Event Cards (removed from the event)

[Hyroen]

I think the big picture is being left alone...

Had ScaredGirl something or someone to run things by, council for example, this would not have happened in the first place. It would've been evident that people would not like the elemental advantage cards, and this problem would've been avoided.

Getting rid of all event cards seems exaggerated in my honest opinion, but I can imagine ScaredGirl's distress and disillusion.

Had this been run through, say Elements Council, also ensuring to tell all Generals what the entire list of Event Cards would be, glitches (sorry Gl1tch) would've been reduced to a minimum.

A council was created for the purpose of having the community communicate with those in power, and having a mutually benefiting relationship. I assumed that as the Event Cards were made by ScaredGirl and other people without bias, the cards themselves would be fair for all, but by a community consensus, it was clear that they were not.

ScaredGirl, don't take it to heart, we appreciated all your hard work, and would've enjoyed the Event Cards to stay, but I'm glad you took decisions that would reduce your stress, I think we all know you don't deserve more.

[icecoldbro]

The events in esssence sounded quite fun to me adding to the luck factor involoved in each match and adding a new source of strategy for each new round

[Xinef]

I guess one of the problems it that Elements War is viewed by many people (including myself) as the grandest show of skill, tactics, strategy and experience, with a reward for mastering these.
I guess most people would like such an event to be as unbiased, balanced and just as possible.

On the other hand, some people might see this as an event designed purely for fun, where it's acceptable if someone loses due to bad luck, because it has no serious consequences.


I guess the War is in fact a mix of these two, but it would be better to keep these a bit more separate. Eg. make war less random and more of a balanced tournament, while having other events more based on luck.

Yeah, I guess it's a very blurry matter, and something that probably won't be fixed in this war, or the #3 one, or probably none at all, but I just express my opinion. That's all.

[Essence]

Just my two cents: again, a great set of rules and ideas that fell victim to a failure to understand the difference between "fair" and "balanced".  It is, in theory over several Wars, "fair" to have a card that strongly promotes some participants over others, because everyone has an equal chance of getting their Age drawn.

But it's completely NOT "balanced", because in the short term, in a way that might very well make a MASSIVE difference in the outcome of any individual War, the Age (and, to a lesser but still significant degree, the Veil) cards do actually give one team a clear advantage over all of the others.

Players want interesting, they want cool, and they want fair -- but most gamers, at the heart of things, want balanced more than they want any of those other things.   The concept of Event cards was awesome, and all of the cards that don't directly name one or more Elements are awesome, but the instant that you start creative massive imbalances, even for only one round, even with the chance of an equal imbalance in someone else's favor later, gamers get pissed.

We learned this as a system-wide failure in the original attempt at a War.  We learned this as an item-specific failure here.  Hopefully, we won't have to learn it again.

[Sir Valimont]

These two sentences are related:

I will accept the fact that you (Sir Valimont) believe me immature. I just did what i felt was right ethically.

This is not a matter of ethics, not even slightly. It's a matter of (possibly) a game mechanic that's unbalanced. If that's the case then there are appropriate ways to handle the situation, the default which is to play on and go back and address the issues afterwards. Instead you incited a rebellion.

[tyranim]

*facepalms* i should have voted yes...

[Xinef]

Just my two cents: again, a great set of rules and ideas that fell victim to a failure to understand the difference between "fair" and "balanced".

I think different people define "just" and "balanced" in different ways.

For example one person might define "balanced" as "everyone having the same chances to win", other "everyone with the same skill and experience having the same chances to win, while skill and experience increase your chances", other person might define it as "(the same as above) + something else" and so on. For example someone might think that being a master should give you an advantage, or else it's not balanced.  Someone might think that's the opposite. Someone might think that some elements should be strong against other elements and weak against other elements, someone else might think that it's more balanced if every element is equally strong against every other element.

It's similar with definitions of fairness.
For some people it's very close in meaning to fairness. For example, from your post I'd take you understand "fairness" as being more long-term, while "balanced" as being short-term, but roughly a similar meaning. If that's not what you mean then please correct me.
On the other hand, I understand fairness as a more ethical term. For example I'd say that it is unfair to close an event for newbies, because they also want to play. It has nothing to do with balance. It has to do with what people want and what they get. I want a possibility to to win the war with skill and strategy, and if some 'random event' decreases my chances to do so (even very slightly) I'd say that the event is unfair (even very slightly).

Instead you incited a rebellion.

Please, change your definition of rebellion.
If it includes acts that are not breaking any laws and not attacking anyone, then it might really cause problems, as most people don't consider boycott a rebellion.

[QuantumT]

These two sentences are related:

I will accept the fact that you (Sir Valimont) believe me immature. I just did what i felt was right ethically.

This is not a matter of ethics, not even slightly. It's a matter of (possibly) a game mechanic that's unbalanced. If that's the case then there are appropriate ways to handle the situation, the default which is to play on and go back and address the issues afterwards. Instead you incited a rebellion.

So now you're dumping on his system of ethics too? Perhaps his system demands that he speak up when something isn't fair. And there is absolutely no debate on the event card being unbalanced.

Why let the entire war be screwed up by waiting until the end?

Rebellion is a bit strong. He just tried to get everyone to agree to ignore the event cards. It's not he told everyone to just drop out of the war.

[Sir Valimont]

So now you're dumping on his system of ethics too? Perhaps his system demands that he speak up when something isn't fair. And there is absolutely no debate on the event card being unbalanced.

No of course I'm not questioning MrBlonde's ethics. I don't think "ethics" come into play at all. It's just silliness to use words like that at all. This is a game. A card gives one team an advantage. How is that "ethical" or "unethical" ?

[tyranim]

These two sentences are related:

I will accept the fact that you (Sir Valimont) believe me immature. I just did what i felt was right ethically.

This is not a matter of ethics, not even slightly. It's a matter of (possibly) a game mechanic that's unbalanced. If that's the case then there are appropriate ways to handle the situation, the default which is to play on and go back and address the issues afterwards. Instead you incited a rebellion.

what would the world be without rebelion? it would NEVER change. would you like to have a very high chance of being a slave or a pauper?

[MrBlonde]

This is not a matter of ethics, not even slightly. It's a matter of (possibly) a game mechanic that's unbalanced. If that's the case then there are appropriate ways to handle the situation, the default which is to play on and go back and address the issues afterwards. Instead you incited a rebellion.

If you believe i incited a rebellion that's your right. I'm not going to argue with you on this about semantics or use any grand analogies. I did what i thought was right. I simply let everyone know what my team was going to do because i did not think the event card was fair.

I did not threaten to quit. I did not tell anyone to follow my lead. I made no demands. I was prepared to go the whole War being the only team not taking these upped cards. I told my team not to bring up the upped card differences whether we won or loss.

I feel right now you just want to argue to argue.

Ethics - basically what someone believes is right or wrong. I probably used the word a little liberally but i believe the advantage given would be wrong.

[Sir Valimont]

1) It is not your place to decide that a rule decided upon by the organizers is "unacceptable."

Why not? We're part of the community too. Doesn't our opinion matter?

Yes of course it matters! A lot actually because this is a fairly new game that's still undergoing major development!

But that doesn't mean that you have the right to ignore rules just because you don't like them. When you sign up to play a game, you sign up to follow the rules. There was never any guarantee that event cards would be perfectly balanced. If you feel like that card was so incredibly unbalanced that you don't want to play anymore, then that's your choice, but disrupting the game for everyone else is not a choice that you have and in doing so you are breaking the agreement you made to follow the rules of the game.

2) You have no recourse that is "within the rules." What you incited was quite outside of the rules. In normal circumstances you would be banned from the event. Understandably so.

Deciding as a group to ignore the event cards is perfectly well within the rules. Show me where in the rules it says that it isn't.

There is no law in America that says I can't eat my neighbor's car. But if I did eat my neighbor's car I would be arrested.

Some rules are understood. There is no rule against you deciding not to take an advantage. If you wanted to build a deck with no upped cards, that's totally fine. However, when you start organizing a boycott that involves a single other player, or when you advertise that you are not going to use upped cards as an attempt to convince others to do so, you are breaking the rules. Specifically you are breaking the obvious (even if not written) rule that event cards are meant to have an effect on the game. Think about it this way: If you tried to convince every Elements player not to use Otyughs, you would be breaking the rules. Maybe it's a "rule of conduct" but it's a rule nonetheless, and it's a good enough reason to kick you out of the community in most cases.

3) Your feeling that the event is somehow "unfair" is actually less important than continuing to act in an appropriate fashion. Stirring up "rebellion" of any kind is not the latter at all in any context.

Our decision to ignore the event cards is acceptable, so this point is irrelevant.

Again, you could ignore what you want, that is your decision. However, organizing a boycott is not acceptable at all. By definition! A boycott can only happen if it's illegal!

4) This has nothing to do with civil rights and there is no righteousness on your side. Only self-importance and disrespect for the organizers. You are not a member of an oppressed mass; you are a gamer who is given the privilege of many hours of someone else's time to be here in this event. Rather than oppressing you, the organizers here actively engage the community for its input -- not because they have to but because they want to give as much to the community as they can. You are not fighting for something "greater." You are not Gandhi, you are not Rosa Parks. You are a kid playing an internet game. And all you are doing is screwing up a community event.

The only difference is a vast one in scale. And if the community thinks that the event card screws up the community event, doesn't that matter?

Let me give you an example of a another event card that would be unfair if it were instituted and would receive an even bigger backlash.

Will of the Gods- This round the victor of all matches is determined by a coin flip.

There is a major difference that has nothing to do with scale. The concerns of the civil rights movement have to do with human rights, decency and fairness. The concerns of whether or not an event card is balanced in Elements War has nothing to do with human rights, decency or fairness. It is not "unfair" for a card to be unbalanced. It is within the rules of the game. Something "unfair" would be outside of the rules of the game, like that the winner of a battle has to pay SG $10 or something.