Clan Medals

[patrickaa317]

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.

[Kinnison]

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.

[Qwert]

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

[jrh_cardinal]

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.

[barterer2002]

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.

[jpcloet]

Quick update, about 28 wars have now been issued medals.

[ljex]

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.

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.

[stahrgazer]

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.

[jpcloet]

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.

Historical Awarding of Medals
Over the last 4 years, there have been clan wars of all sizes (3 games to 120 games) and formats. In defining which ones in the past will receive them, we looked at the average war size in each year and overall. The intention was to grant medals at that level, however, there were challenges only a few games less in some years, and a large war in 2010 raised the average. The most fair level was to look at median and there was a distinct cutoff point in all the years.

36 points was a very distinct median when looking at all history of wars. We started with 40 games on average, however there were a few wars with 36, 37,38,39 etc. and then we'd get well "why 40 but not 39". We had to draw a line and we did what we felt was fair.

[patrickaa317]

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).

[jpcloet]

I've now issued about 70 of the 100 wars that have had the analysis done. Will continue later on tonight and will try and leave a few for Masli so he gets some experience in this area. There are about 10-15 wars where the analysis has not been done, and will be done once we move to a single file system.

[ljex]

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.

[Hatchman]

I like these new medals

[patrickaa317]

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.

Just because your clan thinks you have the best chance at a certain map but you either they were wrong, or you had bad luck, why should you still be rewarded? I understand the team aspect but that is why I'm not saying you have to survive in a team game. If your whole team is eliminated in all the quads games you play, maybe you aren't a great team in that clan war.

Team sports are irrelevant because they are completely different aspect. We don't play 11 on 11 and if someone gets hurt be able to sub in a replacement, mid stride. That bench player is ready to go. Does the back up QB for the Steelers in the mid 70's get a hall of fame nomination because he was on a team that won a lot of super bowls?

With your arguments, I assume that you would think that all members currently in the clan should be rewarded with a medal regardless if they played a game or not. If not, then why should John Doe get a "teamwork" medal for getting his butt kicked in 1-5 games while Jane Doe didn't play at all but is still "part of the team"? Jane could also be considered your version of a bench player who helped a starter.

Whatever works for the people handing out the medals is fine by me, I'll just know that these medals may show that a clan won a war but that individual player may not really have done much but his teammates helped him limp his way towards a medal.

[Dako]

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.

[Eyestone]

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.

Well said. I totally agree with this.

[Chariot of Fire]

First off, a big 'Thank You' to JPC and anyone else who has spent so much time putting this whole thing together - it's really appreciated. A lot of thought and effort has obviously gone into this, although "You can't please all the people all the time" as the popular expression goes, so there's undoubtedly some niggling issues. At the end of the day though I think everybody's happier to have it than not at all - so that in itself is a reward.

The historical '36 game' benchmark seems a fair compromise, especially in light of previous demands that a challenge should meet the 40 game criteria and was the basis on which many contests were formed. To make it 41 in future is fine, as we're all now aware of it. I can't see clans having a problem with making the 41st game either random trips or classic trips (as an homage to where this game originated) or, as one alert poster suggested, simply make the challenge 42 games if the two clans can't agree on a 41st.

To exclude 1v1s seems very unfair, especially as in the majority of cases these were included as a very small ratio of the overall number of games played (e.g we always used to stipulate a 1:2:3:4 ratio of singles thru to quads). Many clans have players who are singles specialists (tho TOFU doesn't funnily enough) and I think it would be detrimental not to afford them the opportunity to play to their strength and contribute to the overall clan effort. Homer's account of the Trojan War would be all the poorer if it overlooked the contest between Achilles and Hector don't you think ("sorry, that war had a 1v1 and hence it doesn't count" would be rather absurd). Simply establish some criteria (e.g. a maximum of 15% of points in a challenge) for 1v1s, but please don't discount them altogether or you do a great disservice to a fair number of players for whom this format is why they play on CC.

With regard to who qualifies for a medal, I actually have to agree with the notion that a player should have won a game. This is an achievement award, thus I find it hard to consider a "Played 3 Won 0" result any achievement at all. If the medals get awarded to every participant then it cheapens what they stand for and they won't be worth the pixels they're printed on. Far better that a medal says "I was a winning member of a successful clan" rather than "I may or may not have ever won a game, but my clanmates did". I do believe however that only one win is required and that a minimum is both unnecessary and arduous to administer. Thus if a player wants to win a medal he should probably have to enter three or four games to increase his chances of success to win the one game needed.

qwert asked where the poll is. I have to ask too. Can someone provide a link please.

Thanks again.

CoF

[nikola_milicki]

Holy shit its raining medals!!!

thnx a lot guys!

[Leehar]

qwert asked where the poll is. I have to ask too. Can someone provide a link please.

Thanks again.

CoF

Clan Medals 1v1
(sticked under topics section of clan branch of the forum )

[patrickaa317]

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.

I guess since I'm fairly new to clan wars, do a lot of clans use a 8 player escalating format where your example of someone losing but still getting points comes into play?

I would never be for a clan kicking someone out for not winning a game in clan war but don't cheapen the award/medal by giving people who couldn't even win a game a medal. I don't really agree with the winning percentage originally put forth, I'm saying just a simple win. And it can even be quads where they were eliminated in round 2 but the other three players went on to get the game win. They at least contributed something to that game. In a 40 game match, there are 20 home games. Without 1v1, that is around 60 spots assuming even number of dubs, trips, quads. If you have 20 clan members playing, that is 3 spots on just home maps.

[Master Fenrir]

I've now issued about 70 of the 100 wars that have had the analysis done. Will continue later on tonight and will try and leave a few for Masli so he gets some experience in this area. There are about 10-15 wars where the analysis has not been done, and will be done once we move to a single file system.

Thanks to JP and Masli and to anybody else who played a role in this. This is pretty cool.

My two cents:

3 game minimum participation rule: This is a good rule. First off, let's all remember that clan wars are first and foremost about clan bragging rights and earning your clan the W, not about earning medals. These medals are a nice perk that JP and others have conceived. If you only play 1 or 2 games and your clan earns the win, if you are a true clansmen, you will be happy with that. But if the medal is important to you, playing an extra game or two on a go-forward basis will not be an impossibility. Also, with more players wanting to play at least X number of games, it also helps to enforce the maximum game requirement that has become popular of late. With more players wanting 3+ games, you'll have less players able to play 20+.

One win requirement: This isn't about me, but I'm going to use myself as an example simply because it happened to me. In the Cup battle against LoW, I got drop/dice fucked straight to a 1-7 record. If I failed to play or win that one game my record would have been either 0-7 or 0-8. On top of that, I was IA's minister for that war, so I organized the thread, the teams, and the games. I would meet with ahunda on MSN and plan out moves. One move I remember for an East Hemi quads game took 6 hours of talking through. I then promptly got 1/5 dice. The point is, I put a lot of work into that battle. A lot. Now, IA lost that war, so I'm not complaining about not getting a medal. The bottom line is, it is feasible for all the effort in the world to not be enough for a player to win a game. If this happened to another player, and they went either 0-7 or 0-8 and their clan managed to win the war, saying that they didn't "earn" a medal would be pretty damn insulting.

[patrickaa317]

I've now issued about 70 of the 100 wars that have had the analysis done. Will continue later on tonight and will try and leave a few for Masli so he gets some experience in this area. There are about 10-15 wars where the analysis has not been done, and will be done once we move to a single file system.

Thanks to JP and Masli and to anybody else who played a role in this. This is pretty cool.

My two cents:

3 game minimum participation rule: This is a good rule. First off, let's all remember that clan wars are first and foremost about clan bragging rights and earning your clan the W, not about earning medals. These medals are a nice perk that JP and others have conceived. If you only play 1 or 2 games and your clan earns the win, if you are a true clansmen, you will be happy with that. But if the medal is important to you, playing an extra game or two on a go-forward basis will not be an impossibility. Also, with more players wanting to play at least X number of games, it also helps to enforce the maximum game requirement that has become popular of late. With more players wanting 3+ games, you'll have less players able to play 20+.

One win requirement: This isn't about me, but I'm going to use myself as an example simply because it happened to me. In the Cup battle against LoW, I got drop/dice fucked straight to a 1-7 record. If I failed to play or win that one game my record would have been either 0-7 or 0-8. On top of that, I was IA's minister for that war, so I organized the thread, the teams, and the games. I would meet with ahunda on MSN and plan out moves. One move I remember for an East Hemi quads game took 6 hours of talking through. I then promptly got 1/5 dice. The point is, I put a lot of work into that battle. A lot. Now, IA lost that war, so I'm not complaining about not getting a medal. The bottom line is, it is feasible for all the effort in the world to not be enough for a player to win a game. If this happened to another player, and they went either 0-7 or 0-8 and their clan managed to win the war, saying that they didn't "earn" a medal would be pretty damn insulting.

I appreciate the work you put into organizing the war. It's people that step up and do things like that that make the site continue to function and retain members. However, that isn't directly what this medal is about and I do think you guys should be recognized somehow else though because many of you put a lot of work into this. I mean tourney organizers get a medal for each tourney they organize, why not do something similar for clan wars because they can take more organization and planning than many tournaments.

And I understand there are bad dice and bad drops but I didn't get tournament medal when I made it to the finals to lose because my opponent was dropped on a bonus and got to start. I played my ass off in the rounds before that to make it that far but in the end I didn't do enough to get the final win. If clan medals were handed out to people in this situation it would lower their true value.


I've obviously over killed my opinion on this whole topic so I'll do everyone a favor and keep my mouth shut for a while (unless someone directly calls me out or asks me a question)...

[Chariot of Fire]

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.

[Foxglove]

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.

How about the she-players of CC? Presumably we deserve medals as well, when the award criteria are met.

As far as the medal requirements go, I can support a minimum game participation requirement, as I do believe that if a player contributes to a win, they will have played games.

I don't believe that there should be a requirement that players win one or more games in the challenge. The medal signifies a Win for a clan regardless of the individual success of each of the clan's members.

Anyway - thanks for all the hard work, jp and masli!

[shocked439]

The winning a game aspect is alarming. Why is everyone else in the clam getting blinged out but some players wint because they didn't win a game? WTF? Even the radio announcers get a super bowl ring at the end if the year. I've only been a member of one clan, but I am certain that they all do things to better the clan, have intraclan wars, or test matches on new maps. Teach others how to play to think that because you didn't win you didn't contribute is bull. Hell I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been asked to look at a map someone might not be comfortable with to give recommendations on moves when I'm not in the game. If you are goi g to recognize that clans are team focused games than recognize that the clan is a team and reward them accordingly. We allknkw if you win a clan war it's because of more than the effort of one playerand it's a result of the work you put in between wars and even during wars.