Championship warfare

Ok we all know that you can pay your way to the top in this game. Thats good. Capitalism. BUT...... Let's take a look at whats happening in CW and what they did in GW. They nerfed GW becuase it gives the other teams with lower players a chance to gain a city ( the durability rule). Seen 100 million power players get killed off by low level players with higher durability. Ok so if they are trying to make it fair on single servers for lower players. Why then can't they implement the same rules for CW:

Examples:
1. The top 10-20 players are not allowed to play in the next 1 - 2 CW's (kinda harsh I really don't like this idea at all but It needs to be said).

2. The top 10 - 20 players get 50-75% in reduction to power. this seems a little more fair.

3. This is the one that most people I talked to like the most. Install a Durability rule in CW as with GW. But the top 10-20 players automatically get a 50% in reduction in durability for the next 2 or more C.W.'s this will help hopefully reduce the top players winning the top spots every single CW. And for every win (round) you get 1% durability taken off. I put the 2 C.W. rule in there because they will lose the next C.W. just to win it the the time after that.

It may sound unfair. But it was also unfair of TYNON to implement the Durability rule on guilds on servers in GW's. Will also make the betting more interesting.

Tell me what you think. Please no haters. Just constructive criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brianpkelley68_351461

Ok we all know that you can pay your way to the top in this game. Thats good. Capitalism. BUT...... Let's take a look at whats happening in CW and what they did in GW. They nerfed GW becuase it gives the other teams with lower players a chance to gain a city ( the durability rule). Seen 100 million power players get killed off by low level players with higher durability. Ok so if they are trying to make it fair on single servers for lower players. Why then can't they implement the same rules for CW:

Examples:
1. The top 10-20 players are not allowed to play in the next 1 - 2 CW's (kinda harsh I really don't like this idea at all but It needs to be said).

2. The top 10 - 20 players get 50-75% in reduction to power. this seems a little more fair.

3. This is the one that most people I talked to like the most. Install a Durability rule in CW as with GW. But the top 10-20 players automatically get a 50% in reduction in durability for the next 2 or more C.W.'s this will help hopefully reduce the top players winning the top spots every single CW. And for every win (round) you get 1% durability taken off. I put the 2 C.W. rule in there because they will lose the next C.W. just to win it the the time after that.

It may sound unfair. But it was also unfair of TYNON to implement the Durability rule on guilds on servers in GW's. Will also make the betting more interesting.

Tell me what you think. Please no haters. Just constructive criticism.

---

I don't understand the durability suggestion.
Durability would reset every CW...
automatic 50% reduction in durability for the cw... may as well not let them play the next they'd be lucky to get past the second knockout round... this would create the possibility of there being byes in the main tournament which would be dumb because then everyone who would be watching it wouldn't get any tickets (the poor guy who gets the bye would lose out on even more tickets than the people betting)...

No player should have to sit out from CW. I saw there is a spirit of the challenger which is a good bonus vs the person with the crown.

In regards to guild wars, I like the setup. Strength in numbers seems more logical for guild wars then 1 power player just knocking out the entire opposing guild solo.

So your telling me in all the programming code. that they can't see who was the last 10-20 people left in the last C.W. and put that durability loss on the next few CW's. I understand TYNON sometimes not getting things right sometimes, even a beginning programmer can put code in the game to see who was in the last CW and needs to get the reduction. So if they are in the top 20 again, they get another 50% taken off (actually it would be 50% of 50%, so in reality they start off with 25% durability. It wouldn't reset like GW's. I see what your saying but they are smart enough to program this code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legolas Bow of Athena

No player should have to sit out from CW. I saw there is a spirit of the challenger which is a good bonus vs the person with the crown.

In regards to guild wars, I like the setup. Strength in numbers seems more logical for guild wars then 1 power player just knocking out the entire opposing guild solo.

---

So then your not opposed in GW's for that 1 solo guy to have (will say 25-40 alts to combat the smaller guilds) hence he/she will still win it.

I dont understand your logic.. You say in GW you dont like 1 person dominating. But in the other hand you do like 1 person dominating the CW's. Trying to follow your logic.

And i never said that anyone had to sit out of the CW's unless they went with the more unpopluar suggestion I typed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brianpkelley68_351461

Ok we all know that you can pay your way to the top in this game. Thats good. Capitalism. BUT...... Let's take a look at whats happening in CW and what they did in GW. They nerfed GW becuase it gives the other teams with lower players a chance to gain a city ( the durability rule). Seen 100 million power players get killed off by low level players with higher durability. Ok so if they are trying to make it fair on single servers for lower players. Why then can't they implement the same rules for CW:

Examples:
1. The top 10-20 players are not allowed to play in the next 1 - 2 CW's (kinda harsh I really don't like this idea at all but It needs to be said).

2. The top 10 - 20 players get 50-75% in reduction to power. this seems a little more fair.

3. This is the one that most people I talked to like the most. Install a Durability rule in CW as with GW. But the top 10-20 players automatically get a 50% in reduction in durability for the next 2 or more C.W.'s this will help hopefully reduce the top players winning the top spots every single CW. And for every win (round) you get 1% durability taken off. I put the 2 C.W. rule in there because they will lose the next C.W. just to win it the the time after that.

It may sound unfair. But it was also unfair of TYNON to implement the Durability rule on guilds on servers in GW's. Will also make the betting more interesting.

Tell me what you think. Please no haters. Just constructive criticism.

---

Basically the problem with all these suggestions is people will throw their matches to not be penalized for the next time. For example, if I know that next time Blayd will be massively powered down, or forced to sit out, I'll just throw 1 CW so I could be first the next time. (course I'm no where near first, just an example)

If there is a durability penalty, I simply won't sign up. I will have full durability for the next CW and everyone else would be powered down.

cw is teh challange for the top players, they shouldnt be penalised for been gd at the game etc, thats like saying a football team that wins a compertition should have to play the next one with 8 players only, cw isnt ment to be there for everyone to win, its for teh cream of teh crop to win and to make the rest of us want to coin to try and catch em up, it shouldnt be changed and waterd down in any way, should be left has it is has a challange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robrien978_8800158

cw is teh challange for the top players, they shouldnt be penalised for been gd at the game etc, thats like saying a football team that wins a compertition should have to play the next one with 8 players only, cw isnt ment to be there for everyone to win, its for teh cream of teh crop to win and to make the rest of us want to coin to try and catch em up, it shouldnt be changed and waterd down in any way, should be left has it is has a challange.

---

Then you are in a agreement that they should change GW back the way it was... not be water down. Not be penalized for putting money into the game.. I'm just asking.. because I'm for "whats good for the goose is good for the gander".

gw shouldnt of been waterd down, banish caps shouldnt of been in place, im a f1 fan and thats ment to be the pinnacle of moto sport but too many rules changes etc has made it not so, tynon is becoming the same, u do get penilised for the work and effort u put in, so they can try and have a level playing field, but life isnt always fair and square, some people will always be on top, and the rest try and catch up, gw and banish need to go bk to how it was, no cap and no loosing stuff in ge and cw needs to be kept has the challange to see who gets most out of there account

Championship Warfare already has a normalizing feature with the Spirit of the Challenger buff. We like how CW is working.