i agree, kiwikids
ALL IN FAVOUR OF REMOVING MB SIGN HERE!!
10/02/16 13:35
10/02/16 15:10
Scrap the MB
13/02/16 21:54
Agreed!!! Koggy RFC
16/02/16 20:28
Get rid of it before everyone leaves
17/02/16 18:18
Remove match bonus, please
18/02/16 13:11
It's got to go!!
18/02/16 15:05
Yeah see I don't agree, I believe the mb should only be removed once the negative game tactics are adjusted. I notice most of the big guns want it removed Why? Cause you get beaten by a team not as good as yours? Or do you want a more even competition? Hell if we want match bonus removed how bout the unfairness of the star boost from the strategy building be removed also?
I believe that the game needs a lot of changes to mark it fairer and more competitive. Let's start with squad sizes, they should be limited to say 45 players. Why? Cause the big guns have a monopoly on any good players In the auctions. That way everyone would be able to buy good players and would create a even playing field which is what we want right?
Then there is the issue about unlimited subs, I've used this tactic myself but I have always said it needs to reduced. That way there is more of a focus on good tactics and strategy. Let's say 7 max but if a player gets injured he can be replaced without the substitution being deducted from the 7 allowed.
Promotion relegation, 12 team championship would be better. 1-4 go up, 5-8 stay 9-12 go down. To many guys throwing seasons currently, I'm doing it myself at the moment due to squad rebuild which is because of fore mentioned monopoly by big guns on auction market. That again would create a more level playing field.
How about a bonus system worked in for scoring tries? Say a extra cash bonus? Maybe double what your match earnings are?
Now for guild ratings, crop of shit if you ask me, based on fan numbers is stupid doesn't reflect the how good a guild is at all by playing ability. Needs to be also reduced to 15-20 people per guild and rankings based on guild performances in challenges.
Finally guild challenges I do agree is not good constantly having draws. The change I believe is needed is all 20 games count towards the final total, that way it is a fairer reflection of a guilds performance which ties into the earlier mentioned guild ratings system.
Anyway maybe some more changes could be suggested but this is my opinion anyway. Now do the big guns like this or are they do precious to back this to make a fairer more competitive game?
I believe that the game needs a lot of changes to mark it fairer and more competitive. Let's start with squad sizes, they should be limited to say 45 players. Why? Cause the big guns have a monopoly on any good players In the auctions. That way everyone would be able to buy good players and would create a even playing field which is what we want right?
Then there is the issue about unlimited subs, I've used this tactic myself but I have always said it needs to reduced. That way there is more of a focus on good tactics and strategy. Let's say 7 max but if a player gets injured he can be replaced without the substitution being deducted from the 7 allowed.
Promotion relegation, 12 team championship would be better. 1-4 go up, 5-8 stay 9-12 go down. To many guys throwing seasons currently, I'm doing it myself at the moment due to squad rebuild which is because of fore mentioned monopoly by big guns on auction market. That again would create a more level playing field.
How about a bonus system worked in for scoring tries? Say a extra cash bonus? Maybe double what your match earnings are?
Now for guild ratings, crop of shit if you ask me, based on fan numbers is stupid doesn't reflect the how good a guild is at all by playing ability. Needs to be also reduced to 15-20 people per guild and rankings based on guild performances in challenges.
Finally guild challenges I do agree is not good constantly having draws. The change I believe is needed is all 20 games count towards the final total, that way it is a fairer reflection of a guilds performance which ties into the earlier mentioned guild ratings system.
Anyway maybe some more changes could be suggested but this is my opinion anyway. Now do the big guns like this or are they do precious to back this to make a fairer more competitive game?
19/02/16 23:55
Match bonus needs reform agreed but it does allow lower rated team to be able to compete against those teams in the top guilds! Many talk of fair tactics since when has a real rugby team been able to sub its team twice over during a match. Since when do rugby clubs have hundreds of highly paid professional players. The answer is they don't! Change the match bonus system but also change the mass subbing of players and have a maximum squad size then the game would be fairer.
GvG needs reform. A top 10 guild should only be matched against another top 10 guild, similarly a guild ranked 11-20 matched against another 11-20 guild and so on! Much fairer than a top 5 guild playing a guild ranked 25!
GvG needs reform. A top 10 guild should only be matched against another top 10 guild, similarly a guild ranked 11-20 matched against another 11-20 guild and so on! Much fairer than a top 5 guild playing a guild ranked 25!
20/02/16 00:48
Matt Grieve-Milne :
Yeah see I don't agree, I believe the mb should only be removed once the negative game tactics are adjusted. I notice most of the big guns want it removed Why? Cause you get beaten by a team not as good as yours? Or do you want a more even competition? Hell if we want match bonus removed how bout the unfairness of the star boost from the strategy building be removed also?
Yeah see I don't agree, I believe the mb should only be removed once the negative game tactics are adjusted. I notice most of the big guns want it removed Why? Cause you get beaten by a team not as good as yours? Or do you want a more even competition? Hell if we want match bonus removed how bout the unfairness of the star boost from the strategy building be removed also?
It is actually in the 'big guns' interest to keep the MB. As they have l20 stadiums and excellent facilities and thus can afford to pay out the millions required for MB, game in and game out. But the truth is I think most of them want MB reformed because it warps the ability to find out who is the best in the game. If my team averages 90 and I lose to a team that averages 60 and I did not pay MB, I know the opposition has, but when I play another team that averages 90 and lose, I do not know if that is because I was outplayed or I was outpayed...
20/02/16 01:33
Tolgate 23/7 :
It is actually in the 'big guns' interest to keep the MB. As they have l20 stadiums and excellent facilities and thus can afford to pay out the millions required for MB, game in and game out. But the truth is I think most of them want MB reformed because it warps the ability to find out who is the best in the game. If my team averages 90 and I lose to a team that averages 60 and I did not pay MB, I know the opposition has, but when I play another team that averages 90 and lose, I do not know if that is because I was outplayed or I was outpayed...
"Matt Grieve-Milne" :
Yeah see I don't agree, I believe the mb should only be removed once the negative game tactics are adjusted. I notice most of the big guns want it removed Why? Cause you get beaten by a team not as good as yours? Or do you want a more even competition? Hell if we want match bonus removed how bout the unfairness of the star boost from the strategy building be removed also?
Yeah see I don't agree, I believe the mb should only be removed once the negative game tactics are adjusted. I notice most of the big guns want it removed Why? Cause you get beaten by a team not as good as yours? Or do you want a more even competition? Hell if we want match bonus removed how bout the unfairness of the star boost from the strategy building be removed also?
It is actually in the 'big guns' interest to keep the MB. As they have l20 stadiums and excellent facilities and thus can afford to pay out the millions required for MB, game in and game out. But the truth is I think most of them want MB reformed because it warps the ability to find out who is the best in the game. If my team averages 90 and I lose to a team that averages 60 and I did not pay MB, I know the opposition has, but when I play another team that averages 90 and lose, I do not know if that is because I was outplayed or I was outpayed...
I understand that, it's happened to me also. But as you know a team paying of 60 stars paying 100% mb means it's becomes 120 star rating. So one side of coin yeah you got out played by a better team as if you played a team that was actually 120 star rating you'd probably get beat anyway a majority of the time unless your tactics are better they are tired or you mass sub.
Then the same could be said about strategy buildings as that gives a fair advantage also.
They won't change the game as they way it stands and at the end of the day they want to make money, players are paying for add ons just to keep up so the developers are rolling In green, but then greed is destroying the game not just from the developers side.