Conquer Club

betiko wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:I see no reason not to have this. But some ideas and this would put a hold onto this. Wait till the maps have been categorised and have a ribbon for each of the categories not for each map. We can the have a few ribbons without getting into the hundreds. Make the unique kills higher, around 200, and you have a winner all round. Smaller categories would then be harder to get and force players to move out of comfort zones. With the less ribbons, players would be able to see at a glance what you have and know straight away what you are good at.

getting players out of their comfort zone is precisely what medals are for so it's a bad argument IMO.
Also it would be yet another incentive for players to try out different maps.


qwert, why not bronze silver gold for each? you now want just 1 type? I really think 5-25-100 would be the best, I just checked and there are some maps I've played shitloads of times where I don't even have 100 uniques. No way on infrequent maps I will ever reach 100 on all. Also I like the bronze being at 5 because it corresponds to the crossmap and you therefore know which maps are crossmapped.

Some players have 40 maps where they have 100 defeats. It would be impractical to implement this suggestion.

betiko wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:I see no reason not to have this. But some ideas and this would put a hold onto this. Wait till the maps have been categorised and have a ribbon for each of the categories not for each map. We can the have a few ribbons without getting into the hundreds. Make the unique kills higher, around 200, and you have a winner all round. Smaller categories would then be harder to get and force players to move out of comfort zones. With the less ribbons, players would be able to see at a glance what you have and know straight away what you are good at.

getting players out of their comfort zone is precisely what medals are for so it's a bad argument IMO.
Also it would be yet another incentive for players to try out different maps.


qwert, why not bronze silver gold for each? you now want just 1 type? I really think 5-25-100 would be the best, I just checked and there are some maps I've played shitloads of times where I don't even have 100 uniques. No way on infrequent maps I will ever reach 100 on all. Also I like the bronze being at 5 because it corresponds to the crossmap and you therefore know which maps are crossmapped.

Because 1 ribbon per map, will be proper reward, three tipe of ribbons per map will be to much and to easy,and we dont want to have some inflation of ribbons, and ofcourse that you can not have all ribbons, and these its not meant to be easy award.
Someone will have WWII poland Ribbon,and will not have WW II Ardennes ribbon, but some other will have quite opposite.
People need to earn these ribbon, not just to get for every 5 kills. I mine self also dont have to much kills, but if these be implemented,then i will try to earn some of these ribbons.

Gillipig wrote:

betiko wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:I see no reason not to have this. But some ideas and this would put a hold onto this. Wait till the maps have been categorised and have a ribbon for each of the categories not for each map. We can the have a few ribbons without getting into the hundreds. Make the unique kills higher, around 200, and you have a winner all round. Smaller categories would then be harder to get and force players to move out of comfort zones. With the less ribbons, players would be able to see at a glance what you have and know straight away what you are good at.

getting players out of their comfort zone is precisely what medals are for so it's a bad argument IMO.
Also it would be yet another incentive for players to try out different maps.


qwert, why not bronze silver gold for each? you now want just 1 type? I really think 5-25-100 would be the best, I just checked and there are some maps I've played shitloads of times where I don't even have 100 uniques. No way on infrequent maps I will ever reach 100 on all. Also I like the bronze being at 5 because it corresponds to the crossmap and you therefore know which maps are crossmapped.

Some players have 40 maps where they have 100 defeats. It would be impractical to implement this suggestion.

I dont quite understand what you say?

qwert wrote:

betiko wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:I see no reason not to have this. But some ideas and this would put a hold onto this. Wait till the maps have been categorised and have a ribbon for each of the categories not for each map. We can the have a few ribbons without getting into the hundreds. Make the unique kills higher, around 200, and you have a winner all round. Smaller categories would then be harder to get and force players to move out of comfort zones. With the less ribbons, players would be able to see at a glance what you have and know straight away what you are good at.

getting players out of their comfort zone is precisely what medals are for so it's a bad argument IMO.
Also it would be yet another incentive for players to try out different maps.


qwert, why not bronze silver gold for each? you now want just 1 type? I really think 5-25-100 would be the best, I just checked and there are some maps I've played shitloads of times where I don't even have 100 uniques. No way on infrequent maps I will ever reach 100 on all. Also I like the bronze being at 5 because it corresponds to the crossmap and you therefore know which maps are crossmapped.

Because 1 ribbon per map, will be proper reward, three tipe of ribbons per map will be to much and to easy,and we dont want to have some inflation of ribbons, and ofcourse that you can not have all ribbons, and these its not meant to be easy award.
Someone will have WWII poland Ribbon,and will not have WW II Ardennes ribbon, but some other will have quite opposite.
People need to earn these ribbon, not just to get for every 5 kills. I mine self also dont have to much kills, but if these be implemented,then i will try to earn some of these ribbons.

Gillipig wrote:

betiko wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:I see no reason not to have this. But some ideas and this would put a hold onto this. Wait till the maps have been categorised and have a ribbon for each of the categories not for each map. We can the have a few ribbons without getting into the hundreds. Make the unique kills higher, around 200, and you have a winner all round. Smaller categories would then be harder to get and force players to move out of comfort zones. With the less ribbons, players would be able to see at a glance what you have and know straight away what you are good at.

getting players out of their comfort zone is precisely what medals are for so it's a bad argument IMO.
Also it would be yet another incentive for players to try out different maps.


qwert, why not bronze silver gold for each? you now want just 1 type? I really think 5-25-100 would be the best, I just checked and there are some maps I've played shitloads of times where I don't even have 100 uniques. No way on infrequent maps I will ever reach 100 on all. Also I like the bronze being at 5 because it corresponds to the crossmap and you therefore know which maps are crossmapped.

Some players have 40 maps where they have 100 defeats. It would be impractical to implement this suggestion.

I dont quite understand what you say?

Mageplunka69 has 40 maps where he deserves a ribbon. So somehow we would have to put 40 ribbons on his profile page. One or two or three might work, but 40?

Well i dont know how much award can be put in Profile page, but consider that you have awards not display directly,only when you press Award button,i think that these its not problem.
But when i look on anyone profile, i think that some redesign need to hepend,because to much space take small description of medals, and medal cover quite small space in profil page. In other words, you have many waste space in your medal page.

yes there is no reason not to put more medals per line, right now it goes to the next line after 5 medals, there is 16 type of gameplay medals so you could put at least 8/10 per line.
And I don't see where is the problem if some players have 40 ribbons. If you get 10 ribbons per line max, who cares for the slight extra scrolling, it's just on your wall page, I don't see why it should bother, most of all if you gain space on the medal part.

and these even dont need to write nothing belove any ribbon,only when you put mouse over ribbon,can show ribbon name.
If you notice in one medal line,can put easy 10 ribbons.

Neat idea.

qwert wrote:and these even dont need to write nothing belove any ribbon,only when you put mouse over ribbon,can show ribbon name.
If you notice in one medal line,can put easy 10 ribbons.

I suppose that could work actually. It would be fun to have Imperium Romanum on a ribbon. Imp Rom is the only map would I qualify to have, at 245 unique defeats I feel safe even if the limit would be lifted to 200 lol.

Gillipig wrote:

qwert wrote:and these even dont need to write nothing belove any ribbon,only when you put mouse over ribbon,can show ribbon name.
If you notice in one medal line,can put easy 10 ribbons.

I suppose that could work actually. It would be fun to have Imperium Romanum on a ribbon. Imp Rom is the only map would I qualify to have, at 245 unique defeats I feel safe even if the limit would be lifted to 200 lol.

actually how we discover -even 200 Unique Defeated Player on one map, are to high, so maybe will go down to 100 UDP.
Because what the point of Award if only small number of people can be recipient .
With 100UDP you will qualify ----lol even with these number you still be qualify for Imperium Romanum .

if the ribbon had a bronze band, silver band or gold band it would indicate if you have 20, 100 or 400 uniques on that map. it would also be the spot where the platinum band would go when that is soon introduced

there is no point putting the levels so low that almost everyone achieves it as then it is meaningless.

I really really like this idea. Not sure if it should be exactly ribbons, but I think there should be an award for every single map. It encourages users to master a map (getting a gold one), and also encourages users to explore new maps, but having a lot of them.

I don't think it should count towards a players' medal count though. I like how it is a section on a person's profile.

nice idea qwert

qwert wrote:""by greenoaks on Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:19 pm

unique defeats are unique defeats. why limit it to only those from 3+ player games ?""
yes i see, i dont know why i put 2 player minimum, maybe whas some discussion, and i put 2 unique opponents.
Well if these be accepted,maybe we will have some personal topic to discuss abouth these medal implementation( who know when will these been submited)

There has been some discussion about keeping 2 player games, awards seperate from others because the strategies and other factors differ significantly. I am guessing that is part of why a limit was proposed?

From my perspective, I play almost solely 1 vs 1.. though I have not played much of anything for a few months. I have always found 1 vs1 to be a decent, quick way to learn a map's basic structure and rules. However, I would never pretend that the strategies are the same for multiple player games.


On that regard, though I see a 4 person as more of a dividing line.. though that might be highly debatable. 2 player, 3 player and group play each seem to have different strategies, but once you get past 3, the strategies seem to essentially merge...t hough the intensity and some luck factors, etc differ. (not saying they are the same, just more similar than 3 player or 2 player).

2 player are often a lot luck, though strategy certainly applies.
3 player can be either a true 3 way game or can wind up being 1 versus 2.
4 player and more, to contrast are always multiple strategies.

MoB Deadly wrote:I really really like this idea. Not sure if it should be exactly ribbons, but I think there should be an award for every single map. It encourages users to master a map (getting a gold one), and also encourages users to explore new maps, but having a lot of them.

I don't think it should count towards a players' medal count though. I like how it is a section on a person's profile.

nice idea qwert

I have always liked the idea of rewarding people who play a diversity of maps, rather than necessarily just winning on their specialty map and settings. However, a large part of CC seems highly oriented toward the oppossit. They want to label one person "Conquerer" overall.. never mind if that has anything to do with a true measure of overall skill or not. Part of this is the mindset of whether there even should be such a range of diverse maps.

Ribbons might be a good way to go.. but it seems as if administration has more or less stymied, is not really accepting much change any longer.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

MoB Deadly wrote:I really really like this idea. Not sure if it should be exactly ribbons, but I think there should be an award for every single map. It encourages users to master a map (getting a gold one), and also encourages users to explore new maps, but having a lot of them.

I don't think it should count towards a players' medal count though. I like how it is a section on a person's profile.

nice idea qwert

I have always liked the idea of rewarding people who play a diversity of maps, rather than necessarily just winning on their specialty map and settings. However, a large part of CC seems highly oriented toward the oppossit. They want to label one person "Conquerer" overall.. never mind if that has anything to do with a true measure of overall skill or not. Part of this is the mindset of whether there even should be such a range of diverse maps.

Ribbons might be a good way to go.. but it seems as if administration has more or less stymied, is not really accepting much change any longer.

The new owner has only been in charge for a few months, lets not jump to any premeditated conclusions please.

Not a fan of this idea. It encourages map specialisation (imo this is the step before farming - not saying all specialists are farmers).
The crossmap medal is the closest thing to this type of medal (and it needs to be revamped to take account of having 200+ maps) but it would make more sense to me to award a medal for each cross map gold achieved e.g. iron maid would have 5 such medals or create platinum and higher medals for crossmap.


Meaningful changes in gameplay, like trench, reward everybody including map specialists by enhancing gameplay, but this looks to be an idea to create awardss for people who have already met the criteria.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

qwert wrote:""by greenoaks on Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:19 pm

unique defeats are unique defeats. why limit it to only those from 3+ player games ?""
yes i see, i dont know why i put 2 player minimum, maybe whas some discussion, and i put 2 unique opponents.
Well if these be accepted,maybe we will have some personal topic to discuss abouth these medal implementation( who know when will these been submited)

There has been some discussion about keeping 2 player games, awards seperate from others because the strategies and other factors differ significantly. I am guessing that is part of why a limit was proposed?

From my perspective, I play almost solely 1 vs 1.. though I have not played much of anything for a few months. I have always found 1 vs1 to be a decent, quick way to learn a map's basic structure and rules. However, I would never pretend that the strategies are the same for multiple player games.


On that regard, though I see a 4 person as more of a dividing line.. though that might be highly debatable. 2 player, 3 player and group play each seem to have different strategies, but once you get past 3, the strategies seem to essentially merge...t hough the intensity and some luck factors, etc differ. (not saying they are the same, just more similar than 3 player or 2 player).

2 player are often a lot luck, though strategy certainly applies.
3 player can be either a true 3 way game or can wind up being 1 versus 2.
4 player and more, to contrast are always multiple strategies.

Its look that you dont follow big change of these sugestion
first -these its not medal its ribbon
second-these only count number of UDP- you can play 2-3-4-5-6-7-8 player game and they will count all UDP from all these games.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

MoB Deadly wrote:I really really like this idea. Not sure if it should be exactly ribbons, but I think there should be an award for every single map. It encourages users to master a map (getting a gold one), and also encourages users to explore new maps, but having a lot of them.

I don't think it should count towards a players' medal count though. I like how it is a section on a person's profile.

nice idea qwert

I have always liked the idea of rewarding people who play a diversity of maps, rather than necessarily just winning on their specialty map and settings. However, a large part of CC seems highly oriented toward the oppossit. They want to label one person "Conquerer" overall.. never mind if that has anything to do with a true measure of overall skill or not. Part of this is the mindset of whether there even should be such a range of diverse maps.

Ribbons might be a good way to go.. but it seems as if administration has more or less stymied, is not really accepting much change any longer.

stymied? what these meant?

sundance123 wrote:Not a fan of this idea. It encourages map specialisation (imo this is the step before farming - not saying all specialists are farmers).
The crossmap medal is the closest thing to this type of medal (and it needs to be revamped to take account of having 200+ maps) but it would make more sense to me to award a medal for each cross map gold achieved e.g. iron maid would have 5 such medals or create platinum and higher medals for crossmap.


Meaningful changes in game play, like trench, reward everybody including map specialists by enhancing game play, but this looks to be an idea to create awards for people who have already met the criteria.

encourage map specialization? Well i dont see any wrong with these. Encourage people to try to play in other maps are very positive side of these suggestion.

sundance123 wrote:Not a fan of this idea. It encourages map specialisation (imo this is the step before farming - not saying all specialists are farmers).
The crossmap medal is the closest thing to this type of medal (and it needs to be revamped to take account of having 200+ maps) but it would make more sense to me to award a medal for each cross map gold achieved e.g. iron maid would have 5 such medals or create platinum and higher medals for crossmap.


Meaningful changes in gameplay, like trench, reward everybody including map specialists by enhancing gameplay, but this looks to be an idea to create awardss for people who have already met the criteria.

I don't agree at all that this would encourage map specialization. It would encourage you to play a lot of maps a lot of times.

Also, there is no way anyone has gotten 5 golds worth of cross maps. There aren't enough maps for that.

chapcrap wrote:

sundance123 wrote:Not a fan of this idea. It encourages map specialisation (imo this is the step before farming - not saying all specialists are farmers).
The crossmap medal is the closest thing to this type of medal (and it needs to be revamped to take account of having 200+ maps) but it would make more sense to me to award a medal for each cross map gold achieved e.g. iron maid would have 5 such medals or create platinum and higher medals for crossmap.


Meaningful changes in gameplay, like trench, reward everybody including map specialists by enhancing gameplay, but this looks to be an idea to create awardss for people who have already met the criteria.

I don't agree at all that this would encourage map specialization. It would encourage you to play a lot of maps a lot of times.

Also, there is no way anyone has gotten 5 golds worth of cross maps. There aren't enough maps for that.

when he says 5 golds he means 5 uniques are required for 1 and ironmaid has 25 on every map.

I have a different idea regarding awards for specific maps:

How about it be like the conqueror medal in that only one person in all of cc can have a medal for a specific setting on a specific map. So for classic, esc, sunny, adjacent there is one medal for the entire cc community and whoever has the most wins for this setting/map holds the medal. It would get rid of the whole "too many medals" issue.

i don't see wha problem it could possibly be to encourage people get a maximum of these ribbons by playing a larger diversity of maps.. (???).
Also I think it would be good if the goal would be hard but not impossible. 400 unique kills for every single map is unreachable. I've played +4000 games and I would meet this requirement only on classic.. and there are +230 maps and counting! I still think that 5-25-100 is more reasonable. You guys are yousing the argumet of x or y player. Take iron maid, he's the only one on the site to have worked on such thing, well it would give him shit loads of ribbons, good for him! I don't see the problem.

betiko wrote:i don't see wha problem it could possibly be to encourage people get a maximum of these ribbons by playing a larger diversity of maps.. (???).
Also I think it would be good if the goal would be hard but not impossible. 400 unique kills for every single map is unreachable. I've played +4000 games and I would meet this requirement only on classic.. and there are +230 maps and counting! I still think that 5-25-100 is more reasonable. You guys are yousing the argumet of x or y player. Take iron maid, he's the only one on the site to have worked on such thing, well it would give him shit loads of ribbons, good for him! I don't see the problem.

at 400 i'd have Gold ribbons on AoR1, AoR2, AoR3, Circus Maximus & Classic. 100 is too low as i'd already have over a dozen at that level. it wouldn't be long before i'm crying out for another level above.

greenoaks wrote:

betiko wrote:i don't see wha problem it could possibly be to encourage people get a maximum of these ribbons by playing a larger diversity of maps.. (???).
Also I think it would be good if the goal would be hard but not impossible. 400 unique kills for every single map is unreachable. I've played +4000 games and I would meet this requirement only on classic.. and there are +230 maps and counting! I still think that 5-25-100 is more reasonable. You guys are yousing the argumet of x or y player. Take iron maid, he's the only one on the site to have worked on such thing, well it would give him shit loads of ribbons, good for him! I don't see the problem.

at 400 i'd have Gold ribbons on AoR1, AoR2, AoR3, Circus Maximus & Classic. 100 is too low as i'd already have over a dozen at that level. it wouldn't be long before i'm crying out for another level above.

in over 5 years and +11 000 games (one of the guys who has the most completed games on the site) you'd have a gold ribbon on 5 maps with the 400 system, and a dozen with the 100 system. yeah, definitely way too easy!! You would only need to do the same on 220 other maps with the 100 system (at the pace you've been playing it would take you roughly 100 years to complete all maps at 100 unique kills, all this without counting the new ones comming out)

betiko wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

betiko wrote:i don't see wha problem it could possibly be to encourage people get a maximum of these ribbons by playing a larger diversity of maps.. (???).
Also I think it would be good if the goal would be hard but not impossible. 400 unique kills for every single map is unreachable. I've played +4000 games and I would meet this requirement only on classic.. and there are +230 maps and counting! I still think that 5-25-100 is more reasonable. You guys are yousing the argumet of x or y player. Take iron maid, he's the only one on the site to have worked on such thing, well it would give him shit loads of ribbons, good for him! I don't see the problem.

at 400 i'd have Gold ribbons on AoR1, AoR2, AoR3, Circus Maximus & Classic. 100 is too low as i'd already have over a dozen at that level. it wouldn't be long before i'm crying out for another level above.

in over 5 years and +11 000 games (one of the guys who has the most completed games on the site) you'd have a gold ribbon on 5 maps with the 400 system, and a dozen with the 100 system. yeah, definitely way too easy!! You would only need to do the same on 220 other maps with the 100 system (at the pace you've been playing it would take you roughly 100 years to complete all maps at 100 unique kills, all this without counting the new ones comming out)

exactly, don't set it so low that everyone gets every one.

if CC sets it at 20/100/400 to match the medals it would never need to be revisited and if higher level medals are introduced then similar levels are automatically added to the ribbons. with silver equalling 5 bronzes and gold equalling 4 silvers it is my hope they introduce platinum as 3 golds or 1200. the only person i know who has 1200 on just 1 map is HA for Arms Race! with 1301. matching the medals keeps the awarding of ribbons as a special event.

we already complain a lot about the cross-map medal achievement level being set too low. lets not do the same here.

I would prefer one level for the ribbons, as was wing discussed earlier. If it is 3 levels, 5-25-100 is too low.

First these are ribbon, its very different then medals. Also ribbons are not meant to be to much easy,and not to be to much hard to accomplishes . Probably 100 UDP on 1 map will be enough to get ribbon for one specific map, and i think that these its not easy,and definitely not a hard to achieve.
So these will have only 1 lvl, and not any kind of bronze-silver-gold lvl. Ribbon are ribbon , and its not medal.