Moderator: Clan Directors
MrBenn wrote:What will happen about clans that have since disbanded? Will medals be awarded retrospectively for the members of a clan that won a war, even if the clan no longer exists?
edit: cough, Eternal Empire v Divine Domination
Master Fenrir wrote:Is this medal being awarded for the matchups in the Cup?
ljex wrote:Master Fenrir wrote:Is this medal being awarded for the matchups in the Cup?
I would think yes and no, yes for those with more than 41 games
patrickaa317 wrote:Perhaps a dumb question as I am fairly new to the clan side of CC. Are there ever multi-team wars? And how do the medals work around that?
Is it 40 games total or 40 games per team?
Clan A v Clan B v Clan C.
Set up for 42 games, 14 home games, 7 against each rival.
War is more than 40 games but each clan plays 28.
jpcloet wrote:ljex wrote:Master Fenrir wrote:Is this medal being awarded for the matchups in the Cup?
I would think yes and no, yes for those with more than 41 games
Another short answer of yes for those of the minimum size; some discussion has been had in the CLA around penalties and forfeits etc. so a decision on one of the matches has not yet been made. The CD's will cross that road when we get to issuing medals around the one on everyone's mind.
jpcloet wrote:Another short answer of yes for those of the minimum size; some discussion has been had in the CLA around penalties and forfeits etc. so a decision on one of the matches has not yet been made. The CD's will cross that road when we get to issuing medals around the one on everyone's mind.
Bruceswar wrote:Few things...
1. 1 vs 1 games should be allowed.
2. 41 games kills many historical great battles, which were 40 games.
3. Having to win a game is semi backwards. Yeah sure it would be good to win, but if someone plays and their clan wins then should not matter how many they won or lost.
4. This whole participation level stuff is rather lame if you ask me.
A War must be of a minimum 41 games, and must have a specific defined process for determining a winner, prior to the start of the War. A random triples neutral game is recommended.
A War must be of a minimum 40+1 games(in a case of tiebreak,minimum one game need to decide winner for clan medal), and must have a specific defined process for determining a winner, prior to the start of the War. A random triples neutral game is recommended.
jpcloet wrote:Bruceswar wrote:Few things...
1. 1 vs 1 games should be allowed.
2. 41 games kills many historical great battles, which were 40 games.
3. Having to win a game is semi backwards. Yeah sure it would be good to win, but if someone plays and their clan wins then should not matter how many they won or lost.
4. This whole participation level stuff is rather lame if you ask me.
1. That will be discussed further and there are a couple of options
There is only one option. To Allow 1 vs 1 games if clans want them. In general clans will only play a max of 2 per side, so not a giant percentage
2. Historical wars are 36 points and above, going forward is 41. There are over 100 historical wars getting medals.
This is a good point to know. This also makes for some odd dealings as now wars which used to be 40 games will now have to offer an odd 41st game. The map picking / settings could be a real sticking point for some clans.
3. 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.
If your team wins in any sport, you get a ring, medal, or whatever as long as you were part of the team. In terms of CC, you should at least play a game to be able to get a medal on the winning team. Win or lose makes no difference as you were on the winning side of the match.
4. Then you don't agree with upper limits than as well? The minimum is 3 games regardless which is similar to a simple 16 bracket 1v1 tournament. It also works well for freemiums even though they make up very little of the clan population. This formula is very generous and should be easy to achieve. We will give this some time, but this is unlikely to change. I will put this on the future consideration/discussion list.
Upper limits are needed, but lower limits are just flat out ridiculous. There have been a ton of wars where people have only played 2 or 3 games in a 60 game challenge. It does not make them less of a teammate because they did so. In fact I am fairly sure that the THOTA vs LoW war has many people who would not qualify using those numbers. The number is around 5 games, so guys like aafitz would be out from this medal. That just does not seem right to me.
must have a specific defined process for determining a winner, prior to the start of the War. A random triples neutral game is recommended.
The game composition must comprise 100% Team Games. Recommended setup is 25% Doubles, 25% Triples, 25% Quadruples and 25% Choice of Team Games
Dako wrote:You can run 2 more polls and see that all the community will vote for medals for the whole participating teammates (and not because we want more medals).
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.
RiskTycoon wrote:that is why it seems silly to me... either give them to everyone in the clan or don't waste your time. If the team wins everyone gets a ring..... even the player that sat on the bench the whole season.
if i said to my clan members that my 2 wins didn't do squat in the grand scheme of things I know they would all jump down my throat and tell me otherwise ..... it's called teamwork and camaraderie. so when you say " and not because we want more medals" you are 100% right. it's not. i have no thirst for medals anyway.......
Users browsing this forum: No registered users