January 2019 Monthly Challenge - Alcatraz

[groovysmurf]

Official Monthly Challenge for January 2019
Brought to you by the Community Team.



Click Here to Join Waiting 5 Player Games

January SCOREBOARD

No Sign-Ups Required

SETTINGS
Map: San Francisco
Players Per Game: 5
Game Type: Standard or Terminator
Initial Troops: ANY
Play Order: ANY
Spoils: Escalating or Nuclear
Reinforcements: No Forts
FOG: OPTIONAL
TRENCH: OPTIONAL
Round Limit: 20 or 30
Round Length: ANY
Joinablility: PUBLIC

MEDAL CRITERIA and SCORING
Gold Tokens are for WINS
Bronze Tokens for Joining games

Scoreboard is ranked by number of GOLD tokens divided by number of BRONZE tokens
(In other words, by overall win percentage).

At least 2 gold tokens and at least 5 bronze tokens are required for a CA medal, with an overall win percentage of at least 30%

Notes

• Games must start between CC Time: 2019-01-06 00:09:00 and CC Time: 2019-01-31 23:59:59 to be considered for the challenge.
• Wins will count until CC Time: 2019-02-28 23:59:59
• Any issues will be solved by [player]groovysmurf[/player] and [player]Dukasaur[/player], and our word is final.

[groovysmurf]

FAQs:

Who can play a Challenge?
Challenges are open to everyone!

How do I join?
No signups required. Join and/or create games that meet the given parameters for this month as found in the OP. Only public games count towards the challenge unless otherwise explicitly stated in the challenge OP. There is also a "join games" link in the OP to provide an easy list of qualifying games.

What are the prizes?
All players who meet or exceed the minimum number of required points for the month will earn a Challenge Achievement Medal. The point requirements change every month as we aim to provide a vast assortment of challenges which includes a varying level of difficulty.


Site Event Medals are awarded to the top three finishers on the challenge scoreboard.
1st:
2nd:
3rd:

In addition to the medals, the first place finisher receives: 1 Green Conquer Star

And the 2nd-5th place finishers receive: 1 Blue Conquer Star


When do I get my prize?
My goal is always to award prizes during the week following the completion of the event.

How do we deal with deadbeating?
Please report deadbeats in your games by sending me a PM. I will periodically do a random check however I cannot monitor every game. We will evaluate the distribution of prizes to a violating player on a case by case basis.

Tiebreakers?
Ties are awarded to the player who reached the point threshold first.

A player has me foed and it is preventing me from joining a lot of challenge games. What can I do?
PM the player in question. Be courteous and non-accusatory, ask why you are foed. Do your best to resolve any issues with the other user in this manner. However, if they decided not to remove you from their foe list then you will need to join games without that player or start your own.

What if I want to run a parallel tournament to the challenge?
Okay, awesome! Individual tournaments can be added to the challenges so that those games drop tokens. Send me a PM and we will get it added for the month.

Rulings:
1. Deadbeats will have entry points stripped.
2. Wins by round limit will drop tokens.
3. Inventory relating to the challenge will vanish at the end of the year.
4. Bot games do not drop tokens.
5. Any unforeseen abuse is still abuse. Don't take advantage of the system.

If you have any further questions or issues not covered here please either post in the active challenge thread or PM [player]groovysmurf[/player].

Last Updated: November 2018

[Silly Knig-it]

So the challenge goal of 30 is 30%, correct?

The gold and bronze tokens have no value other than to plug into the formula:

G divided by B >= 30 %

If Yes, winner
No, loser

Is the above correct?

[groovysmurf]

So the challenge goal of 30 is 30%, correct?

The gold and bronze tokens have no value other than to plug into the formula:

G divided by B >= 30 %

If Yes, winner
No, loser

Is the above correct?

Yep, that's correct.

[josko.ri]

Which is tiebreaker if players have the same winning %? Is it the same as before, who first reaches that score?

[groovysmurf]

Which is tiebreaker if players have the same winning %? Is it the same as before, who first reaches that score?

I believe so...

[t4mcr53s2]

congratulations Josko 3 of 5 wins should do it I bet and since you got there first....

[GaryDenton]

Curious, I have 8 games but they don't show up on the scoreboard but I can find them when I use the "click here to join waiting 5-player games" and change it to axtive games with myself as a player.

[groovysmurf]

Curious, I have 8 games but they don't show up on the scoreboard but I can find them when I use the "click here to join waiting 5-player games" and change it to axtive games with myself as a player.

Thanks for the heads up! I've PM'd bigWham, hopefully it will be fixed soon.

[GaryDenton]

Appears one of your games has to complete before your games show up on the scoreboard.

[Dukasaur]

Curious, I have 8 games but they don't show up on the scoreboard but I can find them when I use the "click here to join waiting 5-player games" and change it to axtive games with myself as a player.

Appears one of your games has to complete before your games show up on the scoreboard.

Until you reach the minimum requirements, your score is zero.

Usually there is room on the scoreboard for the people with some tokens despite a zero score, but the scoreboard only shows the Top 50 and this month there are a lot more than 50 people participating, so some of the ones with a zero score are not making it onto the scoreboard.

[anonymus]

aww.. shit-balls, i need to learn how to read..
i joined way to many of these, since for once its nice settings.,, and then ofcourse the twist is that you shouldnt play any games..

goddamnit

/

[GaryDenton]

And Swifte appears to be winning it with 5 wins from 7 games.

[chapcrap]

I was on the scoreboard for this previously and now I’m not. I looked and it looks like the reinforcement option is the difference. Was something changed afterward?

[groovysmurf]

I was on the scoreboard for this previously and now I’m not. I looked and it looks like the reinforcement option is the difference. Was something changed afterward?

No, it was always "no reinforcements". You only played 3 games and even though you won 2, you would still have 0 points. The scoreboard doesn't really differentiate players with 0 points so if there are more than a 100 people on the scoreboard, you may not show up.

[chapcrap]

I was on the scoreboard for this previously and now I’m not. I looked and it looks like the reinforcement option is the difference. Was something changed afterward?

No, it was always "no reinforcements". You only played 3 games and even though you won 2, you would still have 0 points. The scoreboard doesn't really differentiate players with 0 points so if there are more than a 100 people on the scoreboard, you may not show up.

I understand that's what it says now, but previously, I was showing up on the scoreboard, which is why I stopped playing the games.

[IcePack]

At least you didn’t play a bunch that were missing the round limit and therefore didn’t count.

What’s the purpose of round limit, if they have to be started / ended within the timeframe anyway? Doesn’t seem like that makes sense.

[Dukasaur]

I was on the scoreboard for this previously and now I’m not. I looked and it looks like the reinforcement option is the difference. Was something changed afterward?

No, it was always "no reinforcements". You only played 3 games and even though you won 2, you would still have 0 points. The scoreboard doesn't really differentiate players with 0 points so if there are more than a 100 people on the scoreboard, you may not show up.

I understand that's what it says now, but previously, I was showing up on the scoreboard, which is why I stopped playing the games.

You are on the scoreboard, but you didn't reach the minimum to qualify, so you're at 0 points. Unless I'm misundertanding the question here.

At least you didn’t play a bunch that were missing the round limit and therefore didn’t count.

What’s the purpose of round limit, if they have to be started / ended within the timeframe anyway? Doesn’t seem like that makes sense.

There are usually a few games that don't finish within the time limit, but usually only a few. Without the round limit, there would be many more. We can't completely eliminate games that don't finish, but keeping it down from "many" to "a few" is a valid gain.

[IcePack]

At least you didn’t play a bunch that were missing the round limit and therefore didn’t count.

What’s the purpose of round limit, if they have to be started / ended within the timeframe anyway? Doesn’t seem like that makes sense.

There are usually a few games that don't finish within the time limit, but usually only a few. Without the round limit, there would be many more. We can't completely eliminate games that don't finish, but keeping it down from "many" to "a few" is a valid gain.

How does round limits keep it from going over the time frame? the games last as long as they last. Only the ones that finish within the allotted time get counted regardless.
I feel like for alienating games that accidentally get the wrong settings (which would likely finish in the time frame), do the benefits of finishing a few games early (which likely would be within the timeframe even if they didn't have round limits) outweigh the issue of less games actually counting for the event?

Example, I looked all 217 games that finished for this event. 14 games went to round limit (most of those were set to 20).
8 games were mistakenly created without round limits and played for no reason. (nearly as many as went to round limit!) and none of those went to round limits.
Looking at the games, there was really only ONE game that risked NOT counting for this event if there wasn't a round limit

https://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=18822262

So, one game POTENTIALLY wouldn't have counted for this event - but EIGHT GAMES for sure didn't count because of it. And the one that potentially wouldn't have counted, potentially could still have counted, because they could have adjusted their play the last 48 hours to make sure it fit within the window.

It seems a pretty small detail that has almost no impact on the event, yet frustrates and discourages people who think they are playing the event but aren't, and dont even realize it in time.
Now understandably, they could be more careful in creating the games. But again, if youre goal is to minimize from "many" to a "few", then your actually hurting "many" and only assisting a "few" which is the opposite here. And the assertion that there would be "many more" that didn't meet the time limits in this case doesn't check out either.

[Dukasaur]

At least you didn’t play a bunch that were missing the round limit and therefore didn’t count.

What’s the purpose of round limit, if they have to be started / ended within the timeframe anyway? Doesn’t seem like that makes sense.

There are usually a few games that don't finish within the time limit, but usually only a few. Without the round limit, there would be many more. We can't completely eliminate games that don't finish, but keeping it down from "many" to "a few" is a valid gain.

How does round limits keep it from going over the time frame? the games last as long as they last. Only the ones that finish within the allotted time get counted regardless.
I feel like for alienating games that accidentally get the wrong settings (which would likely finish in the time frame), do the benefits of finishing a few games early (which likely would be within the timeframe even if they didn't have round limits) outweigh the issue of less games actually counting for the event?

Example, I looked all 217 games that finished for this event. 14 games went to round limit (most of those were set to 20).
8 games were mistakenly created without round limits and played for no reason. (nearly as many as went to round limit!) and none of those went to round limits.
Looking at the games, there was really only ONE game that risked NOT counting for this event if there wasn't a round limit

https://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=18822262

So, one game POTENTIALLY wouldn't have counted for this event - but EIGHT GAMES for sure didn't count because of it. And the one that potentially wouldn't have counted, potentially could still have counted, because they could have adjusted their play the last 48 hours to make sure it fit within the window.

It seems a pretty small detail that has almost no impact on the event, yet frustrates and discourages people who think they are playing the event but aren't, and dont even realize it in time.
Now understandably, they could be more careful in creating the games. But again, if youre goal is to minimize from "many" to a "few", then your actually hurting "many" and only assisting a "few" which is the opposite here. And the assertion that there would be "many more" that didn't meet the time limits in this case doesn't check out either.

That may be true this month, when it was escalating or nuclear on a relatively small-ish map. In months where flat rate or no spoils is used, or larger maps, I think you would find the ratio much different.

[IcePack]

At least you didn’t play a bunch that were missing the round limit and therefore didn’t count.

What’s the purpose of round limit, if they have to be started / ended within the timeframe anyway? Doesn’t seem like that makes sense.

There are usually a few games that don't finish within the time limit, but usually only a few. Without the round limit, there would be many more. We can't completely eliminate games that don't finish, but keeping it down from "many" to "a few" is a valid gain.

How does round limits keep it from going over the time frame? the games last as long as they last. Only the ones that finish within the allotted time get counted regardless.
I feel like for alienating games that accidentally get the wrong settings (which would likely finish in the time frame), do the benefits of finishing a few games early (which likely would be within the timeframe even if they didn't have round limits) outweigh the issue of less games actually counting for the event?

Example, I looked all 217 games that finished for this event. 14 games went to round limit (most of those were set to 20).
8 games were mistakenly created without round limits and played for no reason. (nearly as many as went to round limit!) and none of those went to round limits.
Looking at the games, there was really only ONE game that risked NOT counting for this event if there wasn't a round limit

https://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=18822262

So, one game POTENTIALLY wouldn't have counted for this event - but EIGHT GAMES for sure didn't count because of it. And the one that potentially wouldn't have counted, potentially could still have counted, because they could have adjusted their play the last 48 hours to make sure it fit within the window.

It seems a pretty small detail that has almost no impact on the event, yet frustrates and discourages people who think they are playing the event but aren't, and dont even realize it in time.
Now understandably, they could be more careful in creating the games. But again, if youre goal is to minimize from "many" to a "few", then your actually hurting "many" and only assisting a "few" which is the opposite here. And the assertion that there would be "many more" that didn't meet the time limits in this case doesn't check out either.

That may be true this month, when it was escalating or nuclear on a relatively small-ish map. In months where flat rate or no spoils is used, or larger maps, I think you would find the ratio much different.

Have you looked into it at all, or is that just an assumption you’re making?
Even if it’s true, why not remove the restriction then for escalating and nuclear months? If it’s only certain conditions that warrant it, why use it as a blanket rule?

[chapcrap]

I was on the scoreboard for this previously and now I’m not. I looked and it looks like the reinforcement option is the difference. Was something changed afterward?

No, it was always "no reinforcements". You only played 3 games and even though you won 2, you would still have 0 points. The scoreboard doesn't really differentiate players with 0 points so if there are more than a 100 people on the scoreboard, you may not show up.

I understand that's what it says now, but previously, I was showing up on the scoreboard, which is why I stopped playing the games.

You are on the scoreboard, but you didn't reach the minimum to qualify, so you're at 0 points. Unless I'm misundertanding the question here.

I'm saying that I was on the scoreboard with 33. I'm not super worried about the medal (although I will literally die if I don't get it). I just thought there was a bug or a change. I know it's rare to find bugs on this site...

[groovysmurf]

Have you looked into it at all, or is that just an assumption you’re making?
Even if it’s true, why not remove the restriction then for escalating and nuclear months? If it’s only certain conditions that warrant it, why use it as a blanket rule?

Though having a round limit isn't necessary for many months, I believe it would be more confusing to switch back and forth. Having a round limit really doesn't affect these games, but it does differentiate them a bit and helps to ensure they finish on time.

I'm saying that I was on the scoreboard with 33. I'm not super worried about the medal (although I will literally die if I don't get it). I just thought there was a bug or a change. I know it's rare to find bugs on this site...

I am not quite sure why you would have shown up on the scoreboard. I'm sorry, but it must have been a glitch as you didn't play enough games to qualify even.

[groovysmurf]

All medals and awards have been issued. Thanks to all who played. I will wait a couple days to lock this in case there are any other comments.