Forum

by **Master Fenrir** on Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:26 pm

I searched for 10 minutes and couldn't find anything similar, so I apologize if this idea has been offered forward before.

Concise description: Silver and Bronze Tournament medals given out for placing 2nd or 3rd in a non-standard, overly-large tournament.

Specifics: Off the top of my head, I've participated in two such tournaments, Blitz's Battle of Annihilation Tournament, and Lindax's TLO 2009 II Tournament. However, the Map Blasters tournament currently under way, which I'm not apart of, comes to mind as well.

With Tournament Mod approval, long, marathon tournaments where players play 50+ (75+?, 100+?) games could offer Silver and Bronze tournament medals.

It would be the same shape as the current tournament medal, and the same silver and bronze colors that are offered with the other medals, so I think they'd be fairly easy to create.

This will improve the following aspects of the site: It seems to me that many tournaments created are small, rather undeserving tournaments where the sole purpose is for the host to acquire a Tournament Contribution medal. I think that this setup would encourage the creation of and participation in larger, more "real" tournaments.

I apologize if it seems like I'm trying to reward mediocrity. That's not my intention. I was listening to Olympics coverage on the radio and moving in a TLO game, and the thought occured to me.

by **barterer2002** on Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:47 pm

I like the idea although I would reject the idea that smaller tournaments are run simply to enhance a TOs medal count. I tend to think that smaller tournaments are run because they're popular by players. Still its clear that there is a difference between winning TLO, mapblasters, one of the madness series and something like the championship series which once can win with 8 wins.

by **Master Fenrir** on Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:51 pm

barterer2002 wrote:I like the idea although I would reject the idea that smaller tournaments are run simply to enhance a TOs medal count. I tend to think that smaller tournaments are run because they're popular by players. Still its clear that there is a difference between winning TLO, mapblasters, one of the madness series and something like the championship series which once can win with 8 wins.

Yeah, I don't think ALL of the smaller tournaments are for that reason, but I definately think some are. Admittedly, I do like "short and sweet." But I think that a silver medal in one of the aforementioned tournaments would be worth far more and require much greater effort than a gold in a tournament where, as you said, you have to win 8 games.

by **gerkensoccer2014** on Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:46 pm

can i join this tournament

by **Queen_Herpes** on Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:16 pm

I like the idea of wilver and bronze for tourneys...considering I've finished 3rd before, it would be nice to be recognized.

by **Night Strike** on Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:00 pm

Sorry, but no. Who's to decide which tournaments are sufficiently large to warrant many medals? Also, I highly doubt there's going to be a new medal created just for those places, and the same one that's currently used can't be used b/c all the counts run together. We already have too many medals to give out....we don't need to decipher when other positions need medals. The best recognition for 2nd and 3rd places are when organizers purchase a premium membership and give portions of the matched prize to the runners up.

by **Bruceswar** on Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:30 pm

Night Strike wrote:Sorry, but no. Who's to decide which tournaments are sufficiently large to warrant many medals? Also, I highly doubt there's going to be a new medal created just for those places, and the same one that's currently used can't be used b/c all the counts run together. We already have too many medals to give out....we don't need to decipher when other positions need medals. The best recognition for 2nd and 3rd places are when organizers purchase a premium membership and give portions of the matched prize to the runners up.

There are some tournaments where long is an understatement. I would say any tournament with 75+ games on average qualifies or that last 6 months. As for who would decide... a tournament director would have a strict set of guidelines to follow. These could be determined by a community vote. I like this idea.

by **AndyDufresne** on Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:34 pm

While we all want more Medals, 2nd and 3rd and 4th for Tournaments, etc etc places probably will not ever be officially recognized. However, no one is stopping you from keeping track of your own relative placements in tournament results and displaying them on your profile or in your signature.

--Andy

by **Master Fenrir** on Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:19 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:While we all want more Medals

To be clear, this was the exact opposite of what I was trying to accomplish with my suggestion. It was a "quality over quantity" idea.

AndyDufresne wrote:However, no one is stopping you from keeping track of your own relative placements in tournament results and displaying them on your profile or in your signature.

That's...silly. I would judge anybody I saw doing that. :lol:

by **AndyDufresne** on Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:58 am

Just saying that uniquely individual medals, for game settings or other things, etc, will most always trump runner-up medals.

One of our up and coming updates, however, could help to give some love to Tournaments.

Stay tuned for that.

--Andy

by **skepticCS** on Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:58 pm

I completely agree with this suggestion. I was actually coming here to request the same thing when I saw this post. I understand the concerns that have been posted up here, but as Fenrir suggests, there would be specific guidelines a tournament would have to meet. Perhaps the TO would be responsible for requesting whether their tournament, assuming it met the guidelines, would have a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place medals when they asked for privileges. Of course, the directors would have to go to the post and double-check whether the requested tournament met the guidelines, which is one more thing they would be responsible for. I can understand if that is a problem, but I don't think this should be shot down outright.

by **Bones2484** on Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:45 pm

I think medals were the biggest mistake made to the tournament area.

Granted... giving medals for "marathon" tournaments doesn't seem like too bad of an idea. Those take a hell of an effort to run, play in, and win. I'd almost be in favor of only these tournaments receiving any kind of medal at all, let alone silver and bronze.

by **qwert** on Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:26 pm

well i create series of very big tournament(over 600 game). And Player for win a tourny need to play over 45 games, and in last tournament first place decide rules for head to head,because 3 player had same score.