Moderator: Community Team
CatchersMitt14 wrote:How do you propose to deal with this retroactively? Seems like a massive amount of volunteer hours to update everyone appropriately. Some players will be due 50+ medals in multiple categories and will each need to be awarded individually and manually. For example look at shoop76, our current tournament medal leader. He has at least 200 tournament wins for a total of 34 medals, that means he'll need a minimum of 166 tournament medals awarded to him in addition to whatever else he is owed and that is just one player.
IcePack wrote:CatchersMitt14 wrote:How do you propose to deal with this retroactively? Seems like a massive amount of volunteer hours to update everyone appropriately. Some players will be due 50+ medals in multiple categories and will each need to be awarded individually and manually. For example look at shoop76, our current tournament medal leader. He has at least 200 tournament wins for a total of 34 medals, that means he'll need a minimum of 166 tournament medals awarded to him in addition to whatever else he is owed and that is just one player.
It takes time, but not impossible. Things are nicely organized in most cases, so can work through it catagory by catagory. With multiple departments potentially chipping in, it wouldn’t be that hard.
When clans first started doing medals they retroactively had to do a bunch, it can be done. Tournaments would be the biggest backlog, and once other departments like clans / cartos issued theirs they could pitch in to help TD’s
CatchersMitt14 wrote:IcePack wrote:CatchersMitt14 wrote:How do you propose to deal with this retroactively? Seems like a massive amount of volunteer hours to update everyone appropriately. Some players will be due 50+ medals in multiple categories and will each need to be awarded individually and manually. For example look at shoop76, our current tournament medal leader. He has at least 200 tournament wins for a total of 34 medals, that means he'll need a minimum of 166 tournament medals awarded to him in addition to whatever else he is owed and that is just one player.
It takes time, but not impossible. Things are nicely organized in most cases, so can work through it catagory by catagory. With multiple departments potentially chipping in, it wouldn’t be that hard.
When clans first started doing medals they retroactively had to do a bunch, it can be done. Tournaments would be the biggest backlog, and once other departments like clans / cartos issued theirs they could pitch in to help TD’s
I think you're way underestimating the time commitment for that. I'd support extending the scale for those who have passed the 200 limit but not removing it.
Mad777 wrote:I would be in favor of this but this should have been lifted many years ago, if the final decision is to lift this restriction then this mean admin have massively hired new hands since this will need hours and hours to catch-up the past.
Just from quick memory, merch313, who is still active member, has 400+ tournaments organized, just for this little instance he will gain 350 medals for one category - which I think it’s fully deserve since I believe you should earn what you “worked” for - but who will input those 350 medals? I know you can easily found which tournament was since all are listed in the hall of fame (for both TO and Tournament winner), but that’s is hours of work for solely one member and for one category, even myself I have more than 152 tournaments as TO, that is 129 medal to create.
Again, the idea is good and appreciate what you are trying to do and I tend to agree with the fact it could retain member and perhaps “reactivate” old member, I just don’t see how admin would spend time to make this happen.
Note: .....and we will lose josko who will more than likely fall way down and perhaps not even showing in the medal scoreboard anymore
IcePack wrote:CatchersMitt14 wrote:IcePack wrote:CatchersMitt14 wrote:How do you propose to deal with this retroactively? Seems like a massive amount of volunteer hours to update everyone appropriately. Some players will be due 50+ medals in multiple categories and will each need to be awarded individually and manually. For example look at shoop76, our current tournament medal leader. He has at least 200 tournament wins for a total of 34 medals, that means he'll need a minimum of 166 tournament medals awarded to him in addition to whatever else he is owed and that is just one player.
It takes time, but not impossible. Things are nicely organized in most cases, so can work through it catagory by catagory. With multiple departments potentially chipping in, it wouldn’t be that hard.
When clans first started doing medals they retroactively had to do a bunch, it can be done. Tournaments would be the biggest backlog, and once other departments like clans / cartos issued theirs they could pitch in to help TD’s
I think you're way underestimating the time commitment for that. I'd support extending the scale for those who have passed the 200 limit but not removing it.
Youre talking here only on tournaments, many tiers stop at 30 / 50, not 200. But again, to reiterate all medals should be given / counted. I don't want to start picking and choosing all over again who gets what. They are all deserved imo. I'm not underestimating anything though, I understand its a big job. But its a worthwhile one.
IcePack wrote:I agree it should have been lifted long ago (I would have preferred there never being a tier limit, but I can't go back in the past).
I understand it will take time. But again, thats time well spent and something that can be worked on / finished with time. It doesn't have to be done / completed in a day
IcePack wrote:In order to satisfy the current thought / desire / set up to have the medal scoreboard being "fair" (whatever that means) from category to category, a medal weight calculation can be made for the medal scoreboard in lieu of the current restricting maximum medals (I won't make this calculation attempt, as it should be a separate suggestion since I'm not keen nor understanding of the current desire for weighted "fair" medals, someone else should lead that effort)
CatchersMitt14 wrote:IcePack wrote:CatchersMitt14 wrote:IcePack wrote:CatchersMitt14 wrote:How do you propose to deal with this retroactively? Seems like a massive amount of volunteer hours to update everyone appropriately. Some players will be due 50+ medals in multiple categories and will each need to be awarded individually and manually. For example look at shoop76, our current tournament medal leader. He has at least 200 tournament wins for a total of 34 medals, that means he'll need a minimum of 166 tournament medals awarded to him in addition to whatever else he is owed and that is just one player.
It takes time, but not impossible. Things are nicely organized in most cases, so can work through it catagory by catagory. With multiple departments potentially chipping in, it wouldn’t be that hard.
When clans first started doing medals they retroactively had to do a bunch, it can be done. Tournaments would be the biggest backlog, and once other departments like clans / cartos issued theirs they could pitch in to help TD’s
I think you're way underestimating the time commitment for that. I'd support extending the scale for those who have passed the 200 limit but not removing it.
Youre talking here only on tournaments, many tiers stop at 30 / 50, not 200. But again, to reiterate all medals should be given / counted. I don't want to start picking and choosing all over again who gets what. They are all deserved imo. I'm not underestimating anything though, I understand its a big job. But its a worthwhile one.
You're selectively reading my argument yet again so nice try. I know I'm speaking about tournaments specifically in my post as that was the example I picked. It's an example, examples don't cover all of the scenarios they illustrate them. Now extrapolate my example through all the departments and you have the real issue.
You also conveniently neglect to acknowledge my other point where I support extending all of the limits. I don't think there should be limits at all, so just extend them well beyond whatever our top players have. Give people new goals to reach instead of changing our minds and creating a massive amount of work. Let's add another level beyond platinum, hell that's how we got platinum medals. Add more tiers past 200 or say after 200 you get one for one. Add new medals, particularly a zombie one. A few ideas there to drive people towards looking at future goals instead of looking back at what they've already done, that's how you create a future.
CatchersMitt14 wrote:IcePack wrote:I agree it should have been lifted long ago (I would have preferred there never being a tier limit, but I can't go back in the past).
I understand it will take time. But again, thats time well spent and something that can be worked on / finished with time. It doesn't have to be done / completed in a day
This is my favorite part though, you talk about not being able to go back in the past but that's exactly what you're proposing we do. Oops, we changed our minds, let's try this again.
CatchersMitt14 wrote:IcePack wrote:In order to satisfy the current thought / desire / set up to have the medal scoreboard being "fair" (whatever that means) from category to category, a medal weight calculation can be made for the medal scoreboard in lieu of the current restricting maximum medals (I won't make this calculation attempt, as it should be a separate suggestion since I'm not keen nor understanding of the current desire for weighted "fair" medals, someone else should lead that effort)
We as a site will never be able to agree to what "fair" means. That's how we ended up with the arguments in the past over tiers and limits. Basically this is just changing the argument from tiers on medals to how to weight medals on the scoreboard. Just trading one fight for another. This "weighting" you're suggesting is taken care of by the tiered system already. It's really serving the same purpose, just one happens on the front side and one on the back.
IcePack wrote:CatchersMitt14 wrote:IcePack wrote:CatchersMitt14 wrote:IcePack wrote:CatchersMitt14 wrote:How do you propose to deal with this retroactively? Seems like a massive amount of volunteer hours to update everyone appropriately. Some players will be due 50+ medals in multiple categories and will each need to be awarded individually and manually. For example look at shoop76, our current tournament medal leader. He has at least 200 tournament wins for a total of 34 medals, that means he'll need a minimum of 166 tournament medals awarded to him in addition to whatever else he is owed and that is just one player.
It takes time, but not impossible. Things are nicely organized in most cases, so can work through it catagory by catagory. With multiple departments potentially chipping in, it wouldn’t be that hard.
When clans first started doing medals they retroactively had to do a bunch, it can be done. Tournaments would be the biggest backlog, and once other departments like clans / cartos issued theirs they could pitch in to help TD’s
I think you're way underestimating the time commitment for that. I'd support extending the scale for those who have passed the 200 limit but not removing it.
Youre talking here only on tournaments, many tiers stop at 30 / 50, not 200. But again, to reiterate all medals should be given / counted. I don't want to start picking and choosing all over again who gets what. They are all deserved imo. I'm not underestimating anything though, I understand its a big job. But its a worthwhile one.
You're selectively reading my argument yet again so nice try. I know I'm speaking about tournaments specifically in my post as that was the example I picked. It's an example, examples don't cover all of the scenarios they illustrate them. Now extrapolate my example through all the departments and you have the real issue.
You also conveniently neglect to acknowledge my other point where I support extending all of the limits. I don't think there should be limits at all, so just extend them well beyond whatever our top players have. Give people new goals to reach instead of changing our minds and creating a massive amount of work. Let's add another level beyond platinum, hell that's how we got platinum medals. Add more tiers past 200 or say after 200 you get one for one. Add new medals, particularly a zombie one. A few ideas there to drive people towards looking at future goals instead of looking back at what they've already done, that's how you create a future.
As I said, lot of the departments won't be that hard. Extrapolating through all departments really won't be that bad, because of this.
Again, completely missing my point and making your own.
I didn't "conveniently neglect" anything. You said a single sentence without explaining what you meant, so it made no sense to me at the time. Extending the tiers / limits just kicks the can down the road, but thats fine too. We can make everything 1,000 and then effectively, there are no limits. Thats fine with me. Regarding Platniums etc, thats a bit different then my suggestion as I'm talking about the medal tiers, not adding a new level for the standard ones. But sure, same concept. Start a suggestion and I'll support it. Regardless tho, extending the limits and not retroactively issuing the others totally defeats the purpose of the suggestion. So..yeah, not one without the other, IMO. There are people willing to do the work, so what does it matter that its a lot of work? If you don't want to help, then don't.
I thought my statement was simple enough to stand on it's own. My bad, I'll explain in more depth next time. Not trying to "kick the can down the road." No limits, I'm for it. New medals at some point have to be made with the Roman Numerals on them (just look at both of our GC's right now), Wham isn't going to make an infinite number of them. So what I'm suggesting is set the new tiers and corresponding medals well past wherever we are and when people reach them we can create more following the same system. I understand your suggestion pertains only to medal tiers, I'm suggesting we look at the site as a whole and not just your tiers. If we're extending some why not extend them all? Yes they're different structure but still the same issue, people have maxed them out and need more to earn.
You can have past and future, you don't have to pick one or the other.
We do have a past, you're attempting to re-write it because you don't like how it happened the first time. The tiers were agreed to at the time, be it "right" or "wrong" in your opinion.CatchersMitt14 wrote:IcePack wrote:I agree it should have been lifted long ago (I would have preferred there never being a tier limit, but I can't go back in the past).
I understand it will take time. But again, thats time well spent and something that can be worked on / finished with time. It doesn't have to be done / completed in a day
This is my favorite part though, you talk about not being able to go back in the past but that's exactly what you're proposing we do. Oops, we changed our minds, let's try this again.
I meant I can't go back and stop the tiers from happening. No need to be a smart ass. I'm not changing my mind, I'm saying all medals should be represented and the old ones issued. Its pretty clear here.CatchersMitt14 wrote:IcePack wrote:In order to satisfy the current thought / desire / set up to have the medal scoreboard being "fair" (whatever that means) from category to category, a medal weight calculation can be made for the medal scoreboard in lieu of the current restricting maximum medals (I won't make this calculation attempt, as it should be a separate suggestion since I'm not keen nor understanding of the current desire for weighted "fair" medals, someone else should lead that effort)
We as a site will never be able to agree to what "fair" means. That's how we ended up with the arguments in the past over tiers and limits. Basically this is just changing the argument from tiers on medals to how to weight medals on the scoreboard. Just trading one fight for another. This "weighting" you're suggesting is taken care of by the tiered system already. It's really serving the same purpose, just one happens on the front side and one on the back.
Funny, at some point they did agree what fair was, which is how the tiers got implemented to begin with. So I guess thats really a non issue, huh?
It does basically transfer the tier limits to the weighting, you are correct there. But then it allows those who believe all medals earned should be issued to also be represented, instead of restricting one view over the other. And, as I indicated in the OP, there are other benefits to this as well such as encouraging people to continue in a section instead of stopping at the tier and not participating, or leaving altogether because the one area they are interested in they no longer can receive recognition for.
So I can't be a smart-ass but it's okay if you are? Got it. Well, really you made that point very clear to me a long time ago I'm just glad it's out in the open now. Actually, people rarely agree so there will be an issue, it's the majority winning or accepting at the least objectionable solution. A recent example being the resign button you're so adamantly against. It was implemented site wide yet there are still individuals outraged about it. I'm agreeing with your ultimate goal just disagreeing with your solution. Add more tiers (what increments those are, I'm not sure right now I haven't had enough time to think about it). This achieves your goal of giving them continuation and recognition in all the categories.
CatchersMitt14 wrote:Again, completely missing my point and making your own.
We do have a past, you're attempting to re-write it because you don't like how it happened the first time. The tiers were agreed to at the time, be it "right" or "wrong" in your opinion.
So I can't be a smart-ass but it's okay if you are? Got it. Well, really you made that point very clear to me a long time ago I'm just glad it's out in the open now. Actually, people rarely agree so there will be an issue, it's the majority winning or accepting at the least objectionable solution. A recent example being the resign button you're so adamantly against. It was implemented site wide yet there are still individuals outraged about it. I'm agreeing with your ultimate goal just disagreeing with your solution. Add more tiers (what increments those are, I'm not sure right now I haven't had enough time to think about it). This achieves your goal of giving them continuation and recognition in all the categories.
IcePack wrote:Currently there are entire clans that have basically maxed out and will likely never receive another medal, thereby basically killing the activity of the clan
Currently there are map makers who have 30+ who stopped making maps because they stopped getting medals for them
Currently there are tournament organizers who maxed out and have no incentive to continue making new unique tournaments for the community
CatchersMitt14 wrote:You're selectively reading my argument yet again so nice try. I know I'm speaking about tournaments specifically in my post as that was the example I picked. It's an example, examples don't cover all of the scenarios they illustrate them. Now extrapolate my example through all the departments and you have the real issue.
In order to satisfy the current thought / desire / set up to have the medal scoreboard being "fair" (whatever that means) from category to category, a medal weight calculation can be made for the medal scoreboard in lieu of the current restricting maximum medals (I won't make this calculation attempt, as it should be a separate suggestion since I'm not keen nor understanding of the current desire for weighted "fair" medals, someone else should lead that effort)
Donelladan wrote:IcePack wrote:Currently there are entire clans that have basically maxed out and will likely never receive another medal, thereby basically killing the activity of the clan
Currently there are map makers who have 30+ who stopped making maps because they stopped getting medals for them
Currently there are tournament organizers who maxed out and have no incentive to continue making new unique tournaments for the community
I am really doubtful about that part of your argument.
First because I don't think that many players are concerned, second because I'd be surprised to know that clans players play for the medal, or that the most prolific mapmakers were doing it for the medal ( = if you only did one map, maybe it was because of the medals, if you've done more than 20 maps, I think you like doing it and the medal is kinda irrelevant).
Sure enough I might be wrong, but really I don't believe any one in my clan would stop playing clans game if you were to remove all clans medals forever.
Are we happy to have them ? Yes, and I totally agree with you it is really nice to be able to see what war we won. But actually that is what matter, replace medals by a nice list of all the wars we won and we'd be just as happy as with the medals. Current clan war tab kinda does it already. I mean what matter is the memory of the achievement , not the medal. And for many I'd assume neither matter, they just enjoy competitive team games.
So for example, concerning clans, only 15 players maxed out clans medals. That doesnt seems much to me. And mainly 2 clans are concerned, OSA and TNC. Maybe you do have information that I don't concerning them, but is it really the absence of medals that is killed TNC and is reducing activity at OSA and not just that those are old clans with old players that are just not into CC anymore ?
Btw, this argument works for and against that suggestion. It means it would be quite easy for the CDs to issue the missing medals if this suggestion was implemented, because there are very few players concerned (15). So totally doable.
Looking at tournament achievement, you've got 55 players with 30 medals, 25 with 31 medals and 4 players with more than that.
84 players concerned.
For mapmaking achievement, actually no one is concerned.
For tournament organization you go 40 players with 30 medals, 27 with 31 medals, 10 with 32 medals, 7 with 33 medals and 5 with 34 medals.
This one would probably be very tedious to do if we were willing to research all of it, especially because of all the people with 32,33 and 34 medals.CatchersMitt14 wrote:You're selectively reading my argument yet again so nice try. I know I'm speaking about tournaments specifically in my post as that was the example I picked. It's an example, examples don't cover all of the scenarios they illustrate them. Now extrapolate my example through all the departments and you have the real issue.
After having a look at it, seems to me IcePack is right. It is only a problem for tournaments.
The only other departments concerned is clan department and they only have 15 players to care about, with a clan tabs already listing all the wars.
I slightly changed my mind while writing my post.
I think only few peoples are concerned, and after having a look at it, many of them already quit CC anyways. BUT, people concerned by this suggestions are some of the most active CC players, obviously, thus making more activity than the average players. So even if only few are concerned, this is important.
Concerning fairness for number of medals, I didn't really understand that :In order to satisfy the current thought / desire / set up to have the medal scoreboard being "fair" (whatever that means) from category to category, a medal weight calculation can be made for the medal scoreboard in lieu of the current restricting maximum medals (I won't make this calculation attempt, as it should be a separate suggestion since I'm not keen nor understanding of the current desire for weighted "fair" medals, someone else should lead that effort)
I think there must be easier ways to do it. Just count the medal like we are doing it now ( so 30 medals up to 30 tournaments won/organized, 1 for 50 1 for 100 and 1 for 200) but do issue all of them. So that if I click on a player wall, instead of having 30 medals for each tournament, then 31 for 50, 32 for 100 etc, I have all the tournaments. But they dont add up to the total of medals.
That way the achievement is visible on someone wall, they can have the link to all the tournaments they ever organized/won on their wall, but their medals counts isn't incredibly inflated.
That or either make medals counts exclude all medals but the ones that follow the bronze/silver/gold/platinum pattern.
Would be much better imo.
Exclude challenge achievement, tournament achievement, general contributions, clan war, tribe achievement, mapmaking contribution, tournament organizing, general achievement from the total medals.
This way we have a medal counts only taking into account the "settings medals" ( dunno how to call them), and on each person wall, we do have the real total number of tournaments wons, clan wars wons, tournaments organized.
Fair for everyone.
Actually I do find it quite unfair that people at the tops of the medals counts are currently people with 30 tournaments won, 30 tournaments organized and many clans wars, rather than people that are full platinum, which is way more of an achievement.
Now concerning the problem of the tons of works for admins / volunteer to issue the medals.
Well let's just ignore it alltogether.
We remove the tiers FROM NOW ON. And for the players that are still active and have more than 30 tournaments organized/wons, they can get the medals if they make the research themselves, then send a pm with a link to each tournaments topic that they've won/organized. Problems solved for the volunteers and the admins.
Anyway most people that are above the limits are inactive.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users