(L.Entropy) Amilir 2-1 kevkev60614 (M.Fire)

[Dragoon1140]

In future wars, the system I believe would be most fair would be to look at the number of cards each team had going /into/ the round.  If light goes 0-3 and loses, and gravity goes 0-1 but finishes with 29 cards left, light should get the win, because they had 90+ cards before their losing round, while gravity only had 59.

I have to agree with Gl1tch on this point.  Total cards going into the round does sound nice, especially when compared to the controversial win%.

[suxerz]

In future wars, the system I believe would be most fair would be to look at the number of cards each team had going /into/ the round.  If light goes 0-3 and loses, and gravity goes 0-1 but finishes with 29 cards left, light should get the win, because they had 90+ cards before their losing round, while gravity only had 59.

^I agree with Gl1tch there. Win/loss ratio doesn't mean much when compared to the total cards in vault. I prefer to see vault as the team's strength throughout the war. However, one can argue that sustainability (able to survive longer) is better than brute strength (cards in vault).

I suggest to post this in the War #3 suggestion and continue any further discussion there.

[kev]

In future wars, the system I believe would be most fair would be to look at the number of cards each team had going /into/ the round.  If light goes 0-3 and loses, and gravity goes 0-1 but finishes with 29 cards left, light should get the win, because they had 90+ cards before their losing round, while gravity only had 59.

Disclaimer: I have yet to open the War 3 forum at all but hope to get to it tonight.

I disagree with Glitch.  If Teams A and B have four decks, Team A goes 1-3 and subsequently 0-1, Team B goes 3-1 and subsequently 0-3, what makes Team B definitively better than Team A?

The current system uses ending cards which includes win/loss ratio, win/loss ratio when it matters most, penalties, teams who took advantage of the Event Card, propaganda bonuses, and starting vault (i.e. handicapping teams with "more valuable" players).  And all of those things should be included.

Of course this won't stop me from pointing to my team's win/loss ratio when trolling for votes during the Trials. 

[majofa]

Why not just total number of wins as a tiebreaker?

[Glitch]

In future wars, the system I believe would be most fair would be to look at the number of cards each team had going /into/ the round.  If light goes 0-3 and loses, and gravity goes 0-1 but finishes with 29 cards left, light should get the win, because they had 90+ cards before their losing round, while gravity only had 59.

Disclaimer: I have yet to open the War 3 forum at all but hope to get to it tonight.

I disagree with Glitch.  If Teams A and B have four decks, Team A goes 1-3 and subsequently 0-1, Team B goes 3-1 and subsequently 0-3, what makes Team B definitively better than Team A?

The round they died, Team B was ahead of team A, and as such, deserves to be ahead of team A in the final standings.

Team A has 143 cards.  Team B has 121.  Team A goes 1-3, and subsequently 0-1.  Team B goes 3-1, and subsequently 0-3.
The round before they died, team A had 59 cards left, and team B had 139.  But, after both had lost, team A had 29 cards left, and team B only had 19.  Team B  deserves the win, for they were ahead of team A when both lost.  As a tie break, team B should win.  But team A wins because they happened to have just enough cards so they never break a multiple of 30, requiring them to fight an extra fight.  How is that fair?

[kev]

But team A wins because they happened to have just enough cards so they never break a multiple of 30, requiring them to fight an extra fight.  How is that fair?

Team A wins because of the 300 things that happened before the last round.  I'm just saying what happens in previous rounds needs to be as important as what happens in the final round for each team.

SG keeps using the "number of soldiers" analogy but here's a different perspective:  Team A lasted through X and 29/30 rounds, Team B lasted through X and 19/30 rounds.

Bah.  You're a smart dude and you see what I'm saying.  Agree to disagree, I guess.

As an aside at one point I'd thought about win/loss being the best tiebreaker, but consider a team who goes 27-0 through their first three rounds and 0-18 through their last two.  If they've folded like a lawn chair under the pressure and lost when it matters most, I'm not sure it makes sense to reward them over a team who went 5-4 every round but got worn down.

[Sir Valimont]

All the hypotheticals are unnecessary. What's being discussed is how to weigh teams who lose in the same round. If one team survived to a further round than another, then there is no debate; they get the higher placement.

What makes no sense is this situation: and lost in the same round. did much, much better overall in War but and get a higher placement.

Losing with more cards left over is not any better than losing with fewer. Losing is losing. If you have 25 cards or if you have 15 cards, you can't form a deck and you've lost. There isn't even a marginal difference and it's plain silly to look at one as more of a success than the other. Neither is a success. The goal of War is to survive as many rounds as possible -- not to have as many cards as possible when you lose.

On the other hand, win% shows overall success during the course of War and is a much more accurate measuring stick of a team's influence during the contest. We were not being jerks when we feared matches with much more than or ... we were just being reasonable and reacting to 's relatively stronger vault position. We didn't choose to respect one team or another because we liked the players more or less -- just we respected their relative position of strength in the game. Actually we probably had the most respect on a personal level for Pervepic because we knew his PvP ability well.

If you forget for a moment, the only team in War that dominated was . Given everything they did it makes little sense to me to say that and should get higher placement than them. Just my 2¢.

[chum3]

All the hypotheticals are unnecessary. What's being discussed is how to weigh teams who lose in the same round. If one team survived to a further round than another, then there is no debate; they get the higher placement.

*snip*

I was also wondering about the way standings are/were done in the standings thread before (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,14171.msg244295#msg244295). Again, it's understandable the way it is done now, though. But like suxerz said, we should probably be having this discussion in a different thread (maybe War #2 Feedback or some War#3 thread that can talk about standings).

To make an on-topic comment: arghhhh everyone has a Purple Nymph but me. ;/ Pfft "better chance at getting a Purple Nymph from the Oracle," I have a hard time getting even /one/ nymph.