Conquer Club

Night Strike wrote:

jricart wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jricart wrote:One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

How about creating a COMPETITION to provide new images for the tournament wins and organized ones? that will fix the problem dont you think?

No, because once the new limit has been saturated, people will want even more.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jricart wrote:One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

so instead of tweaking and fixing a real problem we get entertained by your revisions to something that wasnt broke ? I guess that makes sense.

Secondly, I would like to make a point about the numerous time people have posted saying something along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is not a fix, because the system we have right now is not broken. Think of it more along the lines of a new line of cars. Last year's models, the 2009s, weren't broken, but that doesn't stop car manufacturers from updating and releasing the 2010 models that all have improvements. It's an update and revision of the rules to streamline the process and add a level of fairness to the equation that is currently lacking.

Night Strike wrote:Secondly, I would like to make a point about the numerous time people have posted saying something along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is not a fix, because the system we have right now is not broken. Think of it more along the lines of a new line of cars. Last year's models, the 2009s, weren't broken, but that doesn't stop car manufacturers from updating and releasing the 2010 models that all have improvements. It's an update and revision of the rules to streamline the process and add a level of fairness to the equation that is currently lacking.

Night Strike wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jricart wrote:One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

so instead of tweaking and fixing a real problem we get entertained by your revisions to something that wasnt broke ? I guess that makes sense.

denominator already won that argument:

Secondly, I would like to make a point about the numerous time people have posted saying something along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is not a fix, because the system we have right now is not broken. Think of it more along the lines of a new line of cars. Last year's models, the 2009s, weren't broken, but that doesn't stop car manufacturers from updating and releasing the 2010 models that all have improvements. It's an update and revision of the rules to streamline the process and add a level of fairness to the equation that is currently lacking.

HighlanderAttack wrote:So I am tired of Night Strike and his dictatorship. Over the past year I have had four issues with Night Strike.

1. My medals being stripped for running AACM tourneys which although different in format were deemed the same format due to name only-after a few back and forth pm's I was eventually ignored and nothing happened.

2. Then the thread by Bones(Night Strikes Buddy) about there being too many tourneys to choose from. Instead of supporting tourneys he is about tourneys being his way or no way.

3. Then after being told I could not run speed tourneys the way I wanted to, and responding with my reasoning, I was never given a response.

4. And now with this pm I received. Basically eliminating at least 5 different styles of the tourneys I run. On top of that this was not sent to all tourney organizers. I don't know who it was sent to but I do know it was not sent to at least one tourney organizer who has run numerous tourneys.


I am basically putting this out there so everyone knows Night Strike is a dictator that is going to do things his way and if you don't like it oh well. Well I don't like it and I am over it and I am making my opinion known to everyone.

I have tried to make tourneys a fun thing over the past year. I have started over 130 tourneys and completed over 100. That I know if most everyone has enjoyed them. I do this with my time and get my own person reward for running tourneys out of it and nothing more. I didn't even know you received medals for running tourneys in the beginning. I just feel Night Strike is against tourney formats that don't fit his own personal criteria. I feel like no matter what response I give to him personally will have no effect anyway so I did not waste my time responding to him personally. I will pm this to the players that have been in my tourneys in the past. That is about it. Good Luck to all. I do not know what my future holds for CC, but it is time I make a stand against someone who I believe is bad for CC tourneys.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jricart wrote:One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

so instead of tweaking and fixing a real problem we get entertained by your revisions to something that wasnt broke ? I guess that makes sense.

Gilligan wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

jricart wrote:One last thing: Why there is a maximum number of medals for running and winning tournaments? There should be no limitations to that. If you organize 50, you should get 50. If you win 80, your profile should show 80! How hard is for the Webmaster to tweak the code to fix this problem?

Because each numbered medal is a different image file that had to be created. Plus he wanted the Roman Numeral style, which got too cluttered once they were over 30. Only a couple organizers had organized 30 tournaments when they were introduced, and maybe one person had won 30 tournaments when those were created.

so instead of tweaking and fixing a real problem we get entertained by your revisions to something that wasnt broke ? I guess that makes sense.

Are you guys REALLY that upset because you can't have more than 30 medals for organizing? If we increased the limit the medal will mean absolutely nothing. If everybody has 50 of them, will they mean anything? Probably not.

DBandit70 wrote:I am writing out of the deepest respect for HighlanderAttack who is a very nice player, and has dedicated much of his time to directing tournaments that have been fun for many. That said, I agree with the CC moderators 100% on the issues that I have read and on the changes that have been proposed. Tournaments ought to be big deals and need to involve a greater number of players. Consider this, in any sport, there is a long drawn out season, which in essence is a big round robin tournament to see who performs the best, and than the best of the best match up against each other in the playoffs and championship. Imagine if you will if the regular season in football were cancelled and the league picked the first 8 teams to sign-up or the top 8 teams on paper. It would not mean much to the players nor to the viewers to be honest. CC tourney's have in essence become so basic and so unoriginal and so numerous that it is hard for most to know what is and is not happening at any given time. I am involved in many tourney's and spent a lot of time staying up with my progress in them, but I am a freak for so doing, and the average person I guarentee does not. Speaking for myself, I would rather be involved in 3 or 4 tournaments of varying styles that involve a higher level of creativity or varying objectives than a single elimination 16 player bracket. also the tournaments have becoem so numerous that they are losing there identifying value or being an accomplishment, and it now is becoming purely a numbers game to see how many and how fast to get them tropheys on the shelf. I love tournaments but I agree with the mod's on this issue and look forward to eevn further changes in the future, sorry HA still your friend, just can not support you here

friendly1 wrote:Why not make everyone happy? (As if that was possible)

If a tourney falls within the proposed rules, issue a medal for it.

If a tourney does not fall within the proposed rules, do not issue a medal for it.



Feel free to curse me, spit, slander, profane and not send me a christmas card if I am missing the point.



And two things on a side note:

First: wow guys! Passionate is not the description I would use for responses in this thread. Be nice people

Second, I definitely am not in favor of any changes which need to be sent out privately to select members before being made public. I find its simply a way to provide an excuse "well we consulted members who are heavily involved with this before making the changes and the majority agreed the changes are for the best".

Not sure if its worth 2 cents, maybe my 1 cent worth?

HighlanderAttack wrote:What is the reasoning for not allowing one game per round in a 16 bracket 1v1 tourney?

What is the difference between a 16 bracket 1v1, dubs, trips, or quads-with the new rules:

1v1-16 bracket-must play three games per round
dubs-16 teams-allowed to play one game per round
Trips-8 teams allowed and may play one game per round
Quads-8 teams allowed and may play one game per round.

If you are going to change the criteria why would all of this not be the same?

This is how I believe the rules read. This would allow a quads team and many quads teams are great players to win three games to win a tourney. If there is an added amount of games to play it only means they have to win three series. To me this still makes the criteria unbalanced. If you are going to change criteria/formats it should be the same for 1v1, dubs, trips or quads in my opinion.

There is no difference in a bracket tourney that has 16 positions when you consider how it works. I think if changes are going to be made then make them consistent weather they are 1v1, dubs, trips, or quads. It is still a position and path on a chart to become a champion.

I hope this makes sense and I still hope 1v1 16 player tourneys can have a 1 game per round with a 3 games in the final so I can continue my Don't Blink series.

• All the tournament types have had the phrase "at least" added to them because some people thought they could only have exactly 16 teams, etc.
• The 3 game minimum for the winner has been clarified to mention that it doesn't necessarily mean 3 rounds.
• The 2000+ point restriction has been clarified: organizers can run a point restricted tournament, but the restriction can't be greater than 2000+ per player or team average (so a 2500+ restriction would not be allowed)
• I have dropped the limitation on having small tournaments recruiting players so that the number is just 3 total of any size. It's still being debated on whether that number will be bumped to 4, but it won't be increased to 5 or more (because franchise tournaments qualify at 5).

friendly1 wrote:Why not make everyone happy? (As if that was possible)

If a tourney falls within the proposed rules, issue a medal for it.

If a tourney does not fall within the proposed rules, do not issue a medal for it.

Night Strike wrote:To be honest, I partially agree with you. I understand why people will want this, but until the site chooses to allow private and clan tournaments that use privileges, having a blanket policy that all public tournaments earn medals makes things consistent for everybody. I don't like that clan tournaments can't be run with privileges, but until that's changed, it's not fair for them that some tournaments will still get run without medals. Plus, keeping track of which tournaments get a medal and which don't will be quite time consuming to go through, especially with an update that's coming soon.

denominator wrote:I'll be the one to ask the obvious question then.

Is CC (read: Lack) planning on allowing Private and Clan tournaments? If yes, how far are we away from seeing this implemented?