Conquer Club

owenshooter wrote:

White Moose wrote:Sure, i can explain why i think that.
There is a lot of diffrent playstyles you can do here on CC.
For example:
You can play almost only 1v1 games, you can play almost only 6-8 player games.
Two very diffrent playstyles, BUT!
You win 1v1 games much much more often than you win 6-8 player games.
If you win 50%+ 1v1 games, then you are a good 1v1 player.
If you win 50% of all 6-8-player games then you are maybe THE best player here on CC.
I don't know any good numbers for 6-8-player game win ratio, but i would guess that 30%+ is good.
So here.
Should the person who play 1v1 games get a medal for high win % which a player who perhaps has played a total of 1000 games in 6-8player games, and therefor has very very big problems at increasing their win % to 50?
It simply wouldn't work out..

again, every member doesn't need to be eligible for every medal. i don't play speed games, and will never get a speed medal. do i think it is a dumb medal because i may never achieve it? no. i don't play assassin or terminator games... do i think medals are dumb for them, even though i can never achieve them? no. if i have a high win percentage over a certain amount of games, i should be rewarded with a medal. i'm sorry if other players aren't eligible for it, but i'm not eligible for other medals they are going to achieve. are we trying to create a site where everyone gets every medal so we all feel better about ourselves? sigh... and to be even clearer, i am no longer on with the medal idea, i am backing robinette's suggestion!!!! (unless lack comes to my door and pins a win percentage medal on me).-0

Owenshooter, all those medals you can have if you want them. a win % medal would not even be able to get unless you played stricktly 1v1's

thats not true, before 1 on 1 games came out I had about 75% win rate and played about 25% singles 6 player and 75% teams and did it for about 2 years

Blitzaholic wrote:thats not true, before 1 on 1 games came out I had about 75% win rate and played about 25% singles 6 player and 75% teams and did it for about 2 years

Yes, well.. i have 73% wins in teamgames.. and i'm not that good at it. You are probably better so you probably got a bit higher win%

But if you were playing 75% 6 player games and 25% team games. Then your win% wouldnt be 75%, would it?

But hey, its only my opinion Lack might like the idea. but i feel that all "normal" (not contributing medals) should be accessible for everyone.

White Moose wrote:
Owenshooter, all those medals you can have if you want them. a win % medal would not even be able to get unless you played stricktly 1v1's

so, my 61% win percentage in over 600 games would not be good enough for a win percentage medal? why would i need to play 1v1's? that makes no sense.-0

owenshooter wrote:

White Moose wrote:
Owenshooter, all those medals you can have if you want them. a win % medal would not even be able to get unless you played stricktly 1v1's

so, my 61% win percentage in over 600 games would not be good enough for a win percentage medal? why would i need to play 1v1's? that makes no sense.-0

(should have added team games up in my post there, becuase you can get very high win% from that.)

Didn't say it was good enough.. I ment that in general that everyone can have the normal medals if they want to. but a win% medal would be unaccesseble.

Sorry for not being clear enough.

White Moose wrote:
Didn't say it was good enough.. I ment that in general that everyone can have the normal medals if they want to. but a win% medal would be unaccesseble.

Sorry for not being clear enough.

just not true. again, not everyone is going to have every medal, and just because you can't achieve it, doesn't mean it is any less important than speed games, assassin games, leaving ratings (ahem), or 1v1 games... i like robinette's idea, but i will continue to argue this point, because it is valid.-0

owenshooter wrote:

White Moose wrote:
Didn't say it was good enough.. I ment that in general that everyone can have the normal medals if they want to. but a win% medal would be unaccesseble.

Sorry for not being clear enough.

just not true. again, not everyone is going to have every medal, and just because you can't achieve it, doesn't mean it is any less important than speed games, assassin games, leaving ratings (ahem), or 1v1 games... i like robinette's idea, but i will continue to argue this point, because it is valid.-0

You can argue all you want, but i am very sure it won't come a win % medal.

White Moose wrote:You can argue all you want, but i am very sure it won't come a win % medal.

yeah, win percentage is much less important than how many people you rate!!!-0

owenshooter wrote:

White Moose wrote:You can argue all you want, but i am very sure it won't come a win % medal.

yeah, win percentage is much less important than how many people you rate!!!-0

Rating medal is very unnessecary, yes. But still i don't think the win% will work nor will it come.

White Moose wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

White Moose wrote:You can argue all you want, but i am very sure it won't come a win % medal.

yeah, win percentage is much less important than how many people you rate!!!-0

Rating medal is very unnessecary, yes. But still i don't think the win% will work nor will it come.

and i disagree, it is very important.. however, as i stated before, i like robinettes idea better.-0

owenshooter wrote:

happy2seeyou wrote:I'm not for the percentage medal either... A newby joins and wins his first game, he gets a medal for 100% win ratio?? Ughhh no thanks. Win percentage changes and also doesn't cover terminator points won.

read the thread, newb... ahem... yeah, i'm serious. blahhh blahhh blahhh blahhhh blahhhh blahhh

I commented on the idea of getting a medal for ratings. When I commented after you comment, you mentioned nothing about after a certain amount of games. You simply suggested a medal for ratings. I don't see anywhere in you post where you mention a minimum amount of games played. You just ointed out how many games you and another person have played. I'm not going to read through 8 pages of posts just to see if someone mentioned it earlier. I gave my thoughts on a medal for percentages. Even with a minimum amount of games, I don't like it. Those are my 2 cents.

happy2seeyou wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

White Moose wrote:

owenshooter wrote:i still think win percentage should be worth a medal.-0

I don't think that would work at all..

please explain further. i have an over 60% win percentage and over 600 games played. why not get medals for win percentage based on how many games played? that way, like with blitz's points medal suggestion, people will know what you have accomplished as a player on the site. moose, you have over 1200 games and over 50%, that is a accomplishment!! if you are going to hand out medals for how many times you hand out ratings to people, why not for something that is an actual indicator of how good a player is? it could world. and robinette:

Robinette wrote:soooooo... like, 60% would be bronze, 70% would be silver, and under 30% gold?
hey... i'm just asskin'

not even going to bite... i know how to scroll to the bottom of your posts...-0

I'm not for the percentage medal either... A newby joins and wins his first game, he gets a medal for 100% win ratio?? Ughhh no thanks. Win percentage changes and also doesn't cover terminator points won.

White Moose wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:thats not true, before 1 on 1 games came out I had about 75% win rate and played about 25% singles 6 player and 75% teams and did it for about 2 years

Yes, well.. i have 73% wins in teamgames.. and i'm not that good at it. You are probably better so you probably got a bit higher win%

But if you were playing 75% 6 player games and 25% team games. Then your win% wouldnt be 75%, would it?

But hey, its only my opinion Lack might like the idea. but i feel that all "normal" (not contributing medals) should be accessible for everyone.

you are correct white moose, if I played 75% of my games singles 6 to 8 players, my % for sure would go down. This is why i mix it up and play everything.

Blitzaholic wrote:you are correct white moose, if I played 75% of my games singles 6 to 8 players, my % for sure would go down. This is why i mix it up and play everything.

hammer-blitz, you can go blind that way... and i mix it up too, but not in a chase for medals. just to step out of the team games and the usual people i play with, and knock armies around with some new people.-0

big O, give a shout out and a holler to your dad for me.










then go get jiggy with it

get some games going here soon

Blitzaholic wrote:big O, give a shout out and a holler to your dad for me.
get some games going here soon

stop! HAMMER TIME!!!
seriously.. robinette's idea is pretty damn good, and keeps the moose happy, too...-0

owenshooter wrote:keeps the moose happy

Moose is never happy

qwert wrote:unique map Achievement
Awarded to members that won X time in one unique map,defeating minimum two unique oponent per game.
bronze 50 win
silver 100 win
gold 400 win
example:
Classic map medal vinner-Bronze 50-silver 100 Gold 400
---------------------------------------
British issle medal vinner-bronze 50 silver 100 gold 400
------------------------------------
Africa map medal vinner -bronze 50 silver 100 gold 400
-------------------------------
.
Victory Achievement
Awarded to members that have X victories consecutively,defeat minimum two unique opponents on each of X maps.
Bronze-20 victories
silver-50 victories
gold-100 victories
Well these is mine sugestion,and its very good sugestion for new medals.
I all ready post these is Medal sugestion list.

great suggestion Qwert, but why not keep it the same, 20 wins per any map bronze, 100 wins silver, 300 wins gold, 500 wins platinum and 1000 wins on one map diamond.

Blitzaholic wrote:great suggestion Qwert, but why not keep it the same, 20 wins per any map bronze, 100 wins silver, 300 wins gold, 500 wins platinum and 1000 wins on one map diamond.

totally agree.. qwert's totals were way too low for medals, and far too easy to attain... this is yielding some great ideas...-0

p.s.-how about a medal for clans that have the most backwards reflections in their sigs? that would be the bee's knees!

owenshooter wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:great suggestion Qwert, but why not keep it the same, 20 wins per any map bronze, 100 wins silver, 300 wins gold, 500 wins platinum and 1000 wins on one map diamond.

totally agree.. qwert's totals were way too low for medals, and far too easy to attain... this is yielding some great ideas...-0

p.s.-how about a medal for clans that have the most backwards reflections in their sigs? that would be the bee's knees!

so how many is in there?

I would really like to see a couple more awards that you have to keep working to keep.

That is, one for winning 5 times (or whatever the standard is) on ALL maps... maybe bronze could be 2 wins or 5 wins, silver could be 10 wins on every map and gold would be 20 wins on every map.

When new maps are introduced, you would have 30 days to win on them or you would lose the medal (or drop down). You could still earn it back, of course, but the point is to keep it, you have to stay active and playing.

In addition, I would like to see an award for the champion of each map type. This might not be a medal, or at least it might show as one medal (because else it would just take up too much space), then in the profile you would click to see which maps the person was champion in. When they play THAT map, there would appear some kind of crown or such (including when they join or set up a game of that map), so others know this is the "reigning champion".

PLAYER57832 wrote:That is, one for winning 5 times (or whatever the standard is) on ALL maps... maybe bronze could be 2 wins or 5 wins, silver could be 10 wins on every map and gold would be 20 wins on every map.

Thats almost like Cross-Map Achievement that already exist..

White Moose wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:That is, one for winning 5 times (or whatever the standard is) on ALL maps... maybe bronze could be 2 wins or 5 wins, silver could be 10 wins on every map and gold would be 20 wins on every map.

Thats almost like Cross-Map Achievement that already exist..

No, it would be much harder to get.

For the standard, you only need to win at 20 different maps, for the gold you only need to win at 60. There are over 80 maps right now and more in the works. Also, you would have to KEEP winning at the new maps to keep this award.

This would not replace the current "cross map" award, but would be in addition. ... the cross map "crown", if you will..

IN reality, for those who like to play different maps, this would not be that hard to keep. Most people (I find) try out the new maps and, initially, it is easy enough to win just because you are familiar and so many others are not. HOWEVER, you do have to stay active, which is a "plus" for the site (I think).

Also, it encourages folks to play ALL the maps. I myself had been avoiding a couple of maps. Then I decided to see if I could win them all. I am almost through and have found that some of those maps I had avoided are actually pretty fun once I really gave them a shot .. that is, more than just one or two tries. By the time you have won 5 times, you pretty well know the map and can have a much better idea of whether you really like it or not.

No way am I gonna go through all the pages to see if this has been brought up- but, I think you should get a Special Achievement award or equivalent if you've held the #1 rank.

Scott-Land wrote: I think you should get a Special Achievement award or equivalent if you've held the #1 rank.

AGREED, good idea scotty

Blitzaholic wrote:

Scott-Land wrote: I think you should get a Special Achievement award or equivalent if you've held the #1 rank.

AGREED, good idea scotty

Gold for #1 rank

Silver for #2 rank

Bronze for #3 rank

DANG IT ALL.... My 4th place ranking comes up short AGAIN