5th Trials - Phase 4 - The Final Battle

[YoungSot]

It might be worth clarifying whether the increasing cost for banning out-of-element cards applies just to banning multiple cards from a single non-trials element, or multiple out-of-element cards in general. I was assuming the latter but some trialers seem to think it's the former.

Looking at the examples, it looks like the cost increases within each element, not just overall.

Yeah oops somehow missed the example entirely. 

[MrBlonde]

oh wow.... good thing i looked at this again as i would have not banned enough cards.

I thought off element was going to be cumulative throughout all elements so four total off element bans from different elements would have a cost of 16 instead of 4. Wow... i have to agree with Naps, this seems like too many bans.

[ralouf]

Yeah I understood this badly too at the beginning.

BAN ALL THE CARDS  !

[Jenkar]

So many bans, to throw on the ground, like THIS, and THIS, and THAT, and even THIS!

I'm an aduuuuuuuuuuuuuuult!

[ak65ala]

Minimum bans: 0

okay okay, minimum bans: 5 (2 in-element, 2 out of same out of element, one other, something)

Maximum bans: 16  (1 in element, 11 out of each out of element, 2 other, 2 from either other or two different out of element)

could be 17 if you ban nothing in element, but... well, okay, maximum = 17.

That is less than 10% of the available bannable card pool.  Why is this too much?

[bogtro]

Because not all elements are able to effectively use every card in the game (actually, no elements are capable of using more than a small fraction of the card base). You can also easily ban all decent counters to certain strategies with several points left over (e.g. gravity can ban RT, Freeze, BB, etc.  for use of acceletitans as a quick example that is easily debunked, but there are other more involved strategies). I think this is a very large amount of bans, but it will be interesting to see what is come up with.

[ak65ala]

Because not all elements are able to effectively use every card in the game (actually, no elements are capable of using more than a small fraction of the card base). You can also easily ban all decent counters to certain strategies with several points left over (e.g. gravity can ban RT, Freeze, BB, etc.  for use of acceletitans as a quick example that is easily debunked, but there are other more involved strategies). I think this is a very large amount of bans, but it will be interesting to see what is come up with.

1: just because a card is not 'strong' does not mean an element can not make use of it.  If you take out even 50% of the cards, you can make a solid deck with what is left.  It is all relative.

2: You EACH get bans.  You not only can ban out certain strategies, your opponent can too.  If he lets you use acceletitans and did not ban properly, that is is fault, not the system.

3: Inventiveness should reward victory.  This banning system is a very good step towards that goal.  Can you say it is worse than banning entire elements on use like the last master's tournament?

4: Shards... hmmmm... those will be the interesting buggers.  Have they seen a PvP event before?

[xdude]

Not sure what I think about the banning system this time around. It could be great, but it could also lead to a bunch of semi-upgraded AI3's fighting eachother. Oh well, gl hf!

Edit: Also, I assume Other counts torwards the in-element restriction but it doesn't hurt to make sure. So, does it?

[~Napalm]

It's too much because I said it's too much. From 6 to 16 (realistically) is a MASSIVE jump. In fact, it's a 167% increase. I personally feel this is rather excessive. I don't mind being more inventive with bans and I really like where this system is headed, I just think it could be fine tuned to prevent so MANY bans. Is an excessive amount of bans necessarily a bad thing? Well we're about to find out. I personally enjoy a little bit more creative freedom, but this many bans might force me to get a little more creative. There will be good and bad I think, but my initial impression is that allowing for 16 bans (again, realistically) is overkill.

[kev]

If you and your opponent both agree to it and you have each sent me your bans, I will PM you each others bans so you can begin deckbuilding early.  Don't feel you have to do this, as the only real reasons to find out early are time constraints and crippling impatience.

To send your bans to each other early I need confirmation from both players that they wish to do so.  Please do not send bans to each other without me first verifying that they're valid.  Also please don't share your bans or your opponent's bans with anyone else until after I've made them all public.

So far I have received zero illegal ban submissions.  Nice work, peeps.

[kev]

Edit: Also, I assume Other counts torwards the in-element restriction but it doesn't hurt to make sure. So, does it?

No it doesn't.  I updated the opening post with the following clarification:

- At least half of the cards in your deck have to be in-element.  Rest of cards can be from any element or 'other'.  This means a 31-card deck must have 16 or more in-element cards.  A 31-card deck with 15 in-element cards is illegal.

[xdude]

*just kev being awesome*

Thanks!