WAR - I think we should separate matches played from vault size.

[YoungSot]

I suggested something like this after last War, and after discussing it with Napalm and others in chat, I thought I'd put it forward again:

I think we should separate vault size from the number of matches played.
Connecting the two causes a lot of problems, such as sweet spots, the fact that a good win percentage does not always translate into an equally good War performance, and the fact that later rounds are much more important than early ones. So what if we just have a set number of matches in a given round, and every team is required to play at least that many matches?

What if teams don't have the right vault size?
If a team doesn't have enough decks to meet the required number of matchups, Perhaps they would have to play more than one match with the same deck (more chances to lose that deck). Or they could just have to play as many decks as possible with their remaining vault. The simplest option of course would be to have any team whose vault is too small to field the minimum amount of decks be eliminated (just make sure starting vaults are large enough that teams don't get eliminated too quickly). If a team has more than enough decks left, they will have more options as to what to play, and be harder to predict.

How many matches would teams have to play in a given round?
The number of matches in a given round could be determined from the beginning (round X everyone has Y matches), or even better, determine the number of matches based on the average vault size in that round. For example you could take the average number of decks teams could field, subtract one, and require that many matches for each team. The result would be that an "average" team would be comfortably able to field the required number, an above average team would have earned a nice buffer, and a team that was more than one deck below average would be fighting for survival.

What do you think?
Since this would be a fairly large change to War, it would need community support. War is complicated, so I'd appreciate any feedback on how to best implement an idea like this without messing things up. When criticizing this idea, please keep in mind that the important concept is separating vault size and matches played, so that while your vault still acts like "hit points" and determines when you're team loses, the system doesn't diminish early success by requiring more matches (and more chances to lose) for higher vaults.

[dragonsdemesne]

I suggested something fairly similar in the feedback thread.  My idea was to have a fixed number of decks required each round.  For example, the first two rounds could be scouting rounds at 2 decks and 4 decks, or something like that.  After that, then there would be some fixed number of decks, maybe counting down from 8 in round 3, 7 in round 4, 6 in round 5, etc.  The main difference in my idea was that if you couldn't meet the minimum # of decks required, that you would be eliminated as a team right then and there.  Thus, for example, a team with a 149 card vault that was required to build 5 decks next round would be eliminated from War.

If something like this was done, the number of decks required beforehand would have to be published at the start of War to avoid favouritism.  The team with the 149 card vault in my previous example would be screaming bloody murder if suddenly Kevkev says 'sorry guys, only 5 decks this round' an hour before the next round is due to start.

In the feedback thread, I had proposed this idea to prevent the later rounds from being so important compared to the early rounds, but those who replied to me felt that my plan gave too much weight to the earlier rounds.  For War #4, both strong and weak teams ended up in exactly the same position in the final round, other than those who were eliminated before round 10.

I won't name specific teams (since it would be rude) but there are some teams that I felt were very smart and creative in their deck choices this War, and others that were consistently building what I thought were subpar decks, and in the end, we're all in the same place for round 10.  (not necessarily the top or bottom scoring teams, btw)

[~Napalm]

Yes. As a two time General and one time soldier, I can definitely say I'm heavily in favor of this idea. There are several reasons for this.

1. War in its current state is not about winning more, it's about losing less. Leading teams run the risk of losing more as rounds go on, meaning the leading teams don't actually have an advantage, sometimes it can even be considered a disadvantage. This idea gives leading teams an advantage based solely on performance, but at the same time, doesn't effect teams with smaller vaults. This is assuming of course that they aren't explicitly penalized. The implicit penalty of putting all cards on the table should be enough, especially considering that sweet spots would be removed.

2. It is a much softer change than some people *glances at Root* would like to make because of the *makes up words* Importance Inequality Phenomenon. This is the idea that matches in the later rounds hold too much important relative to earlier rounds. Other "fixes" would be smaller vaults, less players, increased discards early that decrease later, or increased salvages in later rounds. All of which would be against the goal of War. This idea still softens the IIP, but without sucking much of the fun out of the event or throwing the balance way out of whack.

3. I had a third reason, but it slipped my mind while eating. Oops. I'll edit this if I remember it later!

[The_Mormegil]

If a team doesn't have enough decks to meet the required number of matchups, Perhaps they would have to play more than one match with the same deck (more chances to lose that deck). Or they could just have to play as many decks as possible with their remaining vault.

This is the main problem. I agree something like this can change War for the better, but... If a team can field a deck more than once in a round, some important things fall apart. I know for sure that Team Life would rather have played 3 Monks decks rather than the mixed up rest of our Vault MANY times over. The same can be true with decks like Fractix: playing them more than once gives you a reasonable choice in your matchups...

I think the best solution would be to make sure that any Team under the card requirements for a given round is flat out eliminated. This allows for a good starting Vault (not the small thing we had this time around), a good salvage / discard system and STILL a deadly, short War.

[YoungSot]

If a team doesn't have enough decks to meet the required number of matchups, Perhaps they would have to play more than one match with the same deck (more chances to lose that deck). Or they could just have to play as many decks as possible with their remaining vault.

This is the main problem. I agree something like this can change War for the better, but... If a team can field a deck more than once in a round, some important things fall apart. I know for sure that Team Life would rather have played 3 Monks decks rather than the mixed up rest of our Vault MANY times over. The same can be true with decks like Fractix: playing them more than once gives you a reasonable choice in your matchups...

I think the best solution would be to make sure that any Team under the card requirements for a given round is flat out eliminated. This allows for a good starting Vault (not the small thing we had this time around), a good salvage / discard system and STILL a deadly, short War.

Thanks for the feedback Morm. Eliminating anyone who goes below the limit could work nicely, assuming we start out with large enough vaults that teams don't drop below the limit too quickly. I'll mention it as another option.

One of the pros of the "play the same deck more than once" approach is that it keeps the feel of your vault as your health, where as long as you've got the cards for a deck you can keep playing. I should clarify, you could only use a deck twice if you had already fielded the max possible decks for your vault size. So you'd still be fielding the crappy vault dregs. And if you lost either matchup with the deck used twice, you lose the deck as usual. So putting your favorite deck out there twice is risky, since it's twice as likely to be countered or just get unlucky, and then it's gone. Strategically you might actually want to have your weaker deck play twice, since even if it loses both you only lose the one deck.