Moderator: Community Team
cairnswk wrote:cairnswk wrote:...
Is there anything wrong with these?
HighlanderAttack wrote:I think it should be uniform all around unless you can weigh importance-which is subjective. Just make them all bronze Silver and Gold and add Platinum for miles stones.
Or add the arabic numbers to the current system that totals accomplishments.
I also think map makers deserves more special recognition.
This would be my official stance on the whole thing
cairnswk wrote:cairnswk wrote:...
Is there anything wrong with these?
Swifte wrote:Until this is implemented, I will just have to stare at the cup I made for myself. Perhaps others will get joy from it as well
rdsrds2120 wrote:HighlanderAttack wrote:Wow, did not even realize this is not even in real suggestions anymore. Someone will start this topic again.
I am happy for DICKtator Metsfanmax he can flex his virtual muscles and move this to a suggestion not worthy of being on the front page.
HighlanderAttack, this suggestion is in the "Submitted Suggestions", which means it's been submitted to me and the programmer to actually be done! Besides that, we can be cordial to the Volunteer Team and I'm sure it will be reciprocated.
While I'm here, a minor update:
There's a process nailed down for each department, and I am now just waiting on the medal images to be made. Update coming soon(ish)!
BMO
Gillipig wrote:...
Bronze, silver, gold, platinum for all types of medals is probably the best solution. As it deals with the inevitable inflation of some types of medals. Different standards could be set for different types of medals.
qwert wrote:Its will be good to know what are you have in mind?
Now many people like Cairns, and Higlander, give hes sugestions,and its look that you have own sugestion but we dont know what is it ?
Romans are hard to be used, because they are to long(XXX present only number 30) , and arabic can in very long run be good solution(999- these its very long number and i can not find player who are come close to 1/3 of these number).
Also arabic could be very usefull because implementation of other medal sugestion could be done much faster(like mine Unique map achievement medal)
edit: now when i look on mine medals,i notice that you have 4 digit place (XVII), these mean that if you implement Arabic, then you could seal these for very long time,because its hard for me to see that some in near future can come to 9999 medals.
rdsrds2120 wrote:Hey there everyone! It looks like a scale (such as agentcoms) will be used for the update. Please stay tuned for this (hopefully soon) implementation.
BMO
rdsrds2120 wrote:agentcom wrote:This is something that the admin have recently become interested in for whatever reason. Therefore, I am going to STICKY this to draw some more attention to it.
My vote is still to maintain the tradition of the roman numerals and award additional medals at a staggered level of perhaps 50 ("L"), 100 ("C") and 200 ("CC").
There will still be an imbalance in how easy medals are to earn, but I don't really see the problem of having someone like Highlanderattack getting 3 more medals for all the tourneys he's organized. And I can't wait to see cairns get the only "L" cartography medal
I think the pure genius of coincidence of Roman Numeral 200 being "CC" is almost enough by itself to pick up this template for raising the cap . This is something that I'd like to be working on for you guys, since it's something I can help out with without all of the programming, etc! I feel like raising the medal caps is a quick small thing that I can do that affects a lot of players greatly. After all -- who doesn't like having that awesome personal goal? Now maybe to hammer out a plan
BMO
HighlanderAttack wrote:Now I have my big trophy
cairnswk wrote:HighlanderAttack wrote:Now I have my big trophy
Yeh, i'll just keep track of mine in my sig also.
HighlanderAttack wrote:The only thing is some people think it skews the medal table too much, but they are virtual medals so what is the big deal. Unfortunately because I stand to gain the most from a change like that-some will say I am biased toward a change like that. Reality is I have always wanted it like this-even when I was just starting off in the tourney world.
Dukasaur wrote:HighlanderAttack wrote:The only thing is some people think it skews the medal table too much, but they are virtual medals so what is the big deal. Unfortunately because I stand to gain the most from a change like that-some will say I am biased toward a change like that. Reality is I have always wanted it like this-even when I was just starting off in the tourney world.
That's exactly the problem. If you can continue getting more medals just for doing more of the same, it basically becomes a type of farming. A medal system is supposed to reward you for stretching yourself in new directions and looking for new challenges. Running your first tournament is a big milestone, running your 291st is not.
Ideally a medal system should be logarithmic. If you get a medal for running your first tournament, it should take ten tournaments to get your second, and a hundred to get your third. and a thousand to get your fourth. (The multiplier doesn't have to be 10; if an activity is inherently more difficult it can have a smaller multiplier.) That's approximately the way the gameplay medals go: it's easy to get bronze, a little harder to get silver, and much harder to get gold.
cairnswk wrote:Gillipig wrote:...
Bronze, silver, gold, platinum for all types of medals is probably the best solution. As it deals with the inevitable inflation of some types of medals. Different standards could be set for different types of medals.
I'd be quite happy to have this, as long as it provides functionality, but it still doesn't solve the numeric issue on the medals.
Few question are arise
1.Are these usefull
2.Are these possible to implement?
3.What lvl of difficulty in implementation of these suggestion ?
4.How long these need to be implemented?
-------------------------------------------------------
Im here 6 years and i can not count how many times i heard from people who understand coding say " its easy to implement", and after that suggestion drop in oblivion, siting for infinitive time .
Now i hope that el jefe will not work like lackattack,and start avoiding suggestion forum.
Its important that we know--all these above, otherwise all these posting in suggestion forum, its pure waste of time.
When we come on these stage when these 4 question can answer El jefe, and start implement suggestion in appropriate time, then we can say that "Revolution Begun" have some practical meaning,and not to be some political phrase to sound great and nothing else.
And these its not only for these suggestion,these its for all sugestion who sit infinitive time here.
chapcrap wrote:There isn't a need for Arabic numbers with this update. So, why change the current system?
Dukasaur wrote:HighlanderAttack wrote:The only thing is some people think it skews the medal table too much, but they are virtual medals so what is the big deal. Unfortunately because I stand to gain the most from a change like that-some will say I am biased toward a change like that. Reality is I have always wanted it like this-even when I was just starting off in the tourney world.
That's exactly the problem. If you can continue getting more medals just for doing more of the same, it basically becomes a type of farming. A medal system is supposed to reward you for stretching yourself in new directions and looking for new challenges. Running your first tournament is a big milestone, running your 291st is not.
Ideally a medal system should be logarithmic. If you get a medal for running your first tournament, it should take ten tournaments to get your second, and a hundred to get your third. and a thousand to get your fourth. (The multipliler doesn't have to be 10; if an activity is inherently more difficult it can have a smaller multiplier.) That's approximately the way the gameplay medals go: it's easy to get bronze, a little harder to get silver, and much harder to get gold.
Gillipig wrote:chapcrap wrote:There isn't a need for Arabic numbers with this update. So, why change the current system?
As far as I know the suggestion that has been approved, is the one where roman numerals will end at "L" or "50", so roman numerals are staying, unfortunately.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users