Tournament ideas

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 5:45 pm

Ok so we all know there is no prize but how about we create something that is worth fighting for...a title.

My thoughts are.

If you get through the group stage you get the rank i dunno lets say lt. commander

then the next stage Captain

next stage Admiral

final Fleet commander

Or something like this and perhaps work out something with the staff of the forum to put these rank titles underneath our name kind of like the MOD rank and staff ect, and get volenteers who are good at graphics to create the rank titles.


That way everyone will know who got where in the previous tournament and knows who to watch.

Thoughts?

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 5:49 pm

dont like, promotes elitism.

elim did poorly in this tournament, yet he's a skilled player. tournaments arent always representative of skill/awesomeness.

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 5:53 pm

dont like, promotes elitism.

elim did poorly in this tournament, yet he's a skilled player. tournaments arent always representative of skill/awesomeness.

Its not about elitism its just a reward for progressing in the tournament since there is no actual prize, why must you see the worst possible outcome of everything rather than just see its there for entertainment. Its for fun just like the tournament is there for so far i havnt whitnessed anything like what you say in the tournament so why would it be any different with ranks as rewards for how far someone progresses.

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 6:00 pm

why would it be any different with ranks as rewards for how far someone progresses

Because of two reasons:

First: We can read the player-progress on the tournament-bracket.

Second: Myles is right with the elitism-thing: On the one hand, the player who has won will be THE winner. For now till the next tournament at least. On the other hand, he will have problems just playing for fun; new players may "fear" him, or laugh at him when he loses a game. Wrong expectations just because someone got a title are absolutely unavoidable if you do something like these ranks for tournament-participants.

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 6:00 pm

dont like, promotes elitism.

How's this any different from the 'Donator' tag? People can get elitist and feel more entitled than others by donating money just as easily as they get elitist by winning games. TV Tropes even has a section for it on the 'Fandumb' page.

I have no opinion on the titles added, just curious about why you don't oppose getting titles for donating when that can easily have the same effect. Besides, elitists would probably just get shot down for that behaviour.

[Anonymous]

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 6:02 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on May 22nd, 2011, 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Its not about elitism its just a reward for progressing in the tournament since there is no actual prize, why must you see the worst possible outcome of everything rather than just see its there for entertainment. Its for fun just like the tournament is there for so far i havnt whitnessed anything like what you say in the tournament so why would it be any different with ranks as rewards for how far someone progresses.

you asked for thoughts, yet you contrive not to accept them...

its my opinion that this will breed elitism, a pointless division based on a variable that's not truly representative of any quality that matters.

i also think its also incredibly pointless and smacks of a desire to lord it over the new players.

these are my opinions, you cant disprove them (just like i cant disprove yours) so accept the thoughts and continue to seek the thoughts of others.

---

EDIT:

How's this any different from the 'Donator' tag? People can get elitist and feel more entitled than others by donating money just as easily as they get elitist by winning games. TV Tropes even has a section for it on the 'Fandumb' page.

that was added before i had a say in the matter. if there was a vote on whether to add them (i dont know if there was or wasnt) i would have been on the no side. the tag was added automatically when i donated, i didnt donate just to get the tag.

also this might be related to a time where donators got exclusive fleetops content, before i arrived as well.

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 6:06 pm

How's this any different from the 'Donator' tag? People can get elitist and feel more entitled than others by donating money just as easily as they get elitist by winning games.

The difference appears to be that the donation-tag is a community-internal, while the ranks could actually affect the multiplayer-gaming.

You're right however, although I never saw anyone going like "Hah, I donated and you didn't".

[Kestrel]

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 6:07 pm

Last edited by Kestrel on May 22nd, 2011, 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Because of two reasons:

First: We can read the player-progress on the tournament-bracket.

Second: Myles is right with the elitism-thing: On the one hand, the player who has won will be THE winner. For now till the next tournament at least. On the other hand, he will have problems just playing for fun; new players may "fear" him, or laugh at him when he loses a game. Wrong expectations just because someone got a title are absolutely unavoidable if you do something like these ranks for tournament-participants.

Hmm yes i forgot there are small children here who cant win or lose like a real sport. That maybe the way you think but again iv never seen anyone do what you say after any match and most people know who the top players are and iv seen them lose and nothing is said to them so i cant really see this happening. The worst iv seen is someone argue about how the map was unbalanced or the tactics used like the spamming of OP units so nothing that doesnt already exist would come of this.

Im surprised there are young people at all since startrek is quite an old thing and the people who watched it should be in their 20s - 30s at least, but if this kind of thing happened they can be reported and removed from any future tournament.

Tyler is right the donator tag doesnt create any form of "elitism" or feeling arrogance that they are better than anyone else just because they have donated so why should reward ranks.

you asked for thoughts, yet you contrive not to accept them...

Theres a big difference between accepting someones views and not agreeing with them, i dont agree with you because its a poor reason for not doing something fun and having a reward for participating in a tournament.

EDIT:

kestrel: calling people kids and ridiculing them isnt a good thing. its just gonna start a flame war and get your thread locked. why create threads if you're just gonna flame them to lock?

I didnt name anyone a kid so stop trolling like you always do and give other people the opportunity to discuss you have already made your position clear.
AS you clearly didnt notice the bit where i address someone of the kids (kids is not an insult) was a seperate sentence from where i addressed redeye.

I also didnt call the game a sport i said be a sport go get this term defined.

(example" be a sport and go close the curtain)

[Anonymous]

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 6:07 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on May 22nd, 2011, 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I never saw anyone going like "Hah, I donated and you didn't".

the prospect of being able to buy respect is funny. terrible as an idea, but funny.

---

EDIT:

kestrel: calling people kids and ridiculing them isnt a good thing. its just gonna start a flame war and get your thread locked. why create threads if you're just gonna flame them to lock?

also this isnt a sport. its a game. sports are played for entertaining fans and almost exclusively for competition.

this game is played mostly for fun, with competition as the side order.

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 6:16 pm

Kestrel, I actually played people here who 1) laughed at other players after winning 2) were doing nothing ingame because of the opponents reputation and 3) announced themselves to be whatever title in their own gaming-groups.

Just being exemplary here; What you consider "children" is basically at least half of the people online in tunngle.

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 6:18 pm

oh kestrel, blah blah blah, im not gonna argue with you, you're just not worth it. you wanna be king of the interwebs? go ahead your heiness.

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 6:20 pm

Kestrel, I actually played people here who 1) laughed at other players after winning 2) were doing nothing ingame because of the opponents reputation and 3) announced themselves to be whatever title in their own gaming-groups.

Just being exemplary here; What you consider "children" is basically at least half of the people online in tunngle.

Well in honesty iv never seen this iv seen some people argueing over stupid things like the use of some units but this all goes in with being online people will argue about stupid stuff that doesnt matter.

But i fail to see why even elitism should stand in the way of something fun. If indeed this did get out of hand then the ranks can be removed but i just dont see that sort of thing happening in the first place, apart from on the forum i doubt that it would even be mentioned in tunngle since some people have different names on the forum, the idea is just supposed to be a "achievment or "trophy" as you will.

Most people just say GG after a game and thats it and usually "rematch"

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 6:29 pm

But i fail to see why even elitism should stand in the way of something fun.

Did you ever think about why there aren't official FO-clans?

Well in honesty iv never seen this iv seen some people argueing over stupid things like the use of some units but this all goes in with being online people will argue about stupid stuff that doesnt matter.

Discussing the use of certain units and discussing strategies has always been part of every strategy-game-related communication between players.

- And that's not what I meant.

You've never seen what I mentioned before, I'd consider this either luck or blindness. 

Admittedly some of those players did change their behaviour, some of them left and some of them are still bitching around.

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 8:13 pm

How's this any different from the 'Donator' tag?

How much more obvious can it be? The "Donator" tags shows someone cares enough about the FO Community they are willing to contribute actual money so the site, and the Community, continues. Regardless of benefit to themselves. "Needs of the many" and all that. Being able to place a tag under my name which shows I am this month's Tourney winner (Hah! Like that's gonna happen anytime soon!) would merely be all about...all together now! Wait for it!...me! If the penultimate high point of my existence is showing off I won an FO Tourney and it is very important to my self image and sense of self worth everyone else know this, then maybe my priorities are a little skewed.

Would not a simple thread announcing this month's Tourney winner and allowing others to post, "Congratz, Dude!", or "I'll get you next time!", serve the need for boosting one's ego just as well as yet another graphic under someone's avatar or sig banner? The Rank Thing and the Rep Thing are the two parts of the InterWebs I find most irritating. If you really are somebody, then everyone should know this already without you having to whip out some sort of flashing neon credentials to prove it.

Short verion: "Cool already knows it's cool. Don't need no external validation."

[Tyler]

posted on May 22nd, 2011, 8:17 pm

Last edited by Tyler on May 22nd, 2011, 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you actually read the rest of my post, you'd know what I was talking about. It wasn't about what the tag itself means, it's the potential effect it has on people.