The lowest point caps off at the poorest Warzone Player (c-(2c).
What would c be in that case?
agreed with adamg's post! but what if the raffle participant had to lose 999 coins, but what if he didn't have 999 coins? would he go into the negatives for coins? if so, would (if he earned coins back to 0) , would it count for the coin leaderboard?
If you cannot go negative you get into an issue where players will only join with poor alts, instead of their rich main accounts. If the alt wins the Raffle, you transfer the coins to your main account. Fizzer would also find it to time consuming to implement this I am afraid. He still has bugs to fix, and proper features to develop. New Raffle's wouldn't be on that list, since they only cost him money and don't make any . Unless he is going to include proper negatieve coin balances....
Yep, that's the problem, the system is at odds with itself because it's meant to protect against dishonest players yet relying on their honest voluntary identification.
But I'm thinking of something else, which unfortunately would end up being either too onerous on mods or just plain unenforcable, which instead of just enforcing the limitations on identified alts, but enforcing the good on the identified primaries.
So you basically have to get someone (I'm guessing a mod) to check your account as a primary. Not all primaries will have it, and some won't care unless they're trying to do something it's required for (eg: these special raffles, etc).
But it's likely too time consuming for mods, and they have no surefire way to make a "No" call when asked to certify an account.
How would a mod check an account? What requirements would an account need to have to become a 'primary'?
And this system would indeed put way to much load on the moderators. Once again this doesn't bring Fizzer any money, it only costs time, so he would not even attempt to do this.
