MEDAL HUNT!

by **Zemljanin** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:20 am

hulmey wrote:No tournament's won shouldnt get medals for that!

Why?????????? :shock:

by **Bruceswar** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:21 am

Zemljanin wrote:
hulmey wrote:No tournament's won shouldnt get medals for that!

Why??????????

Because the games already count towards other medals.

by **DAZMCFC** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:20 am

barterer2002 wrote:
DAZMCFC wrote:
barterer2002 wrote:People play for different reasons. For some, the medals are fun and that's perfectly OK. The fact that they don't mean much to you does not mean that JR or Paradice are wrong for going after them.

i've just said that, when i said.
see i have no problem with people going for medals

Would you prefer that I not agree with you then? (I actually think I posted before I got to the end of the thread-bad habit of course but it happens occasionally)

thought you were talking to me(you may of been, but got out of it).

by **Timminz** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:33 am

Bruceswar wrote:
Zemljanin wrote:
hulmey wrote:No tournament's won shouldnt get medals for that!

Why??????????

Because the games already count towards other medals.

On that note. Why not have a medal for "Unique Opponents defeated in Tournament games"?

by **gdeangel** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:00 am

I think it's really hard to win some tournaments... others are a lot more difficult. At some point they might want to consider giving a special achievement award for mad skills if someone was consistently enterring tough tournaments and willing a high % of them. I can think of a couple of people like that who tend to dominate, but not many.

Which leads to a question I've been thinking about... assuming you are starting out from zero games, which medals are the hardest to get and when do they actually mean something about skill.

For gold 1v1, if you expect about 40% of games go by luck of drop, dice, etc., then after 1000 1v1 games, the gold 1v1 medal is meaningless. However, beating 400 unique 1v1 players in less than 600 games would be astonishingly hard IMHO. That is assuming all sequential games. For freestyle, I would think a strong player takes a higher % of games by skill, so the medal would be worth something at around 500 1v1 freestyle games IMHO.

For team games, it would seem doubles is the hardest to earn because you only get credit for two unique opponents each win, whereas in quads there are four, plus you can get a boost from a solid team more on quads than doubles, which still has a fair amount of luck, depending on the map/drop/dice.

As for assassin, it seems to me possible to get this pretty easy playing big games on small maps. There will be a high percentage where you have best position and can dead drop your target, but I'm not sure what the percentage would be. I'm going to just throw out there that for 8 player assassin, getting to gold in under 300 games would impress me.

Terminator, I'm still a little fuzzy on how they count the defeats, so i defer to someone who knows...

Speed... would end up a combination of the above, since you can have speed games of all types.

Cross map would probably be very difficult if you limited to 1v1 and doubles, but, again, with quads or tripps, that winning just two games on 60 maps. Now that there are so many geographic maps (probably enough for a silver if not a gold) and more in the works, the value of the medal would be less...

And the others are not really "game skill" medals, so not relevant.

Anyone have thought about this before as well?

by **Timminz** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:18 am

There are more options to doubles, than just 2v2. you could play 8p dubs, and get 6 unique defeats for each win.

by **gdeangel** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:09 pm

Timminz wrote:There are more options to doubles, than just 2v2. you could play 8p dubs, and get 6 unique defeats for each win.

I think that would make doubles even tougher... ?

by **Natewolfman** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:18 pm

Bruceswar wrote:
Zemljanin wrote:
hulmey wrote:No tournament's won shouldnt get medals for that!

Why??????????

Because the games already count towards other medals.

so? If i play a Speed Terminator It still counts tword both medal, dosnt it?

by **Natewolfman** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:26 pm

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I think it should be a medal for your first tourney, then for every three that.

I have 20 regular medals
21 tournament medals
even at your standard, I have 27 medals, tieing you both, and 1 more tournament completion and i have 28 by this standard

by **gdeangel** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:32 pm

Natewolfman wrote:
ParadiceCity9 wrote:I think it should be a medal for your first tourney, then for every three that.

I have 20 regular medals
21 tournament medals
even at your standard, I have 27 medals, tieing you both, and 1 more tournament completion and i have 28 by this standard

Don't worry Nate, we know you've got skills.

Look at me... only two lonely medals. I must suck.

by **Natewolfman** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:01 pm

gdeangel wrote:
Natewolfman wrote:
ParadiceCity9 wrote:I think it should be a medal for your first tourney, then for every three that.

I have 20 regular medals
21 tournament medals
even at your standard, I have 27 medals, tieing you both, and 1 more tournament completion and i have 28 by this standard

Don't worry Nate, we know you've got skills.

Look at me... only two lonely medals. I must suck.

haha, if anything im only slightly above average player

but im a good tourny organizer. As for your medals, how many games have you played? *id look it up buy im lazy :lol:

*

by **daydream** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:59 pm

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I think it should be a medal for your first tourney, then for every three that. With the 1 per tourney thing you get people bragging that they have more medals than me and JR, when they didn't actually do any strategizing, gameplay-related things. Don't get me wrong (again), I'm sure it's hard to run a tourney but I simply don't feel the urge to, nor would I have time to do that.

they did a lot more strategizing gameplay related things than you for your ratings medals :roll:

by **ParadiceCity9** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:58 pm

daydream wrote:
ParadiceCity9 wrote:I think it should be a medal for your first tourney, then for every three that. With the 1 per tourney thing you get people bragging that they have more medals than me and JR, when they didn't actually do any strategizing, gameplay-related things. Don't get me wrong (again), I'm sure it's hard to run a tourney but I simply don't feel the urge to, nor would I have time to do that.

they did a lot more strategizing gameplay related things than you for your ratings medals

Pretty sure I never specified the ratings medal...I think that is bs as much as anyone, but shit I'm gettin it I don't see why not.

by **owenshooter** on Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:27 pm

daydream wrote:
ParadiceCity9 wrote:I think it should be a medal for your first tourney, then for every three that. With the 1 per tourney thing you get people bragging that they have more medals than me and JR, when they didn't actually do any strategizing, gameplay-related things. Don't get me wrong (again), I'm sure it's hard to run a tourney but I simply don't feel the urge to, nor would I have time to do that.

they did a lot more strategizing gameplay related things than you for your ratings medals

reminds me of that old saying... "children should be seen and not heard."-0

p.s.-there are a very few people that "brag" about their medals... and we all
know who they are... outside of that bunch, does anyone really care?