[Unofficial] HALL OF FAME

[MrBenn]

Forum- or Community-based contributors have the Special Contribution medal lack hands out.

Indeed. By definition, the people who play the game become members of the CC community.

/me yawns

[denominator]

By definition, in any Hall of Fame, all the players considered for entry must be retired from the profession in which they're being considered.

So anyone making it into the CC Hall of Fame must have formally retired from the game.

[Blitzaholic]

Jpcloet, simply just suggest some things you would like to see as criteria for eligibility. Obtaining conqueror on cc is an extremely hard thing to accomplish and should be noted.

Here are some criteria that I would want to see.

65%+ in dubs with gold dubs medal.
65%+ in trips with gold medal.
65%+ in quads with gold medal.
22%+ in 6 players standard games with gold medal
22%+ in 6 player terminator with silver medal
22%+ in 6 player assasin with silver medal.

(there could be some sort of table, if most of your standard games are 8 player, then something like 18 or 19% would be the mark maybe).

Has reach the top 100 on the scoreboard.
Has won 5 tourneys.

A person wouldn't have to meet all of these, maybe most of them. Just some ideas, but I think win percentage by game type is valuable. I think having been conqueror could be one, but I understand the argument against it. There are a bunch of great players who have never been above 3,500, simply because they don't focus on points.

3,500 would only be one of the criteria maybe george, like you said, a player would not have to meet them all , but a majority. I do think you have some good suggestions there, well done.

By definition, in any Hall of Fame, all the players considered for entry must be retired from the profession in which they're being considered.

So anyone making it into the CC Hall of Fame must have formally retired from the game.

We all know this, but, if there was a CC Hall of Fame, what you wrote above would not work. In sports, you can retire and get rewarded and recognize it later in life, if you retire from CC, good chance many will not come back. So, I think it should be allowed while there still active.

[denominator]

By definition, in any Hall of Fame, all the players considered for entry must be retired from the profession in which they're being considered.

So anyone making it into the CC Hall of Fame must have formally retired from the game.

We all know this, but, if there was a CC Hall of Fame, what you wrote above would not work. In sports, you can retire and get rewarded and recognize it later in life, if you retire from CC, good chance many will not come back. So, I think it should be allowed while there still active.

But that's not the point.

We can all name the top players on the site that are active. There are the big names in the scoreboard, the forum, tournaments, clans, etc. Just like in any sport, the top active players are readily known to any follower of the sport.

However, the point of the Hall of Fame is to immortalize the players that have had an excellent career. To remember the players that had a great career, but are no longer active.

So basically what you're doing with this is simply giving all the top players on the site another way of tooting their own horn. Especially with your criteria so points based, you're simply going to give the people obsessed with points more accolades.

[Blitzaholic]

By definition, in any Hall of Fame, all the players considered for entry must be retired from the profession in which they're being considered.

So anyone making it into the CC Hall of Fame must have formally retired from the game.

We all know this, but, if there was a CC Hall of Fame, what you wrote above would not work. In sports, you can retire and get rewarded and recognize it later in life, if you retire from CC, good chance many will not come back. So, I think it should be allowed while there still active.

But that's not the point.

We can all name the top players on the site that are active. There are the big names in the scoreboard, the forum, tournaments, clans, etc. Just like in any sport, the top active players are readily known to any follower of the sport.

However, the point of the Hall of Fame is to immortalize the players that have had an excellent career. To remember the players that had a great career, but are no longer active.

So basically what you're doing with this is simply giving all the top players on the site another way of tooting their own horn. Especially with your criteria so points based, you're simply going to give the people obsessed with points more accolades.

I gathered that top 12 criteria from many cc'ers, it is not mine. I had some ideas, as well as others, I am asking for more feedback, this thread is 3 years old. Need some others ideas so I can revamp it, so, I have been asking you all to post so eligibility requirements you all think are important?

[Georgerx7di]

Here are some criteria that I would want to see.

65%+ in dubs with gold dubs medal.
65%+ in trips with gold medal.
65%+ in quads with gold medal.
22%+ in 6 players standard games with gold medal
22%+ in 6 player terminator with silver medal
22%+ in 6 player assasin with silver medal.

(there could be some sort of table, if most of your standard games are 8 player, then something like 18 or 19% would be the mark maybe).

Has reach the top 100 on the scoreboard.
Has won 5 tourneys.

A person wouldn't have to meet all of these, maybe most of them. Just some ideas, but I think win percentage by game type is valuable. I think having been conqueror could be one, but I understand the argument against it. There are a bunch of great players who have never been above 3,500, simply because they don't focus on points.

The win percentage is a good idea, but i would have to say that we shouldn't split them up by games, but rather we should just take into account an over-all win percentage will suffice. 65% overall is a good start.
wining 5 tournys in to much, maybe 2 or 3.

New criteria

1> 20+ win streak
2>500+ forum post
3> currently active

I completely disagree with post count, and I'm over 500 posts. I get so irritated when someone says "stop trying to raise your post count" and this would just increase the frequency of those comments. I don't care what my post count is and don't consider posting to be an accomplishment. Most of the time it's something I do because I'm bored and have no turns to take.

Also, anyone who thinks they might get in would start posting random stuff for no reason. Honestly, would we pick one great player over another because one posted more. The win streak could be interesting, not sure if we mean overall or on a certain map though.

[Blitzaholic]

I haven't been around long, but after the few games I've played and after perusing the site, I say a Hall of Fame would be a great idea. Here are some of the factors I would say to include:

1. Longevity (set a certain time that the player has to have been active for)

2. Score (setting a benchmark score might be tough because of the up and down nature of the scoreboard, but perhaps there could be a benchmark for average score that could be taken into account)

3. Rank (This would have to be considered, especially for the players that don't contribute anything in the forums, map-making, or in running the site)

4. Membership Status (You could argue that a true CCer would be willing to support the site by having a premium membership for a certain period of time, but on the other side, if someone reaches the rank of General through consistent gameplay with a free account, you have to consider that as a sizable feat)

5. Stats (This would be a great reason to begin keeping stats for singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, assassin wins, second through sixth place finishes, etc. Personally, I would think that someone with say 2 years on the site, but with 500 singles wins, would have the upper hand over someone with say 100 singles wins and 600 doubles wins.)

6. Other Contributions (Someone with not quite as high of a score but multiple contributions as far as map designs that are popular should have that taken into account. Also, someone who plays well, has good stats, but perhaps contributes through helping the Forum community be a fun place to be by starting fun topics or helping others out should have that count for them as well.)

7. Feedback (This one is much more subjective, but I think that if there is a way to find validity in negative feedback, it should be taken into account but not be a major determining factor. Granted, any players currently on the site that would likely be considered probably won't have any problems with this)

Anyways, those are the base criteria I would use if I were to be setting something like that up. I'm sure it can be tweaked a bit and the details would have to be worked out, but I think it would be nice to see. Having a Hall of Fame would give some of the players something to shoot for.

As for whether or not the player should be retired in order to gain entrance, I don't think that should be a requirement for this reason: If they have retired from game-play, what good is it going to do them? They probably won't be on the site much, so what satisfaction will they get from being in the Hall of Fame?

I think there would need to be a committee that would decide on who gets in and who doesn't, but I don't think it should be just the Mods or Lack, it should be Lack, a couple of mods, but not all, and a couple members from each rank (General, Colonel, Major and Captain). I also think the voting members should only be on the committee for a set amount of time, excluding Lack given that he is the ultimate creator and if he ever steps down he can name his successor. The criteria for determining the best folks for the committee would be a little more difficult.

The last thing I would say is that if a player gains entrance to the Hall of Fame (provided retirement is not a requirement) I think that there should be a new icon designed for them. If they have made it to the Hall of Fame, then I don't think many players are going to complain if they don't see a General icon next to the player's name. Plus, it would give that player his due recognition if you ask me.

Well, that was really long. I'll stop now.[/quote]

Sorry, just thought of one more thing.

There would also need to be a limit on how often new members are placed in the Hall of Fame. Something like once per year (three new members ma, or twice a year (two new max).

Another thought would be that certain players can get in on map-making alone, kind of like coaches in sports, or maybe someday there is a superbly good doubles team that nobody can touch for a really long time and they get in on that. There couldn't be very many exceptions, but there might be a few that would be deemed appropriate by the committee themselves of course.

thx OP

I haven't been around long, but after the few games I've played and after perusing the site, I say a Hall of Fame would be a great idea. Here are some of the factors I would say to include:

you have now, it's been 3 years since we discussed this and I thought your ideas were great and I added a lot of them. Now, we may need to add some other criteria and revamp some. So let's hear it CC'ers.

[tdans]

i think in order to be considered into the Hall of Fame.. the person would need to be

A. well versed in all manners of gameplay (a excellent teammate ect....) some of the higher ranks are good on 1 or 2 maps.. i believe that that in order to even be considered to be added.. the person should be well rounded in all CC aspects.

B. Contributions to this site... people who either make suggestions,java scripts,whatever else there is..

C. Rank is an issue to.. i believe the person had to be over 3000 points at sometime.. (i personally dont play for points really.. if i really wanted i could be over 3500) there are many out there who think like that.. so 3000 is a good number..

D. Attitude is important.. putting some fellow/girl who everybody hates is kinda retarded.. so i think that the person should also be well liked around the CC community..

E. rating and win percentage is important to... for ratings received.. i think 4.6 is a good number,,, and for win percentage.. i think at least 55 percent won..

here is my 2 cents... enjoy ....lol
I believe some of this has been touched on.. but just wanted to make sure

[the.killing.44]

with some inflation, I propose this update for criteria:

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2.5 to 3 years
Naw, 2 years is good.
2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x
You're overvaluing points, I think 3k. And at least once is very redundant, lol.
3. Made a 1st 5 and Top 5 list of some sort
Meh. They're your lists.
4. Maintained high RANK for long time
What're we saying, Colonel?
5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time
Why?
6. Stats: singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, quad wins, assassin, term, total wins, etc.
Yeah, 60%+ for 2v2, 3v3, 4v4; then +5-10% from the "expected" result of singles games.
7. Multiple contributions to CC site, overall enhancement, map making, tournament organizers, clan domination, site workers, forum helpers, posters making it a fun site with threads of popularity evidenced by over 100 pages, etc.
lol, no offense Blitz but this is you making criteria for your own gain: "popularity evidenced by over 100 pages?" Please…making a long thread means nothing. I do think that Mapping, Tourney-making, and Script-building should be responded to positively, but as a "bonus-for-falling-short-in-the-other-categories" thing.
8. Feedback or Ranking System of 4.5 or higher-although somewhat subjective
Nooo. Ratings system sucks.
9. Medals of 35+ and held a reasonable high score in the process
Maybe team game medals, but going for the other ones doesn't really mean anything. Though I'd be for a "Minimum of Bronze for 9/12 of the medal categories"
10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1
This sounds alright, but I think it should be one of the "bonus-for-falling-short-in-the-other-categories" crieterion, like #7.
11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard
Noooooooooooooooo
12. Versatile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps
Yes, I think crossmap should be emphasized.

Forum posts? lmao, no;
Win streak? Sheesh, no;
Currently active? I'm totally against the idea that a HoF HAS to be for retired players, but noooooooooo to this idea.

[tdans]

with some inflation, I propose this update for criteria:

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2.5 to 3 years
Naw, 2 years is good.
2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x
You're overvaluing points, I think 3k. And at least once is very redundant, lol.
3. Made a 1st 5 and Top 5 list of some sort
Meh. They're your lists.
4. Maintained high RANK for long time
What're we saying, Colonel?
5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time
Why?
6. Stats: singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, quad wins, assassin, term, total wins, etc.
Yeah, 60%+ for 2v2, 3v3, 4v4; then +5-10% from the "expected" result of singles games.
7. Multiple contributions to CC site, overall enhancement, map making, tournament organizers, clan domination, site workers, forum helpers, posters making it a fun site with threads of popularity evidenced by over 100 pages, etc.
lol, no offense Blitz but this is you making criteria for your own gain: "popularity evidenced by over 100 pages?" Please…making a long thread means nothing. I do think that Mapping, Tourney-making, and Script-building should be responded to positively, but as a "bonus-for-falling-short-in-the-other-categories" thing.
8. Feedback or Ranking System of 4.5 or higher-although somewhat subjective
Nooo. Ratings system sucks.
9. Medals of 35+ and held a reasonable high score in the process
Maybe team game medals, but going for the other ones doesn't really mean anything. Though I'd be for a "Minimum of Bronze for 9/12 of the medal categories"
10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1
This sounds alright, but I think it should be one of the "bonus-for-falling-short-in-the-other-categories" crieterion, like #7.
11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard
Noooooooooooooooo
12. Versatile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps
Yes, I think crossmap should be emphasized.

Forum posts? lmao, no;
Win streak? Sheesh, no;
Currently active? I'm totally against the idea that a HoF HAS to be for retired players, but noooooooooo to this idea.

any yesses???

[Fruitcake]

Why don't you all make this easy on yourselves.

1) Look at Blitz's records
2) See where he would come top (or top as an average of the chosen criteria)
3) make those the criteria to be in the BC list (Blitz's Celebs)

[Georgerx7di]

with some inflation, I propose this update for criteria:

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2.5 to 3 years
Naw, 2 years is good.
2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x
You're overvaluing points, I think 3k. And at least once is very redundant, lol.
3. Made a 1st 5 and Top 5 list of some sort
Meh. They're your lists.
4. Maintained high RANK for long time
What're we saying, Colonel?
5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time
Why?
6. Stats: singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, quad wins, assassin, term, total wins, etc.
Yeah, 60%+ for 2v2, 3v3, 4v4; then +5-10% from the "expected" result of singles games.
7. Multiple contributions to CC site, overall enhancement, map making, tournament organizers, clan domination, site workers, forum helpers, posters making it a fun site with threads of popularity evidenced by over 100 pages, etc.
lol, no offense Blitz but this is you making criteria for your own gain: "popularity evidenced by over 100 pages?" Please…making a long thread means nothing. I do think that Mapping, Tourney-making, and Script-building should be responded to positively, but as a "bonus-for-falling-short-in-the-other-categories" thing.
8. Feedback or Ranking System of 4.5 or higher-although somewhat subjective
Nooo. Ratings system sucks.
9. Medals of 35+ and held a reasonable high score in the process
Maybe team game medals, but going for the other ones doesn't really mean anything. Though I'd be for a "Minimum of Bronze for 9/12 of the medal categories"
10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1
This sounds alright, but I think it should be one of the "bonus-for-falling-short-in-the-other-categories" crieterion, like #7.
11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard
Noooooooooooooooo
12. Versatile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps
Yes, I think crossmap should be emphasized.

Forum posts? lmao, no;
Win streak? Sheesh, no;
Currently active? I'm totally against the idea that a HoF HAS to be for retired players, but noooooooooo to this idea.

any yesses???

2,4,6,7,8 and 10 would probably be yes's for me. The medals, I would say less. Medals would be more of a qualifier, if you have 15 or 20 then it shows that you've played different game styles, but would be a yes or no kind of thing. You meet the minimum, now you can be considered.


In fact, that is something I think we need. Two lists, 1 list is yes or no, reasonable requirments, if you are missing 1 your out. List 2 is the tougher requirments that we look at, if you meet most of them then maybe you get in.

Example.

List 1

1. Has attained the rank of colonel.
2. Has at least 15 medals (tourney wins, tourneys created and special contributions can only count for 1 each)
3. Has Won a tourney.
4. etc

List 2 (list 2 can be more subjective because we are comparing a list of players)

1. What rank was attained and for how long?
2. How many tourney's one?
3. How well did he/she play in clan wars
4. Win percentages in dubs/trips/quads, 6 player std, etc.

The second list won't be yes or no, it will be the criteria that we study. We have a list of 8 players nominated and we say, well bill was a general for 3 years, has a 66% win percentage in team games etc, while bob has won 42 tourneys and so on.

[stahrgazer]

6. Other Contributions (Someone with not quite as high of a score but multiple contributions as far as map designs that are popular should have that taken into account. Also, someone who plays well, has good stats, but perhaps contributes through helping the Forum community be a fun place to be by starting fun topics or helping others out should have that count for them as well.)

I think these other contributions shouldn't be considered in lieu of points, but a requirement themselves. How does someone who only plays the game really contribute to the site enough to be considered hall of fame? At minimum, have organized at least one successful tournament, or been an active volunteer in some other manner (mod, newsletter (writer or interviewee), SoC, or CLA).

But 'starting a topic?' Not.

[Blitzaholic]

i think in order to be considered into the Hall of Fame.. the person would need to be

A. well versed in all manners of gameplay (a excellent teammate ect....) some of the higher ranks are good on 1 or 2 maps.. i believe that that in order to even be considered to be added.. the person should be well rounded in all CC aspects.

B. Contributions to this site... people who either make suggestions,java scripts,whatever else there is..

C. Rank is an issue to.. i believe the person had to be over 3000 points at sometime.. (i personally dont play for points really.. if i really wanted i could be over 3500) there are many out there who think like that.. so 3000 is a good number..

D. Attitude is important.. putting some fellow/girl who everybody hates is kinda retarded.. so i think that the person should also be well liked around the CC community..

E. rating and win percentage is important to... for ratings received.. i think 4.6 is a good number,,, and for win percentage.. i think at least 55 percent won..

here is my 2 cents... enjoy ....lol
I believe some of this has been touched on.. but just wanted to make sure

thx tdans

[Blitzaholic]

6. Other Contributions (Someone with not quite as high of a score but multiple contributions as far as map designs that are popular should have that taken into account. Also, someone who plays well, has good stats, but perhaps contributes through helping the Forum community be a fun place to be by starting fun topics or helping others out should have that count for them as well.)

I think these other contributions shouldn't be considered in lieu of points, but a requirement themselves. How does someone who only plays the game really contribute to the site enough to be considered hall of fame? At minimum, have organized at least one successful tournament, or been an active volunteer in some other manner (mod, newsletter (writer or interviewee), SoC, or CLA).

But 'starting a topic?' Not.

good point

with some inflation, I propose this update for criteria:

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2.5 to 3 years
Naw, 2 years is good.
2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x
You're overvaluing points, I think 3k. And at least once is very redundant, lol.
3. Made a 1st 5 and Top 5 list of some sort
Meh. They're your lists.
4. Maintained high RANK for long time
What're we saying, Colonel?
5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time
Why?
6. Stats: singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, quad wins, assassin, term, total wins, etc.
Yeah, 60%+ for 2v2, 3v3, 4v4; then +5-10% from the "expected" result of singles games.
7. Multiple contributions to CC site, overall enhancement, map making, tournament organizers, clan domination, site workers, forum helpers, posters making it a fun site with threads of popularity evidenced by over 100 pages, etc.
lol, no offense Blitz but this is you making criteria for your own gain: "popularity evidenced by over 100 pages?" Please…making a long thread means nothing. I do think that Mapping, Tourney-making, and Script-building should be responded to positively, but as a "bonus-for-falling-short-in-the-other-categories" thing.
8. Feedback or Ranking System of 4.5 or higher-although somewhat subjective
Nooo. Ratings system sucks.
9. Medals of 35+ and held a reasonable high score in the process
Maybe team game medals, but going for the other ones doesn't really mean anything. Though I'd be for a "Minimum of Bronze for 9/12 of the medal categories"
10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1
This sounds alright, but I think it should be one of the "bonus-for-falling-short-in-the-other-categories" crieterion, like #7.
11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard
Noooooooooooooooo
12. Versatile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps
Yes, I think crossmap should be emphasized.

Forum posts? lmao, no;
Win streak? Sheesh, no;
Currently active? I'm totally against the idea that a HoF HAS to be for retired players, but noooooooooo to this idea.

any yesses???

2,4,6,7,8 and 10 would probably be yes's for me. The medals, I would say less. Medals would be more of a qualifier, if you have 15 or 20 then it shows that you've played different game styles, but would be a yes or no kind of thing. You meet the minimum, now you can be considered.


In fact, that is something I think we need. Two lists, 1 list is yes or no, reasonable requirments, if you are missing 1 your out. List 2 is the tougher requirments that we look at, if you meet most of them then maybe you get in.

Example.

List 1

1. Has attained the rank of colonel.
2. Has at least 15 medals (tourney wins, tourneys created and special contributions can only count for 1 each)
3. Has Won a tourney.
4. etc

List 2 (list 2 can be more subjective because we are comparing a list of players)

1. What rank was attained and for how long?
2. How many tourney's one?
3. How well did he/she play in clan wars
4. Win percentages in dubs/trips/quads, 6 player std, etc.

The second list won't be yes or no, it will be the criteria that we study. We have a list of 8 players nominated and we say, well bill was a general for 3 years, has a 66% win percentage in team games etc, while bob has won 42 tourneys and so on.

Interesting Idea, keep posting all, I like how you all are thinking.

[barterer2002]

From where I sit Blitz I'd like to look at it a little differently. There are several ways for players to contribute to CC. For instance, one of the people I would certainly advocate as a Hall of Fame member would be cairnswk. While he hasn't ever reached the 3000 point level there can be little doubt that his contributions to making CC the enjoyable experience that it is and has been is important. He is the creator of many of the most popular maps and developed many of the more interesting gameplay attributes that we now take for granted. From where I sit to keep someone such as cairns, Optimus Prime, Jota, or others out simply because they don't reach the 3K point threshhold is ridiculous. I take nothing away from those who reach the upper echelons of the point standings but in terms of what has been given to CC I would argue that the contributions of these have been far greater and are more worthy of HOF inclusion than even becoming Conqueror. That doesn't mean that I think that becoming Conqueror isn't admirable or important because I would likely vote for anyone who has been Conqueror for the HOF, but I wouldn't want to have to eliminate major CC contributors based on something as arbitrary as a point total, much as I wouldn't want to eliminate someone with a high score simply because they had never created a map or tournament or done anything to contribute to the site except play games very well. That's where I'm standing.

[Blitzaholic]

From where I sit Blitz I'd like to look at it a little differently. There are several ways for players to contribute to CC. For instance, one of the people I would certainly advocate as a Hall of Fame member would be cairnswk. While he hasn't ever reached the 3000 point level there can be little doubt that his contributions to making CC the enjoyable experience that it is and has been is important. He is the creator of many of the most popular maps and developed many of the more interesting gameplay attributes that we now take for granted. From where I sit to keep someone such as cairns, Optimus Prime, Jota, or others out simply because they don't reach the 3K point threshhold is ridiculous. I take nothing away from those who reach the upper echelons of the point standings but in terms of what has been given to CC I would argue that the contributions of these have been far greater and are more worthy of HOF inclusion than even becoming Conqueror. That doesn't mean that I think that becoming Conqueror isn't admirable or important because I would likely vote for anyone who has been Conqueror for the HOF, but I wouldn't want to have to eliminate major CC contributors based on something as arbitrary as a point total, much as I wouldn't want to eliminate someone with a high score simply because they had never created a map or tournament or done anything to contribute to the site except play games very well. That's where I'm standing.

I hear what you are saying bart, and I agree, again, a player would NOT have to meet all the criteria, but, most of the criteria. with what you shared: what do you suggest some criteria be? Sounds like map makers, forum contributers, tourney organizers, etc. This is already one of the criteria, can you suggest some more? Maybe you are saying a special contribution medal could be part of it as well? I am hoping lack approves of this once we get it finalized and comes out with a Hall of Fame medal.

[barterer2002]

What I'm saying Blitz is that there isn't a criteria that I'd endorse. Its a body of work type of thing. There are many hall of fames out there, some of them are automatic-for instance, Women's golf puts you in the Hall of Fame if you win 30 tournaments. There are others that are entirely subjective and just voted on and/or discussed. MLB for instance has the writers just send in a ballot. Pro Football has 25 nominees that are wittled down through discussion to 5-8. I tend to think that one of these would be the way to go rather than the silly " Make X score etc and you're in."

[Blitzaholic]

What I'm saying Blitz is that there isn't a criteria that I'd endorse. Its a body of work type of thing. There are many hall of fames out there, some of them are automatic-for instance, Women's golf puts you in the Hall of Fame if you win 30 tournaments. There are others that are entirely subjective and just voted on and/or discussed. MLB for instance has the writers just send in a ballot. Pro Football has 25 nominees that are wittled down through discussion to 5-8. I tend to think that one of these would be the way to go rather than the silly " Make X score etc and you're in."

please suggest some criteria then bart, some are automatic, based on what? you would endorse no criteria? you need some? you even said in tennis if a female won 30 tourney's, they in? That is something? you named nothing for CC? name something for CC? we need something measurable? you just cant put a person in the Hall of Fame with out explaining it. So, as you look at CC, what do you deem as important things a player must accomplish? You also suggest football or NFL has 25 nominees that are wittled down to 5-8, when they decide on those 5-8 (the body of work) note what they look for? Football for example looks at longevity, they look at stats, they look at wins, superbowls, pro bowls, MVP's, etc. We in CC also need jurors, a committee to help us look for things. We want objective measures, not subjective, so, if you can come up with some ideas, great. I have a lot of criteria from a few years ago and a lot more now, I will probably look to make a poll and let cc vote as well. You need to choose some things bart, and if you do great. But, you mentioned nothing so far, so please suggest what you think, you are entitled to your opinion, post it. Baseball of MLB for example almost puts any player who has 3,000 hits in automatically, but, they labeled it, see what I mean? You need to label something, what body of work, pick things, lol. no one is saying if you make x score you are in like you say? That is only one thing out of 12 items, currently, there are 12 criteria at the moment that is being reviewed and revamped with cc players input, pm's and posts, if you can contribute something , great. and thx.

[Lindax]

Mmmm....

I think we should not compare a CC Hall of Fame to an NFL or PGA Hall of Fame.

A CC Hall of Famer should be an exceptional player, since that's what CC is about at the end of the day, and he/she should be an example and inspiration to others. The player should be a positive force on CC, by being involved in aspects of CC other than merely playing games. This could be many things, relating to maps, tournaments, clans, forum, newsletter, etc, etc.

I also think there should not be a medal attached. We get medals for various types of game play, map making, tournament wins and organizing, contests and there is the special contribution medal.

It should be a place where exceptional CC'ers get recognized and honored, and inspire others.

Reading the last few posts, I think there should be a few minimum prerequisites to be even considered or nominated. Then the jurors should have a list of other requisites/achievements that will be taken into account when deciding who gets in.

Given the nature of internet gaming I think we should induct players at shorter intervals then 1 year. Maybe something like 1 or 2 players every 3 months or something.

Some of the criteria I would like to see as a prerequisites to be considered would:

1.- Being an active CC member for a certain amount of time
2.- Achieving a certain score
3.- Being an all-round player (I guess that's what a variety of medals would show)
4.- Sportsmanship (I guess we would have to work with ratings for now)
5.- Being involved in something more than just playing games
6.- Having a clean record (no busts, bans, etc.)

All of the above is obviously merely my humble opinion.

Lx

[Blitzaholic]

Mmmm....

I think we should not compare a CC Hall of Fame to an NFL or PGA Hall of Fame.

A CC Hall of Famer should be an exceptional player, since that's what CC is about at the end of the day, and he/she should be an example and inspiration to others. The player should be a positive force on CC, by being involved in aspects of CC other than merely playing games. This could be many things, relating to maps, tournaments, clans, forum, newsletter, etc, etc.

I also think there should not be a medal attached. We get medals for various types of game play, map making, tournament wins and organizing, contests and there is the special contribution medal.

It should be a place where exceptional CC'ers get recognized and honored, and inspire others.

Reading the last few posts, I think there should be a few minimum prerequisites to be even considered or nominated. Then the jurors should have a list of other requisites/achievements that will be taken into account when deciding who gets in.

Given the nature of internet gaming I think we should induct players at shorter intervals then 1 year. Maybe something like 1 or 2 players every 3 months or something.

Some of the criteria I would like to see as a prerequisites to be considered would:

1.- Being an active CC member for a certain amount of time
2.- Achieving a certain score
3.- Being an all-round player (I guess that's what a variety of medals would show)
4.- Sportsmanship (I guess we would have to work with ratings for now)
5.- Being involved in something more than just playing games
6.- Having a clean record (no busts, bans, etc.)

All of the above is obviously merely my humble opinion.

Lx

right on Lx, those are great ideas M8.

[HighlanderAttack]

I will reiterate what I said earlier-Certain number of criteria is not necessary. I do think three years belonging to CC should be the only criteria. Since there are so many aspects of CC, and so many different game plays, specific requirements should not be needed. A Coach gets into the Hall of Fame in football-yet may have never played and put together statistics in certain categories. In baseball some players come up for nomination and make it the first year they are nominated, yet others take many many years to get in. Eventually if what they did is good enough they get in. I like the idea of three years because they have at least put their time in. Does their overall body of work warrant a spot depends on if they get enough votes to be nominated and then voted in.

Just my thoughts.

[Gold Knight]

Im also beginning to agree that there doesnt need to be a set criteria to look at. There are so many different ways that people play this game and contribute to this site that to narrow it down to categories doesnt really do them justice. I liked JP's post earlier, that some of the criteria are impossible for most players to reach, or they just straight up dont want to pursue. Conqueror is held by very few people here, and half of them I would not even consider for a HOF ballot because of how they got there. I, along with many others, couldnt give a passing thoughts to medals or making special contributions to the site. That knocks about 4 categories down for most players on the site, meaning they wouldnt be able to meet the "9-10" criteria that your looking for.

I think if this were to be implemented, players would be nominated and a case would have to be built for them on an individual level. If we cant put the time in to evaluate each person worthy of the honor we are attempting to bestow on them, then there isnt a point in implementing this. Now some of those criterias could be included in their nomination and be a major contributor to why they made it, but it would be rediculous to decline someone because of a few things that they didnt do.

[Blitzaholic]

here is some of the info I got over some posts, I will have to sort this all out and brainstorm. If you all have more idea,s keep posting em.

i think in order to be considered into the Hall of Fame.. the person would need to be

A. well versed in all manners of gameplay (a excellent teammate ect....) some of the higher ranks are good on 1 or 2 maps.. i believe that that in order to even be considered to be added.. the person should be well rounded in all CC aspects.

B. Contributions to this site... people who either make suggestions,java scripts,whatever else there is..

C. Rank is an issue to.. i believe the person had to be over 3000 points at sometime.. (i personally dont play for points really.. if i really wanted i could be over 3500) there are many out there who think like that.. so 3000 is a good number..

D. Attitude is important.. putting some fellow/girl who everybody hates is kinda retarded.. so i think that the person should also be well liked around the CC community..

E. rating and win percentage is important to... for ratings received.. i think 4.6 is a good number,,, and for win percentage.. i think at least 55 percent won..

here is my 2 cents... enjoy ....lol
I believe some of this has been touched on.. but just wanted to make sure

6. Other Contributions (Someone with not quite as high of a score but multiple contributions as far as map designs that are popular should have that taken into account. Also, someone who plays well, has good stats, but perhaps contributes through helping the Forum community be a fun place to be by starting fun topics or helping others out should have that count for them as well.)

I think these other contributions shouldn't be considered in lieu of points, but a requirement themselves. How does someone who only plays the game really contribute to the site enough to be considered hall of fame? At minimum, have organized at least one successful tournament, or been an active volunteer in some other manner (mod, newsletter (writer or interviewee), SoC, or CLA).

But 'starting a topic?' Not.

with some inflation, I propose this update for criteria:

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2.5 to 3 years
Naw, 2 years is good.
2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x
You're overvaluing points, I think 3k. And at least once is very redundant, lol.
3. Made a 1st 5 and Top 5 list of some sort
Meh. They're your lists.
4. Maintained high RANK for long time
What're we saying, Colonel?
5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time
Why?
6. Stats: singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, quad wins, assassin, term, total wins, etc.
Yeah, 60%+ for 2v2, 3v3, 4v4; then +5-10% from the "expected" result of singles games.
7. Multiple contributions to CC site, overall enhancement, map making, tournament organizers, clan domination, site workers, forum helpers, posters making it a fun site with threads of popularity evidenced by over 100 pages, etc.
lol, no offense Blitz but this is you making criteria for your own gain: "popularity evidenced by over 100 pages?" Please…making a long thread means nothing. I do think that Mapping, Tourney-making, and Script-building should be responded to positively, but as a "bonus-for-falling-short-in-the-other-categories" thing.
8. Feedback or Ranking System of 4.5 or higher-although somewhat subjective
Nooo. Ratings system sucks.
9. Medals of 35+ and held a reasonable high score in the process
Maybe team game medals, but going for the other ones doesn't really mean anything. Though I'd be for a "Minimum of Bronze for 9/12 of the medal categories"
10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1
This sounds alright, but I think it should be one of the "bonus-for-falling-short-in-the-other-categories" crieterion, like #7.
11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard
Noooooooooooooooo
12. Versatile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps
Yes, I think crossmap should be emphasized.

Forum posts? lmao, no;
Win streak? Sheesh, no;
Currently active? I'm totally against the idea that a HoF HAS to be for retired players, but noooooooooo to this idea.

Mmmm....

I think we should not compare a CC Hall of Fame to an NFL or PGA Hall of Fame.

A CC Hall of Famer should be an exceptional player, since that's what CC is about at the end of the day, and he/she should be an example and inspiration to others. The player should be a positive force on CC, by being involved in aspects of CC other than merely playing games. This could be many things, relating to maps, tournaments, clans, forum, newsletter, etc, etc.

I also think there should not be a medal attached. We get medals for various types of game play, map making, tournament wins and organizing, contests and there is the special contribution medal.

It should be a place where exceptional CC'ers get recognized and honored, and inspire others.

Reading the last few posts, I think there should be a few minimum prerequisites to be even considered or nominated. Then the jurors should have a list of other requisites/achievements that will be taken into account when deciding who gets in.

Given the nature of internet gaming I think we should induct players at shorter intervals then 1 year. Maybe something like 1 or 2 players every 3 months or something.

Some of the criteria I would like to see as a prerequisites to be considered would:

1.- Being an active CC member for a certain amount of time
2.- Achieving a certain score
3.- Being an all-round player (I guess that's what a variety of medals would show)
4.- Sportsmanship (I guess we would have to work with ratings for now)
5.- Being involved in something more than just playing games
6.- Having a clean record (no busts, bans, etc.)

All of the above is obviously merely my humble opinion.

Lx

I haven't been around long, but after the few games I've played and after perusing the site, I say a Hall of Fame would be a great idea. Here are some of the factors I would say to include:

1. Longevity (set a certain time that the player has to have been active for)

2. Score (setting a benchmark score might be tough because of the up and down nature of the scoreboard, but perhaps there could be a benchmark for average score that could be taken into account)

3. Rank (This would have to be considered, especially for the players that don't contribute anything in the forums, map-making, or in running the site)

4. Membership Status (You could argue that a true CCer would be willing to support the site by having a premium membership for a certain period of time, but on the other side, if someone reaches the rank of General through consistent gameplay with a free account, you have to consider that as a sizable feat)

5. Stats (This would be a great reason to begin keeping stats for singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, assassin wins, second through sixth place finishes, etc. Personally, I would think that someone with say 2 years on the site, but with 500 singles wins, would have the upper hand over someone with say 100 singles wins and 600 doubles wins.)

6. Other Contributions (Someone with not quite as high of a score but multiple contributions as far as map designs that are popular should have that taken into account. Also, someone who plays well, has good stats, but perhaps contributes through helping the Forum community be a fun place to be by starting fun topics or helping others out should have that count for them as well.)

7. Feedback (This one is much more subjective, but I think that if there is a way to find validity in negative feedback, it should be taken into account but not be a major determining factor. Granted, any players currently on the site that would likely be considered probably won't have any problems with this)

Anyways, those are the base criteria I would use if I were to be setting something like that up. I'm sure it can be tweaked a bit and the details would have to be worked out, but I think it would be nice to see. Having a Hall of Fame would give some of the players something to shoot for.

As for whether or not the player should be retired in order to gain entrance, I don't think that should be a requirement for this reason: If they have retired from game-play, what good is it going to do them? They probably won't be on the site much, so what satisfaction will they get from being in the Hall of Fame?

I think there would need to be a committee that would decide on who gets in and who doesn't, but I don't think it should be just the Mods or Lack, it should be Lack, a couple of mods, but not all, and a couple members from each rank (General, Colonel, Major and Captain). I also think the voting members should only be on the committee for a set amount of time, excluding Lack given that he is the ultimate creator and if he ever steps down he can name his successor. The criteria for determining the best folks for the committee would be a little more difficult.

The last thing I would say is that if a player gains entrance to the Hall of Fame (provided retirement is not a requirement) I think that there should be a new icon designed for them. If they have made it to the Hall of Fame, then I don't think many players are going to complain if they don't see a General icon next to the player's name. Plus, it would give that player his due recognition if you ask me.

Well, that was really long. I'll stop now.

I'd envision a hall of fame including the best players, and anyone who has made a special contribution to the site improving - for example top mapmakers, tournament organizers, clan organizers who may not be statistically great players may deserve inclusion for their contribution.

As far as statistics go, I'm a little leery of score because as has been demonstrated over and over score is not a real good predictor of skill - HighlanderAttack is usually a major but in my opinion may be the best 1 v 1 seq. player on the site. I think a high cross map value is absolutely essential - you can't claim Hall of Fame status playing all your games on a small group of maps. Similarly, I think all game types have to be covered - terminator, assassin, doubles, triples, quads, and yes, freestyle. I love the kill ratio calc in Chipv's maprankgl - it is an underrated tool for measuring skill.

So for my basis for consideration, except in special cases: 3000 pts minimum score achieved, 50% kill ratio, 125 cross maps (with exceptions for players who retired when there were far fewer maps), gold doubles, trips, quads, silver assassin, silver terminator, silver freestyle medals.

as far as longevity and stats, I would favor the cc player who played 2 years and maintained around a 2600 rank over the cc player who played 1 year and
maintained a 2800 rank.

this is just an example!


the reason why, is because of the demonstration over a longer period of time to stay up that high with the constant in flux of players is quite difficult, another reason is CC had or has had 27 Generals and only 8 now.

Very difficult to obtain, 20x more difficult to maintain it, especially over extended periods of time.

Also, there should not only be a bare minimum of a 2 year requirement of playing on here, but also a bare minimum of games played, perhaps 500 per year? So, if a CC player played 2 years but only 400 games??? Would not be accepted, or if a person played 18 months and played 2,200 games, would not be accepted, (regsrdless of there rank) has to be at least 2 years and 1,000 games played bare minimum after 2 years, or something like that, agreed?

I like the idea of averaging a certain number of games per year. That would pretty much answer the question of being required to have a premium membership over a free membership. The actually number per year you probably depend on some research to see what the top players average (throwing out the excessively active ones of course).

I like this idea, it gives players something more to strive for, gives players more roll models to look up to and inspires others to follow in their footsteps creating a better CC community. Regardless of what it is that gets said person or persons into the hall of fame for that year, it will let others know that if you contribute to the community above and beyond the normal call of duty that it wont go unnoticed. As far as the details go for what the criteria should be, there is a lot to be considered. What about the people who write our codes for greasemonkey, map makers, forum contributers, great players of top rank and score, how do we include such a vast array of players? I'll leave that up to you guys! I think this is a good idea if the details can be worked out, that's my 2 cents

The criteria would be

1) Decent Rank (I know this is controversial but just like officer)
2) Post number (to show participation)
3) Tournament winnings (I dunno I think that's cool)

1) score/rank
2) membership status/total time
3) participation/improvements
4) feedback ( describes behavior like Blitz mentioned )

Highest Score
Highest Place
completed games
total victories
triples victories
singles victories
feedback

It should be a combination of different types of players...should include those who did well at particular maps...those who won at different types of games styles (terminator, doubles, triples, ect). and I would think people should know who the past conquerers are...Canton would be empty if it only profiled QB's...sadly a CC hall of fame would be extensive...

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2 years

2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x

3. Made 1st 5 and Top 5 lists

4. Maintained RANK for long time

5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time

6. Stats: singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, quad wins, assassin, term, total wins, etc.

7. Multiple contributions to CC site, overall enhancement, map making, tournament organizers, clan domination, site workers, forum helpers, posters making it a fun site with threads of popularity evidenced by over 100 pages, etc.

8. Feedback or Ranking System of 4.5 or higher-although somewhat subjective

9. Medals of 20+ and held high score in the process

10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1

11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard

12. Versitile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps

WOW- blitz you only missing medal for map making,and your road to become member of hall of fame will be open

I think it would be very cool if hall of fame players could get their name highlighted in games like a mod is but maybe a different color in addition to just a medal. Make it very prestigious and recognizable.

I think a cool way to handle nominations so it stays on peoples mind and is always something to talk about is make it where the panel and the community as a whole can each nominate a player once per month (say on the first of the month). The community nomination can be by a vote with a poll and then the panel can pick their own nominee however they want. I think yearly inductions is too far apart. Maybe induct every 6 months. So this way you have 12 nominees and then the panel would discuss and let in 3 of them, maybe 4 (this number is debatable).

I think most of the criteria for being let in is pretty good. I will think about it some more and see if I have any more ideas.

If one of the judges panel is up for nominations then I think we could have "alternate judges" that would feel their spot during that time period.

now, to less important things.
1- if we are going to establish this, we will need some sort of rules to get into jury. you will need fair and positive people. we cant have harsh people who will try to overlook someone just because they dont like him/her

2- i agree with HA. i think the only requirement for someone to be considered should be presence in CC for 3+ years. other then that i dont see anything that important. being conqueror? thats bullshit. ive been here for more then one year and all the conquerors have been freestyle players. and the list you have posted looks to me like HoF will be sort of NFL HoF. if you are good QB, you are automatically in. if you are WR/RB/TE/OL/DEF you need to be outstanding to get in.

3- to get into HoF, all the jurors have to give positive votes. one negative, and you are out.

4- all the candidates should be chosen by some kind of committee. jurors would only vote for them, others would applied them.

those are just some ideas

Here are some criteria that I would want to see.

65%+ in dubs with gold dubs medal.
65%+ in trips with gold medal.
65%+ in quads with gold medal.
22%+ in 6 players standard games with gold medal
22%+ in 6 player terminator with silver medal
22%+ in 6 player assasin with silver medal.

Has reach the top 100 on the scoreboard.
Has won 5 tourneys.

A person wouldn't have to meet all of these, maybe most of them. Just some ideas, but I think win percentage by game type is valuable. I think having been conqueror could be one, but I understand the argument against it. There are a bunch of great players who have never been above 3,500, simply because they don't focus on points.

The win percentage is a good idea, but i would have to say that we shouldn't split them up by games, but rather we should just take into account an over-all win percentage will suffice. 65% overall is a good start.
wining 5 tournys in to much, maybe 2 or 3.

New criteria

1> 20+ win streak
2>500+ forum post
3> currently active

[laddida]

been almost 3 years and still not a hall of fame im not gonna read all this though i like the idea