10th Trials - Suggestions and Feedback

[Zawadx]

Post all suggestions and feedback here, every tiny bit is appreciated!

[ddevans96]

I still think the final battle rules last time were more restrictive against shards than they needed to be. There's good discussion in the 8th trials feedback here, with some of the meat hidden in spoilers. This was literally my only issue with last Trials, personally.

I'd also like to confirm what is and is not within the bounds of final battle participants. Last trials, you allowed jcj to customize a rule for our final, but I'd like to be certain about where the limit for that is.

[rob77dp]

In a world where shards are in War, and a master could be expected to have a fair card collection too, why should shards be pre_restricted in the final battle?? I support unrestricted shards in final battles with them being ban_able with typical trials ban points functionality.

[Afdarenty]

I'd also like to confirm what is and is not within the bounds of final battle participants. Last trials, you allowed jcj to customize a rule for our final, but I'd like to be certain about where the limit for that is.

If a rule is easily enforceable, and both players participating in the final battle agree upon that rule, then that rule will become part of the rule set for that final battle. If someone uses a deck that does not satisfy this extra rule, then that player shall lose any games in which they used that deck.

If a rule is not easily enforceable, that rule will not become part of the rule set for the final battle. If you both want to, there's nothing stopping you from playing with an unenforceable rule (a gentlemen's agreement), but there shall be no punishment for a player who breaks that rule.

I'll define an enforceable rule as this: one screenshot must be enough evidence to prove that the rule has been broken.

Examples of an enforceable rule:

• All Shards are banned
• Dimensional shield is banned
• Cards starting with the letter Q are banned

Examples of an unenforceable rule:

• The maximum number of copies of a card in a deck is 5
• The only way to prove this rule has been broken would be to have 6 screenshots of the same card being played in one game, without fractal being played. This would force you to take a screenshot every time your opponent plays a card - not something we want players to have to do.
• All decks must be Trio decks
• There is no way to prove that a player did not bottom deck all cards from one of his three elements. Therefore, there is no way to stop a player from playing a Duo, or even a Mono deck.
• If a player plays cards from four elements, there is no way to prove this if cards from one of the previous three elements are not still on the board, for example, pillars from one element have been Earthquaked.

[Solaris]

Suggestion: Switch to a TPvP style definition for Element usage in Phase 2 in Trials #11, as the current rules hurt Trios and Quartets (if you're crazy enough to play one in Trials, that is!). The current TPvP rule is "- You may not use the same combination of elements more than twice in a match (This refers to your 3 Elements)", meaning that you can, for example, use in the same deck, but still be able to use , , so on and so forth, in future decks. This keeps the possibility of abusing the same "immortal" deck for all your matches against someone to 0, but doesn't hurt people who want to be more daring with trios and quartets. I would suggest, that if this rule were adopted, though, to change the "combination of elements more than twice in a match" to "more than once in a match".

[Ginyu]

That allows you to spam the same deck over and over by just adding a one-card for the third element that is changing. I don't see an issue here, as trios can be used without big problems (assuming 5 games: you can go 1x Mono, 2x Duo and 2x Trio). Quartets... lets be honest, who would use them?

[majofa]

Just add the rule like WC, where you have to have at least 4 of an element if you choose to use it.

[Jenkar]

I'm a bit concerned about the randomness of selection of tasks for extra-time challengers. Is this motivated by the concern that extra time may look at the other's tasks before deciding which tasks they want to be marked as "having taken" for elements in phase 2 purposes, if they had the ability to choose?

[Zawadx]

Not being able to ban opponent's in-element creature is a silly rule. Why is this even a thing? /blames TrOs

[Sera]

Since the purpose is (probably) to avoid letting people ban an element's main source of damage, maybe we should be able to do this for pure utilities like Devourer and Arctic Squids? That would mean we'd need to use an arbitrary list though.

[Zawadx]

Voting is scary. I am henceforth scared of voting :x (Phase 1)

[Blacksmith]

I've got 2 ideas to the voting thingy.

First of it would be good if you could vote for more competitors in elements with more than 2 players. So instead of being forced to choose between 2 really good ones you can choose both.

I also think that the pools shouldn't be added at the start of phase 3. Because as it is now most people vote even before questions and answered are made.
So maybe having voting period being 9 days. Asking and answering questions should last through the whole phase ( 9 days ) and pools should be added 3-4 days prior to phase 3 ending.