War #10 - Suggestions and Feedback

[iancudorinmarian]

Can you format the discards next time so the "Discards from vault" can be put into the "Penalty" cell? It's a bit confusing to have a deck say 10 discards, but then having to discard 8 cards from the actual deck and 2 from vault.

[ddevans96]

Can you format the discards next time so the "Discards from vault" can be put into the "Penalty" cell? It's a bit confusing to have a deck say 10 discards, but then having to discard 8 cards from the actual deck and 2 from vault.

This please

[Aves]

Idk, I find it useful to just put it all in one place so I have the correct number-- I just throw the vault discards at the end.

[Afdarenty]

Auction this time had some problems, in my opinion. The cost of players had more to do with what stage of the auction they were locked in at than actual skill level. In part, this was because of rules encouraging players not to bid on a variety of players, or not to bid at all, which prevented any kind of natural economy from building up, and in part, it was because the lock in started far too early. It's worth noting that there were several rules that encouraged Gens not to bid, and nothing that encouraged bidding. Some examples:


Lock in:
Gens didn't want to bid because they wanted to make sure other Gens didn't get a bargain locked in. They wanted to make sure they had a slot or two open at the end of day to prevent this. As stated earlier, I think the lock in started far too early this War. Would like to see this used as a last resort to end the auction, not as the main mechanic.

Bidding on 15 players max:
Pretty obvious. The main reason we saw some players shoot up to 1k+ prices while players like Jenkar remained without a bid. Once a General bid on someone, they made an investment - bidding on another player instead of just raising would make you less flexible later in the auction. Would really like to see this removed. It's not beneficial in any way, in my opinion.

Can only have 4 winning bids at a time:
I wouldn't change this, but I did want to mention it for the sake of completeness.


Next time, I'd really like to see some rules encouraging bidding. Maybe something along the lines of:
"Generals who do not place 5/6/7/8 bids in a day have their minimum raise permanently increased by 30/40/50/60. Generals who have had a full team for over 4 hours total that day are exempt from this rule."

I'm sure someone can come up with something better than that. But I think it's the direction the auction needs to head in.

I'd still prefer auction to draft.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

So I'm seeing an awful lot of drama in general discussion about the enforcement of a rule with the most evident evidence possible: a confession. A ruling has been made, and rulings are final. Instead of lingering on this specific case, why not focus on how to change these rules if this is where the beef lies? Personally, I have no beef with allowing people from war teams to collaborate with people outside war (through means of verbal discussion in your very own house, for example). Such a rule cannot be normally enforced, thus having it into place is detrimental.

Instead, collaborating with other forum members should be discouraged and judged on a case by case basis where proven, while collaborating with members of another war team should cause a strict and severe penalty. Anyone else would then be free to help out any of the members of any of the teams. Of course, this may lead to teams getting extra support from other players: but unless there are ways to enforce a rule forbidding it, there is no benefit from having such a rule. Enforcement through honesty is considered inappropriate.

Note that I do think making private information public should be forbidden and outside help discouraged.

[Aves]

By pointing out flaws in the specific case and the ruling, later attempts to make more perfect rules can use the arguments presented as useful information and context. There is no reason not to continue the discussion.

I agree with the rest of what you say.

[Jenkar]

By pointing out flaws in the specific case and the ruling, later attempts to make more perfect rules can use the arguments presented as useful information and context. There is no reason not to continue the discussion.

I think the problem is more about the discussion going too much "The instance" rather than "Make a better rule for next time".

[Afdarenty]

I've been saying this a while - I really don't like the current bye rules.

Currently the highest ranked teams have priority for a bye. This makes it much harder for the teams in 2nd/3rd/4th place to catch up with the team in 1st, giving them an even greater advantage than they already have.

Why not give the bye to the bottom ranked teams instead? That way it is most likely to have no impact on the winner of War. The team in last place will get an advantage, but this isn't likely to effect the teams fighting for 1st much at all - exactly what we want from a bye.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

It would severely impact the rankings of lower to mid-tier teams. Having never won war, I find this ranking to be quite important: having a team cheat their way to a higher standing with byes is lame. In fact, by the time byes come into play, higher ranked teams may miss out on an "easy win" against a lower ranked team by playing less games: the one time you want to maximize games played is when other teams are nearing elimination and you are not near elimination. At least compared to other rounds.

It is for this very reason that the old bye system (which was favoring bottom teams) was removed. The fairest byes come when winning > not losing as some people put it, which is an issue solved differently entirely. This is also why lower ranked teams hate being near the lower ends of player cut-offs for vault size.

So then you may ask how I envision making wins more important, well, the idea will be simple but VERY controversial no doubt: reduce discards per match and add a set amount of vault discards every round. This is a rough idea with no clear numbers attached to them, but it's a harsh way to increase the importance of winning > not losing without prolonging war.

[kaempfer13]

It would severely impact the rankings of lower to mid-tier teams. Having never won war, I find this ranking to be quite important: having a team cheat their way to a higher standing with byes is lame. In fact, by the time byes come into play, higher ranked teams may miss out on an "easy win" against a lower ranked team by playing less games: the one time you want to maximize games played is when other teams are nearing elimination and you are not near elimination. At least compared to other rounds.

It is for this very reason that the old bye system (which was favoring bottom teams) was removed. The fairest byes come when winning > not losing as some people put it, which is an issue solved differently entirely. This is also why lower ranked teams hate being near the lower ends of player cut-offs for vault size.

So then you may ask how I envision making wins more important, well, the idea will be simple but VERY controversial no doubt: reduce discards per match and add a set amount of vault discards every round. This is a rough idea with no clear numbers attached to them, but it's a harsh way to increase the importance of winning > not losing without prolonging war.

I actually kind of like that idea, though the vault discards would have to be based on point market value rather than counts to work remotely fair with the market system (cheaper cards still make you less likely to overpay to get the exact amount of points required). However it kinda defies one of the points of vault, since you simply cant assume that a team lost a deck after losing a load of times with that deck. Ultimately it probably removes some of the strategy in War, though its really unfortunate that one of the keys to winning war is to play as little games as possible. Also while playing less games is a great advantage atm, its kinda needed to balance the options that the Vault offers (though to a lesser degree having to field fewer decks in the first place already helps).
It also decreases the difference between winner and loser of a match unless the salvage were increased a lot (in that system #salvage winner=#discards loser). Which has good and bad effects.

[Vangelios]

I've been saying this a while - I really don't like the current bye rules.

Currently the highest ranked teams have priority for a bye. This makes it much harder for the teams in 2nd/3rd/4th place to catch up with the team in 1st, giving them an even greater advantage than they already have.

Why not give the bye to the bottom ranked teams instead? That way it is most likely to have no impact on the winner of War. The team in last place will get an advantage, but this isn't likely to effect the teams fighting for 1st much at all - exactly what we want from a bye.

not because this war was make for you guys since from the beginning, WMs, did very well balanced for that....

[ARTHANASIOS]

not because this war was make for you guys since from the beginning, WMs, did very well balanced for that....

Please, Team Aether, stop that "bullying" towards air...
Team Air has made fine deck choices this War and they also were lucky enough. Their SoFres are just the cherry to the top of the cake. A good team is a good team nonetheless.