I think it shouldnt say somewhere clear that everyone that was bid before the last bid on Ravingrabbid will be locked if they arent rebid on when OT starts 21hrs from now.
I think it shouldnt say somewhere clear that everyone that was bid before the last bid on Ravingrabbid will be locked if they arent rebid on when OT starts 21hrs from now.
Somewhere like the War 10 Rules 1.2.2 final paragraph (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war/war-10-rules-62499/msg1238723/#msg1238723)? :P
Sleeping is for noobs.
Have to spit it out somewhere, regarding deuce's last minute bid on Vangelios:
I know that the battle bid rule does not trigger in this case as of the wordings now, but this is definitely a gray area that WMs need to look into. I personally strongly believe that the battle bid rule should be applied in this situation, because by its principle, it is meant to give generals a small extension if someone is going to bid on the last seconds. And this right now is exactly the case.
If the WMs somehow think the rules should not be applicable this time, I sincerely hope that it would next time.
Can we have the battle phase include at least one weekend day?
I was thinking Noon Thursday - Noon Sunday GMT, problem is it may be unpractical for wms.Can we have the battle phase include at least one weekend day?
And at least one weekday please. should be saturday to monday or sunday to tuesday imo
I was thinking Noon Thursday - Noon Sunday GMT, problem is it may be unpractical for wms.Can we have the battle phase include at least one weekend day?
And at least one weekday please. should be saturday to monday or sunday to tuesday imo
Not sure if we're already thinking about suggestions for next war, and this might have already been suggested before, but seeing all of these 3-2 matches go down has gotten me wondering about altering salvage/discard according to the match results. You could still have a ramp up in discards as the rounds progressed, but the idea would be that getting skunked 0-3 would cause more discards than a 2-3 result. Optionally as well, winning 3-2 might mean less salvage than winning 3-0.
On the other hand, this event is already pretty complicated... not sure we need to add more complications.
Can you format the discards next time so the "Discards from vault" can be put into the "Penalty" cell? It's a bit confusing to have a deck say 10 discards, but then having to discard 8 cards from the actual deck and 2 from vault.
By pointing out flaws in the specific case and the ruling, later attempts to make more perfect rules can use the arguments presented as useful information and context. There is no reason not to continue the discussion.
It would severely impact the rankings of lower to mid-tier teams. Having never won war, I find this ranking to be quite important: having a team cheat their way to a higher standing with byes is lame. In fact, by the time byes come into play, higher ranked teams may miss out on an "easy win" against a lower ranked team by playing less games: the one time you want to maximize games played is when other teams are nearing elimination and you are not near elimination. At least compared to other rounds.
It is for this very reason that the old bye system (which was favoring bottom teams) was removed. The fairest byes come when winning > not losing as some people put it, which is an issue solved differently entirely. This is also why lower ranked teams hate being near the lower ends of player cut-offs for vault size.
So then you may ask how I envision making wins more important, well, the idea will be simple but VERY controversial no doubt: reduce discards per match and add a set amount of vault discards every round. This is a rough idea with no clear numbers attached to them, but it's a harsh way to increase the importance of winning > not losing without prolonging war.
I've been saying this a while - I really don't like the current bye rules.not because this war was make for you guys since from the beginning, WMs, did very well balanced for that....
Currently the highest ranked teams have priority for a bye. This makes it much harder for the teams in 2nd/3rd/4th place to catch up with the team in 1st, giving them an even greater advantage than they already have.
Why not give the bye to the bottom ranked teams instead? That way it is most likely to have no impact on the winner of War. The team in last place will get an advantage, but this isn't likely to effect the teams fighting for 1st much at all - exactly what we want from a bye.
not because this war was make for you guys since from the beginning, WMs, did very well balanced for that....
Please not is team :aether is my opinion like player, and without sofree is hard to see :air in the top. Those rules and prices for some shards in this war is absolute without sense of balance, demesne is correct, about WMs have your inexperience clearly showed and simply had no idea how to run the event.not because this war was make for you guys since from the beginning, WMs, did very well balanced for that....
Please, Team Aether, stop that "bullying" towards air...
Team Air has made fine deck choices this War and they also were lucky enough. Their SoFres are just the cherry to the top of the cake. A good team is a good team nonetheless.
Umm...despite points increase, starting vaults were about the same size as last year, and some were lower too...also, air has build decks without sofree, you know?build decks without sofree in this war? well if yes so trasmut shards was a mistake balance in this war like I said above, (now you can add shards without pain for that)
Umm...despite points increase, starting vaults were about the same size as last year, and some were lower too...also, air has build decks without sofree, you know?build decks without sofree in this war? well if yes so trasmut shards was a mistake balance in this war like I said above, (now you can add shards without pain for that)
"despite points increase, starting vaults were about the same size as last year" if last war was long this war should be smaller and not the same size, the péople should correct your mistakes and not embrace, at least I believe in this.
... and without sofree is hard to see :air in the top ...
Then about :fire and :aether I can see effort to nerf in war, but for :air (the second strongest element after aether like you said) I can see just buff... 20 or 30 is another thing about the war duration, however if you said that don't have diference show how many is be unbalanced... and without sofree is hard to see :air in the top ...
Taking average standings of the 4 previous Wars without Shards, the only element that comes in ahead of Air is Aether. In that time, Air finished second place twice, and had an inexperienced General (me, at the time) to bring down the average as well.
So you're saying Aether was so imbalanced before Shards were added that it's hard to see the second strongest element ever winning? Just to clarify :P
I'm not going to make any comments regarding how favourable the market is for Air, or for any other team, before seeing the starting vaults for each team. It's impossible to form any opinions based on the starting size of each vault, as different vault building strategies (e.g. cheaper decks vs stronger decks, lots of fodder cards vs few fodder cards) will effect the number of cards just as much as the market prices will. If other teams had a similar vault building strategy to us then I'd agree that Air needs to be more expensive next War. But only if.
I can, however, say with absolute confidence that starting with 20, 30, or even 50 fewer cards would have had absolutely no effect on our win rate so far. We'd only be winning by x less cards.
In my opinion, the rules do not favor air any more than they did last war. It just that team air has learned how to reach their full potential and is unleashing that (if this isn't Air's full potential, I'm too scared to acknowledge whatever is). Before we compain about anything we must acknowledge the level that team Air has managed to reach.It is definitely not the same level OP, :air is more... I was in old wars :aether had difficuties to beat :air (second place like Afdarenty said above)
Now, Air is starting to have the same OP effect that Aether once had, except vs strong teams as well as weaker ones. SoFree is a decent part of the reason why, but even without it Air is pretty much complete (though SoFree enhances the completeness, perhaps with a 25% multiplier). I suppose air should get the aether treatment if markets continue next war.
I have to side more with Afda on all of this.
Air has been strong for many wars, always top 3-4 for the last 4-5 wars I think, damn near won 1 or 2 of them. Air is one of the few elements that aether is weak against, and air gets drastically stronger as you increase the number of upgrades in war, which is why they've been near the top for a while now, and it was only a matter of time before they finally pulled off a win. I thought it would have been last war, but better late than never, I guess. And I think air would have won war whether they had sofree or not.
As far as OP cards go, dims are annoying and fractals are extremely strong. But their is no deck with either or both of those cards that each element can't make to counter it near 100% of the time. Sofree blows dims and fractals out of the water. Some elements can make counters to sofree, but some can't. And as afda has gained experince, he's optimized the build to the point where the best aether can do is 40-50% winrate. Supposedly higs has a counter, but I will have to see that after war. Anyways, any team fielding a single deck that counters most of a teams vault and has at least 50% chance against the other decks in the vault is frankly unallowable in war. I've never been an advocate for shards in war because I feared something like this would happen. I will admit that there have been some interesting decks this war that utilized shards, but I still prefer they should be banned from war. At the minimum, there needs to be heavy restrictions on them. Possibly even individualize the restrictions for each shard. Food for thought.
Now onto market prices. The reason I hate market prices is because it factors in cards that are used for all elements rather than each individual element. Aether has a couple strong cards that each element can take advantage of and use in war. As a result, aether cards are drastically overpriced for team aether. Aether could have lost every game this war, and market prices for aether would still be crazy expensive next war. I really think this needs to be abandoned.
| Theme: | Good |
| Impact: | Minimal (= good) |
| Balance: | Excellent |
| Theme: | Name fits element, but the less upgrades part doesn't seem to match the name chosen. Fine otherwise. |
| Impact: | Small |
| Balance: | Excellent |
| Theme: | Moderate |
| Impact: | Moderate |
| Balance: | Good |
| Theme: | Good |
| Impact: | Moderate |
| Balance: | Poor |
| Theme: | Moderate |
| Impact: | Large |
| Balance: | Moderate |
| Theme: | Moderate |
| Impact: | Significant |
| Balance: | Poor |
| Theme: | Very Good |
| Impact: | Minimal |
| Balance: | Very Good |
| Theme: | Good |
| Impact: | Minimal |
| Balance: | Perfect |
| Theme: | Good |
| Impact: | Moderate |
| Balance: | Good |
| Theme: | Very Good |
| Impact: | Huge |
| Balance: | Moderate |
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!Round 1:(http://i.imgur.com/yzknwl0.png)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.
Theme: Good Impact: Minimal (= good) Balance: Excellent
Round 2:(http://i.imgur.com/1jbGbCu.png)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.
Theme: Name fits element, but the less upgrades part doesn't seem to match the name chosen. Fine otherwise. Impact: Small Balance: Excellent
Round 3:(http://i.imgur.com/KG42CkI.png)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.
Theme: Moderate Impact: Moderate Balance: Good
Round 4:(http://i.imgur.com/ukzS084.png)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.
Theme: Good Impact: Moderate Balance: Poor
Round 5:(http://i.imgur.com/BOFvU7e.png)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.
Theme: Moderate Impact: Large Balance: Moderate
Round 6:(http://i.imgur.com/wTW2sT8.png)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.
Theme: Moderate Impact: Significant Balance: Poor
Round 7:(http://i.imgur.com/J9DlQyL.png)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.
Theme: Very Good Impact: Minimal Balance: Very Good
Round 8:(http://i.imgur.com/Fwo1vPd.png)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.
Theme: Good Impact: Minimal Balance: Perfect
Round 9:(http://i.imgur.com/CQ3c941.png)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.
Theme: Good Impact: Moderate Balance: Good
Round 10:(http://i.imgur.com/t6qiS4l.png)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 ;)
Theme: Very Good Impact: Huge Balance: Moderate
since this is round 15... and likely not the last... depending on :gravity wins and EC, it may still last 3-4 more rounds...Seeing as this would not speed up war concretely, and this would increase fringe scenarios for sweetspots, I'm mostly against.
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).
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.
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.
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
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?
really? what are 5 decks? for example in current format 1 NT and 29 pillars is a deck and pillars are free...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
Currently, if you have 125 cards in vault, you play 5 matches. That is the most likely what is meant, though of course the number can be adjusted.really? what are 5 decks? for example in current format 1 NT and 29 pillars is a deck and pillars are free...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
also I can do 3 dead decks and 2 decents decks...
if there are a minimum of cards to go out make more sense in all cases, and be eliminated with a lot of cards deviates the war concept.
ok thank you, is more easy understand like that, by unique number of vault sizeCurrently, if you have 125 cards in vault, you play 5 matches. That is the most likely what is meant, though of course the number can be adjusted.really? what are 5 decks? for example in current format 1 NT and 29 pillars is a deck and pillars are free...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
also I can do 3 dead decks and 2 decents decks...
if there are a minimum of cards to go out make more sense in all cases, and be eliminated with a lot of cards deviates the war concept.
This could work yes... but it all depends on how much more cards we give to make it faster. On the other hand, it 100% solves the handicap side of things where the leading team needs to fight 5 matches while the others only fight 2-3. Maybe we could decrease the number of cards to be able to fight 5 matches to 100 as well?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
The last way to solve this is to reduce the number of cards you're allowed to have of the same card. We could put max amount of creatures at 24 but reduces spells to 20, reduce permanents to 12 and reduce shards to 9.
- This is something I definitely think should be added. It makes sense that teams are allowed to have 24 of their important attackers, but not so much sense to be allowed to have 24 fractals. Simply since creatures are used more and in more decks than permanents and spells.
QuoteThe last way to solve this is to reduce the number of cards you're allowed to have of the same card. We could put max amount of creatures at 24 but reduces spells to 20, reduce permanents to 12 and reduce shards to 9.
- This is something I definitely think should be added. It makes sense that teams are allowed to have 24 of their important attackers, but not so much sense to be allowed to have 24 fractals. Simply since creatures are used more and in more decks than permanents and spells.
1) I only agree with this from the first list. The rest are way too complicated and make only for further delays/confusion and it also sounds like it would ruin some fun.
I agree some of them are confusing. Some ideas was posted for inspiration as well. I personally believe that the current salvage system ruins some fun. We had it for as many wars as I can remember and it makes war a bit repetitive. It also makes sense to have some kind restriktion that also adds more creativity and strategy to the salvage/discard phase. After all we need each war to have some fresh rules to make it fun.
2) I think auction was fine. I still felt challenged when building the vault and had to drop a couple of deck ideas.
The number of cards you can spend when building the vault was fine. However the auction did not fill it purpose. It was more about strategy than who's willing to pay the most. A big part of that was because the WO's wanted to reduce the time for auction by a lot which lead to strange rules which made it a strategy contest.
3) Pretty sure something like that was in place last war as well. Yeah but it still needs some work.
Some elements rely more on perm and spells than others so it will harm those elements a lot more (RIP adrena RIP sanc miracle RIP poor elements)
That is true. But also rip fractal feast, rip sofree feast, rip nova feast, rip strong elements.
I don't think there's an issue with good cards being used, tbh. Every team has good cards that can beat other decks if they make their vault well. Do people really wanna see subpar decks containing salvagers and vultures And other useless stuff? Actually, yes that's exactly what we want. Big parts of the war meta has been the same since the beginning. I think it's about time the strong cards are less used and more creativity is added to war. These cards are good only in few decks so it makes sense that less of them are used. Right. But there's plenty of semi good decks that aren't used because everyone uses the same old good decks that we've seen in large number forever.
Can we finally share information with other teams? I thought having alliances was a big thing in Wars??I'm up for alliances, that would certainly add a lot of strategy to war. It's definitely worth a shot at least one war.
Sounds way too complicated, and there's really no way to "limit" this with restrictions.Can we finally share information with other teams? I thought having alliances was a big thing in Wars??I'm up for alliances, that would certainly add a lot of strategy to war. It's definitely worth a shot at least one war.
We might have to discuss some restriktions though. Like from when is it allowed to start an alliance, with how many teams, what information will be allowed to be shared, for how long can an alliance last, are they secret or do they have to be declared, does any special rules apply in an alliance like fewer upps, other battle traits, card restriktion etc, how many alliances are you allowed to have in one war.
I think alliances definitely would make war more of a mindgame and increase the chance of weak elements to become competitive.
Sounds way too complicated, and there's really no way to "limit" this with restrictions.Can we finally share information with other teams? I thought having alliances was a big thing in Wars??I'm up for alliances, that would certainly add a lot of strategy to war. It's definitely worth a shot at least one war.
We might have to discuss some restriktions though. Like from when is it allowed to start an alliance, with how many teams, what information will be allowed to be shared, for how long can an alliance last, are they secret or do they have to be declared, does any special rules apply in an alliance like fewer upps, other battle traits, card restriktion etc, how many alliances are you allowed to have in one war.
I think alliances definitely would make war more of a mindgame and increase the chance of weak elements to become competitive.
Some elements rely more on perm and spells than others so it will harm those elements a lot more (RIP adrena RIP sanc miracle RIP poor elements)
That is true. But also rip fractal feast, rip sofree feast, rip nova feast, rip strong elements.
I don't think there's an issue with good cards being used, tbh. Every team has good cards that can beat other decks if they make their vault well. Do people really wanna see subpar decks containing salvagers and vultures And other useless stuff? Actually, yes that's exactly what we want. Big parts of the war meta has been the same since the beginning. I think it's about time the strong cards are less used and more creativity is added to war. These cards are good only in few decks so it makes sense that less of them are used. Right. But there's plenty of semi good decks that aren't used because everyone uses the same old good decks that we've seen in large number forever.
Sounds way too complicated, and there's really no way to "limit" this with restrictions.Can we finally share information with other teams? I thought having alliances was a big thing in Wars??I'm up for alliances, that would certainly add a lot of strategy to war. It's definitely worth a shot at least one war.
We might have to discuss some restriktions though. Like from when is it allowed to start an alliance, with how many teams, what information will be allowed to be shared, for how long can an alliance last, are they secret or do they have to be declared, does any special rules apply in an alliance like fewer upps, other battle traits, card restriktion etc, how many alliances are you allowed to have in one war.
I think alliances definitely would make war more of a mindgame and increase the chance of weak elements to become competitive.
So much drama after the inevitable back stabbing...
kinda love the idea of having no restriction on conversations even though it's obviously unbalanced and would create massive drama lol
either that, or, like BS said, make alliances an actual mechanic ad try to balance and police it, for example letting WMs know you are have made an alliance, and then all conversations have to take place in a special pad that WMs have access to
Some people think the whole idea of a restricted war is pointless. That the amount of cards in vault only decides how many games you play a round and not which cards you're allowed to use. The restriktions are there for a reason. They balance elements, they create more creativity, they create lots of strategy and they make war less repetitive. All I'm suggesting is that in order to make it less repetitive and more versatile we add to that restriktion a bit. I don't think that would make war a joke at all but rather expand the meta.Some elements rely more on perm and spells than others so it will harm those elements a lot more (RIP adrena RIP sanc miracle RIP poor elements)
That is true. But also rip fractal feast, rip sofree feast, rip nova feast, rip strong elements.
I don't think there's an issue with good cards being used, tbh. Every team has good cards that can beat other decks if they make their vault well. Do people really wanna see subpar decks containing salvagers and vultures And other useless stuff? Actually, yes that's exactly what we want. Big parts of the war meta has been the same since the beginning. I think it's about time the strong cards are less used and more creativity is added to war. These cards are good only in few decks so it makes sense that less of them are used. Right. But there's plenty of semi good decks that aren't used because everyone uses the same old good decks that we've seen in large number forever.
I would argue fractal nova damage weak elements too. Fractal and nova are universal cards that can be used by anyone. Fair point, agreed.
Also, no, i do not believe that the biggest pvp event should be featuring subpar decks consisting of phase salvager decks beating antlion/vulture decks. That makes it a joke, imo.
Can we finally share information with other teams? I thought having alliances was a big thing in Wars??
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.
Imagine working hard as a team to get a good position and two teams form an alliance to hunt you down. I know i would be annoyed if i was that team, and it would create for a bad experience for all the members in that team.The stuff I put above was just for example purposes, but let's use them as a test case, then. A good ruleset should be able to withstand teams trying to exploit them in their favor. Therefore, how do weaker teams exploit the proposed example mechanics to take down a higher placed team?
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 :underworld and :chroma are allies, and both face :rainbow this round. This is a straight boost, so both :underworld and :chroma would gain upgrades against :rainbow in that one match if they agree to target the :rainbow matchups. Therefore, :rainbow has two matches where its enemies gain X upgrades. X will likely be a low number, between 1-3, and only if both :underworld and :chroma both pick the :rainbow matchup to apply this to. This is a small edge to :rainbow '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 :underworld and :chroma are allies, and both face :rainbow this round. This is a zero sum, so the total of :underworld and :chroma upgrades against :rainbow in the two matches is the same. Depending on how they choose to transfer the upgrades and what value X has, one of :rainbow 's matches is significantly harder, but the other will be significantly easier. Any disadvantage :rainbow 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 :chroma 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 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 :underworld and :chroma are allies, and both face :rainbow this round. This is a straight boost, so both :underworld and :chroma would gain upgrades against :rainbow in that one match if they agree to target the :rainbow matchups. Therefore, :rainbow has two matches where its enemies gain X upgrades. X will likely be a low number, between 1-3, and only if both :underworld and :chroma both pick the :rainbow matchup to apply this to. This is a small edge to :rainbow '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 :underworld and :chroma are allies, and both face :rainbow this round. This is a zero sum, so the total of :underworld and :chroma upgrades against :rainbow in the two matches is the same. Depending on how they choose to transfer the upgrades and what value X has, one of :rainbow 's matches is significantly harder, but the other will be significantly easier. Any disadvantage :rainbow 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 :chroma 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.
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).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.