Moderator: Clan Directors
jpcloet wrote:Kinnison wrote:I also am very disturbed by the "Recommendation" for setup and tiebreaker. This feels like the cookie-cutter challenge mold is coming down on us again. That may not be the intent, but it's certainly how it sounds to me.
There will be recommendations all over the handbook soon and is primarily meant to guide new clans who have never been in a challenge. It is simply a recommendation.
The game composition must comprise 100% Team Games.
If you MUST hate on them (1v1s), insist that a valid challenge consist of a minimum 41 points, minimum 40 from TEAM GAMES.
jpcloet wrote:Dako wrote:Also, counting who has won how many games will make it hard to manage and issue medals - giving them to all participants of the winning side will save a ton of clan directors volunteer time.
Thanks to a wonderful tournament script and a template I built in excel, this is easier to do than most think. Big props to Chipv who recently modified it to be more variable to the CD's needs.
patrickaa317 wrote:jpcloet wrote:Dako wrote:Also, counting who has won how many games will make it hard to manage and issue medals - giving them to all participants of the winning side will save a ton of clan directors volunteer time.
Thanks to a wonderful tournament script and a template I built in excel, this is easier to do than most think. Big props to Chipv who recently modified it to be more variable to the CD's needs.
So counting who has won how many games isn't really an issue as Dako mentioned, correct? I just don't think if someone doesn't win a game that they should be awarded a clan wars medal.
Kinnison wrote:So you address the *minor* linguistic issue, but fail to respond to the commentary about 1v1s being EXCLUDED from clan wars?
ljex wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:jpcloet wrote:Dako wrote:Also, counting who has won how many games will make it hard to manage and issue medals - giving them to all participants of the winning side will save a ton of clan directors volunteer time.
Thanks to a wonderful tournament script and a template I built in excel, this is easier to do than most think. Big props to Chipv who recently modified it to be more variable to the CD's needs.
So counting who has won how many games isn't really an issue as Dako mentioned, correct? I just don't think if someone doesn't win a game that they should be awarded a clan wars medal.
personally i think this is a bit ridiculous, also the must participate in 3 games or whatever it was. It should be if you participate in 1 game win or lose you can get a medal if your clan wins. I assume this has to do with stopping medal hunting but to me the extra 2 games will just make medal hunters play those, and others who should get a medal not get one because they truly don't care and will only play a few games each war.
jpcloet wrote:Kinnison wrote:So you address the *minor* linguistic issue, but fail to respond to the commentary about 1v1s being EXCLUDED from clan wars?
I've addressed the 1v1 several times already and there is a poll in this area as well as to guidance clans would like to go.
patrickaa317 wrote:ljex wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:jpcloet wrote:Dako wrote:Also, counting who has won how many games will make it hard to manage and issue medals - giving them to all participants of the winning side will save a ton of clan directors volunteer time.
Thanks to a wonderful tournament script and a template I built in excel, this is easier to do than most think. Big props to Chipv who recently modified it to be more variable to the CD's needs.
So counting who has won how many games isn't really an issue as Dako mentioned, correct? I just don't think if someone doesn't win a game that they should be awarded a clan wars medal.
personally i think this is a bit ridiculous, also the must participate in 3 games or whatever it was. It should be if you participate in 1 game win or lose you can get a medal if your clan wins. I assume this has to do with stopping medal hunting but to me the extra 2 games will just make medal hunters play those, and others who should get a medal not get one because they truly don't care and will only play a few games each war.
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.
jpcloet wrote:1. That will be discussed further and there are a couple of options
2. Historical wars are 36 points and above, going forward is 41. There are over 100 historical wars getting medals.
stahrgazer wrote:jpcloet wrote:1. That will be discussed further and there are a couple of options
2. Historical wars are 36 points and above, going forward is 41. There are over 100 historical wars getting medals.
Which doesn't make sense. Either it's 36 or 40 or 41, why 36 for last year and 41 for this year? Why not 36 for any year or 41 for any year or, as many said, "at least 40, and a clear winner" works.... for every year.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users