Moderator: Community Team


IR1SH ACE wrote:I read this when you posted it earlier and thought it had some merit....i do believe it would be a good way to go and a better way to determine the Conqueror but would still not eliminate the problem of members that use questionable/cheap tactics to increase there scores and if the top 64 all had equal chance of gettin the title then I could see a lot more players resorting to above mentioned tactics to get into the top 64...
i do like the idea but they still need to come up with a decent solution to the farming/ranching/bog-rolling that goes on...I am waiting with baited breath for the big behind the scenes announcement on this issue and hope they do the right thing and then something like this would be a great next step......good luck and I support this...
chapcrap wrote:Now, while I like your idea, I'm not sure many of them will appreciate a 1v1 tournament. There is a lot of luck involved in 1v1 tournaments.
Perhaps, incorporating various gameplay aspects would be nice.
so then what settings are you going to make it...is it going to be a mandatory tournament for the top 64 and what about freemium members will the games count as one/more of their 4. There are just so many flaws the 1 vs 1 aspect is only a drop in the ocean.chapcrap wrote:Hey, ljex...chapcrap wrote:Now, while I like your idea, I'm not sure many of them will appreciate a 1v1 tournament. There is a lot of luck involved in 1v1 tournaments.
Perhaps, incorporating various gameplay aspects would be nice.
None of you are in the top 64 and yet you all think its a splendid idea...have you bothered to ask any of those in the top 64 if they would enjoy this? The competition would be stupid...i wouldnt even join it and would only play if i was forced to and that would only be because i wouldnt want to deadbeat out of the games. Not to mention the fact that a game involving a great degree of luck would determine the conqueror for a whole year. Its just a bad idea all around if you really at it from a perspective other than "i dont want GLG's to be conqueror because of the games he plays" and even under that perspective its still not a great ideachapcrap wrote:I do not disagree that things would need ironed out.
The freemium issue shouldn't matter. If lack wanted to implement something like this, then they could be allowed to play more than 4 at a time.
As far as settings, I do not know right now, but having some kind of competition between the top ranked players of the site shouldn't be a bad thing. Even if it were just the luck of 1v1 games, the competition would be good.
Is there something that you disagree with about having a competition of some kind between the highest ranked players?
While a Super-Conqueror Tournament has its merits, there's a lot of truth in ljex's comment. it's like what happened to The World Series of Poker -- or US College football Bowls. But maybe CC needs that - and WSOP has like 27 mini tourneys and "the main event" -- and what, 50 Bowls? CC needs a combination of BCS/March madness maybe -- just not luck driven.ljex wrote: . . .The competition would be stupid. . . luck would determine the conqueror for a whole year. Its just a bad idea all around if you really at it . . ."
