| Round | Discards from deck | Discards from vault | Total Discards | Salvage |
| 1 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| 2 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 6 |
| 3 | 10 | 8 | 18 | 6 |
| 4+ | 15 | 9 | 24 | 6 |
| Role | Upgrades |
| General | 12 |
| Lieutenant | 10 |
| Upgrades Boost | 8 |
| Soldier | 7 |
Gambler's low payout was prolly due to variance: please try to make it less of a... well, gamble?.
25% has performed decently in Trials, so maybe start there for Tinkerer? Of course in Trials it's to ensure you're duoing with another element instead of building an in-element mono, while here it's to prevent off-element monos so there's prolly differences.
Upgrade boost is too weak now, whaaa. Still think Lt. should just be a second stab at every role, maybe with +1 upgrade?
SDCTP -- I have no issue with the proposed "Total Discards" and "Salvage" values but would like to ask for clarification on discards from deck, discards from vault, and the phrase/sub-note '"Vault discards" can also be picked from the losing deck.' as it seems to contradict the idea that the two categories of discard are even separate/different.
SDCTP -- I have no issue with the proposed "Total Discards" and "Salvage" values but would like to ask for clarification on discards from deck, discards from vault, and the phrase/sub-note '"Vault discards" can also be picked from the losing deck.' as it seems to contradict the idea that the two categories of discard are even separate/different.
Discards from the deck must be taken from the deck that lost it's match.
Discards from the vault can be taken from anywhere in the vault.
"Vault Discards can also be picked from the losing deck" by this we mean that the discards for Vault discards can be taken from anywhere in the vault, even if they were in the losing deck.
Example: Team A loses a game in Round 3, thus a total of 18 discards.10 cards have to come from the losing deck. The other 8 discards can be taken from any remaining non-pillar/pendulum cards in the losing deck or anywhere in the vault.
Hope this helps clarify it.
I forgot to write a thing when I spoke against sideboard.... sideboard is a greater asset for a few elements. It is where you usually put the steals or deflags you couldn't fit into 30 cards but that will come handy if needed be. Hence you will find almost impossible to use PC against Fire and darkness while other elements will only get that advantage in those duo or in grabbows. Needless to say that it would also mean more dark/fire duo played as well hence better salvage for em and weaker for every other team and fair salvage is already a problem for roughly :death :gravity :earth :life :water :light even :time and :air have only average salvage while :entropy :fire :darkness :aether are all lucky!
So for fire and darkness, no need anymore to guess if they face PC or not ever... which will make them insanely strong so unless you wanna triple the cost of deflags and steals (i'd rather not)... don't let those 2 already strong teams have an unfair advantage on others.
If you really want to balance War, include a ban list voted upon by the generals at the start of the event, but that idea has always faced opposition.
If you really want to balance War, include a ban list voted upon by the generals at the start of the event, but that idea has always faced opposition.
I'm one of those "anti-ban" people. There's already the vault restriction, and with market prices that's increased even more.
How about "bans" not actually banning the cards, but increasing the cost by the % of votes on it? (or some other sort of vote-cost conversion)
Also, this came to my mind today: How about discards/salvage varying depending on the result of the match? (i.e. 3-0, 3-1, 3-2)
Perhaps make side board a choice: side board cards eat into upgrades. So rush with sideboard loses to rush without sideboard
As for the steal/deflag/purify only sideboard idea-- this implies that each element has only 1 viable sideboard. So the argument is more bluntly stated as "Elements doesn't have the cardpool diversity to support a sideboard meta"
Personally a fan of sideboard. If darkness invests in enough steals to shove into 75+% of decks & never faces permanents then their sideboards aren't effectively turning around bad matchups (unless you imply there exist no bad matchups if steal is a toggle). This seems like what haink complained about in War #8 about nobody sending dims vs :aether in fear of psiontal which :aether abused by fielding quite a few psionless decks
I bring deck with permanents, :darkness brings deck with steals. Next game maybe I take permanents out. Does :darkness take steals out?NO but you likely lose anyway as you now play with no weapon or shield vs a strong deck.
I bring deck with CC sideboard, :darkness brings deck with steals. :darkness takes out steals, I tune deck to be better domin Domin without any perm (mostly weapon) is hard ... so you likely lose anyway
I bring deck with PA sideboard, :darkness brings deck with steals. Next game maybe I take PAs out. Does :darkness take steals out? Maybe... but u'd have a lame sideboard and likely a lame earth duo by doing so so you likely lose anyway too.
I bring 5 discords, :darkness brings deck with steals. Next game maybe I take some Discords out. Does :darkness take steals out? No they won't they will discard dagger if anything.. at worse they get stuck with a few steal but all ure discord are dead or going against you (unless you are entropy+grabbow but you would still be hurt by the damage a bit) and you likely die too.
I bring some perms, :darkness brings deck with steals. I don't play perms in game 1 to play around Steal. Does :darkness take steals out? Maybe.. but you likely start 0-1 to have a weaker deck just to avoid perms and you won't even know if :darkness has steals so at best you go 1-1 by the effect of surprise and lose after.
My examples are attempting to illustrate how not having a diverse sideboard (:darkness always brings steals) interacts with other sideboards. The rhetoric being used against sideboards is ignoring that teams have sideboards vs :darkness. I agree steal is a strong sideboard, as is a dims sideboard, but it has to be considered in the context that the opponent may or may not remove their permanents from their deck. In a matchup where :darkness removes the steal sideboard because there are no permanents, :darkness is essentially not bringing a sideboard which would've helped vs the permanentless deck. Of course a deck without PC will be able to tune better if it's not facing perms, but it is so rarely needed it's pointless to use... So rarely do you say at the end of the game... Oh I would have won if I had 2-3 more gargoyles or 2-3 more pends in that deck... but Perms are deck breakers which won or cost you the game most of the time. Only other game breaker you could add/remove are massive CC like Rain of fire (hello fire again who has explosion/deflags to switch on!) or thunderstorm.
The stronger argument against sideboards is that _every_ team is going to just run a bunch of dark domin duos. But then the meta should adapt to be rushierit's hard to outrush it we tried! but this would also mean so many more yummy salvage for darkness
Sidenote: Fractals not bad vs Nightmare, play a little slow, empty hand into Fractal, never gives opponent good Nightmare CAN be good, but as you said, you want to outrush so you often pray for a fail draw on the other part and no nightmare in hand. You can also be quanta locked by then otherwise if you are facing the likely devourers. But yeah you might want to hold onto your weapon and a high cost creature or 2 to help you having better fractals.
4 card sideboards is too many, in my opinion. I'd prefer 2-3. I don't mind giving sideboards to everyone, but I certainly think that this will benefit Fire/Darkness/Air/Entropy/Aether/Water more than the other elements. In particular Life and Light will be hurt, in my opinion.Sideboards for all players have been discussed a considerable amount in previous Wars, but they've yet to make it in. The current plan for this War is to introduce an optional 4-card sideboard for all decks.
Teams will submit their deck as usual, keeping things simple for vault management. If the deck is 34 cards or larger, the player will have the chance to remove up to 4 cards from it during their match. Players utilizing the sideboard must use the full deck for the first game of the match, and can exchange cards afterwards.
Concern has been raised in the past that this will benefit certain elements more than others - discussion on this point would be great.
I'd prefer fewer market points to increased discard, personally, but not a big deal.To shorten War from 16 rounds to a more suitable 10-12, our options are to either reduce the number of initial points for vaultbuilding, or to increase discards per round. Since having a larger and more flexible vault makes for a more entertaining event, we think increasing discards per round is the more suitable method for shortening War.
Round Discards from deck Discards from vault Total Discards Salvage 1 0 6 6 6 2 5 7 12 6 3 10 8 18 6 4+ 15 9 24 6
- "Vault discards" can also be picked from the losing deck.
Salvaging is increased slightly to make transmutations a little easier to manage, and to offset the increase discard penalties. A 4-1 round will "break even", while capping the number of cards discarded from the deck itself will help to prevent teams from losing all their in-element cards from late-game mono/duo losses.
Forcing 25% in element cards for Tinkerer won't change much. Earth put in BB, Aether put in Bolt, Air put in Shockwaves, Darkness put in Dagger/Nightmare, etc. Doesn't solve the problem of people running decks that have basically nothing to do with their element, imo.Tinkerer
The suggestion to change the Tinkerer rule to only allow Pendulums to be treated as in-element cards may work, but it hurts legitimate Tinkerer "splash" decks such as Ghostmare from Darkness, Chaos Wyrms from Entropy and Graboid rush from Time. One option, even though it's a little clunky, is to force a certain percentage of in-element cards (maybe 25-33%) to prevent teams from creating monos of other elements.
Mercenary
Mercenary was designed with the intent of allowing a little more freedom for building trios, but it was essentially just a buff to Grabbows last War. The plan here is to restrict the number of elements allowed in a Mercenary deck this time.
Hai.I'd rather have a max price for any player, like it was when we were using the "14 cards max bet" system.
Would it be possible for a player to *enforce* a max price on themselves?
Last war i got ridiculously overpriced, and that had arguably bad consequence both for me and my team.
If this war i get overpriced, I'm pretty sure i'll skip the bad consequences for me :P
Hai.I'd rather have a max price for any player, like it was when we were using the "14 cards max bet" system.
Would it be possible for a player to *enforce* a max price on themselves?
Last war i got ridiculously overpriced, and that had arguably bad consequence both for me and my team.
If this war i get overpriced, I'm pretty sure i'll skip the bad consequences for me :P
Hai.
Would it be possible for a player to *enforce* a max price on themselves?
Last war i got ridiculously overpriced, and that had arguably bad consequence both for me and my team.
If this war i get overpriced, I'm pretty sure i'll skip the bad consequences for me :P
(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)
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.
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.
The main issue with that is that we don't have so many people around anymore. We barely had enough people last war.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.
what about this:Do you genuinely believe this is a good idea?
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).
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.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 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.
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.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.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?
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.
I'm not going to start pointing fingers, but fair enough.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.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?
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.
what about this:Do you genuinely believe this is a good idea?
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).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.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.
I don't think that balances things at all...
That's like having two different wars and it really wouldn't be fun at all. We'd have the same matches every round. (each team facing every other team)
Darkness was considered poor before Odii/Physs came along. Possibly TorB had a big impact too - that was before my time.
Speaking of Time, wasn't that considered weak before 10men? (also before my time)
And Air weak before Jenkar in War 5? Look how that one snowballed.
No one seriously thought that Gravity could win a war before Laxa/Ginyu came along.
Wasn't Light considered terrible in War before Majofa lead it to second, and arguably deserved first?
Why take away the best chance weaker elements have to prove themselves?
Darkness was considered poor before Odii/Physs came along. Possibly TorB had a big impact too - that was before my time.
Speaking of Time, wasn't that considered weak before 10men? (also before my time)
And Air weak before Jenkar in War 5? Look how that one snowballed.
No one seriously thought that Gravity could win a war before Laxa/Ginyu came along.
Wasn't Light considered terrible in War before Majofa lead it to second, and arguably deserved first?
Why take away the best chance weaker elements have to prove themselves?
Because weak elements make tons of efforts to prove themselves once while strong ones (especially fire & aether) prove themselves every day. Just my 2 cents. When was the last time that Life's efforts to prove itself were praised by the community, for example?
but monoaether is OP :P
And a lovely excuse to do any of the followings:
* Blaming your opponent's OPness instead of your lack of effort for losing (e.g. "I am not noob for playing a completely ineffective deck, it is just that Aether is OP").
* Auto-quitting any games against your OP opponent; games in which you had a fair chance if you put effort (e.g. "I have this awesome rainbow deck, but Aether is OP, I won't have a chance, I auto-quit").
* Causing urge to join that OP element instead of supporting the "weaker" ones (e.g. "I want to join the super awesome team Aether this War because it is so OP; please, I don't want to be picked by those other weak elements...")
* Causing hate against the OP element; I am such an example. :P
Vets have a greater responsibility for the above syndrome, because they prefer to harvest the benefits of already expoiled strategies instead of exploring new areas and comboes and mindgating, thus creating even a greater gap between the strong elements and the weak ones. That's my 2 :electrum...
but monoaether is OP :P
And a lovely excuse to do any of the followings:
* Blaming your opponent's OPness instead of your lack of effort for losing (e.g. "I am not noob for playing a completely ineffective deck, it is just that Aether is OP").
* Auto-quitting any games against your OP opponent; games in which you had a fair chance if you put effort (e.g. "I have this awesome rainbow deck, but Aether is OP, I won't have a chance, I auto-quit").
* Causing urge to join that OP element instead of supporting the "weaker" ones (e.g. "I want to join the super awesome team Aether this War because it is so OP; please, I don't want to be picked by those other weak elements...")
* Causing hate against the OP element; I am such an example. :P
Vets have a greater responsibility for the above syndrome, because they prefer to harvest the benefits of already expoiled strategies instead of exploring new areas and comboes and mindgating, thus creating even a greater gap between the strong elements and the weak ones. That's my 2 :electrum...
I am going to leave this quote in here to further explain my reasoning.