Conquer Club

HighlanderAttack wrote:I like this idea.

blakebowling wrote:The problem (on the technical side) lies with how the medals are generated. Currently, they're two parts that are put together when the page loads (one part that has the big background of the medal, and the other that has the number. It's difficult to generate number images that match up with the medal size, so the existing approach is used instead (pre-generated images). It's possible to chnage it over, but it would require a lot of coding time, that I personally think could be spent somewhere more beneficial to a larger portion of the community.

Also, Roman Numerals vs Arabic numbers don't change the problem, as you can calculate the roman numeral form of any arabic number.

HighlanderAttack wrote:

blakebowling wrote:The problem (on the technical side) lies with how the medals are generated. Currently, they're two parts that are put together when the page loads (one part that has the big background of the medal, and the other that has the number. It's difficult to generate number images that match up with the medal size, so the existing approach is used instead (pre-generated images). It's possible to chnage it over, but it would require a lot of coding time, that I personally think could be spent somewhere more beneficial to a larger portion of the community.

Also, Roman Numerals vs Arabic numbers don't change the problem, as you can calculate the roman numeral form of any arabic number.

So if there was no cap, your saying it is hard to generate 175 onto the medal for example.

greenoaks wrote:why stop at 999.

raise it to 9999 so merch and HA have something to strive for.

koontz1973 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:why stop at 999.

raise it to 9999 so merch and HA have something to strive for.

Don't jest. When one does reach the 999, this will come up again.

Dukasaur wrote:I don't know if it will help, but let me try to be the voice of reason.

Basically this proposal removes the medal cap. That means people will be able to rise to the top of the medals scoreboard by doing the easiest thing imaginable. At present, that is making 16-player single elim tournaments. I estimate the total time one has to invest in making one of those, from start to finish, is less than half an hour. Obviously, it takes more the first time when you're learning, but once you have it all figured out you can definitely crank them out for under half an hour actual work output. Most of us in the tournament world have more self-respect than to do that. I've done a couple of those, just for a break, but I go back to making serious tournaments right after. But if you allow indefinite medals for doing this, then for sure you will have some GLG type come along and farm the system, and crank out 999 half hour tournaments. Is this really what you want? A new generation of farmers?

Right now we have a good system, which rewards people for stretching themselves. If you want to get into contention and have 100+ medals, you have to push yourself in different directions, play different maps, try fog, freestyle, trench, and so on and so forth, work to get GA medals and GC medals and so on. If you allow someone to race up the medals scoreboard for cheap half-hour tour you kiss all that goodbye.

It takes six months of service on Team CC to get one GC medal. Right now it's worth it. Getting into the 100 medals club is difficult enough that having even three or four GCs in there is worth it. But if you flood the market with easy medals, why would someone do so much work? Seriously, why would I work as hard as I do making sure the newsletter comes out, probably 10 hours of work per issue, or about 120 hours of work in the six-month period, if I can just invest 30 minutes, crank out one more 16-player bracket tournament, and get just as far up the medals scoreboard? Is that really what your want? To kill the volunteer pool?

(And similar things could be said about service as a mapmaker.)

I suppose I don't have to worry too much. This proposal is not going to pass. But if it did, I would quit this site. I'm proud of my medal collection. 69 of my 76 medals involved serious exertion of some kind -- that's exactly 90%. Which is a decent balance: if 90% of your medals are tough, and you throw in some easy ones once in a while, that's a decent system. But if someone can come in and just zoom past you doing only what is easy, WTF would be the point of trying?

chapcrap wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I don't know if it will help, but let me try to be the voice of reason.

Basically this proposal removes the medal cap. That means people will be able to rise to the top of the medals scoreboard by doing the easiest thing imaginable. At present, that is making 16-player single elim tournaments. I estimate the total time one has to invest in making one of those, from start to finish, is less than half an hour. Obviously, it takes more the first time when you're learning, but once you have it all figured out you can definitely crank them out for under half an hour actual work output. Most of us in the tournament world have more self-respect than to do that. I've done a couple of those, just for a break, but I go back to making serious tournaments right after. But if you allow indefinite medals for doing this, then for sure you will have some GLG type come along and farm the system, and crank out 999 half hour tournaments. Is this really what you want? A new generation of farmers?

Right now we have a good system, which rewards people for stretching themselves. If you want to get into contention and have 100+ medals, you have to push yourself in different directions, play different maps, try fog, freestyle, trench, and so on and so forth, work to get GA medals and GC medals and so on. If you allow someone to race up the medals scoreboard for cheap half-hour tour you kiss all that goodbye.

It takes six months of service on Team CC to get one GC medal. Right now it's worth it. Getting into the 100 medals club is difficult enough that having even three or four GCs in there is worth it. But if you flood the market with easy medals, why would someone do so much work? Seriously, why would I work as hard as I do making sure the newsletter comes out, probably 10 hours of work per issue, or about 120 hours of work in the six-month period, if I can just invest 30 minutes, crank out one more 16-player bracket tournament, and get just as far up the medals scoreboard? Is that really what your want? To kill the volunteer pool?

(And similar things could be said about service as a mapmaker.)

I suppose I don't have to worry too much. This proposal is not going to pass. But if it did, I would quit this site. I'm proud of my medal collection. 69 of my 76 medals involved serious exertion of some kind -- that's exactly 90%. Which is a decent balance: if 90% of your medals are tough, and you throw in some easy ones once in a while, that's a decent system. But if someone can come in and just zoom past you doing only what is easy, WTF would be the point of trying?

I agree with most of this. I think there are probably even easier tournaments than a 16 player bracket. An 8 team doubles single elimination seems easier to me. Maybe it's a push. But what about the GLG tournaments where all he did was create four 8 player games for the whole tournament? Bottom line, diluting the medal pool is bad.

greenoaks wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:why stop at 999.

raise it to 9999 so merch and HA have something to strive for.

Don't jest. When one does reach the 999, this will come up again.

i'm not jesting. i know this will be brought up again, so long as CC survives.

Dukasaur wrote:
I suppose I don't have to worry too much. This proposal is not going to pass. But if it did, I would quit this site. I'm proud of my medal collection. 69 of my 76 medals involved serious exertion of some kind -- that's exactly 90%. Which is a decent balance: if 90% of your medals are tough, and you throw in some easy ones once in a while, that's a decent system. But if someone can come in and just zoom past you doing only what is easy, WTF would be the point of trying?

MoB Deadly wrote:I am happy with the current improvements that were announced this morning. If my opinion changes after the actual implementation, I will be back to recast my vote.

rdsrds2120 wrote:qwert, I can give you a definite no --we will not be changing to Arabic. We have some new medals already made with Roman Numerals and they work fine (to be released soon!). Going to go ahead and give an Admin Veto on this suggestion.

BMO