Re: Clan Medals
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:44 pm
I know everyone is saying it but I just want to agree that 1v1 should be allowed.
All in all, good addition.
All in all, good addition.
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=443&t=132387
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.......
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.
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.
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.