Moderator: Community Team
Gillipig wrote:qwert is right though! If we really want to solve this problem, just insert arabic numerals instead of roman. I think we're all a bit too caught up in how it looks instead of functionality.
agentcom wrote:Gillipig wrote:qwert is right though! If we really want to solve this problem, just insert arabic numerals instead of roman. I think we're all a bit too caught up in how it looks instead of functionality.
Looks are important, but the other issue (and the bigger issue to my mind) is that we don't want to award 200 medals to someone for winning 200 tournaments. Right now the person with the most medals has 146. We put some restrictions on medals that makes them a little bit difficult to achieve. The escalating bronze, silver, gold is the way it's done for regular medals. The cap is the way it's been done for the achievement medals.
There has to be a balance between recognizing people for their achievements and limiting that recognition to true achievements.
qwert wrote: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.
agentcom wrote:There has to be a balance between recognizing people for their achievements and limiting that recognition to true achievements.
greenoaks wrote:agentcom wrote:There has to be a balance between recognizing people for their achievements and limiting that recognition to true achievements.
very few people would be affected if the cap was raised and i am one of them.
with 32 tournament wins and over 200 tournaments hosted it would be great to be recognised for that. the thing is, i already am. the hall of fame for hosting & winning in the tournament tab give people like myself recognition without devaluing the efforts of other's achievements in the Clan world, the Foundry or success in competitions run by the Entertainment team.
merch313 is already known as our most prolific host, HighlanderAttack for his incredible tally of tourney wins. increasing the cap won't change that.
give Clans a tab at the top of the site to list all clans and number of wins, all players and number of medals awarded. put a search page in there too to find war threads. mimic the Tounament tab. do it for the Foundry as well showing mapmakers and their maps.
allow us to recognise our contributions and achievements within our sub communities and there'll be no need to raise the cap on medals.
chapcrap wrote:qwert wrote: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.
Ok, a couple of things...
- If it's been 6 years, then suggestions haven't been sitting here for infinite time.
- If there are only 50 topics in the submitted forum, you should be able to count.
In seriousness, I understand negativity surrounding this forum, but in this transition period, the new administration has had a lot of clerical work and has been taking time to understand the site before jumping into something that isn't fully understood. As you can see with the latest implemented suggestion, things are getting closer to being full force. Give it a little more time and see what happens. It's only been two months. If things aren't as promised in a few months, we can all grab a pitchfork and head to Indonesia together.
qwert wrote:greenoaks wrote:agentcom wrote:There has to be a balance between recognizing people for their achievements and limiting that recognition to true achievements.
very few people would be affected if the cap was raised and i am one of them.
with 32 tournament wins and over 200 tournaments hosted it would be great to be recognised for that. the thing is, i already am. the hall of fame for hosting & winning in the tournament tab give people like myself recognition without devaluing the efforts of other's achievements in the Clan world, the Foundry or success in competitions run by the Entertainment team.
merch313 is already known as our most prolific host, HighlanderAttack for his incredible tally of tourney wins. increasing the cap won't change that.
give Clans a tab at the top of the site to list all clans and number of wins, all players and number of medals awarded. put a search page in there too to find war threads. mimic the Tounament tab. do it for the Foundry as well showing mapmakers and their maps.
allow us to recognise our contributions and achievements within our sub communities and there'll be no need to raise the cap on medals.
cam on greenoaks,, now you suggest 3-4 different implementation instead these one , and these mean more work.
agentcom wrote:Gillipig wrote:qwert is right though! If we really want to solve this problem, just insert arabic numerals instead of roman. I think we're all a bit too caught up in how it looks instead of functionality.
Looks are important, but the other issue (and the bigger issue to my mind) is that we don't want to award 200 medals to someone for winning 200 tournaments. Right now the person with the most medals has 146. We put some restrictions on medals that makes them a little bit difficult to achieve. The escalating bronze, silver, gold is the way it's done for regular medals. The cap is the way it's been done for the achievement medals.
There has to be a balance between recognizing people for their achievements and limiting that recognition to true achievements.
Gillipig wrote:agentcom wrote:Gillipig wrote:qwert is right though! If we really want to solve this problem, just insert arabic numerals instead of roman. I think we're all a bit too caught up in how it looks instead of functionality.
Looks are important, but the other issue (and the bigger issue to my mind) is that we don't want to award 200 medals to someone for winning 200 tournaments. Right now the person with the most medals has 146. We put some restrictions on medals that makes them a little bit difficult to achieve. The escalating bronze, silver, gold is the way it's done for regular medals. The cap is the way it's been done for the achievement medals.
There has to be a balance between recognizing people for their achievements and limiting that recognition to true achievements.
I don't think it's balanced the way it is now. If it were, a map contribution medal would be worth at least ten times a tournament medal!
No one looks at a rating medal and consider it as valuable as an assassin medal. I'm all for a fairer medals awarding system, but that doesn't need to clash with this suggestion. Give 1 medal per 10 hosted tournaments, 1 medal per 15 won tournaments etc
chapcrap wrote:Gillipig wrote:agentcom wrote:Gillipig wrote:qwert is right though! If we really want to solve this problem, just insert arabic numerals instead of roman. I think we're all a bit too caught up in how it looks instead of functionality.
Looks are important, but the other issue (and the bigger issue to my mind) is that we don't want to award 200 medals to someone for winning 200 tournaments. Right now the person with the most medals has 146. We put some restrictions on medals that makes them a little bit difficult to achieve. The escalating bronze, silver, gold is the way it's done for regular medals. The cap is the way it's been done for the achievement medals.
There has to be a balance between recognizing people for their achievements and limiting that recognition to true achievements.
I don't think it's balanced the way it is now. If it were, a map contribution medal would be worth at least ten times a tournament medal!
No one looks at a rating medal and consider it as valuable as an assassin medal. I'm all for a fairer medals awarding system, but that doesn't need to clash with this suggestion. Give 1 medal per 10 hosted tournaments, 1 medal per 15 won tournaments etc
I couldn't disagree more with that proposal. Maps take longer to make, but that doesn't mean winning a tournament is easier than making a map. Anyone can make a map eventually. It would take me forever and be painful, but I could make a map. Anyone can, because it's not a competition to see who's map is better. Not anyone can win a tournament.
There have been 2074 tournament winners for 9761 medals total. That's an average of about 4.7 tournaments per winner. There have been 315 (I think) map medals given and 102 winners. That's an average of about 3.1 maps per winner. By those numbers, map medals are less prevalent, but also less specialized. Less than 20% of people who have played in a tournament have won a tournament.
Gillipig wrote: you think creating a map that will be playable on this site (not landgrab) is something anyone could do? You think just anyone could do it if they sit long enough? Your naivety is amusing.
Unlike winning a small tournament which anyone with some dice luck can win, creating a map will test your dedication and skill in ways playing a luck based board game will never do. ANYONE can win a tournament, because ANYONE can win a couple of games in a row, and that is often all it takes to win a tournament. Anyone can try to make a map, but very few can become good enough to prompt the site to use it as a playable map. You mentioned time, you don't think with time ANYONE can learn how to play RISK good enough to win a tournament? All you need is some advice from a veteran or a bunch of games on said map, I know that from experience.
Learning how to make a map is like painting, ANYONE can doodle down some ugly crap, but few can paint well enough to get their paintings into an art gallery.
chapcrap wrote:Gillipig wrote:agentcom wrote:Gillipig wrote:qwert is right though! If we really want to solve this problem, just insert arabic numerals instead of roman. I think we're all a bit too caught up in how it looks instead of functionality.
Looks are important, but the other issue (and the bigger issue to my mind) is that we don't want to award 200 medals to someone for winning 200 tournaments. Right now the person with the most medals has 146. We put some restrictions on medals that makes them a little bit difficult to achieve. The escalating bronze, silver, gold is the way it's done for regular medals. The cap is the way it's been done for the achievement medals.
There has to be a balance between recognizing people for their achievements and limiting that recognition to true achievements.
I don't think it's balanced the way it is now. If it were, a map contribution medal would be worth at least ten times a tournament medal!
No one looks at a rating medal and consider it as valuable as an assassin medal. I'm all for a fairer medals awarding system, but that doesn't need to clash with this suggestion. Give 1 medal per 10 hosted tournaments, 1 medal per 15 won tournaments etc
I couldn't disagree more with that proposal. Maps take longer to make, but that doesn't mean winning a tournament is easier than making a map. Anyone can make a map eventually. It would take me forever and be painful, but I could make a map. Anyone can, because it's not a competition to see who's map is better. Not anyone can win a tournament.
There have been 2074 tournament winners for 9761 medals total. That's an average of about 4.7 tournaments per winner. There have been 315 (I think) map medals given and 102 winners. That's an average of about 3.1 maps per winner. By those numbers, map medals are less prevalent, but also less specialized. Less than 20% of people who have played in a tournament have won a tournament.
chapcrap wrote:Gillipig wrote: you think creating a map that will be playable on this site (not landgrab) is something anyone could do? You think just anyone could do it if they sit long enough? Your naivety is amusing.
Unlike winning a small tournament which anyone with some dice luck can win, creating a map will test your dedication and skill in ways playing a luck based board game will never do. ANYONE can win a tournament, because ANYONE can win a couple of games in a row, and that is often all it takes to win a tournament. Anyone can try to make a map, but very few can become good enough to prompt the site to use it as a playable map. You mentioned time, you don't think with time ANYONE can learn how to play RISK good enough to win a tournament? All you need is some advice from a veteran or a bunch of games on said map, I know that from experience.
Learning how to make a map is like painting, ANYONE can doodle down some ugly crap, but few can paint well enough to get their paintings into an art gallery.
Yes, I think that anyone can make a map here. It can take quite a while for some, but I'm been in the foundry and been a part of the process over there with a couple of maps. The foundry community is very helpful and patient. On this site, I believe that anyone can make a quality map.
Gillipig wrote:chapcrap wrote:Gillipig wrote: you think creating a map that will be playable on this site (not landgrab) is something anyone could do? You think just anyone could do it if they sit long enough? Your naivety is amusing.
Unlike winning a small tournament which anyone with some dice luck can win, creating a map will test your dedication and skill in ways playing a luck based board game will never do. ANYONE can win a tournament, because ANYONE can win a couple of games in a row, and that is often all it takes to win a tournament. Anyone can try to make a map, but very few can become good enough to prompt the site to use it as a playable map. You mentioned time, you don't think with time ANYONE can learn how to play RISK good enough to win a tournament? All you need is some advice from a veteran or a bunch of games on said map, I know that from experience.
Learning how to make a map is like painting, ANYONE can doodle down some ugly crap, but few can paint well enough to get their paintings into an art gallery.
Yes, I think that anyone can make a map here. It can take quite a while for some, but I'm been in the foundry and been a part of the process over there with a couple of maps. The foundry community is very helpful and patient. On this site, I believe that anyone can make a quality map.
I've worked on three maps, I know how much works lies ahead of you if you try to make a map, and let me tell you, it's a shitload of work! The mapmakers should be knighted for the time they put down on this site, not be compared with tournament organizers or even worse, tournament winners, who have done nothing special at all.
chapcrap wrote:Gillipig wrote:chapcrap wrote:Gillipig wrote: you think creating a map that will be playable on this site (not landgrab) is something anyone could do? You think just anyone could do it if they sit long enough? Your naivety is amusing.
Unlike winning a small tournament which anyone with some dice luck can win, creating a map will test your dedication and skill in ways playing a luck based board game will never do. ANYONE can win a tournament, because ANYONE can win a couple of games in a row, and that is often all it takes to win a tournament. Anyone can try to make a map, but very few can become good enough to prompt the site to use it as a playable map. You mentioned time, you don't think with time ANYONE can learn how to play RISK good enough to win a tournament? All you need is some advice from a veteran or a bunch of games on said map, I know that from experience.
Learning how to make a map is like painting, ANYONE can doodle down some ugly crap, but few can paint well enough to get their paintings into an art gallery.
Yes, I think that anyone can make a map here. It can take quite a while for some, but I'm been in the foundry and been a part of the process over there with a couple of maps. The foundry community is very helpful and patient. On this site, I believe that anyone can make a quality map.
I've worked on three maps, I know how much works lies ahead of you if you try to make a map, and let me tell you, it's a shitload of work! The mapmakers should be knighted for the time they put down on this site, not be compared with tournament organizers or even worse, tournament winners, who have done nothing special at all.
I don't have anything nice to say to you about tournament organizing, since you have abandoned 8 tournaments and finished only 1. With a record like that, how easy can tournaments be to run?
@qwert: You can say the same thing about tournaments. It's really top-heavy for the winners. As I said, 9761 winners and 2470 of those wins are from the top 2.5% (50 people). So, I don't think that your argument holds water.
Metsfanmax wrote:Let's move the discussion on to something else, please. We don't actually gain anything by debating about which activity is harder to do.
MoB Deadly wrote:tournaments vs Map making.
Tournaments are easier to farm medals than map medals.
agentcom wrote:...I think it would be cool to see a tourney medal with "CCC" on it.
...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users