Map Conqueror Medal

[rousseau72]

Concise description:
Every CC Map would have a Conqueror Medal that would be given for being the best at that map. We could have 2 Map Field Marshall Medals per map given as well. To prevent a proliferation of medals, you could award the medal based on the best statistics for that map once a year.

Specifics/Details:
- All Map rankings to be reset from zero - to encourage people to not rest on past records or you may have a situation where a player left the site with the best record.
- Best record would need to be on win ratio but with a minimum number of games (like 25 games)
- One option is to allow Field Marshall to challenge the Conqueror and the top 10 to challenge the Field Marshall in the final stage. Or you could even have a tournament at the end of the year where the top 12 players play around robin.
- User Interface is relatively easy - the current Maps Tab at the top would be the center of this activity. There is one more tab there called "Map Conquerors" - which is just like the map slideshow interface EXCEPT instead of the map being shown, you show the leader board for that map. You use a UI just like the Current Leaderboard but the game stats/Win ratio etc applies ONLY to that map
- To prevent too much medal farming - perhaps you can limit the total medals on this method to 30 for any single player.
- The calculations could be done manually by having each player "apply" for conqueror. Applying for conqueror would use Game Finder to count how many wins the player had at the time of application. You would only get the map conqueror if you actually applied. The awards could be given out manually on an annual basis.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
[list]
- Encourage more good game play
- Give Players reasons to stay on the site. " Damn, I am the conqueror for X map and if I leave then I give that title up"
- Encourage less played maps to get much more activity
- Encourage another way to compete than going on tournaments. Tourneys are great many times, but a running individual tourney would be good too.
- Easy to implement - the suggestion I have uses existing code. I'll bet it could be up without much effort at all.
- Medal guys will love this (I spoke to Josko.ri so I know

[xroads]

I really really like this, but it will never ever happen.

[IcePack]

What’s to stop someone from playing the minimum 25 and then stopping w impossibly high win %?

[betiko]

What’s to stop someone from playing the minimum 25 and then stopping w impossibly high win %?

It would reset the next year?

How would your win rate work? Would the number of opponent be taken into consideration?
Like if you have 20% win rate in 5 player games it's like having a 50% on 1vs1?

[xroads]

or it could be rated by points. IE you win a ton of points in an 8 man game vs 1 vs 1 game. That would help stop the 1 map wonder settings.

[mrswdk]

i.e. you want to increase the amount of medals that are available for nothing other than being able to win a lot of games, and for people who are good at farming obscure maps to be given medals for farming obscure maps

It's already hard enough to find games on normal maps, without actively encouraging all the medal nerds to retreat into 1v1 polymorphic Krazy Kingdoms games never to emerge again.

[xroads]

I really really like this, but it will never ever happen.

see what I mean?

[rousseau72]

I think that the gaming of very high scores can be stopped in my original post by this:
- One option is to allow Field Marshall to challenge the Conqueror and the top 10 to challenge the Field Marshall in the final stage.
Challenges could occur.
The win ratio would normalize as you point out by saying that a 20% win ratio for a 5 player game is the same as 50% in a 2 playergame.

What’s to stop someone from playing the minimum 25 and then stopping w impossibly high win %?

It would reset the next year?

How would your win rate work? Would the number of opponent be taken into consideration?
Like if you have 20% win rate in 5 player games it's like having a 50% on 1vs1?

[rousseau72]

Ok so how does this get into a change? BighWahm personal appeal?
Also, why are you sure it wont be approved? Most people I talkedot love this idea.

I really really like this, but it will never ever happen.

see what I mean?

[rousseau72]

So you believe that this will decrease the number of total games played? The medal hounds will increase their game counts toget these.Nobody will decrease games though - I don't understand that point.
I just consider my own case. I am very good at a few specialty maps. I play mostly in tourneys and an occasional pickup game. If this conqueror designation arose,I would play much more on my favorite maps. I would not cut back on other games.

i.e. you want to increase the amount of medals that are available for nothing other than being able to win a lot of games, and for people who are good at farming obscure maps to be given medals for farming obscure maps

It's already hard enough to find games on normal maps, without actively encouraging all the medal nerds to retreat into 1v1 polymorphic Krazy Kingdoms games never to emerge again.

[xroads]

Because nothing suggested ever gets implemented, no matter how good the idea is.

[IcePack]

Because nothing suggested ever gets implemented, no matter how good the idea is.

Yeah we definitely didn’t just get resign for trench games or any other suggestions like poly or watch this game or plenty of other things added. That never ever ever happens.

Just like clan dept didn’t get any updates when we requested help for CR@W, or active games on the clan tab for wars, or claniversity, or countless other things....

Suggestions and Dept proposals get done all the time. Suggestions need to be thoroughly discussed and well explained / thought out.

A suggestion that doesn’t have details flushed out is very unlikely to happen, or things that will take a lot of work for limited benefit. But there is plenty of things that have been suggested / proposed by members and implimented.

[xroads]

The resign button has been begged for for as long as CC has been around, and it FINALLY happens on trench games only.

How about the other 500 decent suggestions that never see the light of day.

[IcePack]

The resign button has been begged for for as long as CC has been around, and it FINALLY happens on trench games only.

How about the other 500 decent suggestions that never see the light of day.

Right, so your complaint is...that everything ever suggested wasn't implemented? Or not in the way you like? Or....?

Saying "nothing suggested ever gets implemented, no matter how good the idea is" is a far cry from "they didn't implement stuff the way I liked" or "theres more work to be done".
There will always be more suggestions then can be implemented, there will always be some that don't get done. But none of that means "nothing ever gets implemented" regardless of the quality of suggestion.

As I said, many suggestions don't have enough details provided to really be that useful. Some of them might get done, but are low priority (to the site).
Doesn't mean they won't get done, but it might take awhile. But I'm not sure what you expect when its owned by a guy who does it part time. This isn't some huge budget multi million dollar WoW or LoL, things take time / get done in order or priority. Other places have teams of people updating, we have a part time coder. Theres going to be some sacrifices made.

But telling people to stop suggesting stuff because they'll never get implemented no matter how good they are is total BS. Sorry, but it is.

[xroads]

When was the last suggestion from this forum actually implemented? Link to original thread.

Sorry to be a Debbie downer, but I am resigned to the facts. There is a saying, when you stop innovating your product, you start dying. I think the results speak for themselves.

[IcePack]

When was the last suggestion from this forum actually implemented? Link to original thread.

Sorry to be a Debbie downer, but I am resigned to the facts. There is a saying, when you stop innovating your product, you start dying. I think the results speak for themselves.

I already gave you examples. If you want the link, go get it. If you like to piss in your own cereal before you eat it fine by me, but I'm not going to sit down and join you for your pity party. If you want to blindly believe that nothing is getting done without opening your own eyes and looking around, fine. But again, its total BS. It also adds literally zero to this thread regarding THIS suggestion, nor does it do anything to actually get this suggestion implemented. You can always say "it'll never get implemented" to everything if you / nobody actually contributes to something getting done. At that point its a self fulfilling prophecy.

The site has done updates, both from suggestions (like resign suggestion), and outside of suggestions like from Dept Heads (as I already said, CR@W took a ton of work to get the site to do the map automated), and other things that the site owner has wanted to get done.

The sites previous owner did very little, the current owner has done updates previously and still continues to do so. The sites decline has more to do with the move away from web browsing games at the peak, and more towards mobile, while also experiencing lowered search for Risk Online, etc. then has to do with lack of implementing suggestions from this area (or other areas).

I've always been a big proponent of CC adding a mobile component and wish they would innovate in that direction, but that doesn't take away from the fact there are still updates / upgrades and new things added continually in other areas.

[HitRed]

Clearly there are quite a few medal collectors here though. And don't forget the new chart for those that binge play all the maps the fastest

[xroads]

I would suggest making it a yearly medal. At the end of the year, whoever won the most points on the map wins, min 25 games. Gold, Silver, Plat.

3 medals for each map, given at the end of the year.

Would need a scoreboard for each map to let everyone know how they ranked (been suggested before)

[CatchersMitt14]

I think the actuality of this getting implemented will really come down to how the criteria structures works for this medal. We will not be getting any new medals added in the current medal system that are not issued manually. Wham said he has to overhaul the engineering of the medal structure before he will add any more medals as in their current state it's a large amount of precessing and creating a drain on performance. I have not had any indication from him that he plans to do that in the foreseeable future as I have recently tried to add a new medal.

[xroads]

I think the actuality of this getting implemented will really come down to how the criteria structures works for this medal. We will not be getting any new medals added in the current medal system that are not issued manually. Wham said he has to overhaul the engineering of the medal structure before he will add any more medals as in their current state it's a large amount of precessing and creating a drain on performance. I have not had any indication from him that he plans to do that in the foreseeable future as I have recently tried to add a new medal.

Quote "I really really like this, but it will never ever happen"

[IcePack]

I think the actuality of this getting implemented will really come down to how the criteria structures works for this medal. We will not be getting any new medals added in the current medal system that are not issued manually. Wham said he has to overhaul the engineering of the medal structure before he will add any more medals as in their current state it's a large amount of precessing and creating a drain on performance. I have not had any indication from him that he plans to do that in the foreseeable future as I have recently tried to add a new medal.

Quote "I really really like this, but it will never ever happen"

Adding a new medal is one option, utilizing existing medals is another. Hence the whole determining / working out the details on a suggestion and criteria, in order for suggestion(s) to be considered and implimented. This is why many of the existing suggestions typically fall short / fail.

This suggestion could potentially work within the existing medal structure and those details would have to get worked out.

[CatchersMitt14]

I think the actuality of this getting implemented will really come down to how the criteria structures works for this medal. We will not be getting any new medals added in the current medal system that are not issued manually. Wham said he has to overhaul the engineering of the medal structure before he will add any more medals as in their current state it's a large amount of precessing and creating a drain on performance. I have not had any indication from him that he plans to do that in the foreseeable future as I have recently tried to add a new medal.

Quote "I really really like this, but it will never ever happen"

Adding a new medal is one option, utilizing existing medals is another. Hence the whole determining / working out the details on a suggestion and criteria, in order for suggestion(s) to be considered and implimented. This is why many of the existing suggestions typically fall short / fail.

This suggestion could potentially work within the existing medal structure and those details would have to get worked out.

That's exactly my point, he's not going to make changes to the existing structure unless he overhauls the entire thing and he indicated that's not currently on the agenda. I'm adding information to the conversation so they can see how to structure their medal so it increases the likelihood of implementation.

Adding a new medal verses using an old one isn't the issue. The issues are HOW the stats are calculated and HOW the medals are issued. Nothing that is structured in the same way as any of the medals on the "Medal Stats" page will see the light of day until the entire structure is re-engineered.

[nietzsche]

for this you would need a 250 x 6000 array to just consider active users (800,000 for total users), and then calculate the retroactive score of every player on every map.. can't think of another way to do it..

if they didn't even do it for the range field on our profiles, and that was 1 score.. not 250. doubt it.

and then you would need to check the top score on each map every hour or so?

not gonna happen.

[IcePack]

for this you would need a 250 x 6000 array to just consider active users (800,000 for total users), and then calculate the retroactive score of every player on every map.. can't think of another way to do it..

if they didn't even do it for the range field on our profiles, and that was 1 score.. not 250. doubt it.

and then you would need to check the top score on each map every hour or so?

not gonna happen.

He’s proposing it moving forward not retroactive