BoriYeltsin wrote:
Cranberry wrote:
Hey, if someone is good enough to enter at the last minute and win a piece, they deserve it. It's fair. And it's not like someone can find a game with no players, send a score and win a piece -- each game has a minimum number of players needed before pieces are awarded.
There are plenty of games with only a handful of players with low scores.
http://www.neopets.com/challenges/world ... world_id=2Really easy to play a game at the last minute and get a piece. Need another score to reach 5 players? Log in to your other account and submit one.
You can only play games on your main account. Logging in a second account to get another score for a WC will only get you frozen. I wouldn't recommend trying it.
Should I give another supply and demand lecture about your "low score" idea? If a game is truly always a game that has low scores ... the trend will be that people will start playing this game *more* ... because it is "easier" to win pieces at it. So things will begin to balance out over the long run.
As cran stated, there have to be 5 *separate* people playing a game minimum anyway for pieces to be awarded. Plus ... as more people play ... more people earn pieces. So it is already awarding fewer pieces for the lower popularity games.
How do others earn NPs on the site? Restocking? I was just thinking they should make it such that when you buy an item in a shop ... it will give you a random item "of similar quality" ... in order to cut down on the people creating monopolies. Yes: I realize this sounds like a dumb idea ... but it is basically what they have done to the WC maps.
The WC was the best thing that happened to the site. It gave "gamers" a way to gain NPs. They have tweaked it many times from the beginning ... some changes I *really* liked ... some I have not liked, but realized they were necessary ... but this one is just plain *wrong* and has impacted the WC in a *major* way that doesn't even begin to address the "problem" they are trying to fix.