not necessarily good at marketing, and marketing externally should bring new players to the platform (which will diversify the playerbase). The marketing campaign can be paid from the Developers’ payout if not from the pool. It’s just an idea. If it’s hired by Epic, it’s trusted by developers and players, and the price will be standardized.

5

Epic and Fortnite have given creators opportunities from the early days, first with Support-A-Creator code and later with UEFN to potentially earn significant income. However, it’s not realistic to assume that everyone can make thousands or even millions. In reality, most creators earn much less, and success at that level is rare. That’s just how things work in the real world. Not everyone will reach those top earnings, and it’s important to recognize that. You doing something really bad to make 30$/ month. Personally think people like you can’t have an opinion in this matter. I make uefn maps for 2years and even in my first month made more than 30$.

6

This system would:

  1. Naturally eliminate spam creators — income depends on quality and retention, not volume
  2. Attract and retain serious, talented developers with predictable stable income
  3. Give players a consistently higher quality content experience
  4. Give Epic meaningful control over creator payouts by tying costs directly to proven audience value
  5. Rebuild trust within the creator community at a time when that trust matters most

I genuinely love building on this platform and want to see it thrive. I’m not writing to criticize — I’m writing because I believe there is a real opportunity here, and creators who live inside this ecosystem every day often see structural problems that aren’t visible from the outside.

Thank you, Epic, for your time and for everything you’ve built.

7

Adding to my original proposal — one thing I didn’t cover is what happens after you reach a rank.

RANK MAINTENANCE & KPI SYSTEM

Getting a rank shouldn’t mean keeping it forever. Every 12 months, creators would need to confirm their rank by meeting a basic set of KPIs, for example:

— Minimum play minutes accumulated during the period
— Minimum new favorites
— Healthy player retention rate (people coming back)
— At least 1 meaningful map update

If the KPIs aren’t met — a warning + 2 months grace period to recover. Still not met — rank drops.

This keeps the system alive and prevents people from reaching Rank 1 and going inactive while still collecting $1,000/month.

THE SOCIAL MEDIA EFFECT

Here’s something interesting this would trigger: right now most creators have zero incentive to run a TikTok, YouTube or Instagram because it doesn’t directly affect their payout. But if rank maintenance depends on a steady flow of new players — creators will naturally start making content, tutorials, devlogs, behind the scenes. That’s essentially free marketing for Epic, driven entirely by creator self-interest.

WHY $1,000/MONTH BASE MATTERS

There’s a psychological dimension here that’s easy to overlook. A creator who isn’t stressed about survival creates differently. When your basic needs are covered, you stop optimizing for quick metrics and start building something you’re actually proud of. The $1,000 base isn’t charity — it’s an investment in the quality of the content Epic’s platform is built on.

Creators who feel secure make better games. Better games retain players longer. Longer sessions mean more V-Bucks spent.

3 Likes
8

One thing I want to clarify after reading the comments — I’m not proposing to remove the current discovery push or existing payouts for Rank 0 creators.

The every-4-days Discover visibility stays. Whatever small income Rank 0 currently generates stays. Nothing gets taken away from anyone starting out.

What I’m proposing is a growth path on top of what already exists.

Rank 0 is the beginning, not a dead end. It’s where every creator starts, learns, improves and builds their audience organically. The rank system is simply a structured way to recognize and reward creators who have proven themselves over time — with stable income that reflects the real value they bring to the platform.

Think of it less as a replacement and more as a career progression:
— Rank 0 — you’re building, learning, finding your audience
— Rank 1 — you’ve proven consistent quality and retention, now you get stability
— Rank 2+ — you’re one of the best, the platform invests in you seriously

The goal was never to punish small creators. It was to give every serious creator a visible finish line worth working toward.

1 Like
9

I want to be honest about something.

I’m not a top creator. My maps don’t even come close to Rank 1 by my own proposal’s standards. I’m just someone who’s been watching this from the inside and seeing something that doesn’t add up.

Every new map I release has more work in it than the last. My programming skills keep growing. I’ve gotten better at optimization, materials, server performance. By any reasonable measure I’m improving. But the results keep going down. Each release performs worse than the one before it.

And I catch myself thinking more and more — why am I still doing this?

The only honest answer is that I genuinely love it. I love learning, I love pushing the editor to its limits, I love the process. That’s the only thing keeping me here right now.

So this rank system idea isn’t me trying to get rich. It’s me trying to build something that gives creators like me a reason to stay. Because right now the math doesn’t work, and passion alone has an expiration date.

Right now most of us are in denial. In 2-3 months we’ll be closer to acceptance. And in 6-12 months I think we’ll look back and wonder how we ever worked without something like this.

10

With this addition, I think your proposal makes more sense now.

I agree, stability is a great thing to have.

If you’re not changing the current system that rewards developers without being established (determined by whatever KPIs get selected), you’re not addressing the spamming issue. Anyway, spamming is a moderation issue, since it is against the rules now.

Next, we need to consider whether this is going to be financially feasible or not. Giving fixed income to a variable number of developers without tying it to the actual earning of the platform seems unstable.

I think we need to limit the number of developers that can reach higher ranks. Then, the criteria would adapt based on competition to always respect the ranks caps. For example, the top 100 developers get Rank 2 (100 x $5,000 = $500,000), and the next 500 developers get Rank 1 (500 x $1,000 = $500,000). The rest fall to Rank 0. This sets aside $1,000,000 from Fortnite’s earnings to pay for the fixed Rewards. Obviously, this would decrease the money available for playtime earnings, so Rank 0 developers will be hurt by this change. If Fortnite’s earnings decrease, Rank 0 will be hurt the most, since they only get paid from what remains after the fixed income is paid to higher ranks.

Your proposal doesn’t seem to address bigger creators who frankly wouldn’t care about the fixed reward, since they have multiple team members. Can you elaborate?

1 Like
11

You’re right that this proposal isn’t primarily aimed at large studios or top creators — they’ll reach any milestone quickly regardless. Let’s look at this more objectively.

I’d estimate around 75% of creators treat this as a hobby, essentially a lottery rather than stable income proportional to effort. The remaining 25% are those who left stable jobs to dedicate themselves fully to this platform, hoping to grow with the ecosystem. Of those, maybe 5% are top-tier studios with real resources. The gap between the 75% and the 5% is enormous — and that’s the problem worth solving.

Looked at through a business lens, this proposal is essentially about supporting the middle segment. Rank 1 represents the “small-to-medium” creator — people fully committed to development but lacking the resources to focus on what they love. And here’s the key point: Rank 1 would be optional, requiring a personal application. Nobody gets forced up. Realistically, only 15-30% of Rank 0 creators would ever pursue it — those who genuinely want to make this their primary focus. The rest are happy with the hobby model, and that’s completely fine. This self-selection solves most of the financial feasibility concern, since the number of Rank 1 creators naturally regulates itself.

But supporting that middle layer has another effect that’s easy to miss: Rank 1 becomes a visible, motivating goal for every Rank 0 creator. Right now there’s no finish line to work toward. A rank system changes that psychology entirely.

For those who do reach Rank 1, the $1,000/month base isn’t just income — it’s a small but real budget to promote their project outside of Fortnite, attract new players and keep improving their maps. That external promotion ultimately brings new users into the ecosystem, which benefits Epic too.

On search ranking — I fully agree that Rank 1 and above should receive priority placement in discovery. Better visibility for proven quality content means players find better games faster. Everyone wins.

Your idea of capping ranks by fixed numbers is interesting and worth exploring. It gives Epic a predictable budget. My concern with hard caps is that a creator who meets every KPI but falls just outside the limit has no path forward. A possible middle ground: soft caps that expand as platform earnings grow, so the system scales with Fortnite’s actual revenue.

On spam — agreed it’s against the rules, but enforcement clearly isn’t keeping up. A system that ties income to retention removes the financial incentive for spam entirely, which is more structural than moderation alone.

These are just ideas worth discussing. But I genuinely believe that supporting the middle layer of creators is the foundation for a healthier ecosystem.

1 Like
12

One more thought on why this system works psychologically.

Right now most creators operate in a “nothing to lose” mindset. When you’re earning $30/month, there’s no real incentive to go the extra mile. You have nothing at stake, so why not cut corners, chase quick metrics or just publish whatever?

The rank system flips that entirely. Once a creator reaches Rank 1, they have something to lose. And when people have something to lose, their behavior changes. They stop chasing $20 and start investing real effort into making their content more unique, more polished, more worth coming back to.

This creates two things simultaneously: retention of the best creators on the platform, and a more responsible, professional approach to development. Periodic moderation with warnings becomes a meaningful signal — not a punishment, but a reminder to stay on track and protect what was earned through real work and effort.

The goal isn’t to pressure creators. It’s to give them a reason to care. And that reason has to be built on something real — stability, recognition, and yes, something worth not losing.

13

I have a lot of respect for what the Epic team has built and I’m not here to criticize anyone — I haven’t built anything close to what they have. The island transaction system in particular is genuinely innovative and shows real vision for bringing investment into the platform and giving creators additional revenue streams.

But I don’t see a long-term future in the Sponsored Content model.

Short term — yes, it generates a solid return on investment. But guaranteed impressions will eventually become a black hole in the ecosystem, and here’s why: this doesn’t behave like a normal ad model. In any standard advertising system, you buy impressions and if your product doesn’t resonate — you lose your budget. That’s fair, that’s how markets work. But in this model I’ve yet to meet a developer who actually lost everything. Everyone gets their guaranteed impressions, comes out slightly ahead or slightly behind — but never at zero. That’s not advertising, that’s a subsidy.

And an inverted pyramid like this only survives as long as new money keeps flowing in. Either the guaranteed impressions get cut — and the system collapses sharply, because no developer will buy sponsored content after getting zero returns two or three times — or the budget quietly bleeds out.

What Epic appears to have done is offset the cost of maintaining this system by cutting payouts and visibility for all developers. That decision damaged creator trust significantly, and at the same time created an entire spam marketing industry where 30 maps always outperform 1 map.

So, looking at it from the outside, I see this picture. Perhaps I’m fundamentally wrong, and everything doesn’t correspond to reality, and I’d be very happy if my assumptions are just far-fetched subjective opinions, as I sincerely want only the company’s success and perhaps live to see the development of the metaverse, with a single map containing a multitude of fascinating locations and entertainment created by different developers.

14

I have seen a lot of people talk about the sponsored row, and a lot of them are not “winnings.” If you ask around, people will advise you against the sponsored row right now. I am not sure if you know, but the main issue of the sponsored row now is abuse. People are using fake payment methods and link their main islands through their sponsored island.

This is going to be an issue. I think you have to thoroughly think about everyone. At the very least, nobody should be at a great disadvantage.

I’ll be honest with you. I feel like I am talking to AI. Your logic seems inconsistent. I asked a number of questions, but you didn’t address them.

I fail to see how this fixes spam. Rank 0 will just continue to spam if they know they can’t reach Rank 1. Spammers (and exploiters in general) just find the shortest path to make the most money. The solution has always been to batch the exploits as fast as possible.

If higher ranks get too many benefits, we’re still locking new Rank 0, honest creators. You talk about a reset, but financial support and a visibility boost should allow higher ranks to remain high (even if it’s possible to lose ranks).

You don’t seem to have anything to add on the financial burden of fixed rewards on Epic’s side. Epic is a business and needs to make ends meet.

Teams have a place in the ecosystem. The fixed rewards is nice for individuals, but are nothing for teams.

That said, I am not against the idea of a ranked system just for the recognition, but I still feel that the number of followers, favorites, minutes played, etc. are already enough recognition.

I would rather see the issues fixed instead of introducing a new variable to the mix.

1 Like
15

You’re right, it’s a rather stupid idea that could make things worse than they already are. In any case, I’m very grateful for the discussion. It’s great to have such an open community where people can share their ideas.

1 Like
16

I don’t think it’s a stupid idea. If anything, I am grateful that you took the time and effort to propose something to improve the situation. I think with a bit of thought and some iterations, we can arrive to an improved form that a lot of people can support.

The ranking system can definitely be useful. Personally, I would start with the smallest change possible. If our main object is stopping spam, this is how I would leverage the ranking system:

  • Rank 0
    • Rigid publishing checks and maybe peer review.
    • One new island per month.
    • A one-month delay on payments (which everyone currently goes through).
    • Limited access to in-island transactions.
    • Limited access to the sponsored row.
  • Rank 1
    • Normal publishing checks.
    • Two new islands per month.
    • A two-week delay on payments.
    • Lifted limits on in-island transactions.
    • Improved access to the sponsored row.
  • Rank 2
    • Normal publishing checks.
    • Three new islands per month (teams can put more islands out than individual developers).
    • A one-week delay on payments.
    • Unlimited in-island transactions.
    • Unlimited access to the sponsored row.

As you suggested, higher ranks reflect trust into the developer and their activity. Developers would compete to achieve higher ranks for the extra benefits, and players trust higher ranked developers more.

I would tie ranks to development time/effort. A team collects development time/effort from all contributing team members. If developers stop working, they obviously lose their rank, one rank per month.

What do you think about this simplified version?

By the way, I made my own proposals before. Feel free to check them out and let me know what you think. They are intended to address one issue at a time.

I stopped writing proposals, because I feel spam is just going to cloud our judgement. We need to address it first. Frankly, your proposal is promising.

1 Like
17

With your permission, I’ll use a standard Google Translate translation, without formatting. You have some excellent suggestions, and I’ve read them. The proposal regarding the development multiplier (time, creativity, difficulty) is particularly interesting, as it could improve impression rankings. However, it needs to include performance metrics, including dropped frames on different devices, such as mobile and consoles, as Fortnite plans to expand more globally into the mobile market again. The suggestion regarding the experience cap is also good, but as I understand it, the experience cap currently applies based on the algorithm specifically for the player earning experience. I’ve observed a situation where, if I gain a lot of experience in a game, it’s completely disabled, and I don’t receive experience on any map; it only returns after a week. Therefore, it’s important to consider that there could be a significant drop not only in reward devices but also in the experience earned by individual players.

Regarding the adjusted ranks, I completely agree with you. But for the most part, it won’t work as we envision. Because all the planned improvements won’t work with this kind of moderation.

I’m not saying the moderation is bad. I don’t know what statuses the moderators assign to maps, and I don’t know anything about moderation at all. But I’m already afraid to update my game, because every update always, without exception, results in a rejection and an automatic appeal rejection. This happened to my game, which I’d been developing for about three months: I decided to add transactions to the island, and in the next update, I started getting rejections with screenshots of items sold in the store (they were weapons). Since I didn’t receive clear instructions about what exactly the transaction store was interfering with, after several rejections, I removed it from the game to save the game. I wrote about this on the forum in the thread about how to remove transactions because there were compilation errors (warnings).

After that, all my subsequent updates are automatically rejected, no matter whether I submit five or 10 versions for review. Before submitting a version, I have to contact support, who, naturally, can’t help. They say they understand and give me a link to an appeal, which is apparently also reviewed by a robot and then rejects my appeal. So, I have several approved versions of the island, and 90% of them are rejected. So how can my game get any views? My game, along with my profile, is one update away from being blocked, and I need to update it, because without an update, the game won’t get any views at all, not in four days or even 24 days.

But I’m more than certain that a game with 90% update rejections won’t get any views, no matter how interesting and engaging it is, and no matter how long it’s been in development. As long as there’s some kind of incomprehensible moderation, this whole futile slog about improvements is just a matter of moderators flagging copyright infringements that never existed, and any developer will simply spend days changing one asset after another in the hopes of finally releasing their battered game and forgetting it like a bad dream. And you’re suggesting strengthening moderation. That’s a great suggestion if moderation actually points out what the developer violated, but in this time loop, neither moderation nor technical support can help the developer, tell them what they’re at fault for and what changes need to be made. I’ve encountered this situation many times before, and it’s getting worse with every game. So, I wonder how spamming games even works if I can’t even release an update for more than one game without 10 rejections and 100 support messages. This is worth thinking about.

image
image378×746 21.7 KB

18

So, like many other developers, I don’t want to waste time on a game that can’t even be updated. The logical conclusion is that if I make 10 simple games in two days that don’t require updates, their success will be much higher because they won’t have any deviations and will work according to the principle: if they like it, they play it; if they don’t, they don’t. And this is the solution, and perhaps the best solution in this situation. Therefore, until the moderation issue is resolved, and without deliberately blocking updates to already released games, the spam problem will only grow. That’s the real reason for spam.

19

If I am not mistaken, currently, if an island is not performing well on some devices, it will be disabled on them. In other words, they won’t receive any impressions on those devices. Anyway, I agree that performance on supported platforms should be a consideration.

As far as I know, your observation is correct. There is a shared cap on XP earned in UGC islands as a whole. I would like a cap on each island (maybe also a rate limit if XP is rewarded too fast).

Moderation improved, but it is still not up to standard in my opinion. In your specific situation, I would ask other developers on the Discord server. They have a lot of publishing experience and can spot certain issues right away.

I haven’t seen a rule like that. If this is an issue with moderation, then everybody will be affected. Right now, I think there may be an issue with the Updated row (based on the number of complaints I’ve seen), so maybe this is worth a bug report.

I definitely see your point. Since moderation is already part of the submission process, I was only suggesting to make it more strict when dealing with Rank 0 creators, because spamming from multiple accounts depends on new accounts. This can make it harder for honest, new creators, but assuming that everyone reads and follows the rules, it shouldn’t be an issue. As I said, the community should be able to point out any issue. There is no need to try to address something more than a couple of times alone. If you’re out of ideas, always turn to the community.

You’re saying that spamming is a result of frustration with moderation. I see your point, but I don’t think that’s the only thing that leads to spamming. I think there seems to be some randomness involved with publishing, like the moderator(s) assigned to review the island, whether the 50k impressions are rewarded, the time of day the impressions are rewarded, the kind of players that see the island, etc. These random factors affect the success of the island, so developers are basically working around randomness by putting out the same island as many times as possible. They may delete the copies that fail afterwards.

If they are different (hopefully unique) games, I don’t think they are considered spam.

Actually, I think Epic supports this principle. Since it’s relatively faster to build a game on this platform, developers will be able to test ideas fast (without heavy polish) and find the fun quickly. Once they have a lead, they can focus on improving that fun experience.

I think we’re derailing a bit from the original topic. Anyway, I think the proposal reached a decent level of maturity. Let’s hope that it reaches the right people, and they leverage what they see fit to improve the platform. Thank you again for putting the time and effort, and please feel to let me know if you would like to discuss anything else.

1 Like
20

I’d like to address the esteemed Epic Games team, especially the moderation team and support team. I’m deeply ashamed to have written about problems with my game, as the problem was entirely my own, and I found the cause. Thank you to the entire team for being so patient with me, despite my frequent messages to support. Thank you all so much, guys! You’re the best!

1 Like