War #4 Brainstorming and Planning

[Scaredgirl]

War #4 Brainstorming and Planning

War #3 will soon be over, so I think now is a good time to gather some feedback before people rage-quit or forget what happened in the event.

First of all, if you participated in War #3, please fill in PvP Event Feedback Form (https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFUtZ0w0TGtpVWh5bVcwTjJISG42M3c6MQ#gid=0). You can post your feedback incognito, so don't be afraid to say what you really think. If you didn't participate in War #3, please don't fill the form so we'll get more valid results. Thanks.

This topic has two goals:

1. Identify main problems of War #3
2. Find ways to eliminate those problems for War #4

I'll start by giving some opinions.

Problem: One clear problem is that War lasts too long.
Fix: This can be a combination of many things really, from decreasing the size of the initial Vault, to having more destructive Event Cards and maybe decreasing round duration.

Problem: Vault managing is a pain. Teams with spreadsheet skills gain an advantage.
Fix: We need to build a better Vault spreadsheet that ALL teams can use. Soon I will start a new blank Google spreadsheet and will give access to everyone who wants it. We will then start from scratch and collaboratively build the best possible War Vault spreadsheet ever! It will be so great and automated that you pretty much can just sit back and let it do the fighting for you. It will eliminate all Vault errors and make deckbuilding fun.


Ok, there was a couple. Now it's your turn. What would you change?

[majofa]

What if the amount of cards was adjusted slightly to something more like this? At the lower levels, there isn't as much buffer, which means there aren't any 'sweet spots' like there are now. As you go higher the buffer increases, meaning that you're not revealing your entire vault at 240,210,180....
With the 24 card conversion (which was a good idea and should stay), we don't need as much of a buffer as in WAR #2.

0-29 cards	=	team is eliminated
30-61 cards	=	1 player fights
62-94 cards	=	2 players fight
95-125 cards	=	3 players fight
126-164 cards	=	4 players fight
165-200 cards	=	5 players fight
201-237 cards	=	6 players fight
238-275 cards	=	7 players fight
276+ cards	=	8 players fight

Also, I've suggested this before...  Allow the Generals to pick their Lieutenant (obv the Lieu. would have to agree). Whenever I've brought this up, most people have agreed with it.

For SGs suggestions, I'm strongly against more destructive Event Cards. The ones this WAR were fine. They should enhance the rounds not scare people to death.

Anyways, just some quick thoughts.....

[Scaredgirl]

What if the amount of cards was adjusted slightly to something more like this? At the lower levels, there isn't as much buffer, which means there aren't any 'sweet spots' like there are now. As you go higher the buffer increases, meaning that you're not revealing your entire vault at 240,210,180....
With the 24 card conversion (which was a good idea and should stay), we don't need as much of a buffer as in WAR #2.

0-29 cards	=	team is eliminated
30-61 cards	=	1 player fights
62-94 cards	=	2 players fight
95-125 cards	=	3 players fight
126-164 cards	=	4 players fight
165-200 cards	=	5 players fight
201-237 cards	=	6 players fight
238-275 cards	=	7 players fight
276+ cards	=	8 players fight

I'm all for reducing the buffer, but I'd prefer a fixed number for simplicity? Right now the buffer is 6 cards per player, so why not just change it to 3 or something?

Also, I've suggested this before...  Allow the Generals to pick their Lieutenant (obv the Lieu. would have to agree). Whenever I've brought this up, most people have agreed with it.

I don't understand this because as far as I know, Generals pick their Lieutenants. Has there been some change I'm not familiar with, or am I missing something?

For SGs suggestions, I'm strongly against more destructive Event Cards. The ones this WAR were fine. The should enhance the rounds not scare people to death.

What I meant by that comment is that if Event Cards were more about reducing the Vault then their were about adding cards to it, that would mean War would end faster. I didn't mean we should have cards that insta-kills teams, but we could have more negative cards than positive ones.

This brings me to something else I've been thinking about.

Currently we randomly seed the Event Cards. However since only myself and Warmasters see the card order, there's really no need to do it randomly.

War #4 has a problem of crappy Event Cards, and crappy Event Cards appearing at a really bad time. We could easily fix this by first designing a bunch of Event Cards, and then manually putting them in order that..

A) Makes sense (no reinforcement cards during round one)
B) Is fun

I don't see any downside to this really because from a players' perspective they could just as well be random since players don't know what the cards even are.

[jippy99]

I don't necessarily think destructive event cards are the solution, but I have one that might work.  I know this has been said before, but I will say it again.  Make the discarding start higher (say 24) and keep it that way for the remainder of the war.  It will move much faster that way.

[ddevans96]

Also, I've suggested this before...  Allow the Generals to pick their Lieutenant (obv the Lieu. would have to agree). Whenever I've brought this up, most people have agreed with it.

I don't understand this because as far as I know, Generals pick their Lieutenants. Has there been some change I'm not familiar with, or am I missing something?

I think he means picking the lieutenant outside of the auction, more like players were chosen for teams in war 1. However, I disagree with that idea, because someone that would be picked as a lieutenant would probably have been bid on by multiple teams in the auction, and competition for veteran players, I think, should be encouraged because it adds that extra suspense.

[willng3]

I'm getting an error with the PvP Event Feedback link posted here.

This one works fine for me. (https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFUtZ0w0TGtpVWh5bVcwTjJISG42M3c6MQ#gid=0)

[The_Mormegil]

I had feedback on the feedback thread, but I will post it here too.

1) War lasts too long.
Solution: decrease Vault size, speed up rounds, increase discards.

2) Vault isn't fun.
Solution: creation of a spreadsheet.

3) Event Cards are pretty much a fail idea due to Vaults being too strong a limitation to actual deckbuilding. By creating a change in War's pattern with the Event Card system any and every meaningful non-flat idea for Event Cards - meaning every Event Card that provides a meaningful contribution to War results - will be unbalanced towards certain teams, as nobody will be truly able to adapt their Vault to the new situation.
Solution: scrap Event Cards and build another parallel system that influences War's results, enhances strategic thinking and teamwork but does not influence deckbuilding - nor is influenced by it - thus eliminating the Vault conscription problem (i.e. a Movement system or a Favor of the Oracle system); OR scrap Vault and create something new and versatile - such as a set of deckbuilding rules or something.

4) War becomes less and less intresting the more you go ahead. Initially Vaults are created, you scout your opponents and learn of their Vault. Then Vaults are practically open, everybody knows everything about their opponents, you know what decks to expect and... lose interest. You can't adapt, you can't change your Vault, you can't really strategize - particularly so if you, say, have 34 cards and can field only one deck. War loses its interest, it's natural, and it's bad.
Solution: create a system where people can actually do something even later in War, and that something is meaningful. Again, this needs to be a parallel system, possibly an alternative to Event Cards, where strategy is rewarded as well as teamwork. Something totally different from actual fights should be introduced, and it should be something interactive rather than passive - also because Vault limits strongly what you can actually DO after War starts. A Vault built around certain decks will field those decks, no matter what Event Card comes around.

[kev]

I put these in the War3 feedback thread before this thread existed but now I'm moving my thoughts here.

War is winding down now and I thought I'd give some feedback on things I'd like to see changed for War4.

Determining Opponents

0-29 cards	=	team is eliminated
30-71 cards	=	1 player fights
72-107 cards	=	2 players fight
108-143 cards	=	3 players fight
144-179 cards	=	4 players fight
180-215 cards	=	5 players fight
216-251 cards	=	6 players fight
252-287 cards	=	7 players fight
288+ cards	=	8 players fight

In prior Wars teams played as many decks as they were capable of building.  This table, new for War3, was designed to keep smaller vaults concealed.  It worked, but it's also serving to lengthen the War and aid teams who have been beaten down.  In R11 the four teams that had 60-68 cards were given a stay of execution, both because they were able to lose with their "final deck" and build another "final deck" the following round, and because being able to use only half your vault is a tremendous advantage.  I think the rule change was given a trial run and it's time to go back to the simpler method.  If you don't want your vault to be transparent...

Don't lose.

Event Cards
Scrap them.  Rule variations that promote creative thinking and a step outside the routine of War is a noble goal.  But feedback is very consistently net negative, Cards are perceived as unbalanced no matter which one is drawn, War is already complex and requires creative thinking, and War would not be monotonous if it was shorter.  Which leads me to...

Length of War
I think we should target 10 rounds.  Getting rid of the above table is a start, but we could also consider starting discard at 12 or 18 rather than 6, varying team size and/or starting vault, etc.  The average starting vault was 34 cards higher in War3 than War2 despite having smaller teams.

For Vault managing, completely automatize it, as it is too much pressure on the team and takes a lot away from the fun. Use decklists to check everything in the official Google Docs. Leave it to Warmasters only, and make it public but ineditable. War teams must post their decks and Warmasters will put decklists into the document and it will check if everything is legal and ok. Make it so that discarding is either randomized - and automated - or total - every lost match is a lost deck. Scrap salvaging from the enemies' deck and add bonus cards for won matches. These will be chosen by the players and they will create a decklist with those, which will be put by the Warmasters in the big Vault document and everything will be automatically added. As for conversion, teams will make a decklist with conversion targets, choose either Pillars or Pendulums each round and will receive the proper amount - again, by an automated google docs activated easily by Warmasters.

I threw this  (https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqCh8-BfWOzYdGZUZFZmVDQwY201amZBcjVVNERmbEE&authkey=CNyumGc&hl=en_US#) together as a first attempt to automate part of vault management.  It might also be the last attempt.  Checking card availability by posting deck codes is the easy part.  I don't think SG is willing to change/eliminate the way salvaging and discarding works.  When I proposed at the end of War2 what you proposed above, SG told me it sounded like a PvP Event (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27449.0.html) idea in the making. 

It's also ill advised to rely on WMs more than we already do.  Everything you propose above could be done by the players faster than the WMs.  The key is in finding a system that isn't as time consuming and prone to error.  And I don't know how to go about doing that or whether it can be done at all.

Does anybody else have an idea for how to simplify vault management without eliminating s/d/c?  Does everyone agree that the "homework effect" is a problem?

[majofa]

I'm all for reducing the buffer, but I'd prefer a fixed number for simplicity? Right now the buffer is 6 cards per player, so why not just change it to 3 or something?

I don't know if it would matter much... at 6, I was still referring back to the rules to see what the cutoffs were.

Also, I've suggested this before...  Allow the Generals to pick their Lieutenant (obv the Lieu. would have to agree). Whenever I've brought this up, most people have agreed with it.

I don't understand this because as far as I know, Generals pick their Lieutenants. Has there been some change I'm not familiar with, or am I missing something?

I should have clarified. Before the AH, the Generals can pick their Lieutenant, possibly for a set amount of Vault cards.

[Scaredgirl]

I don't necessarily think destructive event cards are the solution, but I have one that might work.  I know this has been said before, but I will say it again.  Make the discarding start higher (say 24) and keep it that way for the remainder of the war.  It will move much faster that way.

I agree. We originally had a fixed number but started using the current system to prevent teams from losing too early and to increase the intensity as the event goes forward. It might sound good on paper but it's not that great in reality.

Main issue I think is the fact that teams who do well during round 1, don't get a big reward for it. Every win should be equally important I think, so I vote for going back to a fixed number.

The 24 you suggest sounds good to me.

Also, I've suggested this before...  Allow the Generals to pick their Lieutenant (obv the Lieu. would have to agree). Whenever I've brought this up, most people have agreed with it.

I don't understand this because as far as I know, Generals pick their Lieutenants. Has there been some change I'm not familiar with, or am I missing something?

I think he means picking the lieutenant outside of the auction, more like players were chosen for teams in war 1. However, I disagree with that idea, because someone that would be picked as a lieutenant would probably have been bid on by multiple teams in the auction, and competition for veteran players, I think, should be encouraged because it adds that extra suspense.

Oh, that.

I've never understood that suggestion. I mean why would we not use the auction to bid on the most valuable players? Makes no sense to me. It's almost like cheating because you can get your pro-gamer buddy for free while less-know/liked Generals need to take someone mediocre.

I'm getting an error with the PvP Event Feedback link posted here.

This one works fine for me. (https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFUtZ0w0TGtpVWh5bVcwTjJISG42M3c6MQ#gid=0)

Thanks. No idea what happened there.

3) Event Cards are pretty much a fail idea due to Vaults being too strong a limitation to actual deckbuilding. By creating a change in War's pattern with the Event Card system any and every meaningful non-flat idea for Event Cards - meaning every Event Card that provides a meaningful contribution to War results - will be unbalanced towards certain teams, as nobody will be truly able to adapt their Vault to the new situation.
Solution: scrap Event Cards and build another parallel system that influences War's results, enhances strategic thinking and teamwork but does not influence deckbuilding - nor is influenced by it - thus eliminating the Vault conscription problem (i.e. a Movement system or a Favor of the Oracle system); OR scrap Vault and create something new and versatile - such as a set of deckbuilding rules or something.

4) War becomes less and less intresting the more you go ahead. Initially Vaults are created, you scout your opponents and learn of their Vault. Then Vaults are practically open, everybody knows everything about their opponents, you know what decks to expect and... lose interest. You can't adapt, you can't change your Vault, you can't really strategize - particularly so if you, say, have 34 cards and can field only one deck. War loses its interest, it's natural, and it's bad.
Solution: create a system where people can actually do something even later in War, and that something is meaningful. Again, this needs to be a parallel system, possibly an alternative to Event Cards, where strategy is rewarded as well as teamwork. Something totally different from actual fights should be introduced, and it should be something interactive rather than passive - also because Vault limits strongly what you can actually DO after War starts. A Vault built around certain decks will field those decks, no matter what Event Card comes around.

3. I don't see the concept of Event Cards as a fail. The Event Cards that have been successful, have really brought something new and exciting to that round.

The problem is not the concept, it's the actual cards. I mean if we have an Event Cards that makes all battles best-of-one, and takes one HUGE step towards pure luck deciding the winner, is that a problem with the concept of Event Cards? Of course not. The problem is poorly designed card that is bound to fail no matter what the situation is.

Like I've said before, a simple fix is to have a set of rules and regulations that all Event Cards must follow. We have already started this process in the secret section, and I can personally guarantee that every single Event Card in War #4 will be balanced and fun. It's not rocket science really. All we need to identify is all the pitfalls (like team UW being unique and Vault sizes having an effect) and not fall in those pits. Simple.

4. Yep, this is definitely a problem. There have been some ideas on how to possibly fix this, like alliances, or having more control over who you will attack. I also like the idea of having smaller events of competitions running parallel to War, in which all the non-fighting team members can join so that they are not completely left out. However some people don't like that idea and it has potential to become a bit complex.


I think I kind of already replied to what kev said so that's it for now.

[YoungSot]

I don't necessarily think destructive event cards are the solution, but I have one that might work.  I know this has been said before, but I will say it again.  Make the discarding start higher (say 24) and keep it that way for the remainder of the war.  It will move much faster that way.

I agree. We originally had a fixed number but started using the current system to prevent teams from losing too early and to increase the intensity as the event goes forward. It might sound good on paper but it's not that great in reality.

Main issue I think is the fact that teams who do well during round 1, don't get a big reward for it. Every win should be equally important I think, so I vote for going back to a fixed number.

The 24 you suggest sounds good to me.

I definitely agree that it would be best for the losses in different rounds to be more equal. I think it might be nice to keep the very first round a little lower though, maybe first round 12 discards all other rounds 24. That would give one round of leeway for teams to get their act together.

[ffun]

Also, I've suggested this before...  Allow the Generals to pick their Lieutenant (obv the Lieu. would have to agree). Whenever I've brought this up, most people have agreed with it.

I don't understand this because as far as I know, Generals pick their Lieutenants. Has there been some change I'm not familiar with, or am I missing something?

I think he means picking the lieutenant outside of the auction, more like players were chosen for teams in war 1. However, I disagree with that idea, because someone that would be picked as a lieutenant would probably have been bid on by multiple teams in the auction, and competition for veteran players, I think, should be encouraged because it adds that extra suspense.

Oh, that.

I've never understood that suggestion. I mean why would we not use the auction to bid on the most valuable players? Makes no sense to me. It's almost like cheating because you can get your pro-gamer buddy for free while less-know/liked Generals need to take someone mediocre.

OTOH, generals can still get some veteran buddies for a lower card count than would be their "true value" using the current auction system, as long as their friends go for loyalist and you work it out with 2 other generals. I know most people probably forgot, since it was some months ago, but we had originally some discutions about changing the auction format at the time it was going on, and this might also be a good opportunity to pick that up again.