Impaqt

Dad + PornHub = Bad News Bears

That is nothing to worry about. Plenty of men these days throw a party of one. You should begin to worry when it comes to parties of 3 or more. Even more so, if that involves a search in pornhub that says "Bad News Bears", or anything that involves "Bears" and other gay terminology that I won't mention at the risk of exposure. Haha.

Men vs. Women Race to 1000

-83

RPGuild Ranking Headquarters!

@InnueI feel this kind of system would bring too much complexity to an otherwise simple game.
100 points per win is enough.
The only question is about the point gain for the losers.

<Snipped quote by ImportantNobody>This method could work.
The only problem is, like Rilla said, that people aren't anywhere that far apart that we can determine a limit. So this would effectively mean that, at least for the time being, we leave the system as it is.
I'm fine with the idea and really I have yet to gain any points but this effectively doesn't solve anything.

@ImpaqtYou may feel that's unfair for people to lose their 25 points but there's perhaps an even larger group who never benefited from it yet. If we make a change to the "rules" then it has to be done consistently. Neither those who made matches before or after the change should benefit in any way.
Taking away points these people got by losing may leave a sour taste in a few people's mouths but remember that points are technically a "reward" and as it goes such things only go to the winner.
That being said I also support ImportantNobody's idea, but of course I leave the decision about the details to more experienced players.

@Willy Vereb

Reward or not, those fights were still established on the grounds that the winner would get so many points, and that the loser would get so many points. Honestly, other than that, the points aren't that so far apart that it makes a whole lot of difference if we changed it now anyways, and left the points intact. Besides, a person joining later in the year will still have a lot of catching up to do, regardless of loser points. And I don't really support giving new people more points to 'catch up'. That goes against the flow of this. Giving them points simply because they started later would undermine the hard work put in by someone else that worked bit by bit to get their points, only for some new person to come in and possibly sky-rocket up the list with minimal effort. I do support the idea of a reset on points every year with a possible reward for having the highest points at the end of that year, even if it's just being listed somewhere as the highest point earner for that year.

If you want the points, you should earn them. New or not. Back in my day, that was a challenge issued and a push for new people, not something to deter them away. All these reason are the same reason I support abolishing the 25 pt rule. The points should be earned. That still doesn't take away from the fact, that those matches were conducted under the 'old' rules and not under 'new' ones. That would be the same as inducting Melonhead (per say) into the a Hall of Fame, then years later decide that the rules we had then were stupid and because of that, Melonhead doesn't deserve to be there anymore. There will always be flaws, but even when we change the rule sets of battles, those previous battles still stand, driven by the old rule sets. The winner was the winner. The same applies here. The battles already done, and many of them currently going on were established under the specific pretense that 25 pts would be allowed to the loser, unless they decided to wage points effectively possibly forfeiting points. You have to realize, you wouldn't be just taking points from those that have earned points, but removing points from those that also lost points already due to wagers. And again, wagers made under the pretense that a 25 point earn would soften the blow of the possible points they were trying to earn, but lost.

Update on the Fresh system

I would imagine this would be possible. I think it would fall under the Search Engine though, and that is currently under construction and doesn't work very well yet. They'd have to get the actual search engine working correctly before taking on something like this.

HQ Ranked Lobby

@Impaqt Edited to fit more. Sorry.

@DJAtomika

It's perfectly fine. I just wanted to relieve you of the confusion brought on by my post.

HQ Ranked Lobby

Please ignore all the spelling errors. I'm writing from my phone right now. Lol

HQ Ranked Lobby

@Skallagrim I couldn't resist having Cho meet with his rival/friend/benefactor again. Dammit Skall XD

@DJAtomika

I feel like you are reading far too much into my post. Haha. The Earth collision into another entity is my own Earth. I tried to make the distinction, 'Primordial Earth'. It's a multiverse. It's very possible that there is more than a single earth. Primordial is used as a distinction tat it is Earth, but in my own universe. Unless you are trying to suggest Cho is from my universe, then yea, Sympan is all that's left.

Also, you called the place, The Citadel. I can imagine that's probably as a result of my post as well. When I mentioned in my post that, "The Citadel must not be kept waiting", it wasn't a reference to the HQ, but a reference to the home of these particular characters. The Citadel is essentially a living (of sorts) tower/labyrinth/ dungeon. Honestly the best thing to call it would simply be a citadel. Lol. It's linked to The Swallow. A destructive creature living in the Nexus of what is now Sympan. That's the simplified version of that. The Citadel holds a lot of lore, and it's neigh impossible to explore the while thing. It also serves as a multi dimensional transportation tool. Thus, the doors. Their reference to it simply suggested that The Citadel had a will of its own, a reason to impress on these two to cone to this particular place in order to follow their established destinies as Eliades. A term refereed by the fact that they are seemingly in a continuous time loop, doomed to repeat themselves over and over again throughout time, at the benefit of the Citadel.

anyways, there's a bit of my lore there. :)

RPGuild Ranking Headquarters!

I'm fine with removing the points for losing. However, I think it would be best to keep it where the points are right now. Any previous fights and any established fights right now should still use the 25pt to the losers rule, not to disrupt anything already established. Those fights were planned under the pretense that if they lost, they still had a chance at 25 points. To change that now, I feel would just be cheating people. If you want to change how it works, I'm game but only for fights from it's establishing point and on.

HQ Ranked Lobby

Also, Fleetwood Mac Reference? Anyone? Haha.

HQ Ranked Lobby

Got my entry in! Do enjoy.