War #10 - Planned Changes (Discussion)

[ARTHANASIOS]

(ARTHANASIOS casts Raise Dead upon himself)

Suggestion:

 New role - The Trainer
The trainer would be a role who would participate in a team but who would not fight any PvP games. He will focus on testing decks for his/her team with the Trainer. Moreover, he/she is going to be (most) responsible for arranging the vault & providing deckbuilding ideas.
This would help with people who lack cards (especially rares) and/or have bad internet connection for PvP. Moreover, having a man/woman focusing entirely on deckbuilding, vault-building and deck testing is going to help reducing the days required for the deckbuilding phase in general.

(ARTHANASIOS casts Cloak with an infinite duration)

[RapidStar_]

(ARTHANASIOS casts Raise Dead upon himself)

Suggestion:

 New role - The Trainer
The trainer would be a role who would participate in a team but who would not fight any PvP games. He will focus on testing decks for his/her team with the Trainer. Moreover, he/she is going to be (most) responsible for arranging the vault & providing deckbuilding ideas.
This would help with people who lack cards (especially rares) and/or have bad internet connection for PvP. Moreover, having a man/woman focusing entirely on deckbuilding, vault-building and deck testing is going to help reducing the days required for the deckbuilding phase in general.

(ARTHANASIOS casts Cloak with an infinite duration)

Sure, this seems like a good idea but if I was in that role it would be super boring for me... Being in a team for war, just testing decks and NOT even being able to use them seems like an effort and something no one would want to do...

[Calindu]

Good luck getting far in war while your vault builder and deck builder is a newbie that lacks cards.
We don't have enough people to build active 5 man teams, having some other role that doesn't even fight will either prolong war(assuming we go with 4 duels for each team per round) or we'll fail to have enough people(the argument that people will sign up because there's not much work doesn't stand, as deckbuilding is most of the time you dedicate to war).

[majofa]

Keep teams at 6 but only have 5 matches. That gives you a one-person buffer in case someone goes afk. The team would just arrange the players in a thread in their team section stating the players who will be battling that round.

Yes, I did just quote myself.

[CCCombobreaker]

Keep teams at 6 but only have 5 matches. That gives you a one-person buffer in case someone goes afk. The team would just arrange the players in a thread in their team section stating the players who will be battling that round.

Yes, I did just quote myself.

I'll also take a moment to quote Majofa quoting Majofa because this is a simple solution that addresses multiple issues.

[iancudorinmarian]

Keep teams at 6 but only have 5 matches. That gives you a one-person buffer in case someone goes afk. The team would just arrange the players in a thread in their team section stating the players who will be battling that round.

Yes, I did just quote myself.

I'll also take a moment to quote Majofa quoting Majofa because this is a simple solution that addresses multiple issues.

The main issue with that is that we don't have so many people around anymore. We barely had enough people last war.

[ARTHANASIOS]

what about this:
We are going to have 2 wars taking place at the same time. The 1st War is going to include the top 6 elements (a.k.a. elements which have done well at war in the past) while the 2nd War will include the weak elements (a.k.a. elements that have done bad at past wars). The top 3 of each war are going to participate in a 3rd war which will be a final showdown. In certain cases, we can even allow people participating at both wars (e.g majofa is a soldier at team aether at high-tier war and a soldier at team life at low-tier war) but they will have to choose their team if both of them advance at the final 3rd-war phase (e.g majofa choose to play as an aether soldier instead of a life one and team life has to take a replacement at 3rd phase).

[Physsion]

what about this:
We are going to have 2 wars taking place at the same time. The 1st War is going to include the top 6 elements (a.k.a. elements which have done well at war in the past) while the 2nd War will include the weak elements (a.k.a. elements that have done bad at past wars). The top 3 of each war are going to participate in a 3rd war which will be a final showdown. In certain cases, we can even allow people participating at both wars (e.g majofa is a soldier at team aether at high-tier war and a soldier at team life at low-tier war) but they will have to choose their team if both of them advance at the final 3rd-war phase (e.g majofa choose to play as an aether soldier instead of a life one and team life has to take a replacement at 3rd phase).

Do you genuinely believe this is a good idea?

Keep teams at 6 but only have 5 matches. That gives you a one-person buffer in case someone goes afk. The team would just arrange the players in a thread in their team section stating the players who will be battling that round.

If we get 60 signups, we'll go for this. Several players have already expressed to me that they like the idea of having an extra player in case someone disappears, as well as having the option of rotating out of their match if they have a busy week.

[iancudorinmarian]

If we keep 6 players with 5 matches, please add a ruling regarding multiple subs per round. 1 sub is okay, but any further than that should be penalized imo. Certain teams last war really abused the fact that most generals allow full salvage anyway for fairness/not being considered an asshole.

[worldwideweb3]

If we keep 6 players with 5 matches, please add a ruling regarding multiple subs per round. 1 sub is okay, but any further than that should be penalized imo. Certain teams last war really abused the fact that most generals allow full salvage anyway for fairness/not being considered an asshole.

So if a team has 2 players who are active but due to bad timezone can't meet their respective opponents, whose fault is it?

[iancudorinmarian]

If we keep 6 players with 5 matches, please add a ruling regarding multiple subs per round. 1 sub is okay, but any further than that should be penalized imo. Certain teams last war really abused the fact that most generals allow full salvage anyway for fairness/not being considered an asshole.

So if a team has 2 players who are active but due to bad timezone can't meet their respective opponents, whose fault is it?

I'm not talking about 100 card penalties or anything like that. I'm just saying that the "Your opponent decides how much you salvage" should just be put at like 0 to 2 cards or something along that range.

And if you and your opponent are both active, you'll find a time even in opposite timezones. And if not, well, someone will get less salvage.

I don't think I'm asking for anything extreme here. I just don't want to see a player play like 3 matches every round with no penalty. Then what's the point of letting newbs play their matches? Just get them to work on the strategy and then let them be subbed every round by someone else.

[Calindu]

If we keep 6 players with 5 matches, please add a ruling regarding multiple subs per round. 1 sub is okay, but any further than that should be penalized imo. Certain teams last war really abused the fact that most generals allow full salvage anyway for fairness/not being considered an asshole.

So if a team has 2 players who are active but due to bad timezone can't meet their respective opponents, whose fault is it?

I'm not talking about 100 card penalties or anything like that. I'm just saying that the "Your opponent decides how much you salvage" should just be put at like 0 to 2 cards or something along that range.

And if you and your opponent are both active, you'll find a time even in opposite timezones. And if not, well, someone will get less salvage.

I don't think I'm asking for anything extreme here. I just don't want to see a player play like 3 matches every round with no penalty. Then what's the point of letting newbs play their matches? Just get them to work on the strategy and then let them be subbed every round by someone else.

What team abused that rule? Newbs are allowed to play the matches, no one subs them because they don't want the newbs to play, they sub them because they are inactive. Forcing a penalty because people go inactive is absurd, they are already pretty damaged by that, no need to hit them even harder. If you suspect foul play from the other team, just give them 0 salvage.