ztodd wrote:So, why do you keep saying "All you need to do is join and win at least one game..." ? That doesn't seem to be true, since later on you say we need at least X number of points for a medal. Am I not understanding correctly, or was that left in by accident, or are you confused?
I'm kind of curious on this myself. I've had several clan mates thinking we could start up a few games and anyone who won one would be eligible based on this statement. I have shown them the rules but I think it should at least say 5 games as that's the minimum to get any medal if you win ALL games.
To join the challenge, one needs to only play one game. To complete the challenge, one needs x points.
So it's not required to win any games to complete the challenge? Better revise that a bit. It should say "All you need to do to join the challenge is join and win at least one game".
ztodd wrote:Also don't know what you mean by "Challenges only come around once, if you miss it, you won't ever have another chance." They seem to come around every month, don't they?
Don't be that guy.
Don't be what guy? I'm not trying to be smart-alek, just trying to find out if there's something I'm not understanding. and to help the post be accurate- I thought he would want that. I guess he means there will never be this same exact type of challenge with this same map and settings- is that right?
ztodd wrote:So, why do you keep saying "All you need to do is join and win at least one game..." ? That doesn't seem to be true, since later on you say we need at least X number of points for a medal. Am I not understanding correctly, or was that left in by accident, or are you confused?
I'm kind of curious on this myself. I've had several clan mates thinking we could start up a few games and anyone who won one would be eligible based on this statement. I have shown them the rules but I think it should at least say 5 games as that's the minimum to get any medal if you win ALL games.
To join the challenge, one needs to only play one game. To complete the challenge, one needs x points.
So it's not required to win any games to complete the challenge? Better revise that a bit. It should say "All you need to do to join the challenge is join and win at least one game".
I can't imagine someone joining 150 and not winning one.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote:The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over..
ztodd wrote:So, why do you keep saying "All you need to do is join and win at least one game..." ? That doesn't seem to be true, since later on you say we need at least X number of points for a medal. Am I not understanding correctly, or was that left in by accident, or are you confused?
I'm kind of curious on this myself. I've had several clan mates thinking we could start up a few games and anyone who won one would be eligible based on this statement. I have shown them the rules but I think it should at least say 5 games as that's the minimum to get any medal if you win ALL games.
To join the challenge, one needs to only play one game. To complete the challenge, one needs x points.
So it's not required to win any games to complete the challenge? Better revise that a bit. It should say "All you need to do to join the challenge is join and win at least one game".
I can't imagine someone joining 150 and not winning one.
I don't understand your point- are you giving that as a reason to not revise your original post? Or just making an un-related comment?
A person is not required to join 150 games, neither to join the challenge, nor to complete it. Right?
cooldeals wrote:How is joining 150 games a challenge. Perhaps if you want to make it harder you should make it so people actually have to win games instead of being able to medal while winning 1 in 20 games. I've done all the challenge medals but these settings with no escalating would probably cause me to quit the site at some point when I have to skip work to play turns.
i am so damn confused...-el Jesus negro
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
ztodd wrote:So, why do you keep saying "All you need to do is join and win at least one game..." ? That doesn't seem to be true, since later on you say we need at least X number of points for a medal. Am I not understanding correctly, or was that left in by accident, or are you confused?
I'm kind of curious on this myself. I've had several clan mates thinking we could start up a few games and anyone who won one would be eligible based on this statement. I have shown them the rules but I think it should at least say 5 games as that's the minimum to get any medal if you win ALL games.
To join the challenge, one needs to only play one game. To complete the challenge, one needs x points.
So it's not required to win any games to complete the challenge? Better revise that a bit. It should say "All you need to do to join the challenge is join and win at least one game".
I can't imagine someone joining 150 and not winning one.
I don't understand your point- are you giving that as a reason to not revise your original post? Or just making an un-related comment?
A person is not required to join 150 games, neither to join the challenge, nor to complete it. Right?
Correct. 150 is for the next level.
Let's use the 50 point example. My main thinking is that the split in reward between a join (1 point) and a win (10 points) is enough to not necessitate any changes to the requirements. If someone wins 5 games, they win the best way. If they win 2-4 games, there is no shame in that either. That will still require joining 10-30 games. If someone doesn't win any games, they would have to join 50 games! That's an accomplishment in and of itself.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote:The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over..
Well, just won one, that feels good! And the most important question:
Do I get to keep the challenge tokens in my inventory after May? Or do they disappear like the Easter eggs? After all, I only play this game to collect a treasure hoard.
Captain Jewbeard wrote:Well, just won one, that feels good! And the most important question:
Do I get to keep the challenge tokens in my inventory after May? Or do they disappear like the Easter eggs? After all, I only play this game to collect a treasure hoard.
What tokens???
Stormbringer is thirsty --- Thursting for YOUR Soul!
They will vanish. Easter eggs should come back next year.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote:The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over..
Looks like a couple people have mentioned what I was going to say, but I think there should be a max limit on the number of games you can join for each monthly challenge...
It doesn't have to be super small - maybe 50 games or something like that?
Not sure if this is the correct place for feedback on the challenges in general and the May challenge in specific, but here goes.
I like the challenges. - Especially the fact that they introduce me to maps and settings that I might not otherwise have tried out. - Also that it "forces" me to play enough to actually learn a map and settings options (better).
Not all the challenges have been playing to my strong points. That is to say a couple have been with maps and settings where I show even less talent than I usually do on the site, while especially one was playing more to the point of an undiscovered stronger point with me as well as providing enough luck for some good results. Im finding that most work for (and against) me in the manner much like the May challenge: that I join a smaller or greater stack of games depending on time and interest. Then I make a bunch of mistakes, lose a lot of games, but slowly I learn some ins and outs of the map, improve some timing and the results start climbing some. - Sometimes even to a point where the stop being completely embarrassing
I like that part too. I think it does expand my horizons and my experiences in the game, and I think Im not the only one.
I get the feeling its somewhat of a work in progress, where different angles are tried out. One thing I would like to see explored is the points system. - Specifically in regards to the level of effort and skill required to get the medals.
To my mind effort is all well and good, and I do think that a ratio of 1 point for joining a game and 10 for winning one is a good ratio. - If it should be changed, I might up the points a bit for winning or lower them a bit for joining, but thats not a main point.
I do however think that there should be more focus on skill than on (simple) effort (i.e. joining vast amount of games and playing them with reasonable effort) - especially for the "hardcore" medal.
* 1) Im thinking that taking the may setup as the working example, a max cap on bronze join tokens could work well. Depending on the balance you wanted to achieve, it could for example be max 40 bronze tokens. - The medal would then require one win on top of joining 40 games, which should be achievable for everybody. - And if not, possibly a medal isnt deserved then?. 11 wins would then be required for the hardcore medal, which seems apt(er), as that will require skill and if the skill is limited a lot more effort. To clarify, the max cap would be on the tokens, not on the games joined. - You could still join 1000 games and thus statistically up your chances of winning enough games. - You would just get a max of 40 points for joining and the rest of the points would have to come from winning.
Personally I would prefer tweaking it a bit harder still and max capping the join points at 20. This would signal that a medal should be achievable with 20 games as playing games with people of equal skill should average you 3 wins (3,33) with 20 games and thus the 50 points required. - The hardcore medal is then actually hardcore, though its still possible to put in a lot of effort and join massive numbers of games to get enough wins.
*2) Alternately or even added to the setup, you could do a star prize or even a medal for the player that met each medal criteria - or just the hard core medal criteria with the fewest games. For the may challenge, a normal medal could be taken with 5 games, a hardcore medal with 14. Skill and luck required of course, and you would have to go for that challenge instead of the most points challenge. - I dont think you could put it in as simply counting the games in by number to see who got it first as that is open to and perhaps even invites manipulation. (A player could setup 100 games with passwords and only invite players to the last ones, only starting the earlier games if he wasnt happy with the win-ratio). Still, I think the choice would be appealing to some even though it would mean that for some challenges you would only join the number of games required for a perfect run, then add one game each time you lost. - It is of course also possible to have a try at it and then if someone sets up a run that you simply cant beat, then join a bunch of games and get in play on the regular scoreboard.
Youve probably considered or are considering something along those lines already. Just thought Id put it out there.
PM me for an invite to Ikariam, a balanced strategy MMORPG centered on a city-based empire. Help and extra resources from me and an extra tradships and a small science bonus to both of us if you do :-)
Personally I would prefer tweaking it a bit harder still and max capping the join points at 20. This would signal that a medal should be achievable with 20 games as playing games with people of equal skill should average you 3 wins (3,33) with 20 games and thus the 50 points required. - The hardcore medal is then actually hardcore, though its still possible to put in a lot of effort and join massive numbers of games to get enough wins.
At 20?
Then for this challenge you would have to win 13 out of the 20 six player games to get it. It's a challenge, not an impossibility
Personally I would prefer tweaking it a bit harder still and max capping the join points at 20. This would signal that a medal should be achievable with 20 games as playing games with people of equal skill should average you 3 wins (3,33) with 20 games and thus the 50 points required. - The hardcore medal is then actually hardcore, though its still possible to put in a lot of effort and join massive numbers of games to get enough wins.
At 20?
Then for this challenge you would have to win 13 out of the 20 six player games to get it. It's a challenge, not an impossibility
Yeah. Well Im actually not suggesting it that hard core
My suggestion is that you can still start as many game as you want, but the bronze points for playing would be capped at 20/40.
But it is of course possible making it very hard core by capping the number of games that will count.
PM me for an invite to Ikariam, a balanced strategy MMORPG centered on a city-based empire. Help and extra resources from me and an extra tradships and a small science bonus to both of us if you do :-)
Personally I would prefer tweaking it a bit harder still and max capping the join points at 20. This would signal that a medal should be achievable with 20 games as playing games with people of equal skill should average you 3 wins (3,33) with 20 games and thus the 50 points required. - The hardcore medal is then actually hardcore, though its still possible to put in a lot of effort and join massive numbers of games to get enough wins.
At 20?
Then for this challenge you would have to win 13 out of the 20 six player games to get it. It's a challenge, not an impossibility
Tviorr wrote:Yeah. Well Im actually not suggesting it that hard core
My suggestion is that you can still start as many game as you want, but the bronze points for playing would be capped at 20/40.
But it is of course possible making it very hard core by capping the number of games that will count.
No way to really code a game count limit like you suggest. Not using the current system anyway.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote:The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over..
