#9 - What do you chose, points or recognition (medals banners tourney wins)?

[NewSheriffInTown]

Which to you play for - Points and rank? or Recognition (medals banners tourney wins)?

 

[Geoffrey]

I regret my vote, even if I don't actively try and get medal/bling/tourney wins, those are far more permanent than points and rank and I think I'd appreciate them more! I think I'd change my vote to the latter if I had a time machine ;p

Good question

 

[Bluebonnet]

Definitely the bling, medals, and scoreboards. It keeps things interesting and always something to to obtain.

I can stay a captains level for extended periods of time with major and colonel thrown in once in awhile. But to do that, i can't play all the games i want. 1v1 real time for example is a great way to spend the evening. Also keeps the score down.

So by going after medals i get to try out new things. Different settings (assassin, fixed force), different team sizes and different maps. It keeps things new and refreshing while the medals show I have achieved something. Even though they are only little rectangles showing up on my profile which my family could care less about, it is enough to keep me here and interested.

 

[ndrm31]

Just a comment to send he poll to whats new, thx sheriff for starting it!

 

[PITMAN212]

Bling bling bling

 

[sundicekid]

Nope, gimme a star damn it!

...oh maybe that's my bling

 

[empirejeff]

I regret my vote, even if I don't actively try and get medal/bling/tourney wins, those are far more permanent than points and rank and I think I'd appreciate them more! I think I'd change my vote to the latter if I had a time machine ;p

Good question

Time travel is really hard to write about.

 

[WiJoMa]

I don't really care about either. I just play for the fun.

 

[chefsmitty]

Point in case:
Most of you know I've been AWOL for some time so my rank has dropped!!! Joined a RT game the other night and one of the other players was a little intimidated (for lack of a better term) because he went to my profile and noticed the games, wins, banners, etc. Rank will fluctuate all the time, but the accomplishments you earn and keep will determine your character, your skill, and your legacy at MC!!!

 

[TormentaBANNED]

It is not definite because there are different factors, but I think it is clear that what shows the skill is a high rank and the ability to keep it. Getting medals is easy, just play 1000 games and you will have a lot even if you suck.

As I say there are factors against my opinion, for example if you are lucky in three consecutive games, get to general and later you only play team games with other generals, obviously you are not likely to fall. Anyway, rank is more representative in general.

 

[th-child]

Point in case:
Most of you know I've been AWOL for some time so my rank has dropped!!! Joined a RT game the other night and one of the other players was a little intimidated (for lack of a better term) because he went to my profile and noticed the games, wins, banners, etc. Rank will fluctuate all the time, but the accomplishments you earn and keep will determine your character, your skill, and your legacy at MC!!!

Hey chef, welcome back!

 

[ndrm31]

WB SMIITTY XDXDXD looking fwd to play with u, once I recover!!!

 

[Bluebonnet]

It is not definite because there are different factors, but I think it is clear that what shows the skill is a high rank and the ability to keep it. Getting medals is easy, just play 1000 games and you will have a lot even if you suck.

As I say there are factors against my opinion, for example if you are lucky in three consecutive games, get to general and later you only play team games with other generals, obviously you are not likely to fall. Anyway, rank is more representative in general.

Skill for majcom. It has been a long argued subject. Cardinalsrule once put forth it is several factors. Highest score you ever reached, most medals, longest udo streak, etc. I tend to agree it is a combination of different things.

As you pointed out, obtaining a high rank and keeping it is one. For the most part the people in the top 20 play a lot of games against a lot of different people. But if any of them dive into 1v1 in real time on classic evolved on a a very regular basis, i am sure their score would take a hit. So they have to be somewhat careful. And can you truly say you are the best if you never stepped foot in a team game, or acquired a 40 cudo streak?

But medals is a bit tougher than you make it out. Sure, anyone can get bronze medals. beating 25 udo's for a map if fairly easy. probably have to only kill 30 or so people to get it. To get a gold, expect to beat 2x as many players as it takes to get the udo. you have to beat the big guys too for the medal. especially when the come to maps or team size that is not popular amongst the masses.

Some medals are a bit tougher.

For example take a gold 6'ers. To my knowledge only 2 have been awarded. (Approxiamate number). I have played 133 games and won 115 of them. 86% win rate. About 300 games have been played, so i had to play in 1/2 the games ever played on majcom. I have beat around 690 people and according to my records only have 300 udo. It will be years before i can get a onyx for that one.

But alas, that doesnt make me the best on majcommand. it only makes me the 2nd best at acquiring medals.

So it takes a lot to be the best at majcommand. But don't dismiss medals as second to rank. Many people give up the option of rank to chase medals. Or give up rank to just have fun and play settings they suck at cause they like to play and learn different maps, strategies, settings.

 

[TormentaBANNED]

Yes I agree, that's why I said "in general". In my opinion the best players that I have seen here so far are captains, majors or colonels who are playing everyday against people with much lower ranks, and they keep the high rank. Also some players who are constantly playing real time and get to captain or even major, playing a lot with low rankers.

And yes your team (if I remember well) is the best 6'ers team I have played against. But it is true too that a lot of teams don't play as a team, just random players without strategy, so I guess some times it is like taking a candy from a little child

 

[Bluebonnet]

At times it is indeed easy to win. Especially when noobs show up and go awol. But again, isn't part of being the best on majcommand the ability to make friends and work in team games?

Heck, I go after medals so much I even joined other friends once or twice to beat my normal 6'ers team. To go medal hunting you have to beat everyone. Not just the easy marks.

 

[TormentaBANNED]

Yes of course!

What I mean is that we can know you are a great team player because you said you have 300 udo after playing 133 games, and that's fantastic, but if a terrible player plays 1000 games and has 300 udo, the medal is the same for both. (I don't have anything against medals, just say they don't necessarily show skill).

 

[Redstorm]

an interesting discussion for sure, EP & Gtivan. I realize y'all are talking about defining skill thru measurements but let's not forget the eye test. Having played most of the regular players, I know who are the best consistently IMO and neither measurement captures that personal list.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

One stat that I look at, that I believe to be pretty accurate, although it can be skewed by team games or by playing a lot of 1v1 games, is dividing number of opponents killed by number of games played. Here's a sample of a few prominent players numbers:

Cardinalsrule - 1.54

Sensadrome - 1.60

gtivan - 1.17

dorcee - 1.45

malpot - 1.82

ajdedo - 1.61

masterjskye - 1.28

really, I believe that any number over 1.0 indicates a pretty good player.

One thing that this little exercise of running a few numbers told me was that my feeling about the overall skill of my friend Malpot was correct. :top:

 

[Bluebonnet]

One stat that I look at, that I believe to be pretty accurate, although it can be skewed by team games or by playing a lot of 1v1 games, is dividing number of opponents killed by number of games played. Here's a sample of a few prominent players numbers:

Cardinalsrule - 1.54

Sensadrome - 1.60

gtivan - 1.17

dorcee - 1.45

malpot - 1.82

ajdedo - 1.61

masterjskye - 1.28

really, I believe that any number over 1.0 indicates a pretty good player, but I think that this is interesting. One thing that this little exercise of running a few numbers told me was that my feeling about the overall skill of my friend Malpot was correct. :top:

now that is something i would like to see in greater detail.
as a rough estimate, i have played 3,800 games
2,300 1v1, so 60%. 1v1 is my favorite.
900 team games, so 23%. 2v2 doubles is great!
and 600 multi player singles at 16%. not a fan and my weakest play, but the best way to earn merc and assassin udo's.

touble is i cant search the tournaments. so the multi player singles is overinflated.

but i would like to compare my activities by map, team, settings, etc

 

[Cardinalsrule]

now that is something i would like to see in greater detail.
as a rough estimate, i have played 3,800 games
2,300 1v1, so 60%. 1v1 is my favorite.
900 team games, so 23%. 2v2 doubles is great!
and 600 multi player singles at 16%. not a fan and my weakest play, but the best way to earn merc and assassin udo's.

touble is i cant search the tournaments. so the multi player singles is overinflated.

but i would like to compare my activities by map, team, settings, etc

I did note that a lot of team games and a lot of 1v1 could skew the number. Your number is skewed downward, I believe, by the large number of 1v1 games. My number, conversely, may be skewed upward a little by a lot of team games.