DeletedUser
Idea for modified high score list
I just had the idea that somehow in the high score list there would be an indicator of how many diamonds the player had purchased next to their score.
First of all, I naturally knew that this idea would not be accepted, since it was against the idea of making money.
Second, I realize that it might be impractical from a technical point of view.
It has been commented that how people spend their money is their business. That may be true, but if you were competing in the olympics for the bronze medal, since the top two performers were using steroids, and you knew you could not beat them, then you would naturally ask the administrators, even if you thought that it was in vain, if they could maybe at least let the public know that the "winners" were using steroids. I think that the analogy is quite accurate. But on the other hand, if the people buying the diamonds pay for the game, as some people have also reminded me of, then naturally it makes things... well, complicated.
Excuse me for thinking that someone is actually winning based upon their high score. Usually that is what the high score list is supposed to do. And a little bit off topic, why couldn't we optionally sort the players by battles played? That is not a privacy issue.
The medal rankings are all at zero on my browser, so they do not give any perspective.
In any case, I think it is just an interesting discussion, and that is why I am changing it from the original, because I just wanted to generate discussion in this revised post.
Naturally not everyone will share my opinion.
I just had the idea that somehow in the high score list there would be an indicator of how many diamonds the player had purchased next to their score.
First of all, I naturally knew that this idea would not be accepted, since it was against the idea of making money.
Second, I realize that it might be impractical from a technical point of view.
It has been commented that how people spend their money is their business. That may be true, but if you were competing in the olympics for the bronze medal, since the top two performers were using steroids, and you knew you could not beat them, then you would naturally ask the administrators, even if you thought that it was in vain, if they could maybe at least let the public know that the "winners" were using steroids. I think that the analogy is quite accurate. But on the other hand, if the people buying the diamonds pay for the game, as some people have also reminded me of, then naturally it makes things... well, complicated.
Excuse me for thinking that someone is actually winning based upon their high score. Usually that is what the high score list is supposed to do. And a little bit off topic, why couldn't we optionally sort the players by battles played? That is not a privacy issue.
The medal rankings are all at zero on my browser, so they do not give any perspective.
In any case, I think it is just an interesting discussion, and that is why I am changing it from the original, because I just wanted to generate discussion in this revised post.
Naturally not everyone will share my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator: