13th Trials - Phase 2: The Battle Round

[InsignificantWeeaboo]

I might have missed the rule, but are these 8 off-elements for all your matches (probably not counting the I-hate-Brawl tasks?) or for each match?

Each match, element usage resets between. Otherwise, we would've seen a bunch of monos in various matches.

[serprex]

...

A proper reason for bow bans would also be great. It is totally fine to restrict its usage to maybe 2 times, but leaving them out completely will restrict an already tight meta even more.

I might have missed the rule, but are these 8 off-elements for all your matches (probably not counting the I-hate-Brawl tasks?) or for each match?

I opted to keep rules simple, jijo had mentioned implementing pick as only allowing 2 cards at most from each element used, but it seems unnecessary. I've trialed for Entropy with restrictions that made grabbow difficult to field before, it was fine. Adding in rules would pretty much be creating "Wyand wants to be able to run Grabbow in every event" rules. Jen will be facing the same disadvantages, so it won't cause an issue in Entropy's points going into Phase 3. Full blown rainbows can wait for Phase 4. While there may be some issues with the current rules, I don't believe there's anything which will be such a big deal when in the end it's only for 4 Bo5s. I at least think it'll require actually playing out to determine the merit of these theories

Each match uses the same set of 8 elements, but yes, each match happens in isolation from the other in terms of available elements. Bans will be per-match

edit: additionally, there's a "theory of enabling mindgames" in creating options for players which some might say is broken. I feel that a lot of people when they try to design a good game (& creating pvp events is essentially game design, we've built games on top of Elements, just as mapmakers built games on top of Broodwar) they lean towards creating a grey blob. But good games often have plenty of irregularities for players to try undermine their opponents with

[iancudorinmarian]

I don't necessarily agree with either side, but I just want to point out that having rainbow allowed brings just as much unpredictability as having the "no restrictions" deck per game. This is especially true for entropy. 6 nova, 6 pends, fill the rest with whatever you want.

[dawn to dusk]

Imagine if, once per game, your opponent could bring "The Deck" or Grabbow. For no reason other than that it's a strong deck. I firmly believe 0% in-element rule and allowing Rainbows should never be allowed to co-exist.

I'm not a huuuge fan of the 0% rule, but I'm interested to see how it will pan out. I would be in favour of changing it to 20% in-element (6 in-element cards, allows splashing, allows Entropy to run CPWyrms, etc), but I am curious to see what happens here.

[Submachine]

I assumed that we don't use rainbow decks in Trials because that does not represent the mastery over a single element.

Following this logic, the off-element game per match is silly, but I have no preference whatsoever.

[Wyand]

Adding in rules would pretty much be creating "Wyand wants to be able to run Grabbow in every event" rules.

At last, admitting that it would be at least considered if the idea would have spawned originally from someone else. Try to understand,
it is not about me. You haven't even cared to check how many times I ran Grabbow in various events. I raised my voice because I
found it ridiculous that an Element loses one of its strongest decks due to strange rules, and it doesn't really matters if Jen must
abide to the same rules, it is utterly irrelevant. Other "arguments" I heard so far were:

- It is only 4 matches ("...so it doesn't matter if rules are not optimal...." it is friggin' Trials dammit!);
- Let's try it out and see if we/you like it... (yeah, works for a fresh community when we have no idea about what should work);
- ... and if you didn't like it give feedback ("you may freely complain afterwards" - hell yeah, totally western capitalist view, like a print
on a food item's box, and see before: the game is dying, have fun with afterwards feedback).

We are not in an experimental phase of the game. As I wrote earlier: pre-planning together is much more efficient than telling ppl
give feedback after the event.

Also, I can live with the 40% in-element rule, tbh I like to plan decks with only 40% in-element. I just don't think it is a good idea,
for me the Trials should be about my element.

But 0% stuff is completely rubbish, as shock said it brings in too much unpredictability. In g#1 you can expect the element's decks
oooooor 7 different monos / a dozen of different duos. Cool. Ginyu's idea with Tinkerer actually might work. Don't know if players
would exploit it using a dead mark, but I think it would be logical to everyone to actually USE the mark, f.e. CP Wyrms/Psions.

Imagine if, once per game, your opponent could bring "The Deck" or Grabbow. For no reason other than that it's a strong deck. I firmly believe 0% in-element rule and allowing Rainbows should never be allowed to co-exist.

I never wished them to co-exist. I always wanted to allow Rainbows AND scrap 0% rule.

I assumed that we don't use rainbow decks in Trials because that does not represent the mastery over a single element.

Might be true, except for since Nova is an card. (Using that logic we should also ban SoV, since every element can make
its SoV deck, and the same applies to Lightstalls, too.) Also using SoSe dictates using other elements as well in your deck,
so it hurts 's shard, too.

Spoiler for Hidden:

If you think I'm angry: yes I am. If you think I'm angry because things don't go my way: you are mistaken.
What pisses me off that there isn't a real conversation, there are no real arguments, just the things I listed.

[Submachine]

I assumed that we don't use rainbow decks in Trials because that does not represent the mastery over a single element.

Might be true, except for since Nova is an card. (Using that logic we should also ban SoV, since every element can make its SoV deck, and the same applies to Lightstalls, too.) Also using SoSe dictates using other elements as well in your deck, so it hurts 's shard, too.

Something does not click with this response. The connection between Nova and SoV is very thin, almost non-existent. It's also not in response to my quote. But here are a few counterpoints, since you were asking for them:

• SoV can be used in duo decks, which the current rules favor.
• SoSe can be used in Entropy mono with Supernovas.
• If a deck is hurt, using other decks is the easiest option. If NovaBows were the only decks worth fielding by Entropy, your argument would have more power, but Entropy has more options than that. Just because it's the most fun/effective/etc to use, it does not mean it must be used at least once. Plus, the current rules don't necessarily disallow it, you just need to be efficient with the used elements.

[Wyand]

I assumed that we don't use rainbow decks in Trials because that does not represent the mastery over a single element.

Might be true, except for since Nova is an card. (Using that logic we should also ban SoV, since every element can make its SoV deck, and the same applies to Lightstalls, too.) Also using SoSe dictates using other elements as well in your deck, so it hurts 's shard, too.

Something does not click with this response. The connection between Nova and SoV is very thin, almost non-existent. It's also not in response to my quote. But here are a few counterpoints, since you were asking for them:

• SoV can be used in duo decks, which the current rules favor.

I think this is a misunderstanding. Yep, they are vastly different cards. The reason I mentioned SoV
and SoDstall because they share something important with Grabbow: the option to make
a (more or less) viable variant for any Element.

• SoSe can be used in Entropy mono with Supernovas.

The only situation where a Mono SoSe is a good idea, when you are forced to play Monos (did that in last year's 12 Lives).

• If a deck is hurt, using other decks is the easiest option. If NovaBows were the only decks worth fielding by Entropy, your argument would have more power, but Entropy has more options than that. Just because it's the most fun/effective/etc to use, it does not mean it must be used at least once.

This will never be the case, since every Element has more options than using only its power decks.
By this thinking we could ban anything (Devs, RT, Animate Weapon, anything you don't like) and
casually say "use other decks".

• Plus, the current rules don't necessarily disallow it, you just need to be efficient with the used elements.

Grabbows use 6-10 Elements. Good luck building a not-crippled Grabbow. (I know: "lel, just win first 2 games with monos
then win with a 6 Elements Grabbow".)

[serprex]

I like the idea of making 40% 20% as opposed to 0%. Curious what other TrOs think of that modification

I gave a flippant response earlier to Wyand because I recognize we're both stubborn, so both sides feel the other side isn't listening. Not interested in writing long opinion pieces

[TheonlyrealBeef]

I opted to keep rules simple, jijo had mentioned implementing pick as only allowing 2 cards at most from each element used, but it seems unnecessary.

[29.09.2019 22:55:29] TheonlyrealBeef: I guess as long as you limit it to max 2 cards per element, most elements couldn't care less about it being an option and cannot abuse it.

It looks like jijo is already Master of Darkness

Both rainbows and low in-element percentages are low on elemental loyalty, so lowering the in-element to 40% but not allowing rainbows invalidates that argument. Honestly, already with just 50% in-element people can make Adrenastaves, Catitans and RoL Hope with any element, to name but a few decks. Air SoFree and SoPa Wardens may be added to that list with 40% in-element, 0% is even worse. If you wanted rules that spurt creativity, why not increase the in-element percentage (60-80%)? It invalidates many historical meta decks and forces players to come up with new ways to counter known low off-element decks. It even makes rainbows irrelevant since you do not have enough off-elements to make proper use of it. Alternatively, allow pends to only count as half in-element to get rid of those lame 10 pends 2 in-element card decks.
An entirely different proposal to the rainbow issue, is to allow unlimited uses of each element. This allows people like me that do not need many off-element cards, to use more for bans, while people like Wyand get to play their rainbows. And with serprex' favorite same rules for everyone in the same element argument, I really do not see any good reason not to. It may make predictions harder at first glance due to more available elements, but bans can neglect that.

[MyNameIsJoey]

who is jijo?

[kaempfer13]

who is jijo?

AND HIS NAME IS JO-eh