48 replies to this topic

[tommot]

He supported my idea. 

Thanks, it is a bit strange to see different translation-programs show the same thing(no translation).
Anyway(going of-topic).
 

I kinda agree with St0L3n1

 

@I-G-D: there will always be people who end up with such disadvantage when adding a new element in the middle of a game.

[IvanVanchosBrother]

I would also suggest the values:

 

 

1st Medal-10 wins

2nd-Medal-25 wins

3rdMedal-50 wins

and for every 50 wins new medal 

[Rik Daphnee]

I would Like This Medal as "Guerrilla Warrior" Achievement:  

 

I would also suggest the values:

 

1st medal - 10 Wins

2nd medal - 25 Wins

3rd medal - 50 Wins

4th medal - 100 Wins

5th Medal - 200 Wins

6th Medal - 300 Wins
Than +100 Wins for every medal

 

I like this idea. ^

[St0L3n1]

What if the limit for 1 medal were 50, and someone had 250 wins, and someone else 249? Then the first guy would need 50 more victories for the next 5 Gold, while the other one would need only 1...

 

As tommot said there will always be disadvantage for someone whenever news changes going to apply.

Edited by St0L3n1, 18 August 2013 - 11:15 AM.

[DiMlTRiS]

Guerrilla warfare is fading as an option due to its excessive cost. A battle could cost upwards of 0.3g and someone who does 30 battles per day could spend 5-8g - supposing they go well and he doesn't need to spend many gold grenades or sniper rifles. This is an unacceptable level of cost, because, over the course of a month, it escalates to 150-200g+ !

 

Two medals should be introduced. One for every 50 guerrilla victories. The second should be a medals which will begiven after a player has been in a top-10 guerrilla position (on theworldwide ranking) for 30 days cumulatively. Something like the top100 damage medal for 30 days, but this one will reward player'sskill and devotion to the game, rather than the spending of money.

 

A top-100 damage is easy for someone with a credit card, but a top-10 guerrilla win requires immense dedication. To give you abetter idea, a top5 world position during the National Shield Tournament, entailed 8-11 hours of continuous guerrilla playing in a given day. If someone is able to be in a top-10-worldwide position regarding guerrilla victories for 30 days then he really deserves aspecial medal. In my opinion, far more than someone who cansimply outspend others.

Edited by DiMlTRiS, 18 August 2013 - 11:34 AM.

[St0L3n1]

Guerrilla warfare is fading as an option due to its excessive cost. A battle could cost upwards of 0.3g and someone who does 30 battles per day could spend 5-8g - supposing they go well and he doesn't need to spend many gold grenades or sniper rifles. This is an unacceptable level of cost, because, over the course of a month, it escalates to 150-200g+ !

 

Two medals should be introduced. One for every 50 guerrilla victories. The second should be a medals which will begiven after a player has been in a top-10 guerrilla position (on theworldwide ranking) for 30 days cumulatively. Something like the top100 damage medal for 30 days, but this one will reward player'sskill and devotion to the game, rather than the spending of money.

 

A top-100 damage is easy for someone with a credit card, but a top-10 guerrilla win requires immense dedication. To give you abetter idea, a top5 world position during the National Shield Tournament, entailed 8-11 hours of continuous guerrilla playing in a given day. If someone is able to be in a top-10-worldwide position regarding guerrilla victories for 30 days then he really deserves aspecial medal. In my opinion, far more than someone who cansimply outspend others.

 

DimITRiS if you are saying that admins will pay us back in term of medals then you are on wrong path, Guerrilla Fights are not compulsory, it is our choice either we fight or not, Administration can only put up the medals in order to appreciate your efforts.

[Sanchez Pedro]

I don't agree with this.It will only help the tanks while the weak players won't be advantaged by this at all.

If the guerrilla fights were separated in divisions as the normal fights are, then this could work

I second you, It's not fair for the D1 to fight against a D4. The disadvantage is overwhelming.

[St0L3n1]

I second you, It's not fair for the D1 to fight against a D4. The disadvantage is overwhelming.

 

Yes this point should be notice seriously, may be they are working on it. Lets hope for the best

[CendaBG]

agreed!!