5th Trials - Suggestions and Feedback

[Onizuka]

I'd personally like to see another factor into determining who to bump: Trials taken in.

The more trials a person has been in as a challenger, the higher their rank up to a certain amount (Under 3 perhaps?) where they will get a point for each trial. At 3 or higher they get 0 points (the same as someone who has never been in a trial).

People who have jumped ship from trials/not appeared and gotten inactivity'd out start with a -1 for their past behavior and a subsequent -1 for each time they do it. This wears off in the trial after the trial they were taken out of.

This is just a rough idea, so the numbers aren't exact.

[Jocko]

I'd personally like to see another factor into determining who to bump: Trials taken in.

The more trials a person has been in as a challenger, the higher their rank up to a certain amount (Under 3 perhaps?) where they will get a point for each trial. At 3 or higher they get 0 points (the same as someone who has never been in a trial).

People who have jumped ship from trials/not appeared and gotten inactivity'd out start with a -1 for their past behavior and a subsequent -1 for each time they do it. This wears off in the trial after the trial they were taken out of.

This is just a rough idea, so the numbers aren't exact.

I don't like this, punishing newcomers (altough in an indirect way). If someone newer to trials has more score and posts than someone who did trials several times, maybe they do deserve a spot.
I'd say people who quitted trials shouldn't be allowed to join next ones directly, but yeah, there's all the real life stuff that could happen so I don't see that being implemented.

[ralouf]

That's a pretty bad idea I think, we already have not enough people for trials so adding a rules that will make some players not join the event is bad. IMHO

[Jenkar]

Too much time for signups imo. Also, having deckbuilding start at the beggining of a week (next monday) doesn't sound... well, convenient to many.

[jippy99]

Even though I think this has been said in past trials, I feel we need to say it again.  6 off element cards is not enough.  With only 6 off element cards, this will force players to build very similar decks and almost always have the same basic build.  Even increasing this amount to 9 and taking away upgraded cards will make a big difference.  There is only so much you can do with 6 cards, which in a decent amount of cases will be 6 of the same card or 5 of the same card and one other card.  6 cards allows little to no room for creativity, which I believe is an important aspect of becoming a master.  If you can't creatively build a deck in your own element, why do you deserve to be a master?  Trials are meant to display people's skills in a certain element and that includes the deckbuilding portion of it.  It is very hard to judge if someone is a good deck builder when all the other challengers have very similar builds to them.  Thats just my two cents, I'm sure you guys have a reasoning behind it.

[ralouf]

I'm agreeing with both post above. One week is too much if a guy don't connect more than pnce a week he didn't deserve to be a master.
Also I think that 9 cards will open a way bigger room fro creativity but pliz keep the uppgrades.

[majofa]

Even though I think this has been said in past trials, I feel we need to say it again.  6 off element cards is not enough.  With only 6 off element cards, this will force players to build very similar decks and almost always have the same basic build.  Even increasing this amount to 9 and taking away upgraded cards will make a big difference.  There is only so much you can do with 6 cards, which in a decent amount of cases will be 6 of the same card or 5 of the same card and one other card.  6 cards allows little to no room for creativity, which I believe is an important aspect of becoming a master.  If you can't creatively build a deck in your own element, why do you deserve to be a master?  Trials are meant to display people's skills in a certain element and that includes the deckbuilding portion of it.  It is very hard to judge if someone is a good deck builder when all the other challengers have very similar builds to them.  Thats just my two cents, I'm sure you guys have a reasoning behind it.

The last trials S&F thread was filled with complaints about this. Ultimately it comes down to this, though, whatever the TO wants, you have to live with.

More Restrictions -> Less Variety -> More RNG Battles

[OldTrees]

I like Card design being an option for points in the trials.

However the Card Design section of Trials, like many other attempts for Part 1, is completion based rather than quality based. Anyone can make card suggestions. The understanding of the game is only demonstrated in the quality or lack there of in the card suggestions.

(In other words: I am drastically disappointed at the majority of the card suggestions and see problems with a subset of those. I am also disappointed that even the worst example would receive the same points as the best.)

[MrBlonde]

I kind of agree with Old trees here on the card design. I think a rating system for points would have been a good way to go. Perhaps 3 pts for completion and 2 pts based on ratings decided by perhaps Old Tree himself or some other neutral party.

[xdude]

I personally agree with OldTrees, but only in principle - you shouldn't get points for doing a bad job. However, if this becomes reality, I consider it would be at the very least fair to add more possible tasks to choose from, as I would find it truely incorrect for a person to have a lower chance at becoming a Master because he isn't good at card design, which is totally unrelated to being a Master.

[Jenkar]

I personally agree with OldTrees, but only in principle - you shouldn't get points for doing a bad job. However, if this becomes reality, I consider it would be at the very least fair to add more possible tasks to choose from, as I would find it truely incorrect for a person to have a lower chance at becoming a Master because he isn't good at card design, which is totally unrelated to being a Master.

I totally disagree. In fact, no one should be better suited at making cards of an element than a master of that element. Why? Because being Master means that (in theory) you know what the problems/themes are with your element. Being able to put down ideas will show your level of understanding of what your element is & needs.

[xdude]

I personally agree with OldTrees, but only in principle - you shouldn't get points for doing a bad job. However, if this becomes reality, I consider it would be at the very least fair to add more possible tasks to choose from, as I would find it truely incorrect for a person to have a lower chance at becoming a Master because he isn't good at card design, which is totally unrelated to being a Master.

I totally disagree. In fact, no one should be better suited at making cards of an element than a master of that element. Why? Because being Master means that (in theory) you know what the problems/themes are with your element. Being able to put down ideas will show your level of understanding of what your element is & needs.

You would think so and maybe in theory you could find a reasoning that that is correct. However, in practice, this never happens. Best card designers are nearly never the best players and viceversa. For example, last time I saw his stash of cards, ET's cards could all fill in 1 screenshots. How many Tournament wins does OldTrees have? Does it seem like majofa, kev and blonde have tons of card ideas? Does simply designing some cards proves you have the metagame understanding to do well in War (because really, all Masters do is War)? Kael Hate was the first Card Curator if I recall correctly, coming up with tons of inventive card ideas, but when he was in War, Darkness didn't really do exactly the greatest impression, they didn't dominate because of the so-called superior game understanding of their Master.

The point is, even if you know what your element is missing you can still make a bad card maybe simply because balancing card ideas isn't your strongest point, you just happened to have a bad idea or you cannot think at something to sensibely fill the blank while still fitting the theme (how should one solve the no-CC issue of Light when the theme is clearly Light doing its' thing better than the opponent ending up simply overwhelming with brute force?). If you want another example, look at SoP. Out of everybody, you would expect Zanzarino to know the theme of the elements better than everybody and Water has nice stalling and CC - but he is apparently out of touch with the current PvP metagame where speed is everything - in a vacuum, SoP is a good idea, but given the current metagame there is no way it is going to be used competitively in its current state.