War #12 - Planned Changes (Work In Progress) (Discussion)

[Vangelios]

I respect your opinion but let's remember some things here....
 No shards and no market remember and  like absolute favorites  , and still remains a good challenger however, but I can't see place to "weak" elements there, but depends of war rules and upgrades, roles and etc... and argumentation "no shards" generalizing not is a way to convincing because not are all shard OP, we have a lot of non shards cards more strong than a lot of shards, if you have some suggest to balance weak elements vs strong elements this will be welcome.

[deuce22]

I respect your opinion but let's remember some things here....
 No shards and no market remember and  like absolute favorites  , and still remains a good challenger however, but I can't see place to "weak" elements there, but depends of war rules and upgrades, roles and etc... and argumentation "no shards" generalizing not is a way to convincing because not are all shard OP, we have a lot of non shards cards more strong than a lot of shards, if you have some suggest to balance weak elements vs strong elements this will be welcome.

The notion that a weak element is unable to win war without shards is ridiculous. This is disrespectful of everything accomplished last war. If you look at the decks they used, they barely used shards (in-element or off-element). In the final 6 rounds, i think they only used shards in 4 or 5 matches, which went 50/50 or so. They had other decks with much better win rates.

All elements have had success in war at some point before shards were introduced. The one common factor among those instances is that they all had strong teams.

Team life's accomplishment is a testament to teamwork, mindgating, and deckbuilding. Without shards, any element is capable of making a deck that counters any deck any other element can make. With shards, this is not true.

[Vangelios]

I respect your opinion but let's remember some things here....
 No shards and no market remember and  like absolute favorites  , and still remains a good challenger however, but I can't see place to "weak" elements there, but depends of war rules and upgrades, roles and etc... and argumentation "no shards" generalizing not is a way to convincing because not are all shard OP, we have a lot of non shards cards more strong than a lot of shards, if you have some suggest to balance weak elements vs strong elements this will be welcome.

The notion that a weak element is unable to win war without shards is ridiculous. This is disrespectful of everything accomplished last war. If you look at the decks they used, they barely used shards (in-element or off-element). In the final 6 rounds, i think they only used shards in 4 or 5 matches, which went 50/50 or so. They had other decks with much better win rates.

All elements have had success in war at some point before shards were introduced. The one common factor among those instances is that they all had strong teams.

Team life's accomplishment is a testament to teamwork, mindgating, and deckbuilding. Without shards, any element is capable of making a deck that counters any deck any other element can make. With shards, this is not true.

Yes Was Discofrog, Frogtals and Staves variants  "This is disrespectful of everything accomplished last war." ????? not because there we have Market to help a lot, we bring some shards stalls,(Raimbow Life Stall, firestall, and Sod+Sog stall)  was very important and give us wins  and has greatly reinforced our deterrence of decks used against life.

[ddevans96]

Without shards, any element is capable of making a deck that counters any deck any other element can make. With shards, this is not true.

If you manage a produce section, and 2/12 pieces of fruit are spoiled but the rest are fine, do you throw out all 12?

[CactusKing]

If the other shards are so weak why do people care if they get banned?

[MyNameIsJoey]

I at first wanted to remove market, but we had a talk about it and want to give it at least one last try before turning it down. We feel like the coupons might bring a unique twist and are trying to balance that as much as we can.

Removing market would make sofree even more op, just saying.

And I, personally, am completely against straight out banning cards from war.

For the sideboard role, i'm not sure if i've talked about it with other WM's yet, but my idea was to keep it, with a -3 upgrades on it. If you want to use the sideboard role, you must use 3 less upgrades in your deck.

[ddevans96]

If the other shards are so weak why do people care if they get banned?

They aren't weak. For the most part, they're balanced well, have been used in War, and add diversity to their elements and the game as a whole without being overwhelming.

The shards have been in-element for almost 6 years, and some people want to ban 10 of them, most of which are balanced, viable, and fun, just because they share part of a name with the 2 strongest cards. I honestly do not have any nice words to describe that notion.

[Vangelios]

If the other shards are so weak why do people care if they get banned?

I honestly do not have any nice words to describe that notion.

I have really a great package of words to describe people that can't be able to distinguish OP Shards of acceptable shards (especially those who are considered great meta game players), but I'll prefer not speak.   

[ddevans96]

Suggested tier list for restricting problematic cards:

tier 0:	SoFr, SoP
tier 1:	Fractal, V-Dagger, Graboid, Sundial
tier 2:	Fire Bolt, Blue Nymph, Bone Wall, Dim Shield, Discord, Miracle or Sanc

Considerations: - Cards can be restricted by imposing a copy limit, penalizing max upgrades for every copy used, or by roles and event cards - Aether and Air are represented twice. Life and Gravity are not represented at all - Sundial is in t1 over Fire Bolt due to the abundance of stallbreak cards already in t0+t1 - Cards that could arguably be added to t2 include Nova and Nightmare - Cards with restrictions should have their market prices looked at, and potentially reduced slightly - but not enough to compensate for restrictions completely

Posting so I don't have to retype it so often

[TheonlyrealBeef]

Overall, the changes look acceptable. Not sure what the general into role in top list, but not in detailed spoilers is about: personally, I would prefer to keep Generals fixed. People may complain about rng hate, but it is likely preferable to team hate of getting a general in every single matchup.

Really like to see the variable team sizes implemented. I hope enough people sign up to have the minimum of two be low enough to have the desired effect on the player market.

Why the hell do we still have market prices? They have not worked well, and all people do is complain about it every war.

I agree that the time spent on attempting to balance market prices, does not seem worth it to me.

For the auction, Torb and I talked a lot last war and I think a draft would be the most fair option. The auction has always had issues, and it's time to scrap it.

Auction was good when there were 100+ players signing up for war. It was never designed with this few players in mind, so adapting the rules to compensate makes sense. I do think this needs to be combined with variable team sizes somehow, in case of 35 people signing up for war, a number that does not seem unlikely. The alternative is excluding 30% of the people signing up.

As a whole, war is complex and complicated enough. As a former WM, simplifying war as much as possible makes everything run SOOOO much smoother and makes it more enjoyable for everyone.

+1

[ddevans96]

personally, I would prefer to keep Generals fixed.

For the auction, Torb and I talked a lot last war and I think a draft would be the most fair option. The auction has always had issues, and it's time to scrap it.

Auction was good when there were 100+ players signing up for war. It was never designed with this few players in mind, so adapting the rules to compensate makes sense. I do think this needs to be combined with variable team sizes somehow, in case of 35 people signing up for war, a number that does not seem unlikely. The alternative is excluding 30% of the people signing up.

Agreed with these. The best way to allow for variable team size in a draft would probably be to simply allow a General to opt out of any given round.

[Blacksmith]

1. limit sofree (max 3-4 copies per deck) - probably the most fair option, while keeping it functional
2. change min in-element cards to 30-40% - not sure how this one would work out, could ruin the whole foundation of war
3. ban all shards - been my preference for several wars now

**It also may not be a bad idea to alternate allowing shards to every other war kind of like alternating upgraded tourneys.

I agree with this. It took a few wars before shards where even allowed in war for a reason. It wouldn't hurt not to have them in a war.

I'm really in favour - and has always been in favour - of restricting or baning certain cards. Vault restrictions dosen't seem so powerful to me, considering conversions.
A deck limit restriction seems a lot more fair. I'd like to see that on Sofree and Dims, max 3-4 each deck. There are other cards to be considered as well. Sop is not one of them.

Removing cards dosen't limit the meta as some people think. Removing cards changes the meta and changes is fun.