War #10 - Suggestions and Feedback

[asdw152]

not sure if i'm the only one who thought this, but i dont see it here.

What if there was a timer on when alliances would be made. Like, for the first 3-4 rounds, no alliances at all. In the first wave, a small select few elements probably those at the bottom of the standings, either through losses or vault count, can begin initiating alliances.

[Blacksmith]

Spoiler for Aves post:

I think it's an interesting idea, even if it might be hard to figure out how to implement it. Consider an alliance precisely as a bunch of small mechanics.

Example mechanic: Gain X extra upgrades in a match if you and your allied element face the same enemy element (only works on one match).
Let's say and are allies, and both face this round. This is a straight boost, so both and would gain upgrades against in that one match if they agree to target the matchups. Therefore, has two matches where its enemies gain X upgrades. X will likely be a low number, between 1-3, and only if both and both pick the matchup to apply this to. This is a small edge to 's opponents, but likely not a big one-- certainly less impactful than most ECs.

Example mechanic: You may choose to transfer X upgrades from a match into an allied match if you and your ally face the same element opponent.
Let's say and are allies, and both face this round. This is a zero sum, so the total of and upgrades against in the two matches is the same. Depending on how they choose to transfer the upgrades and what value X has, one of 's matches is significantly harder, but the other will be significantly easier. Any disadvantage has in one matchup is mirrored by the equal advantage in the other.

Example mechanic: Lose X upgrades in all matches with your ally.
Not really applicable to the current question of exploits.

Example mechanic: Discard X cards from your vault to forge an alliance (max Y alliances. Y may depend on your current placements-- top teams can have fewer alliances. A forced alliance retraction incurs the same penalty as breaking one would)
This encourages alliances not to be used, as you never really want to discard cards from your vault. A maximum cap only further reduces the # of alliances formed.

Example mechanic: Lose X upgrades in your next match against to break your alliance with them. Salvage and Discard are doubled.
One way to safeguard against betrayal, raise the stakes in the next match while also being weakened in it.

Example mechanic: Discard is reduced by X against your ally/Salvage is increased by X against your ally.
Net bonus in cards for being in an alliance.

I can see why people have reservations against the concept as a whole, but what you describe as 'hunting a stronger team down' shouldn't be a concern if balanced correctly, and I don't see how any of the example mechanics would enable that.
[/quote]

Most of the above ideas could definitely be addded as an event card. I think that next war the EC cards should have a greater impact ( without favoring one element to much ) to create variety.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

Shouldn't we try to simplify war to make it more attractive to newbies rather than adding a bunch of silly rules and confuse everyone...?

You're not wrong, but I think the issue here is that war rules as a whole are stagnant, and alliances would be one way to shake things up a bit. Definitely open to ideas. One caveat against the simplification argument is that War has already been getting simplified over time. Consider that roles can now be freely swapped around, for example-- most roles are insignificant compared to what they were in earlier times.

But that just complicates war further in forcing you to think about which roles to apply where and knowing the full rule set for each role you could possibly want to employ (which should be every role with a balanced role set).

Having been active wars 3 through 5 as general, I don't even remotely see how anything has gotten simpler:

• From plain cards cost to points and different points cost per card.
• From bid as high as you want in auction, to a max per player/team and a conditional(depending on amount currently winning and total bids) max bids.
• From simply salvaging and discarding, to transmutation, roles and vault discards.
• From a set amount of upgrades for each player to a conditional(depending on roles that round, relics and event cards) amount of upgrades.
• From sub = no salvage for subbing team to... you guessed it, conditional(it's the first sub or there is an arrangement with x and y to sub for full) salvage.

Need I go on? Where actions used to be straightforward and simple, you now almost need a checklist to see whether you are eligible to take an action. All these conditions to track. Alliances, market prices and all that: if you ask me, I wouldn't mind another war with a much simpler rule set. Cards for bidding, all cards same price, no alliances, no relics, only Gen., Lt. and soldier roles. Maybe even a team draft again to shake things up.

[Blacksmith]

One thing that has made things a lot easier is the vault error checking tool. Besides that things are a bit tricky the first time you play war. It takes 3-4 rounds to get into it if you're new. However I don't think we can solve that without making war less fun.

[majofa]

Wow.. you guys took: 'can we talk with other teams?' and just ran with it....

[RapidStar_]

I honestly think there should be no teams... Being solo is the way to go, and TRULY challenges which team is the strongest, as they get no assistance from any other teams... Teams can cause a lot of problems and rules to make might be a bit hard. Keeping a private vault towards your team and having a team of 5 with one single element is best in my opinion.

What could be cool though, is an event card like, "You will be paired up with a random element. Your two elements will verse another two elements etc..." (If it is 2v2's it will still work out because there can be 3 seperate 2v2 matches which adds up to all 12 elements)

[Blacksmith]

So another idea. Right now we are allowed to have a maximum of 24 of each in element card in vault and 9? of any other card in vault. Maybe let the generals vote on 1-3 cards before war that should be more restricted. So for example most voted card gets a maximum of 6 in vault, second-third gets a maximum of 9 and forth-fifth gets a maximum of 12 cards in vault. Or each general have to vote for one card from each element before war and the most voted card for each element gets restricted to a maximum of 6-9 in vault at any time.

It's one way to restrict op cards and decks in war.