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.
Which is why I think the 3 games played rule should stay but the necessity to win a game should not. Simply you are contributing if you are joining games, win or lose. This medal is for winning a clan war which you have done if you are a participating member of the winning clan.