War #6 - Suggestions and Feedback

[Absol]

Okay, a few suggestions:
1. Make first ban free
All too often i saw newer players, not understanding how ban system works, ended up banning quite a few elements. Then, veterans will discourage him from banning so for "not making your price expensive". With one free ban for everyone, you can still ban those one element you don't want to play the most while not making the price too high. In exchange, players might only ban 3 elements. (second element cost 2 cards, and third cost 3 for example)
2. Remove non-upgraded non-rare section
Generally, players either put "have all" or are too new to actually join. Most of the time, we already know that players must be able to buy the decks they are going to use. And buying any non-rare cards is easy enough, it should be an unofficial requirement for joining War.
This column serves no info at the moment, and might be better replaced by upped weapons, for example. Or shards, if shards were to be allowed.
3. Change the "upgraded cards" into "upgraded non-rare cards"
More of a standardization, actually, since some players include their rare weapons and some not. Put this on the "rare cards" section instead. Divide the "rares" section into two maybe? One for unupped, and one for upped.

Spoiler for Suggested card list:

Upgraded non-rare Cards Aether *** Air *** Darkness *** Death *** Earth *** Entropy *** Fire *** Gravity *** Life *** Light *** Time *** Water ***      Other ***

Rares Non-Upgraded Upgraded Discord *** *** Arsenic *** *** Titan *** *** Pulverizer *** *** Druidic Staff *** *** Fahrenheit *** *** Trident *** *** Arctic Squid *** *** Morning Star *** *** Miracle *** *** Owl's Eye *** *** Eternity *** *** Pharaoh *** *** Vampire Stiletto *** *** Lobotomizer *** ***

Shards Non-Upgraded Upgraded Shard of Serendipity *** *** Shard of Sacrifice *** *** Shard of Focus *** *** Shard of Integrity *** *** Shard of Gratitude *** *** Shard of Bravery *** *** Shard of Patience *** *** Shard of Divinity *** *** Shard of Freedom *** *** Shard of Readiness *** *** Shard of Void *** *** Shard of Wisdom *** ***

Non-Upgraded Nymphs Aether *** Air *** Darkness *** Death *** Earth *** Entropy *** Fire *** Gravity *** Life *** Light *** Time *** Water ***

[Onizuka]

A clarification:

-The General of a team cannot be changed without the current general being removed from the team and thus War.

Can I ask why? I really liked when MrBlonde had let other people be general, and especially when later in war not everyone can play a real match.

[bogtro]

I second Oni here. It was a pretty cool feeling when TorB appointed me General for a round, which allowed us to cycle through players who otherwise wouldn't be able to play a match (we only had enough cards for 1 deck).

[eaglgenes101]

...or at least allow a really roundabout workaround by letting people post applications after war begins.
(Here's how demoting a general would work: The players decide to replace the general, then the general posts a new application, and the new general puts down a full bid for the general, re-accepting him into the team.)

[deuce22]

A clarification:

-The General of a team cannot be changed without the current general being removed from the team and thus War.

Can I ask why? I really liked when MrBlonde had let other people be general, and especially when later in war not everyone can play a real match.

I second Oni here. It was a pretty cool feeling when TorB appointed me General for a round, which allowed us to cycle through players who otherwise wouldn't be able to play a match (we only had enough cards for 1 deck).

late in war, if you're team is still alive, there will be 3 support matches. So whoever is still active of your remaining team members can fight over those battles

[Onizuka]

The fact that using a deck that isn't your assigned deck isn't automatically counted as an illegal deck is baffling.

So is being able to screen what your opponent is using by using a deck that you made for another person for a minor penalty as long as the other person agrees to it.

[majofa]

The fact that using a deck that isn't your assigned deck isn't automatically counted as an illegal deck is baffling.

So is being able to screen what your opponent is using by using a deck that you made for another person for a minor penalty as long as the other person agrees to it.

Playing the wrong deck equals a replay? That's just absurd....

[ddevans96]

The fact that using a deck that isn't your assigned deck isn't automatically counted as an illegal deck is baffling.

Playing the wrong deck should be an auto-loss for any number of games the wrong deck was used in. It's seriously not that hard to copy the right deck.

Reading between the lines, it seems pretty clear why this is being brought up.

[deuce22]

As much as I want water to lose that match, I agree with dd, majofa, and Oni.

Playing the wrong deck sounds like something a newb would do, not a n00b...

Edit: after reading rules, there technically is no rule stating that playing wrong deck by mistake is an autoloss. It's technically not an illegal deck. Only rule that applies is "other penalties" - Penalties are issued when a team somehow breaks the rules or disrupts the event, either knowingly or by mistake. So, life should receive a penalty regardless. Now, if the match is to get replayed, I think the only fair thing to do is to have life reveal their deck to water before playing.

I'm ok with either solution. But I would be very frustrated as a team water member if match had to be replayed :/

[Helston]

With regards to our ruling for the n00b vs Vineroz match in round 1:
After they had completed their match, n00b contacted the Warmasters when realised that he had won with the wrong deck, having accidentally used a teammate's deck instead. A ruling was needed immediately and a replay was declared with n00b to show his deck to Vineroz beforehand.

After careful and lengthy consideration, we decided to change that decision. We do not take the reversal of a decision lightly, which is why we took significant time to deliberate amongst the three of us on the matter.

Had we upheld the it, we would have needed to have given Life a very hefty penalty, probably as much as they've lost due to the current ruling, if not more, for what is in this case an honest mistake. This would be to prevent exploitation of the ruling in the future, particularly from a Strategist who could then alter their deck to counter their opponent. We were also unable to determine exactly which deck would be revealed to the opponent if a Strategist were the one who had played the illegal deck.

As four duels had already been played, Vineroz won the 3-0 by default and the event card came into effect. To deny Water salvage would be unfair on them not only because we would be denying them their chance of winning an advantage (despite the fact teams lose 1.5 cards per match on average this round, if you're going into your matches expecting to come out worse off, what chance do you have of winning the event?), but also because taking advantage of the luck that falls your way is part of how everything is won, everywhere (first Australian to win a gold medal in the Winter Olympics was a bloke called Steven Bradbury).

As for the 3-card penalty handed to Life, it's the minimum penalty. In War if you make a mistake, you're given a vault penalty to discourage any sort of exploitation and as sort of a managerial tax. Dealing with an illegal deck means more work for the Warmasters and a less fluid event overall, so every incentive we can give teams to ensure they don't make mistakes is a good incentive. 3 cards from the vault is a very minor penalty compared to what they have to discard from their deck, but it will still have an impact on them.

This has been posted in the Suggestions and Feedback thread so that any further discussion or suggestions on the matter are in the right place =)

[deuce22]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, you changed the ruling because the most fair ruling could potentially be exploited by someone in a strategist role?

If this is the case, why not make a separate ruling if this happened to a strategist?

[willng3]

I really don't have any complaints with the final ruling on the match.  I would have preferred that the previous ruling never came into play in the first place, but being a person who takes a good deal of time to think before making important decisions (because I usually make the wrong decisions if I don't), I think it's perfectly understandable given that it was demanded to come into play quickly in that situation.

For the record, we also had a case of wrongdeckitis last War which resulted in the same outcome (although we lost initially in that one) with the same penalties (although I noticed that it wasn't documented publicly).  I don't find the -3 penalty out of the ordinary for that reason.