Moderator: Community Team



Yeah, I don't think ALL of the smaller tournaments are for that reason, but I definately think some are. Admittedly, I do like "short and sweet." But I think that a silver medal in one of the aforementioned tournaments would be worth far more and require much greater effort than a gold in a tournament where, as you said, you have to win 8 games.barterer2002 wrote:I like the idea although I would reject the idea that smaller tournaments are run simply to enhance a TOs medal count. I tend to think that smaller tournaments are run because they're popular by players. Still its clear that there is a difference between winning TLO, mapblasters, one of the madness series and something like the championship series which once can win with 8 wins.

Night Strike wrote:Sorry, but no. Who's to decide which tournaments are sufficiently large to warrant many medals? Also, I highly doubt there's going to be a new medal created just for those places, and the same one that's currently used can't be used b/c all the counts run together. We already have too many medals to give out....we don't need to decipher when other positions need medals. The best recognition for 2nd and 3rd places are when organizers purchase a premium membership and give portions of the matched prize to the runners up.

To be clear, this was the exact opposite of what I was trying to accomplish with my suggestion. It was a "quality over quantity" idea.AndyDufresne wrote:While we all want more Medals
That's...silly. I would judge anybody I saw doing that.AndyDufresne wrote:However, no one is stopping you from keeping track of your own relative placements in tournament results and displaying them on your profile or in your signature.
