Conquer Club

There is already an unofficial version running.

Click this link:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 76&start=0

Concise description:

• Every week or month, a medals team comes up with a new challenge. That medal can only be won during the week

Specifics/Details:

• The qualifications will overlap with other medals
• Example challenge: Win 10 4-Player Games on France this month, any settings
• Another example: Win 1 speed game every day this week

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It will be awesome
• Medals that newer players stand an equal chance at getting as casuals
• I totally stole the idea from how Pogo does their medal system
• great way for the site to advertise new settings, new maps, underplayed stuff, etc.
• Will give players a Specific Reason to come back next month/week

sounds fun

This sounds REALLY fun.

Will there be a time limit, though? Some larger player games won't be completed within a week and are hard to fill as far as speed is concerned.

Gilligan wrote:This sounds REALLY fun.

Will there be a time limit, though? Some larger player games won't be completed within a week and are hard to fill as far as speed is concerned.

I'm not sure exactly how it would work, details would still have to be hashed out. I think going based on a monthly prize system might work better in that case, so you have a whole month to finish games. I think if the challenge is particularly nasty (like 8p Hive Trench Nuclear Adjacent) then it should count games started as well as games finished.

I like it. I would just try to note when games started. And, to get things done in a timely manner, make round limits be used on any of the 24h games.

i like it too. would be a new medal or a GA awarded? cause it's kind of a general acheivement and they didn't raise the GA cap to 200.

Why has this not been implemented yet? Great idea.

I like it!

A little known fact is that Adjacent Attacks tournaments and games were tried before Trench became a setting. I went even more extreme and did a tournament in which you were only allowed to attack certain continents on certain turns. My point is that sometimes testing the validity of a setting might help garner attention for the setting from admins.

So: If I ran a non-official version of this, would anyone be interested?

DoomYoshi wrote:A little known fact is that Adjacent Attacks tournaments and games were tried before Trench became a setting. I went even more extreme and did a tournament in which you were only allowed to attack certain continents on certain turns. My point is that sometimes testing the validity of a setting might help garner attention for the setting from admins.

So: If I ran a non-official version of this, would anyone be interested?

Where's the sign up thread already? Depends on the challenges of course though.

I think this would be a great idea!!!

+1

JRT

DoomYoshi wrote:A little known fact is that Adjacent Attacks tournaments and games were tried before Trench became a setting. I went even more extreme and did a tournament in which you were only allowed to attack certain continents on certain turns. My point is that sometimes testing the validity of a setting might help garner attention for the setting from admins.

So: If I ran a non-official version of this, would anyone be interested?

I think that's a good idea Doom. Go ahead and start it up. Maybe we can get some unofficial prizes as well. Keep me posted.

chapcrap wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:A little known fact is that Adjacent Attacks tournaments and games were tried before Trench became a setting. I went even more extreme and did a tournament in which you were only allowed to attack certain continents on certain turns. My point is that sometimes testing the validity of a setting might help garner attention for the setting from admins.

So: If I ran a non-official version of this, would anyone be interested?

I think that's a good idea Doom. Go ahead and start it up. Maybe we can get some unofficial prizes as well. Keep me posted.

I am going to come up with a random table. Every month, I will randomize what the challenge will be. I think people will appreciate the transparency and then we can discuss the random table before this goes live.

How many will the random table seat?

IcePack wrote:How many will the random table seat?

That's to be decided at random.

Is it possible for people to vote on the next challenge? At the beginning of the month when you release the challenge, you could also release a poll with several options for people to decide the next month's challenge.

nicestash wrote:Is it possible for people to vote on the next challenge? At the beginning of the month when you release the challenge, you could also release a poll with several options for people to decide the next month's challenge.

Yea, that's a good idea. I will randomly generate 4 options and then people vote on what they prefer. However, I think that a poll every month might get tedious, so maybe every other month.

That works. You could either take the top 2 choices from each month (in which case you should give everyone 2 votes) or make 1 a popular vote and 1 a random event.

nicestash wrote:That works. You could either take the top 2 choices from each month (in which case you should give everyone 2 votes) or make 1 a popular vote and 1 a random event.

The latter is what I was planning.

Proposed Table 1:

map

70% of medals will have a specific map attached.
So, random number from 1-100.
1-60 = one map,
61-63 = 2 maps, games can be on either/or
64-66 = 2 maps, games must be split between both (so if 4 games, you need 2 games on map 1, 2 on map 2)
67 = 3 maps, games on either
68 = 4
69-70 = one map that is topical. I hit Google News and the top news story in "world" we will play a map that corresponds to that news story
I get the map list using list randomizer. I will add Betas again so that Beta maps will have a double chance and so random will have a quadruple chance.

special settings

For the obscure settings, stuff gets more unclear:
System 1:
Settings: 10% chance of freestyle, 5% chance of speed, 20% chance of manual 20% chance of trench 40% chance of fog
This is a problem area, as it creates only a 0.00008 % chance that we have a game with none of the "special settings" (each of the above will be independent chances). Is this ok since part of the reason is to get people playing outside of their comfort zone?

System 2:
Generate how many special rules there will be
1-40: 1
41-70: 2
71-80: 3
81-86: 4
87-90: 5
91-100: 0
Then you use a loaded random (1-15 free, 16-20 speed, 21-35 manual, 36-50 trench 51-70 fog) to see which is applied.

Now, either of these systems assumes that players want to play sequential, 24 hr, automatic, no trench sunny games.
So, if the requirement is 1 special setting, you can still play with all 5 (if you want). Does this rule make sense?

type of game

Type of Game:
60% of games will have a specified game type 10% give extra points for suggested game type
In the following table, the first number is chace and 2nd column is game-type. Team games are downplayed because not everybody can find good teammates and i want this to be as accessible as possible. Higher player games are dissuaded because they take longer to fill.
1-4 1v1
5-6 3-p
7-10 4-p Single
11-14 5-p Single
15-22 6-p Single
23-4 7-p single (if a 6-p map is randomized, it will go to 6-p)
25-6 8-p single (same as 7-p)
27-30 4-p assassin
31-4 5-p assassin
35-8 6-p assassin
39-40 7-p assassin
41-42 8-p assassin
43-4 3-p terminato
45-8 4-p terminator
48-52 5-p terminator
53-56 6-p terminator
57-8 7-p terminator
59-60 8-p terminator
61-4 dubs
65-6 3xdubs
67-8 4xdubs
69-70 trips
71 quads
72-5 any standard
76-9 any assassin
80-3 any terminator
84-8 any team game
89 3p
90-2 4p
93-5 5p
96-8 6p
99 7p
100 8p
101-108 >2p
109-114 >3p
115-120 >4p
121-124 >5p
125-128 >6p

basic settings

0-30 Spoils is randomly selected (.25 chance for each type)
31-60 Reinforcements are selected (0.33 chance for each type)
61-70 Both are pre-selected
71-100 Neither are selected

number of points required

11-20, randomly determined. If a 20 is rolled, generate new number of 0-5 and add the result to 20, if 5 repeat, but add to 25 etc.
a game started counts as a point, a game completed counts as a point, a game won counts as a point (3 points total for each game won)
If someone can quintuple the score required for the month, they get 2 medals

Round Limits

1-20 Any is acceptable
21-50 At least 30
51-80 At least 50
81-100 At least 100

The reason for this is because people can just make low-round-limit games and get some quick points. Built in so that a greater variety of type. No limit is always acceptable, and makes a better game, IMO.

Ok, so the rotation will be alternating.

Month 1 (March) will be random
Month 2 (April) will have a poll. During March, we will accept nominations, a random set of 3 user-submitted challenges will be added to the poll. If your challenge is accepted, you are barred from suggestions for the next 2 polls.
1 of the poll options will be a random pre-determined challenge
1 of the poll options will be blind random (nobody knows until April 1st)
1 of the poll options I leave open to myself to insert my own suggestions

Note that suggestions don't have to be limited to things that could be randomly generated.
Some other examples of what I mean: 4-player or higher games in which every player's name is a different length of characters
Games in which at least 4 different ranks are playing
As you can see, there is quite the room for imagination here.

However, the entire table is UP FOR DEBATE.
I will take comments tonight and tomorrow and this goes live on Friday (probably around lunchtime EST). Don't want to lose momentum. Will start a new thread in Callouts on that day. The table will change even after we go live, so don't worry if you don't see this in time.

EDIT: I made a few changes after generating some challenges and seeing how they played out.

For the record, tournament games don't count and games with (random) map don't count unless (random) is the map selected.

Count me in!

And I like the blind random poll-otherwise people look at the most likely polls to succeed and pick the one they like most (instead of their overall favorite).

I dislike the notion of receiving double medals, that's a bad idea imo. Also, how many game wins are needed to get a medal?
Finally: why not force people to play team games with someone they've never been on a team with before? Or maybe someone that they've played 3 of fewer games with since the first could get tough for some players.

By blind random all I mean is that one of the poll options is 'Blind Random' which means you vote that nobody knows until the month starts.

Forced teammates sounds like a good idea for one of the suggestions.

I know, and I very much like the suggestion.

thread in callouts