Player Auction

[MaxMilen]

Another option would be that not all players would have to be mercenaries. Players could sign up either as "loyalists" ("I'm playing for this element.") or "mercenaries" ("I'm playing for whoever will pay me more.")

[Scaredgirl]

We have a choice here:

1. Event balance
2. Players have a higher chance of getting to join a team they want.

We have to choose one of these, we cannot have both.

Everyone knows that if we allow veto, 50%+ will choose . That's no secret because we have had multiple polls on the weakest element, and what happened during War #1 will only strengthen that belief. This makes it really unfair for Master of because he cannot bid on many of the players at all. would be basically an "outsider" in this whole auction, having to pick scraps.

On the other side of the spectrum, would probably be on the "preferred" list of many players, giving Master of a big advantage.

War #1 has shown us what happens when one team is mostly new players and other team is all veterans. "Newbie" teams are dropping like flies, while "Veteran" teams are in the top-3. Do we really want this same thing to happen during War #2?

I want the event to be fair. This is why I don't like any kind of veto system.

Another option would be that not all players would have to be mercenaries. Players could sign up either as "loyalists" ("I'm playing for this element.") or "mercenaries" ("I'm playing for whoever will pay me more.")

Hey, that's an awesome idea. But it needs some tweaking because if the Loyalist is only loyal to one Element, there is no auction.

We could make it so that Loyalist has to choose three elements, and only these 3 elements can bid. Mercenaries can be bid on by everyone, like you said. The catch would be that if you buy a Loyalist, you have to pay 3 cards on top of what you bid.

This would mean that players who are more flexible and willing to fight for any element, would be cheaper.

[PuppyChow]

We have a choice here:

1. Event balance
2. Players have a higher chance of getting to join a team they want.

We have to choose one of these, we cannot have both.

Everyone knows that if we allow veto, 50%+ will choose . That's no secret because we have had multiple polls on the weakest element, and what happened during War #1 will only strengthen that belief. This makes it really unfair for Master of because he cannot bid on many of the players at all. would be basically an "outsider" in this whole auction, having to pick scraps.

On the other side of the spectrum, would probably be on the "preferred" list of many players, giving Master of a big advantage.

War #1 has shown us what happens when one team is mostly new players and other team is all veterans. "Newbie" teams are dropping like flies, while "Veteran" teams are in the top-3. Do we really want this same thing to happen during War #2?

I want the event to be fair. This is why I don't like any kind of veto system.

Keep in mind wings is coming up. Your point still stands, but may actually be one of the stronger elements next time.

To solve this, you could make it so that the +/- is actually added on to the bids. So if you say you want earth, then earth will have to pay a penalty if they bid on you.

Overall, I would want option two, since more people would be happy. People being happy > event being fair. IMO. This could be a situation for a poll since there ARE two options with different merits.

[$$$man]

We have a choice here:

1. Event balance
2. Players have a higher chance of getting to join a team they want.

We have to choose one of these, we cannot have both.

Everyone knows that if we allow veto, 50%+ will choose . That's no secret because we have had multiple polls on the weakest element, and what happened during War #1 will only strengthen that belief. This makes it really unfair for Master of because he cannot bid on many of the players at all. would be basically an "outsider" in this whole auction, having to pick scraps.

On the other side of the spectrum, would probably be on the "preferred" list of many players, giving Master of a big advantage.

War #1 has shown us what happens when one team is mostly new players and other team is all veterans. "Newbie" teams are dropping like flies, while "Veteran" teams are in the top-3. Do we really want this same thing to happen during War #2?

I want the event to be fair. This is why I don't like any kind of veto system.

Keep in mind wings is coming up. Your point still stands, but may actually be one of the stronger elements next time.

To solve this, you could make it so that the +/- is actually added on to the bids. So if you say you want earth, then earth will have to pay a penalty if they bid on you.

Overall, I would want option two, since more people would be happy. People being happy > event being fair. IMO. This could be a situation for a poll since there ARE two options with different merits.

people being happy beats event being fair especcialy since the  only reward for the war if the bakground changes so even if you lose it's not that bad most ppl are joining this for fun and not for to always win cuz they know that they may not happen and ther is no way whatsoever this event could ever be fair simply due to the cards diffrent elements posses

[Malduk]

We have a choice here:

1. Event balance
2. Players have a higher chance of getting to join a team they want.

We have to choose one of these, we cannot have both.

Everyone knows that if we allow veto, 50%+ will choose . That's no secret because we have had multiple polls on the weakest element, and what happened during War #1 will only strengthen that belief. This makes it really unfair for Master of because he cannot bid on many of the players at all. would be basically an "outsider" in this whole auction, having to pick scraps.

On the other side of the spectrum, would probably be on the "preferred" list of many players, giving Master of a big advantage.

War #1 has shown us what happens when one team is mostly new players and other team is all veterans. "Newbie" teams are dropping like flies, while "Veteran" teams are in the top-3. Do we really want this same thing to happen during War #2?

I want the event to be fair. This is why I don't like any kind of veto system.

Another option would be that not all players would have to be mercenaries. Players could sign up either as "loyalists" ("I'm playing for this element.") or "mercenaries" ("I'm playing for whoever will pay me more.")

Hey, that's an awesome idea. But it needs some tweaking because if the Loyalist is only loyal to one Element, there is no auction.

We could make it so that Loyalist has to choose three elements, and only these 3 elements can bid. Mercenaries can be bid on by everyone, like you said. The catch would be that if you buy a Loyalist, you have to pay 3 cards on top of what you bid.

This would mean that players who are more flexible and willing to fight for any element, would be cheaper.

Forgive me for being dumb and slow, but I still dont understand this.
It is good idea if people pick only 3 elements they want to fight for (aka loyalists), but it is a bad idea if people pick "only" 10 elements they want to fight for?

In that poll about weakest element, took 2nd place. Light has a great team and is doing great in the war. Even if 50%+ players pick to veto , I'm willing to bet that most of those people will actually be noobs adopting views of majority.
What you need in war is 1-2 good/active players beside Master. You dont think will manage to bid for those? It has actually a great chance in bidding system, as there wont be "stacked" teams. Besides, I joined War #1 as many others - "I dont have favorite element, whoever wants me, gets me". MrBlonde sent a first PM and that was it. If master did that, I'd be there now.

About event being fair, you're looking only at options for Masters. One Master actually. While taking away players choice.

And on a final note, yes you can have both happy players and event balance. With bidding system, veterans will disperse among teams with or without veto. If you cannot bid on veteran who placed a veto on your element, you sure can bid on veteran that didnt place veto on your element.

[safko01]

I really like this idea but I feel like we are over complicating it when talking about adding cards to people's bids or vetos or what not.

Why not keep it simple the highest bidder gets the player (no ties).  If a player is going to really be that upset about being picked by an element than he can just quit the war and that master gets to repick another player.

If we wanted to talk about ways players can avoid being picked by masters well SELL ALL the cards of one elements and a master is going to be very reluctant to pick you.  Wouldn't this be the easiest way to give the player some choice and also keep things simple?

[Malduk]

Its not really that complicated.

"Hi, I'm XY. I have those cards, and am applying for war event. My score and whatever I want to write about myself is this and that.

Oh, and also, veto on that element."

[Scaredgirl]

Forgive me for being dumb and slow, but I still dont understand this.
It is good idea if people pick only 3 elements they want to fight for (aka loyalists), but it is a bad idea if people pick "only" 10 elements they want to fight for?

There's a big difference.

With a veto system everyone can just veto what they consider to be weak elements, giving those elements a major disadvantage. And lets not fool ourselves, everyone knows that there is a clear preference in the community when it comes to choosing elements.

Lets say all the top-20 most active players vetoed . That would mean that has a zero chance of getting any of those top-20 most active players. You don't see a problem with that?

With this Loyalist system players could still choose preferred elements (3 of them) but the Masters would have to pay more for them. This would enable high-value players to become loyalists, but it would also mean that Master take a card disadvantage if they pick Loyalists.

I'm not saying that this is how it will be, but it's certainly an interesting idea, and the only one so far that tries to balance things from an objective perspective.

[DrunkDestroyer]

Players who want to join Wat will then each start their own "job application" thread where they include important information about themselves like their score and upped cards. There is no limit to how many people can apply so there could be 200 threads.

Just so you know, War uses unupped cards only.That said, though, I'd personally agree that a veto system would probably be a good idea. Of course, whether a given player actually does veto any elements should be up to them, and there should definitely be a pretty low upper limit on how many elements are veto'd.

Anyone else see the problem?

[Scaredgirl]

Players who want to join Wat will then each start their own "job application" thread where they include important information about themselves like their score and upped cards. There is no limit to how many people can apply so there could be 200 threads.

Just so you know, War uses unupped cards only.That said, though, I'd personally agree that a veto system would probably be a good idea. Of course, whether a given player actually does veto any elements should be up to them, and there should definitely be a pretty low upper limit on how many elements are veto'd.

Anyone else see the problem?

That should of course say rare cards.

[Malduk]

Forgive me for being dumb and slow, but I still dont understand this.
It is good idea if people pick only 3 elements they want to fight for (aka loyalists), but it is a bad idea if people pick "only" 10 elements they want to fight for?

There's a big difference.

With a veto system everyone can just veto what they consider to be weak elements, giving those elements a major disadvantage. And lets not fool ourselves, everyone knows that there is a clear preference in the community when it comes to choosing elements.

Lets say all the top-20 most active players vetoed . That would mean that has a zero chance of getting any of those top-20 most active players. You don't see a problem with that?

With this Loyalist system players could still choose preferred elements (3 of them) but the Masters would have to pay more for them. This would enable high-value players to become loyalists, but it would also mean that Master take a card disadvantage if they pick Loyalists.

I'm not saying that this is how it will be, but it's certainly an interesting idea, and the only one so far that tries to balance things from an objective perspective.

This is where we disagree then.
Firstly, I think there will always be enough active people to bid on. With all the interest and attention war is getting, with all these posts saying how they wouldnt veto anything, I just dont see a scenario of total elimination of one element by "active" players.
There's also a factor where people are entering this to have fun. It is pretty clear that some elements are just stronger than others, and thus have higher chance of winning. And yet, elements were filled rather quickly except for which is the fault of its MASTER, not the element itself.
I just think you're sacrificing players "happiness" for a highly unlikely scenario.

[MaxMilen]

Had I even noticed that part of Scaredgirl's post, I'd probably have assumed that she meant rares anyway.

If we're lucky, then by the time this next war happens, we'll be able to downgrade our cards. (I'd need to -- almost all of my rares are already upgraded.)