Here:one of my ideas was archived without a poll. What is the criteria of that? Bias? that soggy derailed it?
Not because I derailed it, but rather that I was right about rankings.we have no intention of removing the rankings here, so I'll archive this thread now
Participation medals are a better indicator than rank and score.
Score is necessary to achieve the team chests but rank is not.
While I agree that there are people who care about tournament ranking, and it should not be removed from the game, neither huge, nor massive, are words that should reasonably be applied to its importance.Tournament ranking is a huge part of the game, as is the ranking points you get. There is massive competition
You're correct, I don't get to decide. Neither do you. There is no reasonable definition of Huge or Massive that applies to the ability to see tournament ranking. There is only so much room for things to be huge or massive in a given system, and I'm confident that tournament ranking falls well below such things as Graphics, Events, Future Tech expansions, Fellowships, and PMs/Chat.You really don't get to decide the use of language or what constitutes correct use ashrem. You seem to think it is your place to correct everyone all the time and dumb stuff all the time.
I thought I'd broken you of tagging me in conversations where I already participate. Will have to keep working on that one. You are welcome to mention my name, but I really don't need an extra email that someone tagged me when I'm getting one for the conversation anyway.
Actually, Felyndral had over 4500 participants last week, of whom 100 is not a massive number. It is, in fact, .0002 (or 1/50th of 1%) of all the people who participated in the tourrnament. And that's assuming all the people who made the top 100 actually cared whether they did (which I don't beleive is the case), as opposed to just doing what they wanted to do in the tournament.To be fair, edeba said
"there is a massive competition", and ~100 players take part in that each week. Considering how few truly active players there are per server, that's not a very big exaggeration imo.
First, if anyone is getting even 10% of their total score from tournament placement, they are an extraordinary case, so I think it is out of line. Second, not displaying a ranking doesn't preclude granting points for those people. While the two appear to be inextricably linked, it is not the case. A list of who is getting what points that does not include in the 4400 people on my world who did not get any points would be almost of the same effect.A huge score reward for top 10" and iirc #1 gets 1,000 points which, compared to other possible sources of points which all take up significant space in your city, I don't think that's out of line either.
You are, in fact, free to think that and I am even prepared to agree, in part. However, I do not accept your premise that something which is probably well under 5% of the game's "value" deserves to be place in the wiggle room you are defining for "massive" . I am also free to say that English has superlatives for a reason, and that "wild" abuse of superlatives (which this is) weakens their import for when they are legitimately required.I think there is room in English to allow for exaggeration to make points. Provided that a player doesn't go too far and claim that ALL of something or EVERYONE something, readers can figure it out for themselves.
I'll give you props for wiggling.my point is that the accuracy of words like huge and massive can be partly perspective based like a "huge" amount of money will be different for different people, and yet using the word to describe $100 or $10,000 can both be appropriate.
https://media.giphy.com/media/8Eup943BRqxbO/giphy-downsized.gifI'll give you props for wiggling.
You keep trying to use comparisons in which the Tournament is the only thing that exists, and further, in which only those people who care about tournaments are significant to the scale. By that standard, I should accept the word of one of Nickelback's top fans that the Nickelback fan ranking is Massively important to music, and removing the ability to see which of their fans is the top fan would be a serious problem for the music scenehttps://media.giphy.com/media/8Eup943BRqxbO/giphy-downsized.gif
Your apple analogy doesn't account for the observer's perspective.
1/3 of an apple is a huge amount to an ant(but not to a horse) regardless of what else is in the basket, the size of the basket, or how many apples there are.
For Edeba, the ranking points are a massive draw, and make a huge difference.
His use of huge was also qualified further in the post when saying that 11-50 get a "decent" amount of points. If you are going to allow that 70 points for 50th place is "decent" then by comparison 1,000 points for first place is actually relatively huge.
Through context it should be simple for a reader to see the scale that is being used, and I find it reasonable to say that something which is 14x as big as "decent" is "huge"
Picture whatever you think is a decent sized apple, and I'm confident that an apple 14x the size of that is huge.
I've also heard other common usage for massive like "There was a massive fight at the concert" Where 20 people where fighting. Out of 50,000 attendees, 20 is a rather small amount, but any fight involving 20 people is pretty impressive(to some).
So if Edeba sees the fight for top tournament spots as being massive in a virtually competition-free game, I don't think he's off there either.
Since no-one but the OP has expressed any support for the idea, I'm not sure the poll results will be very interesting, if they even add a poll. Once we stop discussing, the OP is supposed to get asked if they want to proceed with a poll. There have been no supporters, and the player signed up April 21 and hasn't posted since April 27.cant wait to see the voting on this suggestion to see how other people think.
Remove personal ranking from tournaments and add more information about each person’s participation to the fellowship tab.
Reason:
Personal rankings serves no purpose.
Tournaments are designed for fellowships and right now the only place a score is needed is to see participation within the fellowship. Where it currently resides. Sort by score but it is unnecessary to have a rank as one doesn’t receive an individual reward for scoring better than someone else. It should be about participation as a whole. It should also include all members of a fellowship, including those that don’t participate with a score of 0.
Add how many provinces completed, encounters completed, how many were catered and how many were fought.
If someone is losing a lot of units this could allow someone who excels in battle to help the person and suggest ways to improve their battle performance.
View attachment 4167
There is not a single post on here, aside from the op, that claims tournament points don't matter and aren't important. There is no such derailment.this post derailed in a tournament points dont matter as a whole thing.
Well yeah, the tournament is what edeba was talking about. The OP's posted idea included removing tournament rank from tournaments, and Edeba said that in the context of the tournament that the tournament ranking was massive.You keep trying to use comparisons in which the Tournament is the only thing that exists, and further, in which only those people who care about tournaments are significant to the scale.