Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 16:08:22 GMT -5
Why do they have to come from anywhere? It's all imaginary currency to begin with. They'd just get an adjustment. If you got -14 and capped 3 beacons you'd still be losing 8 points. The first beacon is a gimme and should count for 0. |
|
|
|
Post by amidf on Mar 20, 2017 16:12:46 GMT -5
Why do they have to come from anywhere? It's all imaginary currency to begin with. They'd just get an adjustment. If you got -14 and capped 3 beacons you'd still be losing 8 points. Inflation. You'd be pumping tons of nee points in the system. Everyone would rise even if they stopped upgrading or getting any better. Pixonic would have to keep redefining the league boundaries. I think it's important to understand this because a lot of people keep making suggestions that end up not balancing the points, and that just wouldn't make sense to do. -Amid |
|
|
|
Post by Thunderkiss on Mar 20, 2017 17:36:05 GMT -5
Why do they have to come from anywhere? It's all imaginary currency to begin with. They'd just get an adjustment. If you got -14 and capped 3 beacons you'd still be losing 8 points. Inflation. You'd be pumping tons of nee points in the system. Everyone would rise even if they stopped upgrading or getting any better. Pixonic would have to keep redefining the league boundaries. I think it's important to understand this because a lot of people keep making suggestions that end up not balancing the points, and that just wouldn't make sense to do. -Amid OK, I'm not being obtuse here, I genuinely don't understand. I mean I know they'd sink slower, but losing players would still lose points. Just not as many. At some point they'd get to whatever level they were competent at, and then they'd lose more........ |
|
|
|
Post by amidf on Mar 20, 2017 20:47:26 GMT -5
Inflation. You'd be pumping tons of nee points in the system. Everyone would rise even if they stopped upgrading or getting any better. Pixonic would have to keep redefining the league boundaries. I think it's important to understand this because a lot of people keep making suggestions that end up not balancing the points, and that just wouldn't make sense to do. -Amid OK, I'm not being obtuse here, I genuinely don't understand. I mean I know they'd sink slower, but losing players would still lose points. Just not as many. At some point they'd get to whatever level they were competent at, and then they'd lose more........ In a system where every match awards net points, players who were "at their level" would keep gaining points, on average. That's because they'd win as often as the lost (about) and earn the middle position for damage, on average. They would still face the same level competition because everyone else at their level would be rising too. If Pix didn't adjust the boundaries today's bronze players would soon be in expert. I'm sure they'd like the gold that comes with it, but they'd have done nothing to earn it. Actually, people who played more games would rise faster without having to get any better. Some other people who don't understand what balanced points mean think that's already happening. There's just a ton of confusion. -Amid |
|
|
|
Post by rustedscrap on Mar 23, 2017 12:28:16 GMT -5
The system is fine as is.
|
|
|
|
Post by whatttupG on Mar 23, 2017 14:34:47 GMT -5
What's next? Or are they just making up ?poo-poo?e up as they go along? I vote B, this scheme seems clearly pulled out of someone's six. |
|
