Daily tournaments: your opinion count!

Thursday 17/08/2006, 08:32


We are thinking of removing the level up points bonus during tournaments periods.
This will make tournaments harder for high levels players but more accessible to everyone.
What do you think?

Wednesday 23/08/2006, 07:13

I would just be happy to see a tourney where everyone battles not just ignoring and opening a battle then letting it time out because they don't like what they see.
So anything that helps the tourneys out I'm all for.

Wednesday 23/08/2006, 21:46

I'm just sick of people being logged in but not accepting any challenges. Half my time in a tourney is spent finding a competitor instead of playing =(

Thursday 24/08/2006, 15:46

I like the idea of no points for levelling up during a tourney, you should win on the amount of games you win overall, not on how many characters you can lvl up. As for the KO cards, they are extremely easy to beat, as long as you see it coming. If someone plays a cards that does 8 2 fury(2), then slam them with a 9pill card. The problem that comes then is that the player who has had his winning card beaten will either timeout or just quit (shame they are such bad losers). I still think a ban for anyone who timesout or quits 3 times in a tourney. And not just a minor ban, something like a month or more. Or simply don't give them any more points AT ALL for the remainder of the tourney. Another idea is that you do not gain any points for playing against guild members while in a tourney (both ELO and daily) While this would not solve every problem, it may make some (cheating) tactics useless

Thursday 24/08/2006, 15:48

It really is a shame that there are so many cheats in such a well developed game, and I would hate to see it go down the Pan due to a few greedy people

Sunday 27/08/2006, 18:40

Look how bout this have a sperate point system for tournys, that way lvling cards still gives you the bonus of increasing your person lvl. that way the points earned in tournys will be qaulity points not nesecerally qauntity.


Reply to this subject