anarchyrulz wrote:
CE was Championship Era. It was run twice and both were events that the strongest teams would come out and play for months until the eras were ended by ticks. It was a lot of fun and there were a lot of players which made it great.
And yeah there could be an surge in players spending tokens on other eras.
Just a small note, both eras were ended by the winning alliance holding all 10 relics for 100 ticks, not by a tick limit. In fact, neither era HAD a tick limit (which didn't matter much for CE1, but for CE2 meant it went on for about 7 months).
As to the suggestion for next E1, I'll post what I posted on a (very) similar thread.
Quote:
This idea has been suggested quite a few times, either simply as a non-boosting era as you suggested or a buy-in era, where everyone pays in a certain amount to get into the era and gets a certain amount of tokens in exchange. In both cases the argument would be that eras are decided by skill etc, rather than by who spends the most.
The main problem with any sort of non-boosting era, including the buy-in era, is that it erodes the "prestige" in winning normal eras. What would most likely happen is that the non-boosting eras will be seen as the real deciders of skill, and that the winners on those eras will be seen as the best players. I don't disagree with that, I think I would think the same after those eras.
What that however means is that Battledawn doesn't only lose out on income from the non-boosting era itself, but that people also have less incentive to boost on "normal" eras. I think that's a dangerous proposition for Battledawn. Which is a shame, I would love to play non-boosting eras as well.
I really would like this to happen, it's just that I don't think it's a smart move for BD as a business.
