Time to Lock this thread

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

How about creating a COMPETITION to provide new images for the tournament wins and organized ones? that will fix the problem dont you think?

No, because once the new limit has been saturated, people will want even more.

Translated- no because I will have to do more work to make people happier.

[HighlanderAttack]

The medals thing is kind of funny if you ask me. They are neat to have but they are virtual trophy's that don't really mean much when you think about it.

I think a big reason the rules are being adjusted is to make it harder to win a virtual meaningless trophy. I never even cared about them until they were stripped away from me after they were given to me. I don't like things being taken away from me.

Three years ago I threw out two garbage cans of real trophies. I got tired of moving with them. I know what I have won and I felt like I didn't need the hardware to collect dust and travel with me when I moved. This included four state trophies for foosball. My point is that in the real picture of things, they don't mean much, but enjoying the tourneys and having the competition is much more meaningful to me.

[Night Strike]

One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

so instead of tweaking and fixing a real problem we get entertained by your revisions to something that wasnt broke ? I guess that makes sense.

denominator already won that argument:

Secondly, I would like to make a point about the numerous time people have posted saying something along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is not a fix, because the system we have right now is not broken. Think of it more along the lines of a new line of cars. Last year's models, the 2009s, weren't broken, but that doesn't stop car manufacturers from updating and releasing the 2010 models that all have improvements. It's an update and revision of the rules to streamline the process and add a level of fairness to the equation that is currently lacking.

[Frankly, my dear]

Secondly, I would like to make a point about the numerous time people have posted saying something along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is not a fix, because the system we have right now is not broken. Think of it more along the lines of a new line of cars. Last year's models, the 2009s, weren't broken, but that doesn't stop car manufacturers from updating and releasing the 2010 models that all have improvements. It's an update and revision of the rules to streamline the process and add a level of fairness to the equation that is currently lacking.

I guess my question here is how fast can you put on the breaks? If the 2010's turn out to be a total recall like TOYOTA do you have a recovery plan or is it going to fall on the backs of the taxpayers?

The more I look into this the more I see a small group looking to force change onto a larger group through rules and regulation while the majority of the group is not interested in the change.... Now where have we seen that?

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

General notes:
- O M G are there REALLY 11 pages of comments here? do that many people REALLY give a shit?
- DH thinks there ought to be a 100-200 letter count limit on these -- including reference others (have a thread for that)
- don't most of you have a Dungeouns and Dragons game or need to be Gate Keeper somewhere? It's after 11:30 PM and past most of your bed times.
- oh, and I happen to be drunk/buzzed tonight -- but I think I STILL make more sense than 90% of you.
DH

[HighlanderAttack]

One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

so instead of tweaking and fixing a real problem we get entertained by your revisions to something that wasnt broke ? I guess that makes sense.

denominator already won that argument:

Secondly, I would like to make a point about the numerous time people have posted saying something along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is not a fix, because the system we have right now is not broken. Think of it more along the lines of a new line of cars. Last year's models, the 2009s, weren't broken, but that doesn't stop car manufacturers from updating and releasing the 2010 models that all have improvements. It's an update and revision of the rules to streamline the process and add a level of fairness to the equation that is currently lacking.

This is an example of why I posted this thread publicly. You say "denominator already won that argument:" What makes denominator the god of being write. Is it because he can spend an hours writing an article of his views? Do you just have a group of followers that because all of you a certain opinion it is the word of God/CC. I will again reiterate that everyone has their own opinion. denominator thinks I sent out a pm to my group of followers so that my opinion means more. That is totally inaccurate because it was sent out to my group of players that have played in one of my tourneys:

show

I just don't want to see a few, even a group of people make decisions on what they think is best for the tournament world on CC. I still have not seen the main reason for why these changes are necessary.

It seems to me it is because of the medals. Then make make criteria for medals rather than criteria for tourneys.

No one has responded to this post--I am hopeful the tourney mods are discussing it but I wanted to keep it alive and not forgotten a few posts back because I think when and if the rules change they need to be consistent.

What is the reasoning for not allowing one game per round in a 16 bracket 1v1 tourney?

What is the difference between a 16 bracket 1v1, dubs, trips, or quads-with the new rules:

1v1-16 bracket-must play three games per round
dubs-16 teams-allowed to play one game per round
Trips-8 teams allowed and may play one game per round
Quads-8 teams allowed and may play one game per round.

If you are going to change the criteria why would all of this not be the same?

This is how I believe the rules read. This would allow a quads team and many quads teams are great players to win three games to win a tourney. If there is an added amount of games to play it only means they have to win three series. To me this still makes the criteria unbalanced. If you are going to change criteria/formats it should be the same for 1v1, dubs, trips or quads in my opinion.

There is no difference in a bracket tourney that has 16 positions when you consider how it works. I think if changes are going to be made then make them consistent weather they are 1v1, dubs, trips, or quads. It is still a position and path on a chart to become a champion.

I hope this makes sense and I still hope 1v1 16 player tourneys can have a 1 game per round with a 3 games in the final so I can continue my Don't Blink series.

[barterer2002]

HA part of the problem here is that the discussion has become slanted because of your actions. I agree with you that 16 player 1v1 single elimination tournaments should be continued and have expressed myself in the appropriate way to the TDs.

This thread, in and of itself, however, is a bit of a farce. If you believed that issues such as these are things that should be discussed in public then there are better ways to do so. I however, have several issues with the methods that you have used here and they are as follows. 1) you took what was clearly marked as a PM that was not to be shared with the public and published it, breaking the trust that was shown in you. 2). You published it in a thread that set things up as a battle between yourself and night strike. 3). You sent a PM to all your previous players slanting the discussion away from the issues and making it a "look at what those CC mods in general and Night Strike in particular are doing to ME" For those who haven't seen it, here is the PM that HA sent out

So I am tired of Night Strike and his dictatorship. Over the past year I have had four issues with Night Strike.

1. My medals being stripped for running AACM tourneys which although different in format were deemed the same format due to name only-after a few back and forth pm's I was eventually ignored and nothing happened.

2. Then the thread by Bones(Night Strikes Buddy) about there being too many tourneys to choose from. Instead of supporting tourneys he is about tourneys being his way or no way.

3. Then after being told I could not run speed tourneys the way I wanted to, and responding with my reasoning, I was never given a response.

4. And now with this pm I received. Basically eliminating at least 5 different styles of the tourneys I run. On top of that this was not sent to all tourney organizers. I don't know who it was sent to but I do know it was not sent to at least one tourney organizer who has run numerous tourneys.


I am basically putting this out there so everyone knows Night Strike is a dictator that is going to do things his way and if you don't like it oh well. Well I don't like it and I am over it and I am making my opinion known to everyone.

I have tried to make tourneys a fun thing over the past year. I have started over 130 tourneys and completed over 100. That I know if most everyone has enjoyed them. I do this with my time and get my own person reward for running tourneys out of it and nothing more. I didn't even know you received medals for running tourneys in the beginning. I just feel Night Strike is against tourney formats that don't fit his own personal criteria. I feel like no matter what response I give to him personally will have no effect anyway so I did not waste my time responding to him personally. I will pm this to the players that have been in my tourneys in the past. That is about it. Good Luck to all. I do not know what my future holds for CC, but it is time I make a stand against someone who I believe is bad for CC tourneys.

Now, you have a thread here with a bunch of people commenting based on the "CC is trying to screw HA over" idea rather than bothering to read what the issues are. Like you I don't like the 32 player min for 1v1 games. Other than that the new rules aren't changing much and the screaming etc is much ado about nothing. I think we could have worked reasonably together to accomplish change on that requirement but instead of doing that you've blown this into a contentious battle much as you and PaulusH did with the January thread. Sending slanted PMs to a large group of people does not mean that their posts of "HA is right" can be taken as support for your position as most of those posting haven't bothered to read or understand the issues, just your slant on them. For this reason those who point to the polls of January as evidence that "most people want" are ill informed.

[Gilligan]

One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

so instead of tweaking and fixing a real problem we get entertained by your revisions to something that wasnt broke ? I guess that makes sense.

Are you guys REALLY that upset because you can't have more than 30 medals for organizing? If we increased the limit the medal will mean absolutely nothing. If everybody has 50 of them, will they mean anything? Probably not.

[HighlanderAttack]

I continue to say that everyone has their own opinion and I have mine. What some of you do not understand is that I took this direction because I felt like if I had responded to Night Strike's pm that nothing at all would happen based on past experiences.

If you felt like someone was ignoring you why would you respond to a blind copied pm that states you have one pm to send me and that is all you get. He will handle everything else.

I felt like it would be a waste of my time. I do agree this thread should be locked at this point because it will just go back and forth anyway.

If and when the changes go through I just want them to be fair for all categories.

I probably should have slowed down and took more time rather than just attacking Night Strike, but I don't back down to things when I am passionate about them.

[HighlanderAttack]

One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

so instead of tweaking and fixing a real problem we get entertained by your revisions to something that wasnt broke ? I guess that makes sense.

Are you guys REALLY that upset because you can't have more than 30 medals for organizing? If we increased the limit the medal will mean absolutely nothing. If everybody has 50 of them, will they mean anything? Probably not.

I maintain the medals don't mean anything anyway. I think by capping the medals is ridiculous. I think you should get one medal if you ran a tourney and one if you won one. It just states you have done this. With the current format though and if you look into the future you will end up probably having 100 tournament organizers with 30 medals and 100 players for winning tourneys with 30 medals. Basically it will look like everyone is the same.

I do agree with not expanding it, but I also think it never should have been capped. Just like many businesses I don't think people could look into the future and see how big tourneys on CC would get.

[iamkoolerthanu]

I only have one thing to say really, about this entire situation. (I am putting it in both threads so that everyone will read it)

The players do not run this site. I never read anywhere that this site was a democracy. The admins and mods have the right to be able to change anything they want on this site, they are the ones who spend so much of their time doing everything they can to make the site better for the players, and as soon as they try and do one thing that people arent huge fans of, everyone starts to accuse them without even giving the new way of doing things a try, and without even remembering all the amazing things that the people that run this site has done in the past.

The mods and admin on this site are constantly dedicating their time to make CC what it is, the best gaming site I've seen on the Internet, EVER. They are constantly taking time out of their lives to make improvements, and in all reality, they don't even have to ask the players if they agree with these changes. But they do. They wanted to hear opinions to see if the changes they were planning on making were good ones. And instead, they get people saying that they are not worthy of their jobs, and that they are power hungry maniacs? Would a 'power hungry maniac' ask the people before making a change?

Well, that's basically everything that was on my mind after skimming through the 11 pages in the other thread, and reading these posts... It's not right when people crucify someone for one thing that they don't agree with, without even taking into account all the good things that person has done in the past...

[DBandit70]

I am writing out of the deepest respect for HighlanderAttack who is a very nice player, and has dedicated much of his time to directing tournaments that have been fun for many. That said, I agree with the CC moderators 100% on the issues that I have read and on the changes that have been proposed. Tournaments ought to be big deals and need to involve a greater number of players. Consider this, in any sport, there is a long drawn out season, which in essence is a big round robin tournament to see who performs the best, and than the best of the best match up against each other in the playoffs and championship. Imagine if you will if the regular season in football were cancelled and the league picked the first 8 teams to sign-up or the top 8 teams on paper. It would not mean much to the players nor to the viewers to be honest. CC tourney's have in essence become so basic and so unoriginal and so numerous that it is hard for most to know what is and is not happening at any given time. I am involved in many tourney's and spent a lot of time staying up with my progress in them, but I am a freak for so doing, and the average person I guarentee does not. Speaking for myself, I would rather be involved in 3 or 4 tournaments of varying styles that involve a higher level of creativity or varying objectives than a single elimination 16 player bracket. also the tournaments have becoem so numerous that they are losing there identifying value or being an accomplishment, and it now is becoming purely a numbers game to see how many and how fast to get them tropheys on the shelf. I love tournaments but I agree with the mod's on this issue and look forward to eevn further changes in the future, sorry HA still your friend, just can not support you here

[friendly1]

Why not make everyone happy? (As if that was possible)

If a tourney falls within the proposed rules, issue a medal for it.

If a tourney does not fall within the proposed rules, do not issue a medal for it.



Feel free to curse me, spit, slander, profane and not send me a christmas card if I am missing the point.



And two things on a side note:

First: wow guys! Passionate is not the description I would use for responses in this thread. Be nice people

Second, I definitely am not in favor of any changes which need to be sent out privately to select members before being made public. I find its simply a way to provide an excuse "well we consulted members who are heavily involved with this before making the changes and the majority agreed the changes are for the best".

Not sure if its worth 2 cents, maybe my 1 cent worth?

[HighlanderAttack]

I am writing out of the deepest respect for HighlanderAttack who is a very nice player, and has dedicated much of his time to directing tournaments that have been fun for many. That said, I agree with the CC moderators 100% on the issues that I have read and on the changes that have been proposed. Tournaments ought to be big deals and need to involve a greater number of players. Consider this, in any sport, there is a long drawn out season, which in essence is a big round robin tournament to see who performs the best, and than the best of the best match up against each other in the playoffs and championship. Imagine if you will if the regular season in football were cancelled and the league picked the first 8 teams to sign-up or the top 8 teams on paper. It would not mean much to the players nor to the viewers to be honest. CC tourney's have in essence become so basic and so unoriginal and so numerous that it is hard for most to know what is and is not happening at any given time. I am involved in many tourney's and spent a lot of time staying up with my progress in them, but I am a freak for so doing, and the average person I guarentee does not. Speaking for myself, I would rather be involved in 3 or 4 tournaments of varying styles that involve a higher level of creativity or varying objectives than a single elimination 16 player bracket. also the tournaments have becoem so numerous that they are losing there identifying value or being an accomplishment, and it now is becoming purely a numbers game to see how many and how fast to get them tropheys on the shelf. I love tournaments but I agree with the mod's on this issue and look forward to eevn further changes in the future, sorry HA still your friend, just can not support you here

Why not make everyone happy? (As if that was possible)

If a tourney falls within the proposed rules, issue a medal for it.

If a tourney does not fall within the proposed rules, do not issue a medal for it.



Feel free to curse me, spit, slander, profane and not send me a christmas card if I am missing the point.



And two things on a side note:

First: wow guys! Passionate is not the description I would use for responses in this thread. Be nice people

Second, I definitely am not in favor of any changes which need to be sent out privately to select members before being made public. I find its simply a way to provide an excuse "well we consulted members who are heavily involved with this before making the changes and the majority agreed the changes are for the best".

Not sure if its worth 2 cents, maybe my 1 cent worth?

Again we have two more views-not everyone will agree.

Just because a tourney is small, does not mean it should be looked as something of insignificance.

Maybe the medals should only be given out if a tourney has a certain criteria rather than taking the small tourneys away(if that is even what happens).

If this is about medals than make two criteria in my opinion.

Like I said before -I have been involved in tourneys my whole life. In most sports and bar games they make different levels of tourneys--they don't just say you can't play them anymore.

For example-Tuesday and Fridays I would play 16 player tourneys at a bar with foosball. Fun and enjoyable and great competition. Not insignificant though.

Once a month they would have a trophy night. This usually brought in more people.

Then there was regional tourneys-much bigger and usually had more hardware.

Then state championships

And finally National Championships.

I won at all levels. Of course the large the tourney the more significance. That being said, they were all fun and all competitive.

I do not think it is fair to compare larger tourneys to smaller tourneys--of course the larger tourneys have more significance, but the competitive nature and fun that the small tourneys bring should not be looked at as insignificant.


Just another opinion. I do think because all of this is out there the powers to be will make good decision on criteria for running tourneys. We just have to wait and see.

[Night Strike]

What is the reasoning for not allowing one game per round in a 16 bracket 1v1 tourney?

What is the difference between a 16 bracket 1v1, dubs, trips, or quads-with the new rules:

1v1-16 bracket-must play three games per round
dubs-16 teams-allowed to play one game per round
Trips-8 teams allowed and may play one game per round
Quads-8 teams allowed and may play one game per round.

If you are going to change the criteria why would all of this not be the same?

This is how I believe the rules read. This would allow a quads team and many quads teams are great players to win three games to win a tourney. If there is an added amount of games to play it only means they have to win three series. To me this still makes the criteria unbalanced. If you are going to change criteria/formats it should be the same for 1v1, dubs, trips or quads in my opinion.

There is no difference in a bracket tourney that has 16 positions when you consider how it works. I think if changes are going to be made then make them consistent weather they are 1v1, dubs, trips, or quads. It is still a position and path on a chart to become a champion.

I hope this makes sense and I still hope 1v1 16 player tourneys can have a 1 game per round with a 3 games in the final so I can continue my Don't Blink series.

You're reading the rules correctly, and that is probably the last large change we're considering. Several rules that people were "complaining" about are actually the way things are already done (50% public, directors can reject some tournaments and grant some exceptions), so those aren't changing (just codified).

Here are the tweaks that have been made to the other rules:

• All the tournament types have had the phrase "at least" added to them because some people thought they could only have exactly 16 teams, etc.
• The 3 game minimum for the winner has been clarified to mention that it doesn't necessarily mean 3 rounds.
• The 2000+ point restriction has been clarified: organizers can run a point restricted tournament, but the restriction can't be greater than 2000+ per player or team average (so a 2500+ restriction would not be allowed)
• I have dropped the limitation on having small tournaments recruiting players so that the number is just 3 total of any size. It's still being debated on whether that number will be bumped to 4, but it won't be increased to 5 or more (because franchise tournaments qualify at 5).

Why not make everyone happy? (As if that was possible)

If a tourney falls within the proposed rules, issue a medal for it.

If a tourney does not fall within the proposed rules, do not issue a medal for it.

To be honest, I partially agree with you. I understand why people will want this, but until the site chooses to allow private and clan tournaments that use privileges, having a blanket policy that all public tournaments earn medals makes things consistent for everybody. I don't like that clan tournaments can't be run with privileges, but until that's changed, it's not fair for them that some tournaments will still get run without medals. Plus, keeping track of which tournaments get a medal and which don't will be quite time consuming to go through, especially with an update that's coming soon.

[xabigerrard]

Just like to add my 2p worth ( again I think ).

I think we need to focus on the name of this Site. Conquer CLUB.

I'm not going to read all this thread, I have it on good authority that people are staring to fall out over all of this...again we need to understand the word CLUB.

We're all here for a common purpose, we enjoy to play the game and we enjoy the social interaction that the games and the forum can bring and most of all it's just a bit of fun isn't it?

Seems to me and it has already been mentioned I know because I READ it, but I think what needs to happen is that anything that the site is not capable of in terms of tournaments needs to be made aware to all those who run or want to run them and after that a club with as many mumbers as this can surely have a democratic vote in what they want to see for their money or not as the case may be!

Forgive me if I haven't got a grasp on the whole case that's in hand but I do know there are some very intelligent individuals both running the site and the tourneys and I'm sure it's well within the capabilities of these people to come to some sort of conclusion where everyone can be at peace with the decisions made....remember...Conquer CLUB!

[denominator]

To be honest, I partially agree with you. I understand why people will want this, but until the site chooses to allow private and clan tournaments that use privileges, having a blanket policy that all public tournaments earn medals makes things consistent for everybody. I don't like that clan tournaments can't be run with privileges, but until that's changed, it's not fair for them that some tournaments will still get run without medals. Plus, keeping track of which tournaments get a medal and which don't will be quite time consuming to go through, especially with an update that's coming soon.

I'll be the one to ask the obvious question then.

Is CC (read: Lack) planning on allowing Private and Clan tournaments? If yes, how far are we away from seeing this implemented?

It seems to me that allowing tournaments to be run without awarding medals will make a lot of people happy again. It also would help with the Clan tournaments. Private tournaments could be run in the Tournaments forum (with a new sub-forum), without medals being handed out.

So if this is something that LackAttack is considering implementing, maybe we should hold off on the tournament rules update and run the two updates simultaneously.

[Night Strike]

I'll be the one to ask the obvious question then.

Is CC (read: Lack) planning on allowing Private and Clan tournaments? If yes, how far are we away from seeing this implemented?

Not soon from the limited items I know about.

[sensfan]

I can't believe this ain't locked yet. Highlander and many others have wanted this to be locked.
As the good ol' Conquer Club saying goes:
Lock'er up!

[pimpdave]

Wow, what a surprise, Night Strike managing his responsibilities incredibly poorly...