5th Trials - Suggestions and Feedback

[OldTrees]

I personally agree with OldTrees, but only in principle - you shouldn't get points for doing a bad job. However, if this becomes reality, I consider it would be at the very least fair to add more possible tasks to choose from, as I would find it truely incorrect for a person to have a lower chance at becoming a Master because he isn't good at card design, which is totally unrelated to being a Master.

I agree that there should be several possible tasks of which each person is only expected* to do a subset. It is unrealistic to assume the Masters will also be masters of all aspects of EtG including but not limited to the mechanical aspects of Tactics(PvP), Strategy(Deck Building), Grand Strategy(War) and Resource Analysis(Card Design). However it is reasonable for Masters to be masters of the aspects of EtG they wish to showcase in Trials.

*Thus extra work should not give extra credit though it might swat voters.

[suxerz]

I personally agree with OldTrees, but only in principle - you shouldn't get points for doing a bad job. However, if this becomes reality, I consider it would be at the very least fair to add more possible tasks to choose from, as I would find it truely incorrect for a person to have a lower chance at becoming a Master because he isn't good at card design, which is totally unrelated to being a Master.

I totally disagree. In fact, no one should be better suited at making cards of an element than a master of that element. Why? Because being Master means that (in theory) you know what the problems/themes are with your element. Being able to put down ideas will show your level of understanding of what your element is & needs.

That doesn't mean you can't lay out your ideas in a different manner. 
I guess different people have different expectation of this whole master title. To me, someone with a master title is not supposed to be the all-knowing type of guy and go all fanatic about the game balancing, etc. Besides, how does that help in war, the most obvious role for a master? Although I know it is not compulsory, I personally wouldn't vote for anyone who is competing the trials without any intention of leading the war because it seems like you're taking the glory without wanting to do the actual work. I'm not saying that designing cards and providing suggestions to improve the game are useless, I just don't expect a good master to do all that.

edit: double ninja'd >_>

[kev]

I'd rather see 5-8 from which one chooses ~3 to get full points.

Having a variety of Phase 1 options from which each participant could choose is feedback that has been given more than once in here.  To date there haven't been many recommendations for what these options might be, though.  And there's no better place to put them than right here in the S&F thread...

[OldTrees]

1) Wiki / Design Theory Article
2) Card Suggestions
3) Deckbuilding advise/criticism
4) PvE challenge (FG, halfbloods and/or Arena)

[YoungSot]

1) Wiki / Design Theory Article
2) Card Suggestions
3) Deckbuilding advise/criticism
4) PvE challenge (FG, halfbloods and/or Arena)

5) Design an event.
6) write a tutorial or strategy guide.
7) Mentor a newbie.

Just thinking out loud.

[OldTrees]

I do not think mentoring newbies should be included. It is harder to track and takes longer than reasonable for Trials.

A tutorial/strategy guide might fit in the Article section or it might not.

Good point about an event. This would not fit the concept of Masters as Generals in War but would fit the concept of Masters as Leaders.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

It's too bad stuff like WoE is currently at a halt, or I wouldn't mind seeing it involved in trials: like thinking up an NPC with background, deck, portrait, theme and everything or a quest or whatever.
Basically a somewhat time intensive task, comparable to other tasks, that benefits the forum. Maybe even a quiz? I don't know what section could use help with what, but if it's forums + game related one could make it a task

1) Wiki / Design Theory Article
2) Card Suggestions
3) Deckbuilding advise/criticism
4) PvE challenge (FG, halfbloods and/or Arena)

5) Design an event.
6) write a tutorial or strategy guide.
7) Mentor a newbie.

Just thinking out loud.

I personally think 1 - 6 are all good examples of this, 7 not so much. Then again, I've never really been into this Mentoring thing :p

[deuce22]

For Phase 2, I think the bans should be posted at least a few days before duels begin to allow for deckbuilding. As it is now, we have 7 days to deckbuild AND play up to 7 bo5 matches. I'm doing absolutely nothing for 1 week, then get completely swamped the next week.

Otherwise, just shorten the registration period. A full week seems a little excessive, especially since the majority of challengers participated in phase 1 and registered within the first 48 hours.

[Onizuka]

Nuu but I like being a long egg sitter D:

[Onizuka]

I don't think 6 upp/8(or 9) off element is that far of a stretch from 6 upp/6 off element, and allows for much more flexibility.

[xdude]

[17:06:33] xdude: wait kev, 1 question. So if you win once and get 2nd you gain 2+1, right?
[17:08:52] kevkev60614: no. sorry if that wasn't clear.
[17:09:07] kevkev60614: "points" as i have it worded there are just used to determine rank
[17:09:18] xdude: ?
[17:09:24] xdude: oh
[17:09:29] kevkev60614: 2nd place is 2 pts
[17:09:39] xdude: OK. I was confused because points was used with 2 meanings
[17:09:48] xdude: thanks
[17:10:10] kevkev60614: np
[17:10:09] xdude: that would've been a neat idea though
[17:10:19] xdude: IMO
[17:13:01] kevkev60614: ‹@xdude› sounds like it fits in the S&F thread.

[Onizuka]

Thoughts on Phase 2:
I like banning cards. Last trials there was an informal banning of decks in darkness trials, which this does well. I'd prefer each person get their own separate bans (One point of view: What you ban also shows ability), but falling to majority also works.

Personal bans would also be a lot more work for all parties, so I can see why we wouldn't use them.