{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/6/2014 5:12:25 PM
1
You still are missing the point. No one, I repeat, NO ONE, is saying that adding the materials for marks was a bad thing. It was removing the marks for materials that is bad. There is no reason not to have both (the miniscule reputation potential for abuse could be circumvented by only having it on one or the other). Those that did collect materials before are now left with a bunch of worthless junk.
English
-
Edited by Neloangelo: 12/6/2014 5:22:16 PMYea but the only way that system would be effective is to include a glimmer cost also and a very small amount of reputation or a certain amount of marks per week maybe idk 30- 60 at most its would be a complicatid system to add which would only increase further maintenance. Theres only so much u can add on or so many routes to go by all in all I see your point but I think current system more fair to both than it was befor and way less time consuming.
-
I think you are complicating it more than what it really is. The fact that no one "in the know" has even mentioned this (not even to note it was changed at all), makes it pretty clear why it was done. And it wasn't due to software limitations...
