GoodFella146 wrote: »GoodFella146 wrote: »Honestly I'd be really nice to at least try for a few months (like for an update cycle). If everyone ends up hating it then it could easily be reverted.
I’d rather not...
I’m not opposed to a new system, but it should not be that restrictive.
But you can at least agree that the players should decide, yeah?
No. This comes up often and I always feel the same, if someone is good enough or dedicated enough to fight for the top they shouldn't then be relegated to the bottom because they ranked that high.
Normally this desire always boils down to people who can't rank getting annoyed with others who can constantly getting crowned.
I am open for a new system over all which isn't entirely dependent on AP rankings, but I don't think we should be penalising dedicated, skilled and committed players from being Emperor.
GoodFella146 wrote: »GoodFella146 wrote: »Honestly I'd be really nice to at least try for a few months (like for an update cycle). If everyone ends up hating it then it could easily be reverted.
I’d rather not...
I’m not opposed to a new system, but it should not be that restrictive.
But you can at least agree that the players should decide, yeah?
I don’t understand what trying to say here? What should the players decide?
I've said already I'm fine with changes to the system which encourages good play and that players who are breaking ToS should be stopped.TequilaFire wrote: »Little effort? You still have to earn it. smh
And yet you ignore the runaway effect.
Selective reading.
Almost everyone agrees with this, but in four years of this argument we've yet to see a better one everyone can agree on.monktoasty wrote: »It's poorly designed sysyem easy to "game".
Almost everyone agrees with this, but in four years of this argument we've yet to see a better one everyone can agree on.monktoasty wrote: »It's poorly designed sysyem easy to "game".
GoodFella146 wrote: »No. That would lead to people letting emp go so they can crown the next person on the list, doing that over and over until their entire guild has had it.
If you are in second place and want emp, git gud.
Yeah this is the point. And having a job or other real life things to take care of is not a skill based issue.
GoodFella146 wrote: »GoodFella146 wrote: »Honestly I'd be really nice to at least try for a few months (like for an update cycle). If everyone ends up hating it then it could easily be reverted.
I’d rather not...
I’m not opposed to a new system, but it should not be that restrictive.
But you can at least agree that the players should decide, yeah?
TequilaFire wrote: »No. This comes up often and I always feel the same, if someone is good enough or dedicated enough to fight for the top they shouldn't then be relegated to the bottom because they ranked that high.
Normally this desire always boils down to people who can't rank getting annoyed with others who can constantly getting crowned.
I am open for a new system over all which isn't entirely dependent on AP rankings, but I don't think we should be penalising dedicated, skilled and committed players from being Emperor.
Dude we have the same emp year in and year out on PS4 Vivec NA.
If his own alliance could kill him they would.
He is a good player but other shenanigans are at play.
GoodFella146 wrote: »GoodFella146 wrote: »GoodFella146 wrote: »Honestly I'd be really nice to at least try for a few months (like for an update cycle). If everyone ends up hating it then it could easily be reverted.
I’d rather not...
I’m not opposed to a new system, but it should not be that restrictive.
But you can at least agree that the players should decide, yeah?
I don’t understand what trying to say here? What should the players decide?
If this type of change should be made
GoodFella146 wrote: »Would you like to see a new system regarding Emperor where basically once you get Emperor, you can't get it again on that character for the rest of the campaign? We would have to also add a clause to the becoming Emperor where a player would have to be online to get it as well, as it would really suck to be offline and lose you time as Emperor before you ever logged back in.
TequilaFire wrote: »No. This comes up often and I always feel the same, if someone is good enough or dedicated enough to fight for the top they shouldn't then be relegated to the bottom because they ranked that high.
Normally this desire always boils down to people who can't rank getting annoyed with others who can constantly getting crowned.
I am open for a new system over all which isn't entirely dependent on AP rankings, but I don't think we should be penalising dedicated, skilled and committed players from being Emperor.
Dude we have the same emp year in and year out on PS4 Vivec NA.
If his own alliance could kill him they would.
He is a good player but other shenanigans are at play.
rustic_potato wrote: »Well this is not going to solve the underlying problem. If the current emperor cannot be re throned then the next person in line from his guild or group will be pushed for throne. Regular players will not get a chance as they dont have the necessary backing of skilled groups and guilds behind them. Basically instead of one person being permanent emperor you will have a guild full of emperors for a campaign. All the shady deals and shenanigans will continue to exist.
GoodFella146 wrote: »No. That would lead to people letting emp go so they can crown the next person on the list, doing that over and over until their entire guild has had it.
If you are in second place and want emp, git gud.
Yeah this is the point. And having a job or other real life things to take care of is not a skill based issue.
If you have real life things to take care of, then you probably won't be in second place. So....? I said 'git gud' if you are sitting in second place and want emp, because at that point you clearly have the time to play, you just lack the motivation or skill to get more points than 1 other person in the campaign. Because let's face it, this change would only affect the top places on the leaderboard. You and your job and real life things aren't going to ever see emp, which is how it should be.
Band Camp statements: To state "But this one time I saw X doing X... so that justifies X" Refers to the Band camp statement.
Coined by Maxwell
TequilaFire wrote: »No. This comes up often and I always feel the same, if someone is good enough or dedicated enough to fight for the top they shouldn't then be relegated to the bottom because they ranked that high.
Normally this desire always boils down to people who can't rank getting annoyed with others who can constantly getting crowned.
I am open for a new system over all which isn't entirely dependent on AP rankings, but I don't think we should be penalising dedicated, skilled and committed players from being Emperor.
Dude we have the same emp year in and year out on PS4 Vivec NA.
If his own alliance could kill him they would.
He is a good player but other shenanigans are at play.