War #10 - Suggestions and Feedback

[TheonlyrealBeef]

First off, I felt like mentioning that the first impression I get from most war stuff is how it could negatively impact my team, and the frustrations that come with it. Having 10 rounds of event cards, I figured I'd sum up how I feel about each now that I feel less invested in war (being eliminated and all that). I'll divide the feedback in three sections, the Theme, Impact and Balance, with some personal notes about how it played out underneath it. Impact describes how much an Event Card could potentially alter the course of war, whereas Balance focuses on favoring teams inherently. Arguing over imbalanced cards with a minor impact may feel like nitpicking, but balanced cards with a huge impact could leave a lot to rng and/or other teams' decisions and should likely still be avoided.

I post this in part because I do NOT feel like all event cards thus far have been bad, even if that is the impression I have given. It's just that there is always room for improvement. Hopefully, this feedback will also help with the Event Cards to come!

Spoiler for Event Card feedback per round:

Round 1:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Good
Impact:	Minimal (= good)
Balance:	Excellent

The event card may not have been used much, in part due to being used in round 1. Adding more clarity on how it should be applied and making it a flat 1 card per 2 upgrades might have made it better.

Round 2:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Name fits element, but the less upgrades part doesn't seem to match the name chosen. Fine otherwise.
Impact:	Small
Balance:	Excellent

My main beef with this Event Card is that you both reduce upgrades AND increase discards. The additional relics also makes it seem useless for all but gambler, a role which I think needs an overhaul to begin with.

Round 3:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Moderate
Impact:	Moderate
Balance:	Good

This Event Card is as balanced as the roles are, really. It didn't see much use since roles aren't imbalanced enough to make it worth the extra discards. Still nice to have a choice I guess.

Round 4:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Good
Impact:	Moderate
Balance:	Poor

Whether or not teams get to transmute and how useful these transmutes are to them are factors they cannot truly control. Adding to this that you can only transmute from matches that had already occurred, I have to say that I dislike this Event Card.

Round 5:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Moderate
Impact:	Large
Balance:	Moderate

Having an Event Card with such a large impact due to other teams' choices is never nice. Winning against an opposing mine doesn't benefit teams either, since the loser would have lost those cards regardless of whom they targeted and lost against. Add to this that most teams played it tactical and safe, and it ended up as a huge lose faster.

Round 6:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Moderate
Impact:	Significant
Balance:	Poor

Another Event Card that can only help teams that are already winning. It's a long term investment that accentuates a negative aspect of war: making other teams want to lose instead of just making yourself want to win. This negative aspect was a catalyst in the Light drama, I feel.

Round 7:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Very Good
Impact:	Minimal
Balance:	Very Good

Despite the fact that everything above sums it up as a good Event Card, I have to note I slightly dislike the random nature of it.

Round 8:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Good
Impact:	Minimal
Balance:	Perfect

This card is quite similar to the round 1 Event Card in certain aspects, except the cards -> upgrades ratio just turned into 2 to 1. Add the fact that all players on the team are forced onto extra upgrades (instead of choosing which ones are worth paying cards for, like vs General). I'd rather have seen a different card -> upgrades ratio, like 1 to 1, but then with a cap of 3 upgrades added this way. I'm not sure how this would have played out and it's impact on war might have increased significantly, but removing these cards from vault will really hurt in the long run (then again, so does losing. Depends on how much these upgrades would make a difference). I'm really not sure on suggesting an improvement to make it more useful: it was definitely balanced but we felt like it was not worth using at that time.

Round 9:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Good
Impact:	Moderate
Balance:	Good

We were already eliminated this round, but with the stage of war it was used in the difference in standings was large enough to warrant such a significant increase in discards (for targeting a much higher-ranked team I mean). My main problem would be that high-standing teams get no benefit from being targeted, similar story as with minefield, really, except now teams are forced to use it on higher-ranked teams and are no longer restricted by Gen matchups.

Round 10:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Very Good
Impact:	Huge
Balance:	Moderate

Alive teams get no choice and no benefit from being targeted. With dead teams being what they are, I believe it is better not to repeat such Event Cards than attempt to balance them. Just let the dead rest in peace

[mrpaper]

First off, I felt like mentioning that the first impression I get from most war stuff is how it could negatively impact my team, and the frustrations that come with it. Having 10 rounds of event cards, I figured I'd sum up how I feel about each now that I feel less invested in war (being eliminated and all that). I'll divide the feedback in three sections, the Theme, Impact and Balance, with some personal notes about how it played out underneath it. Impact describes how much an Event Card could potentially alter the course of war, whereas Balance focuses on favoring teams inherently. Arguing over imbalanced cards with a minor impact may feel like nitpicking, but balanced cards with a huge impact could leave a lot to rng and/or other teams' decisions and should likely still be avoided.

I post this in part because I do NOT feel like all event cards thus far have been bad, even if that is the impression I have given. It's just that there is always room for improvement. Hopefully, this feedback will also help with the Event Cards to come!

Spoiler for Event Card feedback per round:

Round 1:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Good
Impact:	Minimal (= good)
Balance:	Excellent

The event card may not have been used much, in part due to being used in round 1. Adding more clarity on how it should be applied and making it a flat 1 card per 2 upgrades might have made it better.

Round 2:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Name fits element, but the less upgrades part doesn't seem to match the name chosen. Fine otherwise.
Impact:	Small
Balance:	Excellent

My main beef with this Event Card is that you both reduce upgrades AND increase discards. The additional relics also makes it seem useless for all but gambler, a role which I think needs an overhaul to begin with.

Round 3:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Moderate
Impact:	Moderate
Balance:	Good

This Event Card is as balanced as the roles are, really. It didn't see much use since roles aren't imbalanced enough to make it worth the extra discards. Still nice to have a choice I guess.

Round 4:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Good
Impact:	Moderate
Balance:	Poor

Whether or not teams get to transmute and how useful these transmutes are to them are factors they cannot truly control. Adding to this that you can only transmute from matches that had already occurred, I have to say that I dislike this Event Card.

Round 5:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Moderate
Impact:	Large
Balance:	Moderate

Having an Event Card with such a large impact due to other teams' choices is never nice. Winning against an opposing mine doesn't benefit teams either, since the loser would have lost those cards regardless of whom they targeted and lost against. Add to this that most teams played it tactical and safe, and it ended up as a huge lose faster.

Round 6:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Moderate
Impact:	Significant
Balance:	Poor

Another Event Card that can only help teams that are already winning. It's a long term investment that accentuates a negative aspect of war: making other teams want to lose instead of just making yourself want to win. This negative aspect was a catalyst in the Light drama, I feel.

Round 7:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Very Good
Impact:	Minimal
Balance:	Very Good

Despite the fact that everything above sums it up as a good Event Card, I have to note I slightly dislike the random nature of it.

Round 8:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Good
Impact:	Minimal
Balance:	Perfect

This card is quite similar to the round 1 Event Card in certain aspects, except the cards -> upgrades ratio just turned into 2 to 1. Add the fact that all players on the team are forced onto extra upgrades (instead of choosing which ones are worth paying cards for, like vs General). I'd rather have seen a different card -> upgrades ratio, like 1 to 1, but then with a cap of 3 upgrades added this way. I'm not sure how this would have played out and it's impact on war might have increased significantly, but removing these cards from vault will really hurt in the long run (then again, so does losing. Depends on how much these upgrades would make a difference). I'm really not sure on suggesting an improvement to make it more useful: it was definitely balanced but we felt like it was not worth using at that time.

Round 9:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Good
Impact:	Moderate
Balance:	Good

We were already eliminated this round, but with the stage of war it was used in the difference in standings was large enough to warrant such a significant increase in discards (for targeting a much higher-ranked team I mean). My main problem would be that high-standing teams get no benefit from being targeted, similar story as with minefield, really, except now teams are forced to use it on higher-ranked teams and are no longer restricted by Gen matchups.

Round 10:

Spoiler for feedback:

Theme:	Very Good
Impact:	Huge
Balance:	Moderate

Alive teams get no choice and no benefit from being targeted. With dead teams being what they are, I believe it is better not to repeat such Event Cards than attempt to balance them. Just let the dead rest in peace

Great summary by TORB here...
I will agree on all save for the first 2 rounds where the impact was more inexistant then minimal... as the incentive needs to be there so that at least a couple of the teams want to use an EC if it is not mandatory... otherwise that and having no EC is the same.  So if it is supposed to be a positive one, make the reward a bit more interesting (not too much is always the key to avoid OP), those two were having more downs then ups to it if anything.... if that is what you want to use, make it mandatory!

[mrpaper]

since this is round 15... and likely not the last... depending on  wins and EC, it may still last 3-4 more rounds...
I suggest we adjust the number of matches from round 12 and beyond...
what we have now is:
0-49 cards   =   team is eliminated
50-74 cards   =   2 players fight
75-99 cards   =   3 players fight
100-124 cards   =   4 players fight
105+   =   5 players fight

I Would suggest something like...
0-49 cards   =   team is eliminated
50-64 cards   =   2 players fight
65-84 cards   =   3 players fight
85-104 cards   =   4 players fight
105+   =   5 players fight

Of course this bring a little disadvantage to the team with the smallest vault as they must field more decks.. but it they do better, they will get back in the race faster and either way, the war would not drag as long.   It would also compensate for the fact that the leading team when there is 3-4 teams left always play 5 matches (baring a bye) while others only have to defend 2-3 times with the better roles and often more choices (easier to pick 2 decks from 74 cards then 5 from 105).

 Also, think that with free pends/pillars, you need roughly 17 cards per deck so 17*2=34 cards out of 50,17*3=51 out of 65, 17*4=68 out of 85 and 17*5=85 out of 105.  So you always have room for a few leftover cards.  Maybe give some free in element transmute to help reach the 50% if needed be... say each team that reach round 12 gets up to 10 free 1/1 transmute once ( I would not let the transmute be shards, or even better, maybe even let it be free but only for cards that we're sell to less then 100 in the market).

[RavingRabbid]

since this is round 15... and likely not the last... depending on  wins and EC, it may still last 3-4 more rounds...
I suggest we adjust the number of matches from round 12 and beyond...
what we have now is:
0-49 cards   =   team is eliminated
50-74 cards   =   2 players fight
75-99 cards   =   3 players fight
100-124 cards   =   4 players fight
105+   =   5 players fight

I Would suggest something like...
0-49 cards   =   team is eliminated
50-64 cards   =   2 players fight
65-84 cards   =   3 players fight
85-104 cards   =   4 players fight
105+   =   5 players fight

Of course this bring a little disadvantage to the team with the smallest vault as they must field more decks.. but it they do better, they will get back in the race faster and either way, the war would not drag as long.   It would also compensate for the fact that the leading team when there is 3-4 teams left always play 5 matches (baring a bye) while others only have to defend 2-3 times with the better roles and often more choices (easier to pick 2 decks from 74 cards then 5 from 105).

 Also, think that with free pends/pillars, you need roughly 17 cards per deck so 17*2=34 cards out of 50,17*3=51 out of 65, 17*4=68 out of 85 and 17*5=85 out of 105.  So you always have room for a few leftover cards.  Maybe give some free in element transmute to help reach the 50% if needed be... say each team that reach round 12 gets up to 10 free 1/1 transmute once ( I would not let the transmute be shards, or even better, maybe even let it be free but only for cards that we're sell to less then 100 in the market).

Seeing as this would not speed up war concretely, and this would increase fringe scenarios for sweetspots, I'm mostly against.
The problem with war dragging on for long is that when most teams are eliminated, not enough cards "decay" per round.

[worldwideweb3]

I don't see why war taking a bit long is bad. 14 rounds is not bad at all, imo. If it was like over 20 rounds, fair, but I think 14-16 rounds is acc fine.

[mrpaper]

yes it would, it is the main purpose in fact.... more games played= more discards.... if there are 2 or 3 games more played, it means 40-60 cards out more every round (minus the 12-18 salvage).... which would make things much faster!!
for example, lets say we had 3 extra matches for rounds 12-15 this war.. it means 4 rounds of 3=12 matches 12x20=240 cards out (discard) - 12x6=72 (salvage)
240-72= 168 cards would be out of the pool of cards left.
As of now, there is 256 (air) + 122 (gravity)= 378 cards

378-168 cards= 210 cards would be left now instead (this is an estimation because water would have lost from this number as well).  Now depending on who would have lost, the war could be over, but lets pretend we even things a bit and divide it all by 3 for water/air/gravity, 168/3= 56 cards from each team.
Water would be out anyway...
Air would be at exactly 200 instead of 256 (256-56)
Gravity would be at 66 instead of 122 (122-56)

So this round would likely be the last one.. instead of dragging much later... also, expect a Christmas break if it is not over by then, dragging the war even longer... sigh
*The numbers are up to debate as maths needs to be redone depending on who wins each time, but the result of a faster war this way isn't.  Maybe Air would have been crowned champion already (most likely event), but maybe they would have predict poorly on the extra matches and we would now have some sort of tie between Gravy and Air.

Also, for www : we used to make war last 10-12 rounds max.... in part because the level of interest in war decrease a ton when teams starts going down.. which is about at round 5-6, in part because it ask a lot for WM'S and teams involved until the end (especially generals), and in part because we want a new cycle of war to start.... We used to have 2 wars a year.... we ended up having 1 because of a lack of WM'S activity that dragged war for too long (not this war) and now 1 war a year has been set as an ok standard which it shouldn't.  If you want people to crave for a new war and a fresh start, don't keep them out of it after 5 rounds (say 6-7 weeks after deckbuilding phase) and then out for 40 weeks unless they go for trials.  Also, this is round 15... and if gravy does well, going until round 18 isn't out of reach at all (they may crumble and die fast of course, but you need to think that the number 2 seed may hold it's ground for a while in this situation in this war on another coming!).

[worldwideweb3]

But increasing matches with less cards is a bad idea. I mean, its a tough job for us even making 4 decks.  Increasing matches will just result in suicides or bad decks.

[mrpaper]

But increasing matches with less cards is a bad idea. I mean, its a tough job for us even making 4 decks.  Increasing matches will just result in suicides or bad decks.

Hence why the free convert to help that (preventing suicides).  As for being forced to put sub optimal decks... yes it is likely going to happen, but you shouldn't be holding much advantage to the leader which you might have depending on the number of decks you need to fill vs the leader (this is especially true with 3-4 teams left).  Also, I am of course not talking about this war as it is too late to change the rules.  I have been 1st in some wars before in the late rounds and it is frustrating to see that  the teams below are just 1 bad round away to catch up on you because you play 5 times while they get it easy with only 2-3 matches with the best players, best decks and best roles from they're team... it is often more rewarding to be just above average then to be on top. This is wrong about war .... sure you want every team that is still alive to keep some hope, but the odds of a late comeback should be really slim when you are trailing by a lot.

 

[worldwideweb3]

But increasing matches with less cards is a bad idea. I mean, its a tough job for us even making 4 decks.  Increasing matches will just result in suicides or bad decks.

Hence why the free convert to help that (preventing suicides).  As for being forced to put sub optimal decks... yes it is likely going to happen, but you shouldn't be holding much advantage to the leader which you might have depending on the number of decks you need to fill vs the leader (this is especially true with 3-4 teams left).  Also, I am of course not talking about this war as it is too late to change the rules.  I have been 1st in some wars before in the late rounds and it is frustrating to see that  the teams below are just 1 bad round away to catch up on you because you play 5 times while they get it easy with only 2-3 matches with the best players, best decks and best roles from they're team... it is often more rewarding to be just above average then to be on top. This is wrong about war .... sure you want every team that is still alive to keep some hope, but the odds of a late comeback should be really slim when you are trailing by a lot.

Difficult to have a really bad round though if you are way ahead. Whereas it's easy for teams with less cards to have a bad round as they are easier to predict

[mrpaper]

But increasing matches with less cards is a bad idea. I mean, its a tough job for us even making 4 decks.  Increasing matches will just result in suicides or bad decks.

Hence why the free convert to help that (preventing suicides).  As for being forced to put sub optimal decks... yes it is likely going to happen, but you shouldn't be holding much advantage to the leader which you might have depending on the number of decks you need to fill vs the leader (this is especially true with 3-4 teams left).  Also, I am of course not talking about this war as it is too late to change the rules.  I have been 1st in some wars before in the late rounds and it is frustrating to see that  the teams below are just 1 bad round away to catch up on you because you play 5 times while they get it easy with only 2-3 matches with the best players, best decks and best roles from they're team... it is often more rewarding to be just above average then to be on top. This is wrong about war .... sure you want every team that is still alive to keep some hope, but the odds of a late comeback should be really slim when you are trailing by a lot.

Difficult to have a really bad round though if you are way ahead. Whereas it's easy for teams with less cards to have a bad round as they are easier to predict

Easier to predict when you are short on card is true.... but lets say gravity only has 2 great decks and need to play air twice.... unless air has a deck (or 2) that beats both, it won't change much.  Teams that go until the end of the war have a few signature key decks that led em there... thoses have few hard counters, and if all you're remaining decks are countered by the same thing.. well you planned your deck choices poorly (unlikely)! 

Anyway, this is going away from the initial point.... war is too long once teams starts  to be eliminated.... you could see that only by the fact only www answered me.... not many follow it after they die.  Force teams to play more matches near the end is a  way to speed things up by 2-3 rounds!  Now if you guys have another solution go ahead... but there was an experiment to cut the vault in 4 a couple wars ago and it was a disaster, a tournment to end the war was tried and hated as well...  And if we just go with removing tons of cards each round late in war it is going to be way more unfair... as a bad round from the leading team could cost them 200 cards if we would double the losses (and they play 5 times).  So 11 great rounds and yet you die because  WM'S decide it's all ending in 1 round. 

Another idea unused was that generals would fight till the end if it goes beyond round 15... while this is fair for remaining teams, it aint much for the players who aren't the general... and it still is a ton of rounds (we could use 13 instead of 15 of course).   The advantage of this is not waitintg a week between matches, but while I ain't 100% a fan of this... it is better then what we have now.

[Jen-i]

Just a thought. I've not thought through any of the other ramifications of it at all.

What if we increased vault size - but you're team is eliminated when you can no longer field five decks?

[JonathanCrazyJ]

Just a thought. I've not thought through any of the other ramifications of it at all.

What if we increased vault size - but you're team is eliminated when you can no longer field five decks?

I'm actually much, much more in favour of this idea