Conquer Club

Should those who were conqueror before it was a rank be given Conqueror medals?

E.g. weidsun was Conqueror on Feb 16th, 2008 with a score of 1608 (he was a lieutenant). He was still on top in April 18, 2006 with a score of 2080 (Major).
cmeb4udie was Conqueror on Jun 17, 2006 with a score of 2546; alstergren was 2nd place back then
alstergren took the reigns by Jul 17, 2006, as he is still an active player, perhaps he would appreciate the medal
Belzbub took it over next and then the era of Blitz began, which is already fairly well documented.
Jork took the throne in May 2007.


I would like these 5 players to be recognized. Also, at one point, admin was probably the Conqueror too, although I can't find any proof.

In other news, is anyone else having troubles with the "find a member" feature? I couldn't find alstergren or cmeb4udie using it.

Actually I have an even better idea. Give the Conqueror medal to everyone who has ever had a score of exactly 1608.

Is this worth your time to go analyze first games with people not even on the site anymore?

betiko wrote:Is this worth your time to go analyze first games with people not even on the site anymore?

Already done, so the question is a moot point. The time is gone, the only way we can determine whether or not it was worth it is whether or not the medals are assigned.

Lol, how did you get this information??

frankiebee wrote:Lol, how did you get this information??

Old pictures taken of the scoreboard by webcrawlers.

You could also get it by calculating what time and date all the first 10 k games or so finished and then figure out who had how many points.

DoomYoshi wrote:

frankiebee wrote:Lol, how did you get this information??

Old pictures taken of the scoreboard by webcrawlers.

Ha! Well I feel better now, though you started some archeology analysing the first X games played on the site

so the player that won the very first game should get a medal? He was in first place until the next player passed him. gibbom was the first to be awarded because he was in first place when the medal was created. I know this very well because he won a battle Royale to get all his points which knocked me down to 2nd place at that time. I had to make another run for conqueror at a later date to claim my medal.

^ raises a good point.
I agree that the players who were at the top of the scoreboard before the achievement should be recognized, but you'll end up having to draw an arbitrary line to decide who to give it to, perhaps a compromise would be to have some other way of recognizing it on their profile, such as a general achievement or an official "highest rank" signature.

why not set the arbitrary line where I set it? 40 days after the site started.

Back then, it wasn't really an achievement though because the scores were low. I'm sure 100s of people went through being conquerer. I'm sure the medal was introduced around a time when it became a significance? Or am I wrong.

Shannon Apple wrote:Back then, it wasn't really an achievement though because the scores were low. I'm sure 100s of people went through being conquerer. I'm sure the medal was introduced around a time when it became a significance? Or am I wrong.

Scores may have been low, but I don't see how that diminishes the achievement?

Without BOB or clickies, freestyle/assassin or a ton of other settings, they were able to rise to the top at a time when games awarded less points and there were less games to go around.

DoomYoshi wrote:why not set the arbitrary line where I set it? 40 days after the site started.

a line was set when they introduced the medal.

Yeah, I dunno. I mean, the sentiment is nice and all, but I think it's much harder to get there nowadays than at the start of CC.

greenoaks wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:why not set the arbitrary line where I set it? 40 days after the site started.

a line was set when they introduced the medal.

Yes, I am saying it should be pushed.

Shannon Apple wrote:Yeah, I dunno. I mean, the sentiment is nice and all, but I think it's much harder to get there nowadays than at the start of CC.

Proof?

Can you imagine a conqueror who didn't use speeders, quads on complex maps or dubs on oasis?

DoomYoshi wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:why not set the arbitrary line where I set it? 40 days after the site started.

a line was set when they introduced the medal.

Yes, I am saying it should be pushed.

Shannon Apple wrote:Yeah, I dunno. I mean, the sentiment is nice and all, but I think it's much harder to get there nowadays than at the start of CC.

Proof?

Can you imagine a conqueror who didn't use speeders, quads on complex maps or dubs on oasis?

Uh...some people have very high ranks without doing that, so I don't see your point. quads give you same points as a dubs game at the end of it, and you need a good team. I know players who are general without complex maps and speeders. Who's to say they'll never make conquerer. I remember this game with only a few maps, but it was no harder. I think it is more difficult nowadays.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:so the player that won the very first game should get a medal? He was in first place until the next player passed him. gibbom was the first to be awarded because he was in first place when the medal was created. I know this very well because he won a battle Royale to get all his points which knocked me down to 2nd place at that time. I had to make another run for conqueror at a later date to claim my medal.

This thread was actually about the conquerers who don't have the medal to show for it, but you blatantly only posting in order to blow your own horn is fine too.

Man United wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:so the player that won the very first game should get a medal? He was in first place until the next player passed him. gibbom was the first to be awarded because he was in first place when the medal was created. I know this very well because he won a battle Royale to get all his points which knocked me down to 2nd place at that time. I had to make another run for conqueror at a later date to claim my medal.

This thread was actually about the conquerers who don't have the medal to show for it, but you blatantly only posting in order to blow your own horn is fine too.

I don t even know what s he talking about because the medal was introduced less than 2 years ago. Probably the rank itself.

Shannon Apple wrote:Back then, it wasn't really an achievement though because the scores were low. I'm sure 100s of people went through being conquerer. I'm sure the medal was introduced around a time when it became a significance? Or am I wrong.

I documented the all time high scores for 5 years and who achieved the number 1 status as a result of their high score. I think Lackattack took interest in my thread and created the Conqueror medal at that point.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

Shannon Apple wrote:Back then, it wasn't really an achievement though because the scores were low. I'm sure 100s of people went through being conquerer. I'm sure the medal was introduced around a time when it became a significance? Or am I wrong.

I documented the all time high scores for 5 years and who achieved the number 1 status as a result of their high score. I think Lackattack took interest in my thread and created the Conqueror medal at that point.

i remember that when they issued the medals you weren t awarded one and you had to provide with tons of stuff to prove you were once on top, I think you were the only one that wasn t remembered as a conqueror by the admins.

Anyway, who cares about first month conquerors, of course it was easier, less points needed, less competition, bigger points per game (scores being closer) and these guys have forgotten about the site and have moved on. If any of this guy shows up and gives a shit fair enough

alstergren is still here...

DoomYoshi wrote:alstergren is still here...

Doesn t seem like he s really interested.. But if you want to be the white knight, you can always contact him, tell him ect... If he doesn t really care (i guess that if he didn t claim it in 2 years it s not his top priority or he doesn t even remember being conqueror) i don t see why you should "fight for his rights".. I m sure there are better causes to fight for

I am the DoomKnight's mount...

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

Shannon Apple wrote:Back then, it wasn't really an achievement though because the scores were low. I'm sure 100s of people went through being conquerer. I'm sure the medal was introduced around a time when it became a significance? Or am I wrong.

I documented the all time high scores for 5 years and who achieved the number 1 status as a result of their high score. I think Lackattack took interest in my thread and created the Conqueror medal at that point.

And again, not relevant to the discussion, but congratulation on being the reason the medal exists all the same! Any other 'achievements' you'd like to share?

Shannon Apple wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:why not set the arbitrary line where I set it? 40 days after the site started.

a line was set when they introduced the medal.

Yes, I am saying it should be pushed.

Shannon Apple wrote:Yeah, I dunno. I mean, the sentiment is nice and all, but I think it's much harder to get there nowadays than at the start of CC.

Proof?

Can you imagine a conqueror who didn't use speeders, quads on complex maps or dubs on oasis?

Uh...some people have very high ranks without doing that, so I don't see your point. quads give you same points as a dubs game at the end of it, and you need a good team. I know players who are general without complex maps and speeders. Who's to say they'll never make conquerer. I remember this game with only a few maps, but it was no harder. I think it is more difficult nowadays.

Dkmaster is one such player. He plays mostly 8 player standard games. Quite impressive actually...