ljex wrote:Platinum Medal - what limit would this be set at?
Looks like it's for the player who won the most games in each gametype. Only 1 winner for each setting.
This could be all right, but I'm going to hold off for now. If the player gets surpassed in wins, they don't lose the medal, do they? But the player who passes them gets a medal? And what if the original player gains the lead again? I just have too many questions here to vote Yes for it.
ljex wrote:Total Wins - as long as it is not too excessive i would be a supporter. Currently there are only 250 ish players active with more than 2500 wins so if this was say 5000 wins needed to get gold i would not be a fan. yes there are some cc addicts but i would rather medals be attainable for the average person.
I agree with that. 5000 is too high. Even if it was 2500, it would still be a tough call - not sure I love this being a medal.
But as it stands, it is an easy choice. No for 5000.
ljex wrote:Win Percentage - If this is pure win percentage. this is dumb i would never be a supporter unless it accounted for 8 player singles games and other game types like that.
Definitely not voting for this. Win percentage is a bad statistic, and I doubt it would be feasible to account for the size of the game.
ljex wrote:Unique Map Achievement - im guessing this is for playing many different maps, maybe winning many different maps either way i would way rather other medals
This is interesting. "Awarded to members that won X time in one unique map,defeating 2 unique oponent per game." - So 1v1s don't count?
Kind of a cool medal; you could see which maps players have played a lot. Seems incredibly difficult to reach 400...
I don't know; it's a tough call. I'm gonna say No for now.
ljex wrote:Endurance - plain dumb
Meh. No thanks.
ljex wrote:Cards Achievement - escalating/flat rate/no spoils? if so lack has made it clear he wants medals to be for types of games people do not play often
I love this one, but I'm sure Lack won't do it. Still, I'll vote Yes.
ljex wrote:Score Plateau - interesting what are score requirements suggested for gold/silver/bronze if not too high i would support it but we need to remember the common player in these medals
I like this. You know what, Ljex? I think the idea that medals must be attainable by the common player isn't so great. I think it's good to reward the stellar players and be able to identify them easily. I may have to rethink the "5000 games won" suggestion... but for now, I'll vote No on that and Yes on this.
ljex wrote:Battle Royal Recognition - like this one
1 win for 1 medal? All right... sure. Voting Yes.
ljex wrote:Diamond Medal - lets get platinum first
ljex wrote:Length of Activity on Site - dumb just like endurance medal, requires no skill just dedication
I agree with Ljex... No.
ljex wrote:Consecutive Victories - would be very hard for some players and i dont think people would get it fairly, instead they would just farm a bunch of games in a row to get it, or put off wins to get them all consecutively.
It encourages 1v1 and team game farming, so definitely No.
So, I'm voting Yes for Cards Achievement, Score Plateau, Battle Royale Recognition, and Diamond Medal.
Although I think that the number for Score Plateau should be revisited.
I don't love the 3000 - Bronze, 4000 - Silver, 5000 - Gold
Why can't we just give a medal for reaching 1800, 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500, 4000, 4500, 5000, 5500, 6000?
How sick would that be? If you reached 6000, you get 10 medals. Completely fine with me - score is a big part of CC, regardless of whether or not it shows if you are a good player. I love the idea of score having a big impact on medals. And having a system like mine would really show you how high a player got.
Maybe you thought a player reached Colonel, but when you checked his medals, you see that he only reached Major, and never got Colonel.
What do you think about this tweaking? I really think it's better than just having 3000, 4000, 5000.