Estoc Trials - Community Poll

Discussion in 'Past Events' started by admin, Apr 7, 2013.

?

Will you support tighter clan size restrictions for wars?

  1. Yes

    46 vote(s)
    23.1%
  2. No

    153 vote(s)
    76.9%
  1. Btw valor

    When you take out factors the only thing that matters is strategy.


    In chess no one player can beat another because he woke up in the morning and benched 250lbs. It's an even field with the best strategy wins. Kinda like what tighter match ups would be. I'm you understand this
     
  2. please kaw admin i louse my acount NIKOLA59 abd what to do now please wall me for ansers my alt name is NIKOLA58
     
  3. I dont think u all understand, regulation and restriction isnt gonna solve the issue of partcipation. Participation is key to match making. Participation is the problem get it right. Vote on war crystals, no these dumb restrictions. Heck, vote on something else that would encourage participation. Regulation is likely to decrease partcipation not help it
     
  4. this not fair vote, ppl who have 6 or 7 alts can vote 6 or 7 times, the result is not really accurate, please change this only owner can vote, most of time owner control the roster.
     
  5. NO too restrictive in my opinion
     
  6. No support, and here's why (in case it hasn't already been said):

    Look at the clans that participated in war 11. How many of those had 36 or more fighting? Of the 6 wars that I could easily find - which I think is about half of the wars - none of those clans would have been able to participate today. The clan sizes were: 25, 25, 26, 26, 26, 27, 27, 28, 28, 28, 29, and 32.
     
  7. No... It's not fair
     
  8. Why not 25-32, or 25-30?

    It's hard enough getting 25 people to war. It also forces people who have no more room left to start new clans and get more participation.
     
  9. NO ,I DON'T SUPPORT
     
  10. yes nice .its ok for me
     
  11. Chess has to do with brain power, you could say, and not strength. The two do not relate to each other. This was a terrible example for you to use to back up your argument. In the EEs, strength can1 directly correlate to winning. I bet a stacked clan like his(Warlor) would demolish a clan like Pillars of Chaos, the 2 GHC clans, and DMA. They would never get matched, but this should be able to show you how strength and winning an EE can go hand in hand.

    It also can change the number of sign ups. If it effects enough, there would be more no matches. True about better match ups, but the negatives far out weigh the positives. IMO

    I agree, but a lot of factors are still there. Like size, numbers, still, inactives, and bfa.
    If everyone had the same of everything, then strategy would really be the only thing that matters. :lol:

    1-editted in for bad word usage

    -

    If you're on pc, then it will be at the very top of the topic.
     
  12. Where is this poll feature you speak of?
     
  13. @Res

    Actually the chess analogy is kinda dead on. Under your strength win wars logic that would mean every clan that is ranked lower than the clan they are warring should lose. That's not the case. Why? Strategy.

    The closer your match ups are, he more strategy comes into play.


    Try again to explain how this is off
     
  14. Don't agree with the idea. In fact, why don't you spare us all from these ridiculous EE wars and just start selling mithril again?
     
  15. That's going to c
     
  16. Certain number of ppl in a clan : 25 or 30 for monday-thursday. 35 or 4 for friday-sunday. Makes easier to a clan to prepare war and decrease number of no matchup.
     
  17. @Resilience, first off, Val is female, second WarLoR isn't "stacked" like some of these other clans.

    @iProphet, your chess analogy is invalid because Chess assumes everybody has not only the same number of pieces to start with, but also that everybody has the same type of chesspiece, and in the same ratio. This does not at all apply to EE wars, as some clans will just have stronger "pieces"
     
  18. Devs though not being sure why we had no match for war 10 and 11 we have been " odd man out " for 3 others and our roster has not really changed so out of a possible 11 was (war 12 tonight) we were , might have been , odd man out for 5 wars. Let's forget the fact of no war or Mith possibly won u have given us the eb which I thank u . My main concern is the rancor and the length of spell. With our track record the 5 no match was 10 rancor we were denied though we were there to participate and what if a player has 30 rancor and tries to war 3 wars each in the following next two weeks and all end up no matches ? Is it fair that they lose their rancor ?? I think that a solution need to be addressed sooner rather than later perhaps if a clan is given " odd man out twice a week they should be given one rancor I know it's not a lot but it would extend the time for rancor spell and compensate that u decided to make them the odd man more than once in a week thank you for your time