Hobart Bliggity Posted:

So if it decrees it at an acute angle I will be better able to bumess my rank? And I don’t think it’s really fair to chop it every time you hit the top for the first time. What if someone hits the top for the first time like 8 times? I think it should only do anything the first time you hit the top for the first time.

My horrible spelling aside, like any other E-Peen, you could only get it once. So, at some point, you would have someone that already got it as #1, and they would not then get it again.

SoronTheBeast Posted:

The suggestion is that it would “give” a negative length.

That’s just quibbling over the polarity of the integer to be applied. My question was, why apply any integer at all?

SoronTheBeast Posted:

Applying a negative length would get the top person “out of the way” and allow someone else to win it the next day. It would make that leader board more dynamic, and less static.

Only in the short term. As soon as all the players within X inches of the leader gain the peen the leaderboard becomes static once again. This is still only rewarding those that have been playing FWZ longer than the rest, much like every other leaderboard. This is still a bad idea that will only reward those that have been here the longest, how many being decided by whatever value is bumigned to X. Make X to great, and it devalues the peen and the leaderboard. Make it too small and you lose any dynamic you may have been looking for. Why not just petition ET to remove the bonus 3” we all start with and give a meaningless peen to those that were logged in that day? It’s the same thing as this meta-peen of yours and will have about the same impact.

The idea would be that it would make it so the person at the top would have a smaller E-Peen. Instead of having to get a E-Peen of 28<, which is more or less impossible because lots of E-Peens you can’t get any more, you would have to get a E-Peen of (28-X)< whatever X was. If X = 2, it would cycle through the top three. If X was 50% of your current E-Peen, it would cycle through many more.

The point being, however, that at the moment, its not cycling at all. You would have to get E-Peens you CAN’T get to make it to the top. Making it impossible, and static.

And I do find the argument “It will not change because it would change and then be the same again, only lower.” To not make any sense at all. Maybe someone could explain to me how making it POSSIBLE to get to the top is “no change” from the current situation. ‘Cuz I don’t get it. Log in to see images!

SoronTheBeast Posted:

And I do find the argument “It will not change because it would change and then be the same again, only lower.” To not make any sense at all.

Current situation: the top of the leaderboard is unattainable because people have gigantic epeens, including many peens that newcomers can’t get because they weren’t there for various events.

Proposed solution: reduce the length of the leader’s peen

Outcome: Head of the leaderboard stands at a lower, but still unattainable (for most) level.

Unless you’re proposing a mbumive reduction, in which case a lot of people will very temporarily be at the top of the leaderboard, and then it’ll settle out so that the top is much lower, but people still have to compete with semi-professional peenwhores for the extra inches past wherever the top of the leadboard ends up.

In either case, eventual outcome: The top of the leaderboard is unattainable for most players.

Well, scully, I would think your thoughts on this would be most useful, since this would effect you the most. (and you also clearly know the most about E-Peens)

man-man Posted:

Unless you’re proposing a mbumive reduction, in which case a lot of people will very temporarily be at the top of the leaderboard, and then it’ll settle out so that the top is much lower, but people still have to compete with semi-professional peenwhores for the extra inches past wherever the top of the leadboard ends up.

I feel there would be a ‘middle ground’ reduction. A number that would both make the leaderboard competitive, but would not be a Bobbitt.

Something >2, but <50%

man-man Posted:

In either case, eventual outcome: The top of the leaderboard is unattainable for most players.

Well, there could be another fix in a few years when this happens again. (which, of course, it would)

But, perhaps scully is right and nobody really cares. Its not like I’m bucking for the top any time soon. It was just an idea that struck me. If topping the leaderboards for the first time incurred a penalty it would be easier for new players to top them.

And:

scully Posted:

the entertainment value of having a peen that chops off some length.

was a reason as well Log in to see images!

SoronTheBeast Posted:

If topping the leaderboards for the first time incurred a penalty it would be easier for new players to top them.

You missed my point. The only point in this would be for the comedy.

The only thing that makes the top of any of the leader boards accessible is players quitting or mbumive game changes. This peen would not in any way make the top spots more accessible for new players unless it was a huge negative number. -2.0” would impact 2 characters. -10.0” would only impact the top 23 characters.

man-man Posted:

If there was a “got every peen” peen, could you ever get it?

No, because of the clbum dependent peens.

And basically, yeah, bad idea. Mainly for the reason Scully mentioned.

Chawin Posted:

i dont see what youre all arguing about

the people who are at the top are the top because they earned it

this has been discussed so many times i don’t understand why this thread keeps going