Moderator: Clan Directors
patrickaa317 wrote:ljex wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:
Yeah and maybe even if you don't play in any games but the clan you are in wins, you should also get a medal. You can't get a tournament medal if you don't win a single game why should this medal be different?
Why should someone be rewarded with a medal if they didn't even contribute to the clan war by not being able to win a game? That would completely make this medal worthless in my eyes. It's just like a school giving trophy's to all little league teams even if the team completely sucked.
To me, a guy that doesn't play at all in a clan war helped my clan out more than a guy who lost all of his matchups. That guy was dead weight to the cause and I'm not sure how you can say otherwise.
Well theoretically you can win a tournament medal without winning a single game so that point is moot. Also joining a game and losing doesn't mean you didn't help your clan, you gave your clan the best chance to win on that map or you wouldn't be there. The dice/drops can determine games, and while they may average out in the long run its possible that in the 5 games you play you lose all of the despite making good moves. Especially if the other clan is making good moves as well. And the contribution is that of joining the game and representing your clan, not of winning the game. This game is not entirely skill so you can lose when you are the better team/player.
Can you give me an example of a tourney where it is 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4 format where you could win a tournament without winning or beating someone? I evidently need to join more of those tourneys, I might have more than two trophys on my medal page.
If we had a 3 clan war, I would see the point. As far as your point about being selected as the best person to represent your team on that map, that is a mute point. A freemium cook could have stepped in and lost just as easily as anyone else. Just because your leader assigned you to represent that map doesn't mean you should get a medal.
And if you get medals for making good moves and not winning, why does the losing team of the clan war not get any medals? They could have also made good moves...
If all trophy's were handed to the better/team player, why even play? Why not just look at map ranks then? This could also at least make the 40th game of the war mean something (for a member to either get a medal or not).
ljex wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:ljex wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:
Yeah and maybe even if you don't play in any games but the clan you are in wins, you should also get a medal. You can't get a tournament medal if you don't win a single game why should this medal be different?
Why should someone be rewarded with a medal if they didn't even contribute to the clan war by not being able to win a game? That would completely make this medal worthless in my eyes. It's just like a school giving trophy's to all little league teams even if the team completely sucked.
To me, a guy that doesn't play at all in a clan war helped my clan out more than a guy who lost all of his matchups. That guy was dead weight to the cause and I'm not sure how you can say otherwise.
Well theoretically you can win a tournament medal without winning a single game so that point is moot. Also joining a game and losing doesn't mean you didn't help your clan, you gave your clan the best chance to win on that map or you wouldn't be there. The dice/drops can determine games, and while they may average out in the long run its possible that in the 5 games you play you lose all of the despite making good moves. Especially if the other clan is making good moves as well. And the contribution is that of joining the game and representing your clan, not of winning the game. This game is not entirely skill so you can lose when you are the better team/player.
Can you give me an example of a tourney where it is 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4 format where you could win a tournament without winning or beating someone? I evidently need to join more of those tourneys, I might have more than two trophys on my medal page.
If we had a 3 clan war, I would see the point. As far as your point about being selected as the best person to represent your team on that map, that is a mute point. A freemium cook could have stepped in and lost just as easily as anyone else. Just because your leader assigned you to represent that map doesn't mean you should get a medal.
And if you get medals for making good moves and not winning, why does the losing team of the clan war not get any medals? They could have also made good moves...
If all trophy's were handed to the better/team player, why even play? Why not just look at map ranks then? This could also at least make the 40th game of the war mean something (for a member to either get a medal or not).
You can win tournaments where there is a team of say 10 people on a team and there are various games in a season like format say 10 weeks. If you play 1 game a week but lose all 10 and your teammates win enough for you to win the tournament, you still get that meal as you were part of the winning team, i don't see why people need to win a game to get a medal for clan wars.
You seem to not understand to the point that you are contributing to a clan war win or lose, look at any sports team. Those players on the bench are the ones making the starters better in practice. I don't know about your clan, but in EMPIRE we select the people who know a map/settings best to represent us. We don't just throw some random people out there and say good luck, we do research to see who should play where to give us the best chance of victory. Yeah a freemium cook could step in but that doesn't give us a better chance of victory. Also you should get a medal because you are part of the winning clan, being part of a clan is about teamwork and you win a war as a team or lose it as a team. As such you should be awarded medals as a team to those in your clan who participated in the war. My god you don't understand this idea of teamwork, at the end of the day if i have lost every single game in a clan war but my clan wins, I have won the clan war and as such should get a medal along with my fellow clan mates for winning the war.
You play the games because you simply don't know what is going to happen with dice/drops/cards, as such sometimes even the best players lose. It is not impossible for a player to make all the right moves in their clan war games and still not win just because of luck, especially if they only play in a few games.
I understand why you need to participate in games but the needing to win a game just urks me, there is more that goes into a clan war than just playing the games. Some people help win clan wars through other skills that they possess so i dont see why we shouldn't give them medals if they happen to not win a game in a war that is won by their clan mates.
Dako wrote:
Also, I think all participating members (playing games, not all teh clan members) should get a medal. Because they did contribute to the win. Yes, they lost, but they filled spots and played their best. It is as if you say "you don't get a medal because you suck and I don't know why we keep you in clan". This is just bullshit and is against all clan foundations.
Chariot of Fire wrote:qwert asked where the poll is. I have to ask too. Can someone provide a link please.
Thanks again.
CoF
Dako wrote:There are some type of tournaments that give points for being eliminated last. They are 8-player escalating, winner gets 8 points, 2nd gets 7 points and so on. You can stack on 1 point without getting any cards and no one will eliminate you ever. So in all games you will be last to be eliminated and will get an average of 7 points per game which is *a lot*. Consider that .
Also, I think all participating members (playing games, not all teh clan members) should get a medal. Because they did contribute to the win. Yes, they lost, but they filled spots and played their best. It is as if you say "you don't get a medal because you suck and I don't know why we keep you in clan". This is just bullshit and is against all clan foundations.
jpcloet wrote:I've now issued about 70 of the 100 wars that have had the analysis done. Will continue later on tonight and will try and leave a few for Masli so he gets some experience in this area. There are about 10-15 wars where the analysis has not been done, and will be done once we move to a single file system.
Master Fenrir wrote:jpcloet wrote:I've now issued about 70 of the 100 wars that have had the analysis done. Will continue later on tonight and will try and leave a few for Masli so he gets some experience in this area. There are about 10-15 wars where the analysis has not been done, and will be done once we move to a single file system.
Thanks to JP and Masli and to anybody else who played a role in this. This is pretty cool.
My two cents:
3 game minimum participation rule: This is a good rule. First off, let's all remember that clan wars are first and foremost about clan bragging rights and earning your clan the W, not about earning medals. These medals are a nice perk that JP and others have conceived. If you only play 1 or 2 games and your clan earns the win, if you are a true clansmen, you will be happy with that. But if the medal is important to you, playing an extra game or two on a go-forward basis will not be an impossibility. Also, with more players wanting to play at least X number of games, it also helps to enforce the maximum game requirement that has become popular of late. With more players wanting 3+ games, you'll have less players able to play 20+.
One win requirement: This isn't about me, but I'm going to use myself as an example simply because it happened to me. In the Cup battle against LoW, I got drop/dice fucked straight to a 1-7 record. If I failed to play or win that one game my record would have been either 0-7 or 0-8. On top of that, I was IA's minister for that war, so I organized the thread, the teams, and the games. I would meet with ahunda on MSN and plan out moves. One move I remember for an East Hemi quads game took 6 hours of talking through. I then promptly got 1/5 dice. The point is, I put a lot of work into that battle. A lot. Now, IA lost that war, so I'm not complaining about not getting a medal. The bottom line is, it is feasible for all the effort in the world to not be enough for a player to win a game. If this happened to another player, and they went either 0-7 or 0-8 and their clan managed to win the war, saying that they didn't "earn" a medal would be pretty damn insulting.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As ever you make good points MF.
I too see the award of these medals as being conducive to greater participation from more clan members in a quest to get some recognition. I do flip your argument the other way though, as I think it encourages a player to join several games (as opposed to maybe just one or two) to increase his chances of winning one of them. This is hard to refute. Your unfortunate run of luck in those games you cite was just that - bad luck - yet theoretically you would still have won a medal had your clan won the challenge, so you're not actually stating a case wherein someone may have been denied a medal via this rule.
If a player plays one game, which is lost, and he receives his medal and joins another clan the following week.....is that fair? He'd be brandishing something he really has no claim to.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As ever you make good points MF.
I too see the award of these medals as being conducive to greater participation from more clan members in a quest to get some recognition. I do flip your argument the other way though, as I think it encourages a player to join several games (as opposed to maybe just one or two) to increase his chances of winning one of them. This is hard to refute. Your unfortunate run of luck in those games you cite was just that - bad luck - yet theoretically you would still have won a medal had your clan won the challenge, so you're not actually stating a case wherein someone may have been denied a medal via this rule.
If a player plays one game, which is lost, and he receives his medal and joins another clan the following week.....is that fair? He'd be brandishing something he really has no claim to.
So you see there's two sides to the debate. I think in my example it highlights how less-worthy these medals would become if they are handed out like candy. In your example you are saying it would be insulting not to receive one, yet what really would have been insulting are the dice that you must have rolled to have landed in such a predicament in the first place.
I still believe medal = achievement, not underachievement or participation.
That said, I don't feel too strongly about it so don't mind whatever verdict is finally reached.
p.s. and I hear what you say re organisation and all that stuff that goes on behind the scenes. Perhaps each challenge should allow for someone to be nominated to receive an award for this, thus ensuring he or she receives some recognition.
shocked439 wrote:Even the radio announcers get a super bowl ring at the end if the year.
patrickaa317 wrote:(1) However, that isn't directly what this medal is about and (2)I do think you guys should be recognized somehow else though because many of you put a lot of work into this.
jpcloet wrote:Based on the win% discussion in the CLA, this is the lowest we are willing to go. This was a huge compromise to the original proposal and subsequent ones. In order for a clan to win, they need to win games, if you can't win a single game, then you have not contributed. This is way more than fair and won't be changed.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As ever you make good points MF.
Chariot of Fire wrote:Your unfortunate run of luck in those games you cite was just that - bad luck - yet theoretically you would still have won a medal had your clan won the challenge, so you're not actually stating a case wherein someone may have been denied a medal via this rule.
Chariot of Fire wrote:That said, I don't feel too strongly about it so don't mind whatever verdict is finally reached.
qwert wrote:"Winning 1 game was the final decision after a long series of discussions and analysis"
hmm,its very hard to find these topic, or community not be included in these discussion?
qwert wrote:"Winning 1 game was the final decision after a long series of discussions and analysis"
hmm,its very hard to find these topic, or community not be included in these discussion?
jpcloet wrote:I've now issued about 70 of the 100 wars that have had the analysis done. Will continue later on tonight and will try and leave a few for Masli so he gets some experience in this area. There are about 10-15 wars where the analysis has not been done, and will be done once we move to a single file system.
hatchman wrote:Your hard work is appreciated jp!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users