Conquer Club

I know everyone is saying it but I just want to agree that 1v1 should be allowed.

All in all, good addition.

Nice medal,i hope that i help a little with mine suggestion

Now lets try to help with these formulation.

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.

Change these into

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.

Mine english its not great,but you get picture,what will solve these 41 game problem.
Move to another part of forum where mine help its need.

Great to see clan wars being recognised - well done jp.

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.

Overall a good thing we have medals, but it will need some tweaking before it is really what clan members want. Weather we can get all we want is another story. Anyhow thanks for getting this pushed through.

Suggestion for all worried about the 41st game. just make the challenge 42 games, with pre-agreed tiebreaker if needed.

My comments/objections:

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

Two things about these.
Suppose it's a 46-point war... each side making 2 5x(1v1), 10 dubs, 10 trips, 1 quad?
1>It's 42 team games... +20 games/4 points of 1v1. by the rules above, even though it's 42 team games, it's not 100% team, and would be ruled ineligible. Which, frankly, would be BS.
2> It's nowhere near your "recommended setup". Suppose you remove the 1v1s, and add the "suggested" tiebreaker. it's now 42 legal games, but not a format the CDs "like". Would THAT get a medal?

I bring these ideas up to generate thought about them in the mind of the CDs. I want you to consider the consequences of ruling against 1v1s completely. If you MUST hate on them, insist that a valid challenge consist of a minimum 41 points, minimum 40 from TEAM GAMES.

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.

I tend to agree about game-limit and winning part of the match. If you have a big friendly clan of 30 members - I doubt each of them can play 3 games per war. And the thing about "winning" a game - that doesn't matter as well.

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).

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).

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.......

I must say that i agree,that these thing abouth win a game to get medal, its not need, but other part to play games to get medal, i agree.
Some Clans have big number of players,but half of then dont play games, and then they deserve to get medal? For what? If you dont bother to play at least 3 game in chalenge of 40 games, then you are not interesting to play in clan chalenges. You have enough spots in one chalenge that even with 35 members,everybody can easy play 3 games. I think that these need to be strictly rules, or some players will get many clan medals for inactivity,and these will not be ok to other players who are very active in clan chalenges.

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.

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.......

Based on over a hundred challenges, this was a very minor issue. In most cases a player only had to play 1 extra game to receive a medal so this is very correctable going forward if clans so choose to manage their games and members. If you have not a thirst for a medal than this is not really an issue for you then.

If you want to have everyone on the team get a medal then they will still have to win at least one game and the clan community will need to consider a maximum roster size for each clan on the site around 15-20 members, and not just for wars, but their official roster. I didn't believe the clan community would like to go to clan roster limits based on the discussion in the CLA, so this is the best compromise around participation. Winning one game was actually a huge compromise to some of the original standards around win% by player.

When we hand out historical medals, if you feel you don't want one, let me know when you receive them and they can be removed if you so choose.

why do people always gotta make it seem like this is a personal issue? I can come in and make a point without it being personal... can i not? i said i had no thirst for medals because i simply don't ... and if i get them i don't care... that doesn't mean i'm going to go through some hoop to get it removed..... why the hell would i if i didn't care one way or the other? good grief..... obviously you missed my point.
while i may agree that a player should at least play in a challenge to get the medal if their clan wins... the amount of games shouldn't matter.

so i'll say it again. This is not a value added activity if this is the way it will be implemented... it is a waste of time and means nothing

i hope that you read all sugestion,and work together with community to get good solid rules for apply to clan medal.
Like i say previous,personaly i think that need minimum of 3 games need for one member of clan to play to get award,if hes clan win- win or lose 3 games, i think that its not required,because you will have situation,that some players can play 4-5 games,and can lost all 5,but still hes clan can win a chalenge, and these mean that these member can not receive a medal, even he try to play best in 5 games.

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.

Couldn't someone create a greasemonkey script to count who has won how many games and what percent of the war each person has played in?

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.

Best. Update. Ever.

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.

So you address the *minor* linguistic issue, but fail to respond to the commentary about 1v1s being EXCLUDED from clan wars?

The game composition must comprise 100% Team Games.

Two clans could run a 70-game war... with only a single 1v1 per side, and it's excluded by that rule. I even gave you a fix for it, yet you failed to acknowledge.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

My apologies for not being clear. Even BEFORE the poll, if the idea was to require 40 games, the ruling guideline could simply require 40 TEAM games. That's what I was suggesting. Clans could have all the 1v1 they wanted, and still meet the requirements. It's that pesky "100%" I'm objecting to. Oh, and I've voted in the poll.

12 medals all ready give?
and where is vote poll?

The CLA doesn't qualify under the 25% recommendation right now... just saying (and yes, I know they aren't challenges)
also, the 1v1 bit is crazy, I agree with everyone else with 10% max. The only reason to exclude them is to make it easier to count participation, so the 5 game 1v1 series doesn't count 5 times. Which brings me to
So in your example, someone going 5-0 doesn't get a medal? But someone going 1-6 does? Why not just make it whoever wins a game gets a medal, or even anyone that wins 2 games.

I suppose my objection here is the requirement that all clan challenges fit into a certain box. The idea that two clan cannot agree to a speed challenge or a freestyle challenge or even one that merely allowed these types of games seems unnecessarily restrictive in my opinion. I'm not sure why its necessary. While I realize that MOST clan challenges will weed out freestyle, manual and speed it doesn't seem either necessary or in keeping with the stated idea of "encouraging team play" to say that if these games exist within a challenge that such a challenge would automatically become non-medal worthy. Is what you're saying here that there aren't worthy team strategies in freestyle games? In manual? In speed? Because I would certainly disagree with that assessment or what you're saying that because you or I don't want to play in these types of games that we need to discourage others from doing so.

It seems to me that most challenges will weed out these formats due to agreements of the clans involved but, while I realize I'm a voice in the wilderness here because most won't care, I would contend that clans that include a broader spectrum of games in their challenges should not be penalized for doing so.