Spoiler for Hidden:
1. Subbing. Subs need to be used and understandably so. Players can't connect for a match from different time zones, personal conflicts, etc. Players go completely inactive for war. But a trend I observed is that top players/Gens are often doing the subbing - Kaempfer, W3, etc. This can give the subbing team an unforeseen advantage in match play and doesn't honor the auction/balance of teams aspect of war. Less experienced players might not read the opponent as quick or play as optimal as the experienced veteran. What about reducing deck upgrades (maybe -2) if using a sub? Or perhaps, the first 1-3 times using a sub don't have an upgrade reduction, but reduction occurs after that.
I am going to be a total ass here, but why would the general even want such a player on the team if they are penalized even further through substitutions? Already are decks for these players incapable of using full Marks and Nymphs like they would if allowed and planned to be subbed by someone like me in advance. But no, this substitution nerf was already put into place: the sub cannot use ultra rares the subbed player does not have.
Unknown players are often less active, veterans became known by being active. It is only logical for them to be more active for substitutions as well. If generals either take a chance with someone or are forced to live with a player that barely contributes and does not even make time to play matches, an upgrade reduction will only further penalize the team that is already hurt just from that player being inactive.
By looking at past wars I would rather look at this: how often has it truly occurred that a sub was completely unnecessary and done solely for the "lack of competence" of the subbed player? I think these cases are rare indeed, making a special rule for this case a low priority. Nevertheless, if a good option to prevent this presents itself I am all for it. I just do not think further penalizing teams for inactive players/players in need of substitution, is the solution.
I'm not asserting that reduction is the solution, which is why I used a "?" It's more accurate to say the point is about inactivity which can lead to excessive/habitual subbing that can be imbalanced - as in the case of team Death. The team is inactive, which leads a player to overly sub in war. So, the suggestion is for WM to consider the effects of inactivity. Seems people are already expecting lower participation this war, perhaps more inactives. Address this up front. In a way, TORB, this seems related to your feedback about auction/inactives and suggesting fewer players on a team by choice.
Subbing is considered by Majofa in Team PVP; in fact, approval is required. I think there's the rule of subbing max 1x a round. That seems reasonable. It's a team event. Why not some policy/monitoring in War (yea, I know solo WM and bigger fish to fry)? There's not an overall problem with subbing. Seems to be a pretty fair give and take from what I noticed, and mostly done from necessity. Gross inactivity is something else to be considered. Should 1 player on a team do so much subbing in war? Torb, of Aether's matches with subs (5), you subbed all 5. Don't see why RR or Deuce can't sub a few. Of team Death's 13 subs, 12 are from Kaempfer. In Round 8, Kaemp plays
all 4/4 Team Death matches. It probably is very small, but something just doesn't look right when I was reviewing the war rounds.
The only concern that I have, if I can seriously call it a concern, is when subbing moves from the function of the team to being dominated by an individual (even if its because all other team members are inactive). If noone/WM don't think this is important, let's let it rest. Move on to other suggestions and feedback then.
BTW Manuel - you want me to stay serious. I'll be more dangerous if I'm picking silly decks based on musical themes = can't mindgate me
