Re: 12th Trials - Suggestions & Feedback

[JonathanCrazyJ]

Why is that a problem? It would only be a problem if you played someone with a different element in the final battle.

[Manuel]

it isn't a problem, the point is more bans = a little bit more of strategy, since phase 2 was so fun with limited elements and a good number of bans

[rob77dp]

-quote snip-

Most people view Trials as, first and firstmost, a competition for who would make the best General. Most of that is game knowledge, which is covered pretty extensively by both battle phases, and to some extent parts of Phase 1. But another big component is ability to assemble and effectively lead a team, and there can be question marks about a person's ability to do that until proven otherwise. Plus there's other considerations about Mastership that aren't purely PvP - it's not simply about like or dislike for most voters.

dani got 5 place last war I would call it T4th for DANI
rob got 2 time 9 place *ahem* War 7 - T5th / War 9 - T9th / War 10 - T7th

these """"""other considerations""""""" influenced so much to give 5 more upgrades to rob, i don't even talk about cactus
ofc these are only stats i have nothing against someone I have and would never pander for votes. I have also never asked for voters to share (private or public) why they _did_ vote for me so to imply to label them as not deserved is a bit condescending. (I get you're just using as example, but still it singles me out in a way I think is mis-aimed.)

a lot of players don't even sign-up for phase 3, not for being afraid of losing but because people don't like to be judged (same for irl, people have emotions)
i'm not saying to remove it, simply put a cap of 3 more max bans of your opponent, if u got 2 upgrades after phase 3, your opponent can get max 5 Presuming you meant bans upgrades then I could get on board with the upgrade count being capped from Phase 3.

-quote snip-

It may only modify and not negate the point you're trying to make but I feel correcting the placement statements is worth posting.

[Manuel]

lol i didn't check war 7 sorry

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war-archive/war-10-standings-62844/
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war-archive/war-9-standings/

if they are supposed to be in order, in both standings death is 9, dani is 5th http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war/war-11-standings/, this is what i checked

i really don't care why people voted u, if the description of what a vote should be is:

Most people view Trials as, first and firstmost, a competition for who would make the best General. Most of that is game knowledge, which is covered pretty extensively by both battle phases, and to some extent parts of Phase 1. But another big component is ability to assemble and effectively lead a team, and there can be question marks about a person's ability to do that until proven otherwise. Plus there's other considerations about Mastership that aren't purely PvP - it's not simply about like or dislike for most voters.

from this u can expect a 50/50 or a 60/40 between u and dani, right? both lead death, u lead it 3 times, dani 1 but made a better placement even if rules and market places are different every year and other things, no one if better than the other etc

vote for rob: 18
vote for dani: 3

seems like most votes are

it's not simply about like or dislike for most voters.

another time, these are only stats no offense or anything and your phase can be only a casuality and i am 100% wrong on everything

seriously do what u think is good from now i will think only for what benefit me rather than try to help other new/not well knowed members that are afraid of talking

[kaempfer13]

The flaw I see with the voting system is when you see both players as roughly equal your best option is not to vote (vote both in last trials). This means if hypothetically both players are exactly equal in terms of skill teamplay etc. (and assuming everyone agrees on that), but one of them is slightly more wellestablished thus "safer" and/or more associated with the element, that player would get 100% of the votes, making it impossible for the other one to catch up, even though he was just a tiny bit less wellknown.

[shockcannon]

I kind of like idea of cap on upgrades in phase 3. Not something drastic but maybe preventing stuff like 10-0 upgrades in favor of one person. I also like the idea of having a both worthy option, where if both worthy (or all worthy depending on the number of people I guess) gets over 50% of the total votes than all the trialists split the ugprades equally regardless of how other people voted.

[rob77dp]

Manuel-

It's OK - you're allowed to have your opinion, it's fine. Don't shy away from posting your opinion just because somebody replies to it or disagrees with part of it. Keep sharing! We can disagree in civility, and I think we have done so here.

[ddevans96]

I kind of like idea of cap on upgrades in phase 3. Not something drastic but maybe preventing stuff like 10-0 upgrades in favor of one person. I also like the idea of having a both worthy option, where if both worthy (or all worthy depending on the number of people I guess) gets over 50% of the total votes than all the trialists split the ugprades equally regardless of how other people voted.

I don't necessarily disagree with an upgrade cap, and I really like the idea of a Both Worthy option.


Personally, looking at every aspect of Mastership - I would give DANI the edge in PvP, both overall and given past results as General, and because of that I'm also surprised the vote wasn't closer. But rob is not far behind in either, has noticeably improved in PvP over the last two years, plus has a comparatively larger edge in community engagement, both overall (since Manuel brought up helping people, I'll point out rob has done a LOT of that over the years) and as a representative of Death (which some non-PvP folks value even higher than ability as General) - these are the 'other considerations' I talked about. I don't consider this about likeability, again, but I suppose I understand if others might.

That being said - if this is the kind of generalized situation others would like the community vote to have less of an impact on, I'm inclined to agree. It does feel odd at face value for an incumbent Master to get 1 upgrade from the community vote while a challenger gets 6, regardless of the situation surrounding that. I have no objections to scaling that differently.

[Linkcat]

Most people view Trials as, first and firstmost, a competition for who would make the best General. Most of that is game knowledge, which is covered pretty extensively by both battle phases, and to some extent parts of Phase 1. But another big component is ability to assemble and effectively lead a team, and there can be question marks about a person's ability to do that until proven otherwise. Plus there's other considerations about Mastership that aren't purely PvP - it's not simply about like or dislike for most voters.

from this u can expect a 50/50 or a 60/40 between u and dani, right? both lead death, u lead it 3 times, dani 1 but made a better placement even if rules and market places are different every year and other things, no one if better than the other etc

vote for rob: 18
vote for dani: 3

seems like most votes are

it's not simply about like or dislike for most voters.

another time, these are only stats no offense or anything and your phase can be only a casuality and i am 100% wrong on everything

seriously do what u think is good from now i will think only for what benefit me rather than try to help other new/not well knowed members that are afraid of talking

Mastership of an element is not -- or at least was not intended to be -- solely a PvP title. That is why there is a community vote. That is why when my choices are a 5+ year loyalist and productive member of the community with three prior masterships, and someone who only trialled for because it was the next element alphabetically, the answer as to who is more worthy is obvious, even if kaempfer *cough* I mean DANI got a few places higher in War. If Root came back and won War with , would that make him better suited than iancu to represent that element on the forums? I don't think so.

Now, with you being one of the most abrasive people on the forum, and Aves being one of the nicest, I'm sure you lost at least a few votes just because they liked him more. In this case I agree that the vote should have been closer.

I am not opposed to an upgrade cap for Phase 3. I support a Both Worthy option.

[Aves]

How does a 'Both Worthy' option work in Trials with more than two contenders? Admittedly, it's a bit moot since I believe the only Trial with more than 2 was Death, and we had way too many with only 1 participant. However, it's still worth fleshing out if you want to propose that change.

I think an upgrade cap for voting isn't inherently bad, but I don't think it's necessary. If somebody's getting 10-0'd in votes, then there's a reason why nobody's showing confidence in that person. As for our own voting disparity, Manuel, if you look at our PvP records, we've won a similar amount of tournaments. We've both won a War. And yes, you've certainly done better in the current phase 2 (and 4! ). But you have no generalships under your belt and less overall PvP experience, and your recent behavior with the rant posts doesn't exactly scream "I trust this person to lead my team to a glorious victory." If you reframe the "Who is most worthy?" question to "Which of these fine fellows would I enjoy working under/trust to lead me in a team," going off of dd's point, I think it might be easier to see why people weren't quite as enthused about your phase 3 prospects despite your superior recent PvP success.

Another thing I want to bring up-- I think loyalty bonuses were trimmed down a little too much. Legacy matters, and if you reduce that while keeping the power of STANDIN unchanged then you're giving an indirect buff to STANDIN.

[DANIEELA]

Since i was mentioned here,i will answer shortly.
Asking nicely all forum members who could participate in Trials,but havent,to not comment here.THX.BYE.

Same as i dont care/participate in Forum Games/Competitions and i know nothing about it.So i dont coment/vote there.

Last Death Trials i won,and some of you didnt liked it (i dont care really),and dont like it untill now btw.
So i should not use Dim.Shiels just for fair play?
This time i lost and im again mentioned from some irrelevant (not Trial players) comunity members.THX.BYE.

I admit that kempfer has won 4-th place in War,more than me.
So i should not bid on kaempfer just for fair play?
War has Teams and same as inactive players in Winning team got their forum icon,i was 4-th,because my team was.

Last thing i want to mention is PVP Parasite system.Think about it.THX.BYE.

Dont even bother to reply on this,because i will not read/answer (idc really).THX.BYE.

Spoiler for Linkcat:

Spoiler for Manuel:

[Manuel]

even if kaempfer *cough* I mean DANI

i still don't understand why some players can be almost "attacked" publicly while if i say something about a tournament rule i am abrasive
u don't even played war, team death's board is still private but yet u decided to say something like this, i don't think that a team with problems is able to score 4 or 5 in war with a "medium" element

But you have no generalships under your belt and less overall PvP experience, and your recent behavior with the rant posts doesn't exactly scream "I trust this person to lead my team to a glorious victory."

i'm not talking in my specific case, like i said is for having a more fairy + less intimidatory competition for new players and less knowed members, everyone can agree on the fact that 5+ upgrades can make a huge difference before skills believe in the heart of cards, right?
i probably got more votes than i deserved against your old general role and staff member, but u understand that players can't think to work 3 years for achieve all this for a competion, right?
about ranting i think everyone did it at some time, if all i was able to do was ranting i wasn't going to still try to make a competition more accessible for next year players after i won, this can backfire at me while defending

i'm glad this sort of cap can get some consideration