Moderator: Community Team
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
qwert wrote: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.
koontz1973 wrote:If you are going to go with one ribbon and not a medal steps system, go for 400 players. Make it bloody hard to get 1, let alone 5 or 6. Show players what maps you specialize in (this is really the core of the argument to have them). This should be as hard to get for each one as the gold standard medal is. Any easier and you devalue it and all it becomes is pretty graphics on the profile page.
qwert wrote:koontz1973 wrote:If you are going to go with one ribbon and not a medal steps system, go for 400 players. Make it bloody hard to get 1, let alone 5 or 6. Show players what maps you specialize in (this is really the core of the argument to have them). This should be as hard to get for each one as the gold standard medal is. Any easier and you devalue it and all it becomes is pretty graphics on the profile page.
like i previous conclude , if these go to 400, then these award will be pointless, because even Johnnyrocket, who play 20000 games, will be awarded with only 3 or 4 ribbons.
Some normal middle will be 100, because will give chance for more people to be in position for some of ribbons.
I look on your map rank,and you will only get Word 2.1 Ribbon(have over 1000UDP) if we go for 400 UDP. If we go for 100 you will get 5 ribbons.
400 UDP for one map its to much, and 100 UDP are right number to be middle between hard and easy.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users