UHC Apps | Competition Hosting
- J_Birdman
- Hunter
- Posts: 943
- Joined: August 21st, 2015, 11:26 am
Re: UHC Apps | Competition Generator
Damn you're fast, David. Thanks for being so open to input and flexible in implementation, UHC, it's greatly appreciated. Sorry if I fumbled around too much. I think perhaps I was getting ahead of myself and blurring the line between a wish list and an online shopping cart about the bundles.
- Radamus
- Master Hunter
- Posts: 8850
- Joined: January 23rd, 2014, 7:05 pm
- Location: NW Ohio
- Contact:
Re: UHC Apps | Competition Generator
When the term "Human Dynamo" is used, there's a picture of David Mitchell - In one's lifetime they will encounter very few super special people. I suggest to anyone who's young enough in life to adapt to the habits of the highly impactful people of their time, just watch this one go - One of a kind.
"Out of all competitors, Radamus was the only one who got it I think" - BCKidd
"Ugh, I absolutely hate the thought that Radamus is right about this and I was wrong...!!!" Splainin2do
I can't afford a swear jar - xOEDragon
"Ugh, I absolutely hate the thought that Radamus is right about this and I was wrong...!!!" Splainin2do
I can't afford a swear jar - xOEDragon
Spoiler:
- Nockedup
- Hunter
- Posts: 503
- Joined: August 30th, 2014, 10:50 am
- Location: The Great Northwest
- Contact:
Re: UHC Apps | Competition Generator
Is there any way that UHC can create a top ten Hall Of Fame that truly sorts everything from biggest to smallest? I'm told that the animals in the EW Hall Of Fame are chosen randomly which is ridiculous and unacceptable. For example, a maximum score Black Bear, (23.937), that weighs 289.586 kg (638.4 lbs) should top another 23.937 Black Bear that only weighs 288.896 kg (636.9 lbs). The weight should come into play as a tie breaker. Even if a hunter had to manually enter a scoresheet for an animal it would be better than whatever it is that EW is doing now.
Current Season Stats
Nockedup's Twitch Channel
"Difficult doesn't mean impossible. It simply means that you have to work hard" ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Spoiler:
"Difficult doesn't mean impossible. It simply means that you have to work hard" ~ Theodore Roosevelt
- caledonianblues
- Master Hunter
- Posts: 9725
- Joined: September 27th, 2012, 11:01 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Re: UHC Apps | Competition Generator
We can't pull data to form a hall of fame, but I could create a UHC hall of fame. This is something I thought about a while ago. It would essentially be a top 10 for each species in the game. One table for score, one for weight. It would require UHC members to post their scoresheets whenever they have an animal that's worthy. We couldn't automatically pull everyone's best animals.Nockedup wrote:Is there any way that UHC can create a top ten Hall Of Fame that truly sorts everything from biggest to smallest? I'm told that the animals in the EW Hall Of Fame are chosen randomly which is ridiculous and unacceptable. For example, a maximum score Black Bear, (23.937), that weighs 289.586 kg (638.4 lbs) should top another 23.937 Black Bear that only weighs 288.896 kg (636.9 lbs). The weight should come into play as a tie breaker. Even if a hunter had to manually enter a scoresheet for an animal it would be better than whatever it is that EW is doing now.
We could even offer prizes and trophies for anyone in the hall of fame at the end of an official season. Then we could either clear it down and start again, or keep it running.
I will think about this and put it on the list. I've taken a short break from the custom profile pages because there's a fair bit involved and I was getting frustrated with it, hence the wishlist functionality. Maybe I could knock this out too.
Thanks for the suggestion. Hopefully my proposal wouldn't be too restricted, being unable to automate the population of the hall of fame. Could still be fun even if you have to post your animals manually.
- Nockedup
- Hunter
- Posts: 503
- Joined: August 30th, 2014, 10:50 am
- Location: The Great Northwest
- Contact:
Re: UHC Apps | Competition Generator
Using the Black Bears as an example again, let's say the top 10 are all 23.937's. They can be ranked by weight, right? Or are you suggesting that there be 2 separate Top 10's, one for score and one for weight?caledonianblues wrote:We can't pull data to form a hall of fame, but I could create a UHC hall of fame. This is something I thought about a while ago. It would essentially be a top 10 for each species in the game. One table for score, one for weight. It would require UHC members to post their scoresheets whenever they have an animal that's worthy. We couldn't automatically pull everyone's best animals.Nockedup wrote:Is there any way that UHC can create a top ten Hall Of Fame that truly sorts everything from biggest to smallest? I'm told that the animals in the EW Hall Of Fame are chosen randomly which is ridiculous and unacceptable. For example, a maximum score Black Bear, (23.937), that weighs 289.586 kg (638.4 lbs) should top another 23.937 Black Bear that only weighs 288.896 kg (636.9 lbs). The weight should come into play as a tie breaker. Even if a hunter had to manually enter a scoresheet for an animal it would be better than whatever it is that EW is doing now.
We could even offer prizes and trophies for anyone in the hall of fame at the end of an official season. Then we could either clear it down and start again, or keep it running.
I will think about this and put it on the list. I've taken a short break from the custom profile pages because there's a fair bit involved and I was getting frustrated with it, hence the wishlist functionality. Maybe I could knock this out too.
Thanks for the suggestion. Hopefully my proposal wouldn't be too restricted, being unable to automate the population of the hall of fame. Could still be fun even if you have to post your animals manually.
Current Season Stats
Nockedup's Twitch Channel
"Difficult doesn't mean impossible. It simply means that you have to work hard" ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Spoiler:
"Difficult doesn't mean impossible. It simply means that you have to work hard" ~ Theodore Roosevelt
- BCKidd
- Moderator
- Posts: 16548
- Joined: January 6th, 2012, 2:15 am
- Location: British Columbia
- Contact:
Re: UHC Apps | Competition Generator
Cal, if UHC does that with the "HoF", could one then say this could also be done with longest shot- iron-sights? You are right it would be fun even if we had to manually submit to the "HoF". It is a great idea. Peace.
BCKidd.
BCKidd.
"Patience and perseverance, are not an option if you want that trophy, they are a necessity."
Keep it real!
"Careful, David, he's Canadian......They eat people you know." Fletchette.
- caledonianblues
- Master Hunter
- Posts: 9725
- Joined: September 27th, 2012, 11:01 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Re: UHC Apps | Competition Generator
I would keep them separate. Remember, much less people would be posting animals to the UHC hall of fame, so the likelihood of duplicate scores would decrease. If there are duplicates, then the first one submitted appears on top.Nockedup wrote:Using the Black Bears as an example again, let's say the top 10 are all 23.937's. They can be ranked by weight, right? Or are you suggesting that there be 2 separate Top 10's, one for score and one for weight?
Yes, an iron-sights hall of fame could be done too.BCKidd wrote:Cal, if UHC does that with the "HoF", could one then say this could also be done with longest shot- iron-sights?
- BCKidd
- Moderator
- Posts: 16548
- Joined: January 6th, 2012, 2:15 am
- Location: British Columbia
- Contact:
Re: UHC Apps | Competition Generator
Awesome! Peace.
BCKidd.
BCKidd.
"Patience and perseverance, are not an option if you want that trophy, they are a necessity."
Keep it real!
"Careful, David, he's Canadian......They eat people you know." Fletchette.
- Nockedup
- Hunter
- Posts: 503
- Joined: August 30th, 2014, 10:50 am
- Location: The Great Northwest
- Contact:
Re: UHC Apps | Competition Generator
caledonianblues wrote:Nockedup wrote:Using the Black Bears as an example again, let's say the top 10 are all 23.937's. They can be ranked by weight, right? Or are you suggesting that there be 2 separate Top 10's, one for score and one for weight?
If that's the way you'd have to do it, then in my opinion it wouldn't be worth the effort since the EW already does it the same way. What I was hoping for was a solution to get away from the "first submitted stays on top" routine. I'd rather see the animals ranked with the weight used in the equation so that multiple, identical scoring animals were distinguished by how heavy they were as a second factor. That way everybody always has a shot at getting to the top.caledonianblues wrote:I would keep them separate. Remember, much less people would be posting animals to the UHC hall of fame, so the likelihood of duplicate scores would decrease. If there are duplicates, then the first one submitted appears on top.
Current Season Stats
Nockedup's Twitch Channel
"Difficult doesn't mean impossible. It simply means that you have to work hard" ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Spoiler:
"Difficult doesn't mean impossible. It simply means that you have to work hard" ~ Theodore Roosevelt
- Nockedup
- Hunter
- Posts: 503
- Joined: August 30th, 2014, 10:50 am
- Location: The Great Northwest
- Contact:
Re: UHC Apps | Competition Generator
This how the Leaderboard for Black Bears on the EW looks right now. These are the only four 23.937's on there. Notice the differences in weight, which is ignored by the "first submitted goes to the top routine":
#1 - 23.937 - 283.947 kgs.
#2 - 23.937 - 250.176 kgs.
#3 - 23.937 - 268.242 kgs.
#4 - 23.937 - 289.586 kgs.
It should be like this, with the weight factored in:
#1 - 23.937 - 289.586 kgs.
#2 - 23.937 - 283.947 kgs.
#3 - 23.937 - 268.242 kgs.
#4 - 23.937 - 250.176 kgs.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem like it would be to difficult to accomplish since the weights are on the scoresheets too.
#1 - 23.937 - 283.947 kgs.
#2 - 23.937 - 250.176 kgs.
#3 - 23.937 - 268.242 kgs.
#4 - 23.937 - 289.586 kgs.
It should be like this, with the weight factored in:
#1 - 23.937 - 289.586 kgs.
#2 - 23.937 - 283.947 kgs.
#3 - 23.937 - 268.242 kgs.
#4 - 23.937 - 250.176 kgs.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem like it would be to difficult to accomplish since the weights are on the scoresheets too.
Current Season Stats
Nockedup's Twitch Channel
"Difficult doesn't mean impossible. It simply means that you have to work hard" ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Spoiler:
"Difficult doesn't mean impossible. It simply means that you have to work hard" ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Lucky, xOEDragonx and 1 guest