Event Cards (removed from the event)

[Sir Valimont]

You have no actual authority here, and thus your opinion is irrelevant to me and I will summarily ignore it.  Have a nice day.

If you are content to dismiss an argument not on its merit but on the status of its speaker, then that is your shortcoming and I can't help you past it.

In Elements, "These ends" (from the Declaration) are clear.  We're all here to have FUN.  And when the structure or rules of an event make things NOT FUN, we are all perfectly within our rights to take matters into our own hands, and alter or abolish the event.

Similarly, if you are so self-centered that you think when you sign up to participate in a free event it becomes your right to take it over when you want the rules to change, that is also your shortcoming.

I can do little more than point out these realities and hope that you will think about them. The single most important aspect of any debate, whether online or otherwise, is being thoughtful. You should consider that you and others have handled the event card situation in a less-than-perfect way and make actual strides to change your behavior in future similar situations. That's how any person, young or old, experienced or inexperienced, learns and becomes a better person. Your comments have, instead, continued to indicate that you think yourself unimpeachable and you place blame solely on others. I don't see any part of this debate where you or several other people have apologized to ScaredGirl or have apologized at least in part for something you did. "I am sorry this happened" does not cut it. Admitting you made a mistake is what you need to do.

You may take these considerations and do with them what you like; you and I are similar in that our pride can be hurt when people talk so directly to us. But I have learned to step back and consider the wisdom in what other people say even when I am at odds with them. Shortly after I first joined this forum I got into an argument about the War auction and used harsh and unnecessary language to defend a point in a forum post. ScaredGirl called me out for it. I realized she was right, and instead of arguing about the point I was trying to make which I still thought was right, I apologized for the way I conducted myself and we moved on. It's really not relevant in this event card situation whether the event card was good or bad; what's relevant is that you all handled it in such a way that ScaredGirl checked out of the event altogether. The least you could do is say you are sorry for what you did; better still would be to realize how you could improve your behavior for next time.

And you should realize that even if you hate my guts -- which would be without cause incidentally -- I really am completely impartial. I am not a crony of ScaredGirl -- actually I had sort of been at odds with her since we got into the argument I mentioned. But from an objective standpoint of a person who has himself built and moderated communities around websites (one in particular) I felt the need to write an individual editorial thread because my view was that you people reacted wrongly. You should realize that if several other people think this (and there are many more beyond me and ScaredGirl), perhaps we/they have a point, and perhaps you should understand that point and learn from it.

I understand that people in this community are tired of this debate and am about ready to stop talking about it. But I hope that everyone reading this leaves in a thoughtful way. I hope that we all come out of this thinking about how we all can do better next time, and not about how some other people besides ourselves need to do better.

Cheers to you all and hope to see you in War. I am undefeated so far ... perhaps we can take our differing views to the battlefield!

- Sir Valimont

[Scaredgirl]

First of all, any kind of personal attacks I see from now on will result in a swift punishment. Anyone incapable of getting emotional and personal, should not post on this topic.

Secondly, talking about this issue is perfectly acceptable because it is an important. You don't just sweep it under a rug and pretend everything is fine, because stunts like this one could have potentially taken down the whole event.


Sir Valimont is getting a lot of heat as usual, but he does have a good point if you actually read it instead of getting all emotional after the first few words.

The core question here is:
Who runs these events, the organizers, or the players?

The attitude expressed by the earlier post of Essence is the same attitude shared by many. It's the belief that organizers somehow work for players who have the ultimate say in everything. Apparently it's the job of an organizer to have their work first approved by the players before they can proceed. If the organizers don't ask community opinion first regarding every single detail, they have failed.

Lets say I run a tournament. Lets say a handful of players have a problem with some of the tournament rules. Are these players then allowed to ignore what the organizer says, and just use their own rules? Are the players allowed to pick and choose rules they like and ignore other rules? Is there someone who thinks this kind of behavior is ok?

Event Cards were approved by myself and our two Warmasters. They were never meant to be "fair" (word that many like to use in this luck based card game). Instead they were designed to make drastic changes to deckbuilding which would have made the whole event much more interesting. "Age.." cards were designed to put one element into the "spotlight" during a round. That element would have been like the "featured element" of the round, and most decks would have concentrated either on that element, or countering it. It would have been pretty cool to see what teams would have come up with. Unfortunately instead of taking it as a fun challenge, many teams took it as "unfairness" and somehow imagined having to fight fully upped decks and losing by default. As a deckbuilder, I find that to be ridiculous and weak.

And please lets not try to make this about freedom of speech and the right to express opinions. I have been very open with War planning, asking feedback, suggestions and help every step of the way. Only reason I didn't post Event Cards in advance was that this way they stay "fresh" and the event is more exciting because you don't know what to expect.

Remember, there's a big difference between..
1. posting feedback and asking for a change and
2. making up your own rules and/or threatening to quit (regardless of what the organizer says)

The latter is what happened here and I think it's wrong in many different levels. The scary thing here is that many people somehow see this whole thing as a "win". It tells me that they learned nothing, have no regrets, and would do the same exact thing if this happened again.

[guy_fawkes]

my opinion:
Ages.. cards with an unlimited Vault : GREAT IDEA
Ages.. cards with a FIXED Vault created WHEN there was no idea that those cards would have come up: BAD BAD IDEA

there's no strategy involved into this...
just luck and unfairness...

[kobisjeruk]

parallel to in game situation:

zanz thought up a new ability, neurotoxin that forces the opponent to discard a card whenever the creature deals damage to them
community was made aware of this and voice their opinions (with examples, 14 pages of it) and they've been heard

BUT, zanz could've just said "screw you guys, this r awesum!" and decide to keep neurotoxin as it is
how would it affect elementsthegame? will the game still be progressing forward, sure, but will it be a fun luck-based environment that we still enjoy thus far? doubt it
was the community wrong for asking for a change? because seems like it based on what SG/valimont said

i stand by what i said earlier, event cards idea is great but the Ages series is not well thought out
theres no way to know for sure how it will play out...

so go ahead, put those Ages back in War#3 or whatever and see how it'll play out
have fun with those 'spotlight' and pray to zanz those will be in your favor at the crucial moment
and SG, if you think theres too much drama before, wait until Ages are in effect to see what will come

remember folks, prevention is better than cure

you seems to push on the luck factor a lot on defending the Ages SG, i get that
but just think for a sec, let say there will be 12 rounds in all...and only 6 Ages will be used
just so happens a team, didnt have much cards in those 6 elements and their aligned Age never came (it was on Round 24)
creative deckbuilding? how much creative deckbuilding is there when you cant use any cards to benefit the event cards at all? (remember that we didnt know in advance what will come up)
you've just basically reduce the chance of winning for that team for the entire war, thats fun? for who?
dont tell me when against the odd, win will be much sweeter
just 6/3 upgraded cards bonus for General/Lt can make huge impact on the whole duel, now you want to make SOME team get that (with the possibility of a whole deck too!)? oh what fun to be had indeed
and hard luck to whoever didnt get to see their Ages...better luck next time war

another parallel (ok, not really); you have to go through 5 phases in Trials with tons of effort involved just to get some cards upgraded to use against your opponent
but now suddenly you get free upgrades whenever Age corresponding to what you got most of in your vault came up?
what the heck is that? (answer: luck)
so basically its not about who can came up with the best decks and best tactics to win the war...its about whos the luckiest
how awesome

(i've said to someone i wont post anymore but this^ needs to be said...but this will be all from me)

[TheonlyrealBeef]

I really am completely impartial.

That sentence kind of bothers me, I don't think anyone who is even slightly involved in the war can even be partially impartial. So far you seem to shove off all blame to the rest of the community like you blame the community to do, then again I am biased by being part of the community. You have (at the very least attempted) to make people think about the way they chose their words, but have you thought about yours? I find a lot of them insulting.

It looks mostly like a two team difference in which neither side is willing to admit they're wrong. Now we can both talk the entire topic full for several days, but I would like to see we all listen to each other first, if we're not prepared to listen to each others arguments there's no point in stating them. I've seen the same two bottom lines (forgive my abstraction) in almost every post so far, the "rebellious" participants of war are wrong / SV, SG are wrong.

I for one would like to see we don't post untill we have some new argument to add, which is why I'll just keep still now. Restating arguments doesn't help if the other side doesn't listen.....
(I do not mean to imply I do understand the "opposing side", I really don't know whether I'm fully getting the point, then again, uncertainty is a step in the right direction)

[Scaredgirl]

was the community wrong for asking for a change? because seems like it based on what SG/valimont said

You still don't get it, huh? Asking for a change and posting feedback is not a problem, making your own rules is.

If we used your "Zanz example", it wouldn't be like you said because all the players did was ask for a change. They posted feedback, Zanz listened to that feedback, and made the change. It was ultimately his decision, and that's how it's supposed to go because it's his game.

The correct way to use that example would be to say that instead of only posting feedback, the community decided to start threatening Zanz by saying "if you don't change it, we will quit", or "if you don't change it, we will hack the servers". That is a disrespectful way of doing things, thinking that because you are the player (of a free game), you have the right to do whatever you want to get your way, even sabotage the work of others.

Here's my philosophy: When I post game feedback, I don't demand anything. I post feedback simply to help the developers by giving new ideas etc. If they choose not to listen, that's their right as the owners of that game. I look at forum events the same exact way. The people who have built the thing, should run the show. It's their vision, not mine. I don't feel that, although having contributed nothing in the planning and organizing of an event, I somehow have the ultimate say in things because I'm a random player #63 in that event.

This is something the community should really think about if they want volunteers to run these events. Nobody wants to waste their time building these events, then having to deal with all kinds of drama and threats because players disagree with the rules.

I also urge that people, who have strong options and know what the correct way of doing things is, to build their own events and run them. We have a whole section for that, and anyone with a good idea can do it. This is a much more productive way of doing things and you have more control over the rules.


I tried to explain the situation as clearly as possible in my previous post. If a person still doesn't get it, I think the way we view the world and treat other people is so different, that there's nothing more I can say about it, so I will now stop trying to explain it.

[kobisjeruk]

Did you stop reading after that paragraph?

seems like you only focus on that part and completely ignore everything else i've said
and exactly how are we supposed to give feedback when...

a) we dont even know what kind of event cards ideas you've got that only you and 2 WMs discuss in private know
b) you put it up in R2 and swiftly remove it...before seeing it in action (which is a conundrum because you can say we made it go away)

so if you want to think of these...all these^ stuff we posted here and there as making our own rules
thats up to you
but there was no place in time to give feedback other than the original event card idea thread and you completely ignore your own post and that of another person

This is an idea I've talked about before. It uses the same mechanics found in many board games. The idea is that you draw one "Event Card" at the start of each round, and that card has some effect, positive or negative, that effects all the teams.

I support this idea, but you have to remember to make sure that these cards apply to EVERY element possible. For some elements, they either lack certain types of cards (mid-hitters, an arsenal of spells or permanents, rare cards, etc.) or lack cards in general (*hugs his imaginary Icybraker plushie awkwardly*). So as long as these Event Cards don't indirectly favor certain elements (like the one you have in your post SG), then I'd say it's a fantastic concept.

[Scaredgirl]

and exactly how are we supposed to give feedback when...

a) we dont even know what kind of event cards ideas you've got that only you and 2 WMs discuss in private know
b) you put it up in R2 and swiftly remove it...before seeing it in action (which is a conundrum because you can say we made it go away)

a) I already explained why the cards were kept a secret. Besides, feedback is usually given after something happens, in this case after the card is posted. Some people actually did this, but others chose a different path which is why we are in this situation. Had there been a civilized discussion about this, I'm sure that with slight changes, like nerfs, everything could have been fixed so that majority likes it. Some people would always be dissatisfied but this is the internet so that's nothing new.

b) if I hadn't removed them, it would have led to a total disaster. Like I've said before, if some teams went with boycott and others didn't, how do you think it would have played out? If you don't take advantage of upped card when others do, the "unfairness" aspect of it would skyrocket. "You only won because you used the OP Event Card!!".

but there was no place in time to give feedback other than the original event card idea thread and you completely ignore your own post and that of another person

This is an idea I've talked about before. It uses the same mechanics found in many board games. The idea is that you draw one "Event Card" at the start of each round, and that card has some effect, positive or negative, that effects all the teams.

I support this idea, but you have to remember to make sure that these cards apply to EVERY element possible. For some elements, they either lack certain types of cards (mid-hitters, an arsenal of spells or permanents, rare cards, etc.) or lack cards in general (*hugs his imaginary Icybraker plushie awkwardly*). So as long as these Event Cards don't indirectly favor certain elements (like the one you have in your post SG), then I'd say it's a fantastic concept.

Those cards would have affected all teams. Nothing I say there contradicts what actually happened.

I think you are confusing "listening feedback" to "taking orders from a player". I did read this particular feedback but I chose not to follow it. I wanted to have the "featured element of the round" thing, which is why I went with "Age.." cards. As an organizer, I feel I should have a power to make those kinds of decisions. I still feel that the concept would have been perfect for War. Only question is, should it have been capped at 6 upped cards or something to make it less "unfair"?

[Memorystick]

I think you are confusing "listening feedback" to "taking orders from a player". I did read this particular feedback but I chose not to follow it. I wanted to have the "featured element of the round" thing, which is why I went with "Age.." cards. As an organizer, I feel I should have a power to make those kinds of decisions. I still feel that the concept would have been perfect for War. Only question is, should it have been capped at 6 upped cards or something to make it less "unfair"?

I believe it was already "fair"- all elements had an equal chance to get their age card drawn. However, it was (or seemed) "unbalanced" (whether or not it actually was, I do not know). Capping it at 3 or 6 cards (per player, perhaps) would, imo, have made it (seem) more balanced. (Alternatively, give a disadvantage, discard/salvage-wise, when facing a deck that has less upped cards or that doesn't use that element, though I think the cap would be easier)

[kobisjeruk]

Only question is, should it have been capped at 6 upped cards or something to make it less "unfair"?

funny you should ask because i was going to post this in accordance to hyroen's effort (SOS Event Card)

	too "unfair", will cause drama
	less unfair but tolerable, minor drama
	best of all, no drama, "awesomesauce"

I still feel that the concept would have been perfect for War.

totally agree with that sentiment, 'event' can be seen as something that happens that affect the order
but when it borders on luck-based...much more than the effort put forth by teams, thats when i think the concept fail

i have absolutely no doubt that people wont give much fuss (least as much as what we've seen) if Age of Light were capped to some numbers instead of giving all non pillars/pendulums upgrade

[Scaredgirl]

Ok, I'll give my opinion on those cards.

	Boldest and most interesting option. Sure, not getting your card draw gives you a disadvantage, but so does everything else luck based like the coin toss at the beginning of a duel, or your opening hand. Instead of crying about unfairness, players should take it as a challenge and stop assuming that War is supposed to be like chess. Remember, everyone can use those cards. can use more than you? Get over it, it's a game.
	Less bold version of the previous card, but could work because the "featured card of the round" aspect still exist. Probably the best compromise, and the number 6 always makes sense.
	Boring and unimaginative. "Featured card of the round" aspect totally abandoned, which means round deckbuilding would see very small changes. If you want to see a card similar to this, you need to make 3 of these, one of each card type. So during one round you can use 6 upped creatures, then 6 permanents, then 6 spells. That would at least make some interesting changes to deckbuilding, instead of being a simple "everyone just take 6 random upped cards".

[10 men]

I'm really happy those "Age of Element" cards got the axe. In my opinion, in order to be fun, event cards should adhere to three rules:
- Add an interesting twist to the round, but not overshadow the round completely. They should be the icing on the cake, not what determines the winner of a round.
- Not be too obviously unbalanced towards some Elements. By doing this you make one team happy and demotivate eleven others.
- Be mostly upside. While it might be interesting for outsiders to watch people deal with difficulties, it not really the most thrilling thing for the participants to see their plans crushed. And it is just as interesting to see which team can make best use of the advantage an event card gives.
Some of the cards in the OP do not play by these rules.
First, the original age of *** just lets 11 teams play war and one team play genocide. I don't see wheres the fun with that. This doesn't mean that the idea that "One round, certain cards may be played upgraded" is bad as a whole. I wouldn't use Elements though, but for example card types. "Pillars may be played upgraded". "Spells may be played upgraded." etc.
The veils are pretty bad as well. I'm definitely not giving away too much information about our vault when I say that we would have had to play several decks where the mark did absolutely nothing. A much better option would be to give a salvage bonus to those who use the mark. This would lead to some nice strategic thinking, like "is it worth to weaken our deck to play mark X", "do we prepare more for certain marks", etc.