Conquer Club

How about they make it, so that when a person looks up a past game, it shows their rank at what it was when they started that game. i.e. when a person plays their first game, they are a new recruit, and the archives should reflect that. That way you can go through a person's games, and see how fast they moved through the ranks, and when. Plus you will be able to see when they upset somebody, or got upset. Pretty neat when a private beats a general.

Jamie wrote:How about they make it, so that when a person looks up a past game, it shows their rank at what it was when they started that game. i.e. when a person plays their first game, they are a new recruit, and the archives should reflect that. That way you can go through a person's games, and see how fast they moved through the ranks, and when. Plus you will be able to see when they upset somebody, or got upset. Pretty neat when a private beats a general.

its an interesting idea but perhaps from the database view this is not a good idea:(

I put yes, although i very doubt lack will alow it as the database would just die lol. But very nice feature if it was to be implamented

Yeah that would be a real bummer to implement. These historical ranks would have to be stored in each game (calculating them on the fly would put a load on the server), and it could confuse people who don't kow if they're looking at current ot historical ranks.

Suggestion Idea:
When games are completed and archived, the ranks need to be "frozen" within the game as well.

Specifics:
Currently, the rank next to a players name in an archived game is still dynamic (It stays up-to-date with the players current score/rank). I propose freezing those ranks in time similar to how the game chat is frozen.

Why it is needed:
It would be good to know who beat whom back in those early games. If someone were to go back and look at a Cook's early game, they may notice that the cook beat a Major. Although not unheard of, it just doesn't usually happen. What actually happened was these two players were Noobs playing their first game together. One just happened to become really good, while the other one not so much. By keeping the ranks preserved, it would show the ranks of the players at the time the game ended instead of showing their current ranks.
It may also be nice to show that in the feedback section as well.

Priority: 2.5 - 3.0

Hm, I'm not sure of the feasability of this idea, but it is an interesting one. It seems like it would be rather difficult to retroactively do it to the games, and if it is time consuming or difficult, it will probably take a backseat to more pressing issues.


--Andy

I think this is a cool idea. I've had a couple of times when I've gone back to look at a game, wondering what rank I was when I beat someone, and then remembered it doesn't freeze.

I don't think it is urgent, but like some of the other things suggested recently, it would be a nice little something thrown in to round out an update somewhere along the road.

AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, I'm not sure of the feasability of this idea, but it is an interesting one. It seems like it would be rather difficult to retroactively do it to the games, and if it is time consuming or difficult, it will probably take a backseat to more pressing issues.


--Andy

Yeah, unfortunately I figured being retroactive would be nearly impossible. But starting in the near future is better than not starting at all.

Bump.

I like this idea. I cooked my friend and it would be great if I could go back to that game and show him how bad he sucked way back when.

Very nice idea.

I'm sure it would be impossible to change the old games, but it should be doable for future games.

I first want to see 8 player games though.

I also concur that this is a great idea, if it is able to be done...

Good thinking!

I finally found it on the 4th page (bump).

A quick and dirty way to do this (for new games going forward):

"Aerial Attack loses 20 points from 1000"
"Optimus Prime gains 20 points added to 1000"

Change suggested in bold. This requires whenever someone gains or loses points the variable (already being captured to calculate the point gain/loss) is printed out in the Game Log

Aerial Attack wrote:A quick and dirty way to do this (for new games going forward):

"Aerial Attack loses 20 points from 1000"
"Optimus Prime gains 20 points added to 1000"

Change suggested in bold. This requires whenever someone gains or loses points the variable (already being captured to calculate the point gain/loss) is printed out in the Game Log

That wouldn't be hard to do would it?

Wow, talk about a bump. The new idea isn't too bad either.

Maybe a little bit better:

Cook Aerial Attack loses 20 Points.
Captain Optimus Prime gains 20 points.

For the players who don't know the score - rank table by heart =D

Bonzai wrote:Maybe a little bit better:

Cook Aerial Attack loses 20 Points.
Captain Optimus Prime gains 20 points.

For the players who don't know the score - rank table by heart =D

Like I said, mine was the quick and dirty way. Seeing as how the variables [current_score_player1 ("Aerial Attack") and current_score_player2 ("Optimus Prime")] are already being used to calculate the gain/loss - it would be easy to just capture them to the Game Log. Your method requires recoding to do a database lookup for relative title.

Unless you want lack to go in and recode the way he calculates scores? I'm guessing that will only happen if he adds options for flat rate or no point matches (highly doubtful).

Night Strike wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, I'm not sure of the feasability of this idea, but it is an interesting one. It seems like it would be rather difficult to retroactively do it to the games, and if it is time consuming or difficult, it will probably take a backseat to more pressing issues.


--Andy

Yeah, unfortunately I figured being retroactive would be nearly impossible. But starting in the near future is better than not starting at all.

This is interesting. but i think the priotory is more of a 1 on the scale..or 5 whichever is the least important but it does sound like a good idea

Though this idea is old, I see no reason it can't be submitted.

Submitted

>Priority: 2.5 - 3.0<
hmm what these mean?

qwert wrote:>Priority: 2.5 - 3.0<
hmm what these mean?

This is an old old suggestion, back when Suggestions was older and run different.

People would rate on a scale of 1-5 of how important they thought the suggestion was.

i though that mean to be implemented for 2,5-3 years from time where are sugestion proposed.

qwert wrote:i though that mean to be implemented for 2,5-3 years from time where are sugestion proposed.

Which would make it an alarmingly quick implementation.

Woodruff wrote:

qwert wrote:i though that mean to be implemented for 2,5-3 years from time where are sugestion proposed.

Which would make it an alarmingly quick implementation.

Lets try to be constructive.