nemi, the hierarchy of syndicates would likely not change too terribly much overall, just perhaps a little shakeup amongst the "tiers" (e.g. Top 25 teams would shuffle around, Top 50 teams would shuffle, etc). Whenever I hear that suggestion, I get a sense that the person is saying, "the only reason those syndicates are above us is that they're willing to spend more gold than us" which is only partially true. The teams at risk would be the ones whose gold spending overcompensates for their weaker players (not going to name any syndicates out of respect, but it wouldn't be too hard to figure out). You might think, "oh, we'd do so much better if gold spending was not allowed," but it's probably not the case. Take for instance Fight Club. Their players are so much stronger than everyone else that most opposing syndicates will only have only a few players max (though likely zero) that can land successful attacks on them. FC, on the other hand, will have more players able to land successful attacks each battle than any other team. Secondly, luck would then play a much larger factor, as who you would match up against would become much, much more important-- If FC and SAS are both matched up with weaker syndicates such that all 60 of them (or whatever) can land successful attacks on the opponent, the team that's going to score more points is going to be the one that has a higher level opponent for FC/SAS to attack. This actually seems like it would be an even bigger issue at the Top 100-250 range, as I imagine camper syndicates would become a huge nuisance. That would be really frustrating if you were a strong high level player, and your opponents are all strong low level players-- even if you win, you barely get any points.
Not to mention the fact that it's just as large (and tiring) of a time investment, probably even more so if you need to participate in as many battles as possible.
Originally Posted by Lawyer
