10th Trials - Suggestions and Feedback

[JonathanCrazyJ]

I'd  100% agree with  'no preference' instead of 'none worthy'. The game is largely based on community, and seeing the community effectively call you unworthy can easily have a negative effect on ones confidence and happiness in the community.
'No preference' fills the same role in the polls, but is much kinder.

[Ginyu]

I fully agree with renaming it to "No preference", for the reasons already stated.
Hammering on some people with "None worthy" won't be a good idea if we want to keep activity in Trials, and in the game in general.

[dark ripper]

I fully agree with renaming it to "No preference", for the reasons already stated.
Hammering on some people with "None worthy" won't be a good idea if we want to keep activity in Trials, and in the game in general.

On the other hand though there might be cases when none worthy should be highlighted. For example if a master doesnt defend next trials and 2 completely new people join those trials will you vote no preference? No. you will want to vote None Worthy unless you dont care about who leads the element at all. I think I agree with the opinion of willng. If none worthy gets more votes than everyone the trials shouldnt continue.

About solutions on "troll" none worthy votes, or the negative effective it may have etc. there are many solutions but in the end its not public voting so forcing people to state why they voted none worthy instead of a trialist is out of the question. The best option of course would be if they would.
Another option would be to add No preference along with None Worthy.

[mrpaper]

Though some  people might feel that there are none worthy for any given element... we must have a master (or at least a general) to have a war in ALL elements.  So if people feel that none from  is worthy enough for example.. what is left... not  in war? post-pone war until we get a worthy master?  Try to assign a vet who didn't even wanted to make an effort into being master as the general of a team? None of those seems more appropriate then giving  candidates a chance in war.  Also I get that none of the 2 candidates here have the pedigree of Calindu or Zeru (for the few who remember) but it is a shrinking community so these are the best of those still around.... will they achieve as much? I doubt so because we talk of legendary people here... but they want and deserve the chance!

  Now I would get an exception if we had a candidate who did no or little to no task in phases 1-2 but still wanted to be in or if we had a member who brought much hatred by everyone and is highly at risk of putting the war into no fun zone but  even then, trO could make that decision by themselves!

[Higurashi]

We've had to appoint a General on a few occasions, and as far as I remember they've been fans of the element that valued the opportunity given to them. It's a solution that works with everything ever since I modified the Grandmaster rules to where a winning non-Master General can win Trials after their won War and then gets to challenge the previous Grandmaster.

Similarly, someone might not be chosen for Master and yet be chosen to General that element in War. There's quite the difference between representing an element and just leading a PvP team. The community appoints the Masters and the Warmasters appoint the Generals. With that in mind, it seems to make more and more sense to give more impact to the none worthy vote option as will says.

As for anyone deciding to take offence to not being regarded as a worthy Master, that doesn't make much sense to me. It doesn't affect who you are as a person, and if you know you're worthy deep down then you need only prove them wrong.

Kudos to Discord and ian for asking the question. Most votes will have some none worthy votes, but they're the only ones who wondered why. Granted the reason for wondering is wrong if it's just about the number of none worthy votes, but it still opens up the opportunity to take in feedback. Whether they do or not is the next question.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

If BETTING wants to include water, it needs posting soon, because we are playing in

no time

[willng3]

The only reason why I disagree with simply remaining "None worthy" to "No preference" is that it still doesn't address the issue of it being an option that doesn't really need to exist. If it were renamed, then what is the point of including an option that absorbs votes that could go towards upgrades for both players when it would otherwise have the exact same effect as not voting at all? It makes sense in the case of only one member participating in Trials for a certain Element, since they would more than likely steamroll whoever is acting as STANDIN otherwise, but if you already know that both of those spots are going to be filled then I just don't see the need.

[mrpaper]

This has been suggested before, but the defending champion (Physsion here) should automaticly be master for the next term unless he steps down.  I don't think any winning master lost (might be wrong) but it would look wrong if Physsion couldn't have defend.  Also, a nice side effect would have been that some if not all of the challengers could have try for another element hence helping the strength of the competition where it was needed.  This should be announced before next war starts so it doesn't look as a favor to whoever wins this one!   

[JonathanCrazyJ]

I totally disagree with that, sorry mrpaper. It's perfectly possible to usurp a defending master (I was one game away from it last trials against dd), but removing the competition just means people who want to stay loyal to their element might never have the chance to be the master.
The masters have a better chance of retaining their crown already due to bonus points etc. if they are good enough, they should have to keep proving it.
It's like in politics, democratic elections HAVE to happen periodically, or it grants life-time rule to one person.

EDIT: You mean defending WAR champion. My mistake. I still disagree, but less vehemently.

[mrpaper]

Yeah, only the war champion... a master could be defeated as he failed to reach the ultimate goal of winning the war over other masters.  So we are talking about 1/12 masters
If you look at the votes of the past wars... the defending champion gets near 100% of the votes... people want that person to defend whoever it is.  Another side effect is it means a match that is totally uneven with a full up deck vs a third/half deck on the other side.   And since war winners leaders are all pro the chance of a loss in a bo9 is really really slim.

Also in a shrinking community, we have to be creative to make things still challenging... putting the challengers on 11 elements instead of 12 helps that!

[dark ripper]

Yeah, only the war champion... a master could be defeated as he failed to reach the ultimate goal of winning the war over other masters.  So we are talking about 1/12 masters
If you look at the votes of the past wars... the defending champion gets near 100% of the votes... people want that person to defend whoever it is.  Another side effect is it means a match that is totally uneven with a full up deck vs a third/half deck on the other side.   And since war winners leaders are all pro the chance of a loss in a bo9 is really really slim.

Also in a shrinking community, we have to be creative to make things still challenging... putting the challengers on 11 elements instead of 12 helps that!

a free mastership would mean free bonus points if the master chooses to be the general again. thus, even if that master doesnt win next war the bonus points will be too much. That would discourage people to trial for that element even more.

I understand you want to spice things up, but i dont that is the way to do it. I have several ideas for trials but none of them would be viable since as you mentioned the community is shrinking.

[Jenkar]

Also in a shrinking community, we have to be creative to make things still challenging... putting the challengers on 11 elements instead of 12 helps that!

I fail to see the reason for this.