Conquer Club

To be honest - rank and number of games played don't make you famous...

Are we talking about a super elite scoreboard with nods to the boys...

Or are we talking about a Hall of Fame...

I've heard that Clapper is one of the most famous people on this site... but she's got an average score.

Fame isn't necessarily about success... look at Jade Goody!!!

C.

Here's a look at what I think the sample stat sheet in each player's profile should show. It would make it much easier to see how they actually stack up and where their points came from for deciding who is deserving and not.

I've used my own stats as far as I can gather correctly:

Name: Optimus Prime

Singles Record: 3-5-5-2-1-0
Doubles Record: 3-2
Triples Record: 1-1

Rank: Sergeant
Score: 1099
Avg. Score: (Not sure how to figure this one)

Total Games Played: 23
Member Since: 12 Mar 2007
Feedback: 11-0


Personally, I do think that score and rank mean something, but it depends entirely upon how you earned it. If you can't win singles games then really, how good are you? Sure, teamwork is an important skill, but you have to be able to think on your own to feet. I think the more detailed stat sheet would make a huge difference in knowing who is actually better than whom. Perhaps that means some tweaking of the ranking system as aforementioned by countless people. Maybe not.

i think this is a cool idea kind of like the awards thing

I don't like this idea at all. Smacks of elitism to me.
Everyone knows the ranks and scores are a joke - its really just manipulation of the games that leads to most of the top scorers ranks. Triples doubles anyone?
As for the forums - who needs a hall of fame for that? If you’re about the social lounge a lot you will already know who’s who and have your friends and people you respect.
The map makers (and the critics that help refine them) I completely agree deserved to be praised, they make a lasting contribution to the site.
There are also many posers in the general discussion thread that contribute greatly to the refinement of the game by working on the probability and odds of various parts of the game.
Hall of fame though? No. No need, people know who they respect and no amount of pats on the back from a self proclaimed cartel of "elite players" will change that.

flashleg8 wrote:There are also many posers in the general discussion thread that contribute greatly to the refinement of the game by working on the probability and odds of various parts of the game.

Here's hoping you dropped a "t."

That's why we've been talking about talking about using more than just the scores and rank as they currently stand. But, if you don't like it, fine by me, I'm not gonna be offended by it.

I like this idea, it gives players something more to strive for, gives players more roll models to look up to and inspires others to follow in their footsteps creating a better CC community. Regardless of what it is that gets said person or persons into the hall of fame for that year, it will let others know that if you contribute to the community above and beyond the normal call of duty that it wont go unnoticed. As far as the details go for what the criteria should be, there is a lot to be considered. What about the people who write our codes for greasemonkey, map makers, forum contributers, great players of top rank and score, how do we include such a vast array of players? I'll leave that up to you guys! I think this is a good idea if the details can be worked out, that's my 2 cents

I hadn't thought about the folks who write the programs for greasemonkey type things, that would be a good thing to consider as well.

The other thing a Hall of Fame would help with is that if players know they aren't going to get in on scores based entirely off of doubles and triples games then I bet there would be a trend of players trying to win more singles games and the competition would only get better if you ask me.

tahitiwahini wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:There are also many posers in the general discussion thread that contribute greatly to the refinement of the game by working on the probability and odds of various parts of the game.

Here's hoping you dropped a "t."

Indeed!

As to the Optimus Prime’s post about people easing off on the doubles games - possibly. Though isn’t there plans to introduce a separate doubles and singles score board? This would go a long way to taking the incentive of trawling for newbes.
Not that I have anything against team games per say - it’s good fun to coordinate tactics and there is skill to this – its more the fact that this is the easy route to the top of the scoreboard. Thus the scoreboard doesn’t really reflect the best Risk players at all.

flashleg8 wrote:I don't like this idea at all. Smacks of elitism to me.
Everyone knows the ranks and scores are a joke - its really just manipulation of the games that leads to most of the top scorers ranks. Triples doubles anyone?
As for the forums - who needs a hall of fame for that? If you’re about the social lounge a lot you will already know who’s who and have your friends and people you respect.
The map makers (and the critics that help refine them) I completely agree deserved to be praised, they make a lasting contribution to the site.
There are also many posers in the general discussion thread that contribute greatly to the refinement of the game by working on the probability and odds of various parts of the game.
Hall of fame though? No. No need, people know who they respect and no amount of pats on the back from a self proclaimed cartel of "elite players" will change that.

I was asked to comment on this idea, and I think this quote sums up my feelings about the idea as well. If you really want a Hall of Fame, do something similar to Robinette and make threads showing how great you are, but honestly I don't like the idea of an "official" Hall of Fame because it just wouldn't be accurate.
There are lots of great players that never get noticed because they just play the game, and never post on the forum. I just think that the only players that would ever get mentioned are the players that hang out here in the forum and basically nominate themselves by creating threads like this.

Well, that's the feedback we were looking for then. I hope nobody thought I was nominating myself by any means. I've only finished 23 games and don't think I'll ever be very high in the rankings or scores. Guess we'll just let the idea die down.

Thanks for the feedback AK_Iceman.

Optimus Prime wrote:Well, that's the feedback we were looking for then. I hope nobody thought I was nominating myself by any means. I've only finished 23 games and don't think I'll ever be very high in the rankings or scores. Guess we'll just let the idea die down.

Thanks for the feedback AK_Iceman.

I think he was referring to me optimus, but all I was doing was throwing out an idea to help people compete more, play more, stay here longer, help the site grow, and perhaps some how reward the players who are loyal to the site, guess it was a dumb idea.

ty ak for your feedback

I didn't say it was a dumb idea, or a bad idea. I just think that it can't be an official Hall of Fame since only about 5% of the users even use the forum.

AK_iceman wrote:I was asked to comment on this idea, and I think this quote sums up my feelings about the idea as well. If you really want a Hall of Fame, do something similar to Robinette and make threads showing how great you are, but honestly I don't like the idea of an "official" Hall of Fame because it just wouldn't be accurate.
There are lots of great players that never get noticed because they just play the game, and never post on the forum. I just think that the only players that would ever get mentioned are the players that hang out here in the forum and basically nominate themselves by creating threads like this.

Contrary to you my friend, I’m prepared to state that a notion of a Hall of Fame is a bad idea.

Why do I find this so? Well, people, just read through the thread. Three pages and I see ideas about sub-committees and criteria etc. Seriously people? Don’t you think Lack and the Mods have better things to do than fulfilling your anal personal needs for recognition here on the CC site?

It is an online game. Never forget that. It’s a game. Play it, enjoy it, but don’t centre your life around it.

That too... thanks alster.

alstergren wrote:
It is an online game. Never forget that. It’s a game. Play it, enjoy it, but don’t centre your life around it.

Just thought it was funny, because after you say this, your attached signature says: It's pretty addicting:

Blitzaholic wrote:

alstergren wrote:
It is an online game. Never forget that. It’s a game. Play it, enjoy it, but don’t centre your life around it.

Just thought it was funny, because after you say this, your attached signature says: It's pretty addicting:

I'm pretty sure his signature is a quote from me that was in my local newspaper.

AK_iceman wrote:I didn't say it was a dumb idea, or a bad idea. I just think that it can't be an official Hall of Fame since only about 5% of the users even use the forum.

you dont have to post the hall of famers (if there is ever any) in the forum, you could just create a section next to the scoreboard or something.

AK_iceman wrote:I'm pretty sure his signature is a quote from me that was in my local newspaper.

You know that is so....

But you were spot-on there. It is indeed damn addicting. I get sour comments now and then at home for checking my games all the time...

However, addiction or not, the grand plans put forward in this thread seems to involve to much work that will lead to an elitist club of people patting themselves on the back... Dunno about that.

AK_iceman wrote:but honestly I don't like the idea of an "official" Hall of Fame because it just wouldn't be accurate.
There are lots of great players that never get noticed because they just play the game, and never post on the forum.

This is why you or others would notice and recognize them my friend, it would only be you, the mods, lackattack or whoever decides to be on the committee if lackattack or whoever liked the idea. It is once a year? That is not taking too much time from anyone, throughout the year, most of you are familiar with the solid players or and the people doing the most for the site, enhancing it, creating maps, etc. I do not think it would be much trouble come this December of 2007 if you or others came up with 6 to 8 nominations, you list the names, it's controlled only by a select few, a panel of 12 judges or something, and perhaps 2 or 3 get elected per year.

If the powers that be dislike it, so be it, again it is only a suggestion to perhaps help CC enhance and expand is all.

alstergren wrote:

AK_iceman wrote:I'm pretty sure his signature is a quote from me that was in my local newspaper.

You know that is so....

But you were spot-on there. It is indeed damn addicting. I get sour comments now and then at home for checking my games all the time...

However, addiction or not, the grand plans put forward in this thread seems to involve to much work that will lead to an elitist club of people patting themselves on the back... Dunno about that.

Lack or Ak or the mods would choose the nominees alstergren, not me

Blitzaholic wrote:Lack or Ak or the mods would choose the nominees alstergren, not me

Well, forget about the Iceman. He’s going away in the slammer for six to ten years anyways once the trial is over. Lack and the rest of the mods, dunno… Guess if they feel like they have to much spare time on their hands, sure, they can start a hall of fame without me being upset. I just get the feeling that there are nice things for them to do than administrating a hall of fame. But what do I know? I’ve been wrong before.

Personally, my wettest of all my wet CC dreams have already been fulfilled - i.e. being mentioned in a poem by AndyDufresne - so being considered in a future hall of fame wouldn’t really do it for me…

alstergren wrote:Personally, my wettest of all my wet CC dreams have already been fulfilled - i.e. being mentioned in a poem by AndyDufresne - so being considered in a future hall of fame wouldn’t really do it for me…

Alster, you kill me...

Sorry Blitz, but I usually only play games with friends or clan members. I do, on occasion, play with somebody new, but thats pretty rare. I don't think I'm the kind of person to be nominating or voting people into any kind of Hall of Fame here.

wow 3 more pages since i last checked this thread.

anyway i'm totally against some of the criteria suggested for the selection

1. number of games.
a player does not have to play many games to prove he's great. and some people contribute to the site without having many games (mainly cartographers.
2. premium.
for some people in poor countries 20 bucks could mean a lot especially if they are kids without jobs. and for other user premium might be an impossibility because paypal is not available for their country.
3. score. the current system is somewhat wrong meaning the score does not trully represent the ability of that player. i've seen users with double scores than me that did silly mistakes and i've seen people with average scores that play great.


also some people have notoriety because they are active forum users. and this gives them a huge boost.

DiM wrote:wow 3 more pages since i last checked this thread.

anyway i'm totally against some of the criteria suggested for the selection

1. number of games.
a player does not have to play many games to prove he's great. and some people contribute to the site without having many games (mainly cartographers.
2. premium.
for some people in poor countries 20 bucks could mean a lot especially if they are kids without jobs. and for other user premium might be an impossibility because paypal is not available for their country.
3. score. the current system is somewhat wrong meaning the score does not trully represent the ability of that player. i've seen users with double scores than me that did silly mistakes and i've seen people with average scores that play great.


also some people have notoriety because they are active forum users. and this gives them a huge boost.

well, like any sport or game, the criteria should probably include 1. statistics, 2. longevity, 3. behavior? what else do all think if the hall of fame was ever considered?