Conquer Club

Concise description:

• A small scoreboard of players who are "retired" that were once good, great, and known far and wide (or just on CC).

Specifics/Details:

For Example...


• Blitzaholic
• Gen.LeeGettinhead

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

Well, conqueror now isn't as big as it was at one point based on points- it was a lot harder to get to. And I think that the all time High Scores should be posted for big players throughout CC history, or a Conqueror only scoreboard, mixed in with those who have reached Field Marshall maybe?

Can't get Gen to link, but go to the first page of my wall if you really want to, a post made by him is there. He is currently a Field Marshall

Would be an interesting idea for all retired players - i.e. when a player is taken off the scoreboard because they haven't played in 30 days, they could be put on this new scoreboard, for posterity.

Was going to post something else here, but it would be a separate suggestion.

sempai

sempaispellcheck wrote:Would be an interesting idea for all retired players - i.e. when a player is taken off the scoreboard because they haven't played in 30 days, they could be put on this new scoreboard, for posterity.

Was going to post something else here, but it would be a separate suggestion.

sempai

Yeah, meant to put that in

total CC players-643741

This scoreboard will be quite big

Qwert wrote:total CC players-643741

This scoreboard will be quite big

It was going to be limited anyways to a couple hundred at most. How about, based on High Scores, those who have a conqueror medal OR have had point totals above 4000? A comparison between their current score and retired status could be made as well.

JamesKer1 wrote:

Qwert wrote:total CC players-643741

This scoreboard will be quite big

It was going to be limited anyways to a couple hundred at most. How about, based on High Scores, those who have a conqueror medal OR have had point totals above 4000? A comparison between their current score and retired status could be made as well.

How about a minimum of 100 completed games? That would be fair and anyone that completed less than 100 games most people wouldn't know of anyway.

Agree.

patrickaa317 wrote:

JamesKer1 wrote:

Qwert wrote:total CC players-643741

This scoreboard will be quite big

It was going to be limited anyways to a couple hundred at most. How about, based on High Scores, those who have a conqueror medal OR have had point totals above 4000? A comparison between their current score and retired status could be made as well.

How about a minimum of 100 completed games? That would be fair and anyone that completed less than 100 games most people wouldn't know of anyway.

Looking at this again after a while, I'm beginning to see that it's a similar idea to a team retiring a great player's number.
To be that well-known on CC, I'd say you need something like a minimum of 10,000 games.

sempai

sempaispellcheck wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

JamesKer1 wrote:

Qwert wrote:total CC players-643741

This scoreboard will be quite big

It was going to be limited anyways to a couple hundred at most. How about, based on High Scores, those who have a conqueror medal OR have had point totals above 4000? A comparison between their current score and retired status could be made as well.

How about a minimum of 100 completed games? That would be fair and anyone that completed less than 100 games most people wouldn't know of anyway.

Looking at this again after a while, I'm beginning to see that it's a similar idea to a team retiring a great player's number.
To be that well-known on CC, I'd say you need something like a minimum of 10,000 games.

sempai

10k is a lot of games. the current top 7 players barely break that combined. if we are looking to see some of the top scores over time, that many games might be a little many. Also, i agree 100 is too low. I was first envisioning this to see how you compared against the entire cc population both of old and new, after reading again I realize that is not the intent.

sempaispellcheck wrote:Looking at this again after a while, I'm beginning to see that it's a similar idea to a team retiring a great player's number.

That's a great way to put it. Except as of now, we have no way to rank the best stats like we would in baseball or another sport, which is what I would like to create. How many people actually remember some of these people like Gen? I don't, and I guess I've played games against him at some point. But he is still extremely high ranked, and if he played a game he would steal conqueror from josko in a heartbeat. But where is that recognition? Hidden away in old forgotten posts. And I'm sure there are other players like this.

Let me know what you guys think the best restrictions and stuff would be, I really don't care what direction this goes in, but I really like the way semp put it...

Also, I don't really think we should have a game limit, because patrickaa is right- some people who are high ranked have only played a couple hundred games, while some with thousands are cooks.

JamesKer1 wrote:

Qwert wrote:total CC players-643741

This scoreboard will be quite big

It was going to be limited anyways to a couple hundred at most. How about, based on High Scores, those who have a conqueror medal OR have had point totals above 4000? A comparison between their current score and retired status could be made as well.

conqueror all ready have hes own page

http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?m ... 1&medal=22

10000 games are to much,, even now in active scoreboard only 181 player reach this.

8000 games pass 296 players
6000 games pass 500 players
4000 games pass 898 players
2000 games pass 1800 players
(this its all on active scoreboard)

Gibbom was conqueror and he only play 320 games
yosevuk play 564 games
mc05025 play 762
mhennigan 452
--------------------------
and right now in active scoreboard you have player with 180 games who are Brigadier, and player who are with 131 games Colonel

A scoreboard for guested players that should never be allowed to see themselves on the scoreboard anyways... sounds like a waste of time.


-griff

grifftron wrote:A scoreboard for guested players that should never be allowed to see themselves on the scoreboard anyways... sounds like a waste of time.


-griff

Respect for history is the basis of tradition, and tradition is the basis of community. It's definitely not a waste of time to look back at some of the greats in the past.

As far as whether they were nice guys or not: do you think the people celebrated in real life are good people? Alexander the Great was "the Great" because he murdered more opponents than anyone who had come before. In fact, I can't think of anyone called "the Great" who didn't murder at least 100,000 or so innocent souls. Christopher Columbus, one of the most celebrated names in the Western Hemisphere, was a vicious, sociopathic extortionist and slaver who ordered savage tortures and mutilations on captives who couldn't afford to pay their ransom, and who pimped girls as young as 9 years old to his troops. I could go on and on, but I'll leave you with just those two examples, because this is after all Suggs and not Off Topics.

The point being that one doesn't get into the history books by being a nice guy, whether in R/L or in games. Sure, GLG was someone most of us would like to beat to death with a truncheon, but he is part of CC history, just as much as Ghenghis Khan is part of R/L history, and ignoring him just because we don't like him is like burning our R/L history books just because there's no one in them we would like to see in our own living rooms.

Qwert wrote:

JamesKer1 wrote:t was going to be limited anyways to a couple hundred at most. How about, based on High Scores, those who have a conqueror medal OR have had point totals above 4000? A comparison between their current score and retired status could be made as well.

Gibbom was conqueror and he only play 320 games
yosevuk play 564 games
mc05025 play 762
mhennigan 452
--------------------------
and right now in active scoreboard you have player with 180 games who are Brigadier, and player who are with 131 games Colonel

Exactly. Thousands of games shouldn't be the yardstick. Anyone who passed one of severar possible tests should be included.

Conqueror and one-time score over 4000 has already been mentioned. I would say anyone who successfully retired a Brig should be included, and possibly anyone over 80 medals.

CC's retired top 5

1) Blitzaholic

...

Dukasaur wrote:

grifftron wrote:A scoreboard for guested players that should never be allowed to see themselves on the scoreboard anyways... sounds like a waste of time.


-griff

Respect for history is the basis of tradition, and tradition is the basis of community. It's definitely not a waste of time to look back at some of the greats in the past.

As far as whether they were nice guys or not: do you think the people celebrated in real life are good people? Alexander the Great was "the Great" because he murdered more opponents than anyone who had come before. In fact, I can't think of anyone called "the Great" who didn't murder at least 100,000 or so innocent souls. Christopher Columbus, one of the most celebrated names in the Western Hemisphere, was a vicious, sociopathic extortionist and slaver who ordered savage tortures and mutilations on captives who couldn't afford to pay their ransom, and who pimped girls as young as 9 years old to his troops. I could go on and on, but I'll leave you with just those two examples, because this is after all Suggs and not Off Topics.

The point being that one doesn't get into the history books by being a nice guy, whether in R/L or in games. Sure, GLG was someone most of us would like to beat to death with a truncheon, but he is part of CC history, just as much as Ghenghis Khan is part of R/L history, and ignoring him just because we don't like him is like burning our R/L history books just because there's no one in them we would like to see in our own living rooms.

Qwert wrote:

JamesKer1 wrote:t was going to be limited anyways to a couple hundred at most. How about, based on High Scores, those who have a conqueror medal OR have had point totals above 4000? A comparison between their current score and retired status could be made as well.

Gibbom was conqueror and he only play 320 games
yosevuk play 564 games
mc05025 play 762
mhennigan 452
--------------------------
and right now in active scoreboard you have player with 180 games who are Brigadier, and player who are with 131 games Colonel

Exactly. Thousands of games shouldn't be the yardstick. Anyone who passed one of severar possible tests should be included.

Conqueror and one-time score over 4000 has already been mentioned. I would say anyone who successfully retired a Brig should be included, and possibly anyone over 80 medals.

well its could be put several requirements

minimum 100 games
minimum 20 medals
minimum lieutenant

--------------------------------------
brigadier are also to high, because right now in active scoreboard you have 105 brigadier and above.

is this suggestion a scoreboard for those that retired or fled in shame ?

greenoaks wrote:is this suggestion a scoreboard for those that retired or fled in shame ?

And those who were banned- only seems fair, since blitz actually was great but banned and never returned...

I think the original idea is a good idea--the one that said a small scoreboard. But I would say that it should be an "All-time" scoreboard, so that active players could be on it. All-time 100 top points achieved, games played, medals won, and maybe some others.

I would also exclude anyone who has been guested in one way or another.

While allowing active players in a Hall of Fame isn't common in sports (at least the American ones with which I am familiar), since players can come and go, I think it's necessary. Also, you wouldn't want to discourage someone from coming back because it will mean their name will leave the hall of fame (or incentivize a multi for the same reason). But disallowing people who broke the rules from entering a Hall of Fame is common and probably fitting here.

agentcom wrote:I think the original idea is a good idea--the one that said a small scoreboard. But I would say that it should be an "All-time" scoreboard, so that active players could be on it. All-time 100 top points achieved, games played, medals won, and maybe some others.

I would also exclude anyone who has been guested in one way or another.

While allowing active players in a Hall of Fame isn't common in sports (at least the American ones with which I am familiar), since players can come and go, I think it's necessary. Also, you wouldn't want to discourage someone from coming back because it will mean their name will leave the hall of fame (or incentivize a multi for the same reason). But disallowing people who broke the rules from entering a Hall of Fame is common and probably fitting here.

I have to agree here completely.

How are we going to record their all-time highest score? Since CC never kept an official log of this (see the Suggestions thread) how can we really make a list of anyone who has ever reached 4000, etc.?

Metsfanmax wrote:How are we going to record their all-time highest score? Since CC never kept an official log of this (see the Suggestions thread) how can we really make a list of anyone who has ever reached 4000, etc.?

Well that sucks, didn't know about that. So maybe anyone who is currently 4000 plus or has been since update where that is recorded in GL, as well as all who have received Conq medals (since we have record of that). I don't think there is any other way to do it without that info, hopefully everyone who hit 4K was conq at some point.

so now this its another "hall of fame" sugestion?

JamesKer1 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:is this suggestion a scoreboard for those that retired or fled in shame ?

And those who were banned- only seems fair, since blitz actually was great but banned and never returned...

He returned for a short while.

DoomYoshi wrote:

JamesKer1 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:is this suggestion a scoreboard for those that retired or fled in shame ?

And those who were banned- only seems fair, since blitz actually was great but banned and never returned...

He returned for a short while.

Never returned for good*

agentcom wrote:I think the original idea is a good idea--the one that said a small scoreboard. But I would say that it should be an "All-time" scoreboard, so that active players could be on it. All-time 100 top points achieved, games played, medals won, and maybe some others.

I would also exclude anyone who has been guested in one way or another.

While allowing active players in a Hall of Fame isn't common in sports (at least the American ones with which I am familiar), since players can come and go, I think it's necessary. Also, you wouldn't want to discourage someone from coming back because it will mean their name will leave the hall of fame (or incentivize a multi for the same reason). But disallowing people who broke the rules from entering a Hall of Fame is common and probably fitting here.

It may be common, but it makes a mockery of the whole thing. Fame is defined as "the state of being known by many people" in its most fundamental sense. When someone like Pete Rose, who is known to pretty much every baseball fan on the planet, is excluded from the Hall of Fame, it isn't Pete Rose who suffers. It is the Hall of Fame itself which loses relevance. Slowly but surely the Baseball Hall of Fame has changed from an "Oh my God I gotta go there!" to a "Yeah maybe we'll stop there if we have extra time on the way back."

Real fame comes just as much as from evil deeds as from good deeds. Well, perhaps more so. A scoreboard that tries to play Jiminy Cricket is not going to command any respect. Would you visit a World War II museum that tried to pretend the Nazis didn't exist?