Change Roman Numbers on medal to Arabic Numbers=add poll

[qwert]

Change Roman numbers on medal to Arabic Numbers on these Medals
-Community Achievement
1.Tournament Achievement
2.General Achievement
3.Clan Achievement
4.Training Achievement
-Contributions
1.Map Contribution
2.Tournament Contribution
3.General Contribution

Change in all these in Arabic up to 999, will solve problems with roman numerals on very long period, and people will get proper counting in hes medals




note: im not a tech,or web master,or site developer,and i don't know nothing about that, and will be good that some who know all these give answer,if these possible to create.
If these possible then i will put poll and community can decide if they like or not.

[HighlanderAttack]

I like this idea.

This is basically switching to Arabic numbers and not having a cap on medals.

Remember they are virtual medals--no money involved to get them.

The reality is the public needs to make the decision on how they want the medals to be counted.

Come up with the five best ideas and have the public vote

[chapcrap]

I like this idea.

I like the idea of using the form.

As was stated in another thread, Arabic vs Roman Numerals do not matter. I actually don't care which are used. The issue is whether or not medals should go up to 999 for each group. So, this suggestion is really just the same as raising the caps on the medals.

[blakebowling]

The problem (on the technical side) lies with how the medals are generated. Currently, they're two parts that are put together when the page loads (one part that has the big background of the medal, and the other that has the number. It's difficult to generate number images that match up with the medal size, so the existing approach is used instead (pre-generated images). It's possible to chnage it over, but it would require a lot of coding time, that I personally think could be spent somewhere more beneficial to a larger portion of the community.

Also, Roman Numerals vs Arabic numbers don't change the problem, as you can calculate the roman numeral form of any arabic number.

[HighlanderAttack]

The problem (on the technical side) lies with how the medals are generated. Currently, they're two parts that are put together when the page loads (one part that has the big background of the medal, and the other that has the number. It's difficult to generate number images that match up with the medal size, so the existing approach is used instead (pre-generated images). It's possible to chnage it over, but it would require a lot of coding time, that I personally think could be spent somewhere more beneficial to a larger portion of the community.

Also, Roman Numerals vs Arabic numbers don't change the problem, as you can calculate the roman numeral form of any arabic number.

So if there was no cap, your saying it is hard to generate 175 onto the medal for example.

[blakebowling]

The problem (on the technical side) lies with how the medals are generated. Currently, they're two parts that are put together when the page loads (one part that has the big background of the medal, and the other that has the number. It's difficult to generate number images that match up with the medal size, so the existing approach is used instead (pre-generated images). It's possible to chnage it over, but it would require a lot of coding time, that I personally think could be spent somewhere more beneficial to a larger portion of the community.

Also, Roman Numerals vs Arabic numbers don't change the problem, as you can calculate the roman numeral form of any arabic number.

So if there was no cap, your saying it is hard to generate 175 onto the medal for example.

Yes.

All of the numbers up to 30 have been pre-made as images. I'm currently working on a solution to generate the numbers dynamically, but it may take a while.

[greenoaks]

why stop at 999.

raise it to 9999 so merch and HA have something to strive for.

[koontz1973]

why stop at 999.

raise it to 9999 so merch and HA have something to strive for.

Don't jest. When one does reach the 999, this will come up again.

[greenoaks]

why stop at 999.

raise it to 9999 so merch and HA have something to strive for.

Don't jest. When one does reach the 999, this will come up again.

i'm not jesting. i know this will be brought up again, so long as CC survives.

[Dukasaur]

I don't know if it will help, but let me try to be the voice of reason.

Basically this proposal removes the medal cap. That means people will be able to rise to the top of the medals scoreboard by doing the easiest thing imaginable. At present, that is making 16-player single elim tournaments. I estimate the total time one has to invest in making one of those, from start to finish, is less than half an hour. Obviously, it takes more the first time when you're learning, but once you have it all figured out you can definitely crank them out for under half an hour actual work output. Most of us in the tournament world have more self-respect than to do that. I've done a couple of those, just for a break, but I go back to making serious tournaments right after. But if you allow indefinite medals for doing this, then for sure you will have some GLG type come along and farm the system, and crank out 999 half hour tournaments. Is this really what you want? A new generation of farmers?

Right now we have a good system, which rewards people for stretching themselves. If you want to get into contention and have 100+ medals, you have to push yourself in different directions, play different maps, try fog, freestyle, trench, and so on and so forth, work to get GA medals and GC medals and so on. If you allow someone to race up the medals scoreboard for cheap half-hour tour you kiss all that goodbye.

It takes six months of service on Team CC to get one GC medal. Right now it's worth it. Getting into the 100 medals club is difficult enough that having even three or four GCs in there is worth it. But if you flood the market with easy medals, why would someone do so much work? Seriously, why would I work as hard as I do making sure the newsletter comes out, probably 10 hours of work per issue, or about 120 hours of work in the six-month period, if I can just invest 30 minutes, crank out one more 16-player bracket tournament, and get just as far up the medals scoreboard? Is that really what your want? To kill the volunteer pool?

(And similar things could be said about service as a mapmaker.)

I suppose I don't have to worry too much. This proposal is not going to pass. But if it did, I would quit this site. I'm proud of my medal collection. 69 of my 76 medals involved serious exertion of some kind -- that's exactly 90%. Which is a decent balance: if 90% of your medals are tough, and you throw in some easy ones once in a while, that's a decent system. But if someone can come in and just zoom past you doing only what is easy, WTF would be the point of trying?

[chapcrap]

I don't know if it will help, but let me try to be the voice of reason.

Basically this proposal removes the medal cap. That means people will be able to rise to the top of the medals scoreboard by doing the easiest thing imaginable. At present, that is making 16-player single elim tournaments. I estimate the total time one has to invest in making one of those, from start to finish, is less than half an hour. Obviously, it takes more the first time when you're learning, but once you have it all figured out you can definitely crank them out for under half an hour actual work output. Most of us in the tournament world have more self-respect than to do that. I've done a couple of those, just for a break, but I go back to making serious tournaments right after. But if you allow indefinite medals for doing this, then for sure you will have some GLG type come along and farm the system, and crank out 999 half hour tournaments. Is this really what you want? A new generation of farmers?

Right now we have a good system, which rewards people for stretching themselves. If you want to get into contention and have 100+ medals, you have to push yourself in different directions, play different maps, try fog, freestyle, trench, and so on and so forth, work to get GA medals and GC medals and so on. If you allow someone to race up the medals scoreboard for cheap half-hour tour you kiss all that goodbye.

It takes six months of service on Team CC to get one GC medal. Right now it's worth it. Getting into the 100 medals club is difficult enough that having even three or four GCs in there is worth it. But if you flood the market with easy medals, why would someone do so much work? Seriously, why would I work as hard as I do making sure the newsletter comes out, probably 10 hours of work per issue, or about 120 hours of work in the six-month period, if I can just invest 30 minutes, crank out one more 16-player bracket tournament, and get just as far up the medals scoreboard? Is that really what your want? To kill the volunteer pool?

(And similar things could be said about service as a mapmaker.)

I suppose I don't have to worry too much. This proposal is not going to pass. But if it did, I would quit this site. I'm proud of my medal collection. 69 of my 76 medals involved serious exertion of some kind -- that's exactly 90%. Which is a decent balance: if 90% of your medals are tough, and you throw in some easy ones once in a while, that's a decent system. But if someone can come in and just zoom past you doing only what is easy, WTF would be the point of trying?

I agree with most of this. I think there are probably even easier tournaments than a 16 player bracket. An 8 team doubles single elimination seems easier to me. Maybe it's a push. But what about the GLG tournaments where all he did was create four 8 player games for the whole tournament? Bottom line, diluting the medal pool is bad.

[greenoaks]

I don't know if it will help, but let me try to be the voice of reason.

Basically this proposal removes the medal cap. That means people will be able to rise to the top of the medals scoreboard by doing the easiest thing imaginable. At present, that is making 16-player single elim tournaments. I estimate the total time one has to invest in making one of those, from start to finish, is less than half an hour. Obviously, it takes more the first time when you're learning, but once you have it all figured out you can definitely crank them out for under half an hour actual work output. Most of us in the tournament world have more self-respect than to do that. I've done a couple of those, just for a break, but I go back to making serious tournaments right after. But if you allow indefinite medals for doing this, then for sure you will have some GLG type come along and farm the system, and crank out 999 half hour tournaments. Is this really what you want? A new generation of farmers?

Right now we have a good system, which rewards people for stretching themselves. If you want to get into contention and have 100+ medals, you have to push yourself in different directions, play different maps, try fog, freestyle, trench, and so on and so forth, work to get GA medals and GC medals and so on. If you allow someone to race up the medals scoreboard for cheap half-hour tour you kiss all that goodbye.

It takes six months of service on Team CC to get one GC medal. Right now it's worth it. Getting into the 100 medals club is difficult enough that having even three or four GCs in there is worth it. But if you flood the market with easy medals, why would someone do so much work? Seriously, why would I work as hard as I do making sure the newsletter comes out, probably 10 hours of work per issue, or about 120 hours of work in the six-month period, if I can just invest 30 minutes, crank out one more 16-player bracket tournament, and get just as far up the medals scoreboard? Is that really what your want? To kill the volunteer pool?

(And similar things could be said about service as a mapmaker.)

I suppose I don't have to worry too much. This proposal is not going to pass. But if it did, I would quit this site. I'm proud of my medal collection. 69 of my 76 medals involved serious exertion of some kind -- that's exactly 90%. Which is a decent balance: if 90% of your medals are tough, and you throw in some easy ones once in a while, that's a decent system. But if someone can come in and just zoom past you doing only what is easy, WTF would be the point of trying?

I agree with most of this. I think there are probably even easier tournaments than a 16 player bracket. An 8 team doubles single elimination seems easier to me. Maybe it's a push. But what about the GLG tournaments where all he did was create four 8 player games for the whole tournament? Bottom line, diluting the medal pool is bad.

and he boasted of it while doing it as if to say i found a loophole to exploit and there is not a damn thing any of you can do about.

boy he showed us.

[HighlanderAttack]

why stop at 999.

raise it to 9999 so merch and HA have something to strive for.

Don't jest. When one does reach the 999, this will come up again.

i'm not jesting. i know this will be brought up again, so long as CC survives.

you really do not pay attention to my posts evidently

I dont need 500 medals or more to make me happy

I just dont like a cap

I would be fine with having the medal system uniform and giving medals for achieving certain ranges like 90 percent of the medals--just adding platinum and diamond or something like that. (yes that would mean medals get taken away as the most you could have is five for reaching certain levels) To cap off at 30 is just moronic--my first thirty tourney wins are posted on my wall--those are ancient history and it looks stupid.

[HighlanderAttack]

Again, there are less than 20 people debating this--just let the public decide and be done with it.

[HighlanderAttack]

I suppose I don't have to worry too much. This proposal is not going to pass. But if it did, I would quit this site. I'm proud of my medal collection. 69 of my 76 medals involved serious exertion of some kind -- that's exactly 90%. Which is a decent balance: if 90% of your medals are tough, and you throw in some easy ones once in a while, that's a decent system. But if someone can come in and just zoom past you doing only what is easy, WTF would be the point of trying?

You would quit something you love because others got virtual medals. Your virtual medals mean that much to you. I will be honest, I did medal hunt. I would say less than 100 of my 35000 games were about medal hunting though. I played a few assassin and a few terminator, but that is it. I just found it a waste of time to put the effort towards virtual medals. I would say 4 medals max came from trying to get medals. I cannot help that I won so many tourneys and ran so many tourneys because I loved running them. I would be glad to have diamond level and have 25 medals in each category be taken away. Capping is just stupid.