Editorial: My Views on the Event Card Drama

[Jangoo]

Just a side note,
and I am totally not talking about issue 2: `boycott-drama appropriate/illegal or not´but about
issue 1: `OPness of element-based event cards´:

Any of the event cards would have given an "unfair" advantage to some teams,
simply because that is what special events do.
This goes especially for the famed reasoning that later rounds increase the impact of these
"Age of ..."-cards.

Examples:

Round6 (teams vaults are influenced by the teams elements of course)
Event: Veil of ...
Player Reaction: "WTH! Now team XYZ get to just splash their standard equipment while
we have to waste mark-quanta on useless crap ...!"

Round 7 (some teams have larger vaults than others)
Event: Sacrificial Altar
Player Reaction: "WHAT! This is OUTRAGEOUS! How are we ever going to have a chance against
team XYZ if they get to turn all their useless crap into upgrades ...!"

Round 8 (some teams have larger/different vaults than others)
Event: Duality
Player Reaction: "THIS SUCKS! We hardly have any cards that oppose our good cards.
Team XYZ gets to craft perfectly good decks because they have the cards and we don't ...!"

Round 9 (some teams have larger/different vaults than others)
Event: The Gift
Player Reaction: "JEEEZ, I am just going to boycott this SHIT! Team XYZ gets to discard all
their useless crap-cards and we have to give away our premium arsenal ...!"

... and so on and so on.

The very only exception to this is the card "Reinforcements" which would have given weaker
teams a boost (but consequently may have lead to stronger teams complaining, so ...). 

I cannot think of any ingame-mechanic that would not give an (unfair) advantage
to someone in one way or another.
So, while I agree that "Age of ..." cards probably lead the level of "unfairness" in general theory,
their impact would have paled against what other events would have done to the war-balance
later in the game.


Bottom line:
Anybody complaining about it should make up their mind what "Event-card" actually means
and ask himself why he didn't except unfairness right from the start.
Questioning event-cards as a war-mechanic in general would make sense,
getting hung up on this particular light-incident is just short-sighted.

[Hyroen]

*arranges duel*

xdude using any deck which has:

At least 50% Light cards in the deck[/li]the ability to use upgraded Light cards except for pillars and pendulums[/li]

vs.
ScaredGirl using any deck which has:

At least 50% of any element but Light in the deck [/li]the ability to use upgraded Light cards except for pillars and pendulums[/li]

Do I hear any bets?

xD

[Malignant]

Randomly, mrblonde will come and kill both of them.

[QuantumT]

So, while I agree that "Age of ..." cards probably lead the level of "unfairness" in general theory,
their impact would have paled against what other events would have done to the war-balance
later in the game.

If the cards were posted in the order they were going to be used, the Age of Air would have occurred in round 5, the first round with the full 30 card discard penalty. The fact that we would have been able to bring nearly fully upped decks if we chose would not have been a "slight" advantage. It would have been huge, probably helping to win at least one more match we would have otherwise lost, perhaps two. And with these wins comes a swing of 36 or 72 cards, which is huge.

Bottom line:
Anybody complaining about it should make up their mind what "Event-card" actually means
and ask himself why he didn't except unfairness right from the start.
Questioning event-cards as a war-mechanic in general would make sense,
getting hung up on this particular light-incident is just short-sighted.

I think we all expected cards like the one in the first round. Did you see how much backlash that one had? None whatsoever.

OT- SV still seems to misunderstand what the "boycott" would have entailed. We would have continued on just as before, just ignoring the Age cards.

It sucks that the time that SG put into making the cards went to waste, but it's not exactly unreasonable to want the event that we're all going to be participating in for several months to be fair. Ultimately it the community that's the event is being run for, so if everyone's unhappy about something, then something should be done.

What should be weighed against the time lost on the event cards is the almost certain chance that the Age cards would have cast a veil over the entire event.

On a side note- it really shouldn't be referred to as a boycott at all, since no one was threatening to drop out of the event.

[Scaredgirl]

OT- SV still seems to misunderstand what the "boycott" would have entailed. We would have continued on just as before, just ignoring the Age cards.

For this boycott to work, all teams would have had to agree on it. This wouldn't have happened because at least one team would have used those upped cards. And when we have one team using the bonus, while others don't, what do you think would have happened if that one team starts to win more than others? The amount of drama would have been unbelievable the whole event would have probably been cancelled at some point.

[QuantumT]

OT- SV still seems to misunderstand what the "boycott" would have entailed. We would have continued on just as before, just ignoring the Age cards.

For this boycott to work, all teams would have had to agree on it. This wouldn't have happened because at least one team would have used those upped cards. And when we have one team using the bonus, while others don't, what do you think would have happened if that one team starts to win more than others? The amount of drama would have been unbelievable the whole event would have probably been cancelled at some point.

You assume that we didn't understand that possibility that not everyone would participate. I'd like to think that those of us who decided to skip it would also have been adult enough to understand this. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like this.

But what really makes it hard to discuss is Sir Valimont's 'holier than thou' attitude about the whole thing.

[Scaredgirl]

I'd like to think that those of us who decided to skip it would also have been adult enough to understand this.

You are joking, right? We are on a gaming forum with tons of kids (age 17 or less). Expecting adult behavior from everyone here, would be pretty naive. Every single place that has children, has childish behavior as well. And sometimes it's not only from kids (see my next comment).

On a side note- it really shouldn't be referred to as a boycott at all, since no one was threatening to drop out of the event.

I personally heard two threats of quitting the event because of that Event Card, both from known veteran members. Also both were adults (age 18+).

[Jangoo]

I think we all expected cards like the one in the first round. Did you see how much backlash that one had? None whatsoever.

That's only because in round 1 everybodys chances to win/lose are equal.

In later rounds, when there are strong teams which are expected to win (flawlessly),
an additional 3 cards to salvage per win will become a major advantage too ... "How unfair to
favour those who are strong already."
I mean honestly, are the "Veil" cards not going to impair you when your vault is only 65 cards
and you don't really have anything to go with that mark?
Or is the "Burst of colour" not totally unfair for those teams that can't really build a rainbow deck
for whatever reason?
The "Age"-cards are strong, certainly, but contrary to all those cards considered "ok",
they could have given a team that is up against the wall a chance later on.

I just don't understand why everyone is lashing out at the Age cards when any other card
would have caused similar "instant-win/loss" conditions later during the war.

[TimerClock14]

On a side note- it really shouldn't be referred to as a boycott at all, since no one was threatening to drop out of the event.

I personally heard two threats of quitting the event because of that Event Card, both from known veteran members. Also both were adults (age 18+).

I can account for this as well, I have heard from a member who threatened about dropping out if the event card stayed.

[Korugar]

But what really makes it hard to discuss is Sir Valimont's 'holier than thou' attitude about the whole thing.

Ah, but you see, the boycotting had the possibility of the exact same attitude. Let's say teams A, B, D, E, F, I, J, K, and L decide to boycott the card. Teams C, G, and H don't. Let's say one of the latter three teams won. Tons of people from teams, A, B, D, E, F, I, J, K, and L would have the same 'holier than thou' attitude. Now, I'm not trying to point fingers at anyone specifically, I don't necessarily think this is true of MrBlonde, I'm not even saying he thought of it when he started the boycott, but it would still happen.

[Sir Valimont]

OT- SV still seems to misunderstand what the "boycott" would have entailed. We would have continued on just as before, just ignoring the Age cards.

It seems like you simply want to misunderstand the rather clear things I have said. This is just a completely insane comment.

I have not in a single place talked about what your "boycott" would have entailed. I have been talking about whether it was acceptable for you to undertake it. You can write off the boycott as simply following the rules your own way, but that's not at all what it was. It was an organized effort to refuse the choice, not to make a choice. You have no right to refuse an event card. That's breaking the rules, no matter how you paint the picture.

[Sir Valimont]

But what really makes it hard to discuss is Sir Valimont's 'holier than thou' attitude about the whole thing.

From my perspective what makes this hard to discuss is the fact that many of you refuse to accept the fact that what you did was wrong.

If I've made a post somewhere that you have a problem with, just quote it here and we can review it.