Post by: mathman101 on November 13, 2018, 08:14:13 pm
Please post suggestions and feedback regarding War #11 in this thread for War #12's benefit.
Post by: Mr Muffin on November 26, 2018, 06:28:41 pm
Post by: InsignificantWeeaboo on November 26, 2018, 06:55:15 pm
With the ever decreasing number of war applicants, when war 13 comes we could try having two elements per team.
I'm all for this, but there are a couple of questions that show up.
What would the new deck building rules be? Vault building? How could we group up teams without giving an unfair advantage? We can't do opposing elements since that would probably give an unfair advantage towards Discohole and Vader Sader. How would Generals be arranged?
Post by: shockcannon on November 26, 2018, 06:58:17 pm
UNTIL THE :fire NATION ATTACKED, almost wiping out air completely and forcing everyone else to choose a side. This results in a massive war between two teams with elements divided among the two sides and battles chosen carefully, sometimes small scale and local but sometimes large scale and involving more than just two elements. And then :fire gets some sort of bonus for being the aggressive attacker with the element of the surprise but the current Grandmaster joins the other side and gets special abilities. Just a thought.
Post by: ddevans96 on November 27, 2018, 12:05:28 am
How could we group up teams without giving an unfair advantage?
Two methods:
-weigh all time War standings with an exponential recency bias and pair teams 1-12, 2-11, 3-10, 4-9, 5-8, 6-7
-pair teams within their quadrants, but not their opposites - ex: :water :earth / :air :fire / :death :light / :life :darkness / :aether :entropy / :gravity :time
Quote
What would the new deck building rules be? Vault building?
Decks must be 50% of either element. Vaults must start as X% (unsure - probably 60% or 70%) of both elements.
Quote
How would Generals be arranged?
Work out how elements are to be paired before Trials. After Trials, in pairs with one Master, simply give that Master the Generalship. In pairs with two Masters, allow one of them to willingly concede the Generalship to the other, or if neither wants to, have them battle for it with a ruleset that encourages strong knowledge of both elements. In pairs with no Masters, have Council or WMs appoint a General as done traditionally.
Post by: kaempfer13 on November 27, 2018, 12:31:41 am
with recency being the mere tiebreaker that would translate to :life :aether, :light :air, :entropy :water, :fire :gravity, :earth :time, :darkness :death
-weigh all time War standings with an exponential recency bias and pair teams 1-12, 2-11, 3-10, 4-9, 5-8, 6-7
I like that light gets access to really good rushes with air, entropy wont abuse sop as much as water would with some other teams (though all current sop decks are available anyway), fire gravity seems fine, a traditionally strong and a traditionally weak one.
earth time screams graboid abuse, otherwise should be fine (also it kinda heavily leans on nymphs for its full power unfortunately).
darkness and death have some brutal monos that will be hard to counter at once and heavily encourages use of holy light just for that one team.
life aether sounds dangerous. life provides cheap reasonable cards while aether brings a combination of cards to the table that will largely limit the choices of their opponents. also ironically doesnt help much vs sofree.
maybe regrouping the latter to :darkness :earth, :life :time (hehe, a pun), :death :aether would work nicer on how balanced those groups feel to me personally, at that point we are kind of delving into arbitrary decisions though.
Post by: mathman101 on November 27, 2018, 02:28:51 am
With the ever decreasing number of war applicants, when war 13 comes we could try having two elements per team.
This is actually something WMs have been discussing the last 2-3 weeks as a back-up idea in case there are not enough applications for at least 3-man teams. We do feel this is quite a bit different from the original style of war, but we feel that if it is absolutely needed due to the low participants that it may be worth trying.
How could we group up teams without giving an unfair advantage?
Two methods:
-weigh all time War standings with an exponential recency bias and pair teams 1-12, 2-11, 3-10, 4-9, 5-8, 6-7
-pair teams within their quadrants, but not their opposites - ex: :water :earth / :air :fire / :death :light / :life :darkness / :aether :entropy / :gravity :timeQuoteWhat would the new deck building rules be? Vault building?
Decks must be 50% of either element. Vaults must start as X% (unsure - probably 60% or 70%) of both elements.QuoteHow would Generals be arranged?
Work out how elements are to be paired before Trials. After Trials, in pairs with one Master, simply give that Master the Generalship. In pairs with two Masters, allow one of them to willingly concede the Generalship to the other, or if neither wants to, have them battle for it with a ruleset that encourages strong knowledge of both elements. In pairs with no Masters, have Council or WMs appoint a General as done traditionally.
These are actually similar to what we have discussed and balanced, some of them have slight differences but overall the ideas are mostly the same.
Post by: Manuel on November 27, 2018, 11:17:37 am
Post by: Kalinuial on November 27, 2018, 01:15:58 pm
Most academic terms are ending early to mid December, right? Perhaps we will find more students joining on their breaks.
Post by: Wyand on November 27, 2018, 01:32:28 pm
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on November 27, 2018, 01:55:43 pm
Post by: Wyand on November 27, 2018, 02:16:20 pm
Having the number of teams halved... I feel like the fun would be halved both ways (3man teams / only 6 teams).
Having these 2 options I prefer the first.
(Btw, I don't know why is it a great surprise... looking at participants of tourneys and other PvP events this year...
Gathering 24 players for 3-man teams is quite good.)
Post by: Manuel on November 27, 2018, 02:35:45 pm
in a normal world if u have no experience u should be happy to be paired with another gen, "we would prefer a war with all elements" other than having no sense because there are all elements even with 6 teams isn't an explanation on your point, i only understand "i want the toy all for me pls give it to me hurry"
Post by: MyNameIsJoey on November 27, 2018, 04:11:58 pm
Post by: Wyand on November 27, 2018, 08:48:37 pm
war is only the biggest event of the year and the best pvp experience u can have, so players are supposed to be here if for them elements is something
in a normal world if u have no experience u should be happy to be paired with another gen, "we would prefer a war with all elements" other than having no sense because there are all elements even with 6 teams isn't an explanation on your point, i only understand "i want the toy all for me pls give it to me hurry"
I'd be happy to participate a war with 12 teams as a soldier, too. Hope that dispels your confusion.
Post by: ddevans96 on November 27, 2018, 11:42:22 pm
That being said - since variable team sizes are enabled, I'd still like to agree with an extension on the application phase, specifically through this weekend.
This would:
-give players with primarily weekend access another chance to notice/consider signups
-not be so long as to create waiting fatigue (especially as draft is shorter than auction)
-enable more opportunities to create 4-player teams around players who wouldn't enjoy 3-player teams
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on November 28, 2018, 10:36:30 am
To reduce the number of teams, just have some elements not participate. In this wars case, if only the elements with Masters leading them participated, we would have eight teams. If that is still too many, ask some to step down voluntarily.
I strongly prefer this over something like mixed elements. Perhaps an idea for a different event, but I dislike it for war.
Post by: ddevans96 on November 28, 2018, 11:00:53 am
Granted, pairing elements might have a similar effect to some of that, but I'd argue none of it is nearly as strong, and it makes it really easy to play up an alliance angle.
Post by: Submachine on November 28, 2018, 12:59:35 pm
Post by: kaempfer13 on November 28, 2018, 03:24:06 pm
Theoretically, how long would War be if we added Triple Elimination rules on top of the existing rules?
What do you even mean by that? Each card has 3 'lives' until its removed from vault? After theoretical elimination a new vault can be built? Anyway its too f-ing long.
Post by: Zawadx on December 01, 2018, 04:20:22 pm
You can implement the reduction for in-element, but you have to make it drastic (not 10%, but something like 20-25%), and alter the market costs to suit it. So graboids/fractals should be costed to be around the same price as they are now for their elements, since they've been costed around worst case. But Sanc and Miracle would stay as is, since they've been costed around the average team.
So the solution is more price tinkering. Yay market.
Post by: kaempfer13 on December 05, 2018, 08:30:31 pm
- You have to do a lot at once. Chances are you ought to list each one in auction that you dont consider a straight downgrade to your team with an individual prize.
- The draft is unengaging. It's make a huge list with noone knowing anything and then 2 days later - boom! I hope you are ready to vaultbuild.
- There is no way to compose your team to fit well together. You just hope you get as many decent allrounders with coincidentally similiar schedules (tbf, there arent really specialist roles anyways, but making teams that have no similiar online times kinda sucks)
- People probably wont go for their real worth. Blind auction is always just a guessing game, exacerbated by the fact that you cant sense any pattern to how people bid in one round.
- There is no way to make up for mistakes. Got all your highest bids at once? Well, best get used to half the vault size. Got outbid everywhere? Perhaps there will be 1 person that noone wanted. You can have them for the measly prize of 2 fullblown Sofree decks.
- I wasnt really opposed to keeping bids openended assuming an openauction, but combine twice the max bid of anything ever seen before with blind auction and there is absolutely no telling what people will have to pay.
I have absolutely no idea what will happen, but I expect this auction to leave like a third of the teams dead in the water by either giving them noone they actually wanted or all of them at once, leaving them with no vault.
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on December 05, 2018, 09:54:14 pm
Will elaborate every bid of mine and the underlying strategy once deadline is up, if people are interested. Even if that strategy ends up failing miserably. Only time will tell ;)
There is a chance I'm an exception for having everything the team needs with just me, and considering the possibility of other experienced players as a nice bonus. If anything, I'm more sad about having to dissappoint many people that favorited Darkness because other teams might overbid, or best case, my team has insufficient room.
If anything would cripple the vault, it's forced maxbid for not getting enough players for some reason or other. Which ironically becomes more likely the more teams willingly wreck their own vault by paying more for auction than they should. The bid max is utterly unforgiving and insane, at most one player should go for that price. But I recommend staying far below it, for everyone's sake. Most of all for the player burdened with that price.
Post by: Manuel on December 06, 2018, 08:23:31 am
Lets say this before we see the results. I think the current blind auction "draft" is awfull for a number of reasons.
- You have to do a lot at once. Chances are you ought to list each one in auction that you dont consider a straight downgrade to your team with an individual prize.
- The draft is unengaging. It's make a huge list with noone knowing anything and then 2 days later - boom! I hope you are ready to vaultbuild.
- There is no way to compose your team to fit well together. You just hope you get as many decent allrounders with coincidentally similiar schedules (tbf, there arent really specialist roles anyways, but making teams that have no similiar online times kinda sucks)
- People probably wont go for their real worth. Blind auction is always just a guessing game, exacerbated by the fact that you cant sense any pattern to how people bid in one round.
- There is no way to make up for mistakes. Got all your highest bids at once? Well, best get used to half the vault size. Got outbid everywhere? Perhaps there will be 1 person that noone wanted. You can have them for the measly prize of 2 fullblown Sofree decks.
- I wasnt really opposed to keeping bids openended assuming an openauction, but combine twice the max bid of anything ever seen before with blind auction and there is absolutely no telling what people will have to pay.
I have absolutely no idea what will happen, but I expect this auction to leave like a third of the teams dead in the water by either giving them noone they actually wanted or all of them at once, leaving them with no vault.
+1 to all after i tried to make a sort of list for the draft
in the beginning (yesterday lol) i thought it was a decent quick rework of the draft suggested by us/deuce, there are too much teams/gens who will bid all the in the same way, this was cool with 6 teams, with 12 it is really a blind auction
also since there will be no pvp event, can u please give point for the pvp event partecipation reward, so players are a little bit more motivated to play their matches?
Post by: Manuel on December 07, 2018, 05:25:53 am
2 days for find a new auction system ignoring all the holes in the rules
not only u ruined war for me with a shitty blind auction, u also let me ruin the war for another 3 players, good job
Post by: worldwideweb3 on December 07, 2018, 05:44:32 am
from august 29 for picking wms to october 5 for choosing new gens to november 5 for picking them
2 days for find a new auction system ignoring all the holes in the rules
not only u ruined war for me with a shitty blind auction, u also let me ruin the war for another 3 players, good job
Um, it was your decision to go that high on bids? If you had looked at previous wars and thought about it, you'd have realised no one is going to be bidding that high
Post by: kaempfer13 on December 07, 2018, 05:49:25 am
Post by: Manuel on December 07, 2018, 06:14:15 am
from august 29 for picking wms to october 5 for choosing new gens to november 5 for picking them
2 days for find a new auction system ignoring all the holes in the rules
not only u ruined war for me with a shitty blind auction, u also let me ruin the war for another 3 players, good job
Um, it was your decision to go that high on bids? If you had looked at previous wars and thought about it, you'd have realised no one is going to be bidding that high
if the system used and the player base was totally different why should i look at past wars?
"my decision" that was blindly mixed with the decisions of another 11 players, where is my decision? how can i guess what other 11 will bid?
Post by: Spielkind on December 07, 2018, 09:41:58 am
Post by: Submachine on December 07, 2018, 11:45:14 am
No, I meant that a team is instantly eliminated after the third round when they have more losses than wins. It’s a theoretical question though, not a suggestion.Theoretically, how long would War be if we added Triple Elimination rules on top of the existing rules?
What do you even mean by that? Each card has 3 'lives' until its removed from vault? After theoretical elimination a new vault can be built? Anyway its too f-ing long.
Post by: Wyand on December 07, 2018, 11:50:30 am
on a workday and lasts only for 48 hours. Which kinda meant that I didn't have enough time to factor in everything.
So I ended up having the 2nd most expensive team. This is kinda tough. This can be decisive, and while I admit that
bidding too high is my mistake it is really strange that something which can have such a great impact on War was
shoe-horned into a 48 hours blind event on weekdays.
Post by: Wyand on December 07, 2018, 12:07:12 pm
Post by: Manuel on December 07, 2018, 05:57:15 pm
i am supposed to bid on players
players in auction ignoring the rules and banning 6/11 elements
players in auction pretend to play war without having time/motivation/will to play
i bid on all the players i can buy and hopefully won't left war after 2 rounds
if i don't bid enough i risk to get a penalization
i am screwed because i actually tried to build a team
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Post by: CCCombobreaker on December 07, 2018, 07:50:26 pm
Current System: (Highest Bid General with Open Roster Spot) gets (Player X) for (Highest Bid on Player X made by General with an Open Roster Spot).
Proposed change (Highest Bid General with Open Roster Spot) gets (Player X) for (2nd Highest Bid on Player X made by a General with an Open Roster Spot)+1.
For example:
InsignificantWeaboo really wants DoubleCapitals on his team. In a blind auction that means he needs to bid pretty high to have confidence he will get DoubleCapitals. To make sure, InsignificantWeaboo bids the max 7500. However, other generals do not rank DoubleCapitals as highly, and the next highest bid by a General with an open roster spot is 1002 by ShockCannon. Because InsignificantWeaboo bid the most on DoubleCapitals, he receives DoubleCapitals onto his team, but because the next highest bid was 1002, it only costs InsignificantWeaboo 1003 points (not 7500).
This allows the general that bids the most on a player to get that player, but the cost is determined at a "closer to market" rate rather than a blind guess by a single general.
Generals who prioritize a player or two would get them at whatever other Generals essentially valued those players at. If two generals really want a player, that player will cost much more, but in many cases this helps alleviate the price hike that comes from the blind nature of the auction.
I understand there is a certain amount of strategy to be employed in the current blind auction system, and some generals probably quite enjoy that. This proposal changes the nature of such strategies, but I am certain it still leaves quite a lot of potential for strategic bidding.
Post by: InsignificantWeeaboo on December 07, 2018, 09:27:31 pm
Post by: MasterWalks on December 07, 2018, 10:14:40 pm
It makes more sense. The two elements with the highest bids :entropy and :air also have the most expensive market prices. These teams are at a severe disadvantage. I think it wouldnt be difficult to adjust the points to what CCC has stated to make this a more fair War.
Look at Light as well. One of the cheapest markets as well as the cheapest bids.
This is Outrageous! Its Unfair!
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on December 07, 2018, 10:25:18 pm
Post by: CCCombobreaker on December 07, 2018, 10:35:15 pm
I think in a normal auction system, the current "you pay what you bid" makes sense, because people can see each other's bids and then decide if they want to bid more. you know the "market value" and decide if you want to push that up. But when you make it a blind system, you are now asking them to guess the market value, which in a market this size and volatile isn't particularly fair. The current system essentially has General's bidding against the system instead of bidding against each other. They can't see each other's bids, and the bids hardly affect each other. This is why if you look at their bids there is crazy variance. They are all throwing darts blindfolded. Sure it's "fair" that they are all equally blindfolded and have the same darts, but that isn't a good system for a competitive event.
The current system is high risk - moderate reward. my proposal is moderate risk -moderate reward. The reward doesn't change, the reward is the players on your roster. and my proposal doesn't change a single player on any roster. what it does is lower the risk, and puts the Generals in a position where they are bidding against each other, even if they can't see each other's bids, which is more fitting for a competitive event.
Post by: MyNameIsJoey on December 07, 2018, 10:43:40 pm
from august 29 for picking wms to october 5 for choosing new gens to november 5 for picking them
2 days for find a new auction system ignoring all the holes in the rules
not only u ruined war for me with a shitty blind auction, u also let me ruin the war for another 3 players, good job
This may be harsh, and if anyone feels like punishing me for it and/or think it's not suitable for a WM, then go ahead.
Look, we're doing what we can here. We have lives, we dont hav emuch time, we are sacrificing ourselves, we cant even be playing because we're here to save this event for you. We're doing all we can, and do you know what is the very last thing we need? The last thing we need is your complaining about every single fucking detail. Want war to be exactly like you want it to? Thena pply to be WM next time around.
I'll be here to hear your constructive criticism. If you want to keep talking shit, you can go elsewhere. We're already putting a lot of the little free time we have just to organize this for you, and to receive 0 fucking gratitude, and quite the opposite receiving shit for it is really misplaced.
Post by: majofa on December 07, 2018, 10:43:50 pm
A Vickrey auction is a type of sealed-bid auction. Bidders submit written bids without knowing the bid of the other people in the auction. The highest bidder wins but the price paid is the second-highest bid.
Post by: shockcannon on December 07, 2018, 10:54:54 pm
It may be a guessing game, but you can know that if you bid 7500 on 3 players and ask for 3 players, there's a chance you will spend 22,500 points on players alone. If you're not comfortable risking that amount then you need to lower your numbers. And if you say, "well then I might not get the players I want," THATS EXACTLY THE POINT. There's a trade off.
Yes, this system limits how much "value" you can get and makes it hard to end up with the highest bid for someone by just a couple points. Honestly though, I think that's fine. You can't guess what other players bid but you can 100% choose your own risk and your reward. But I agree, a better system is possible given more time to develop it. We were short on time this War, but now we can learn and improve in the future.
Post by: Manuel on December 08, 2018, 04:03:43 am
we (generals) tried to give the max support for helping
other nongenerals tried to help
you ignored most of our concerns about this new blind auction system
where do u see talking shit? u take things too personal lmao
u can't call "detail" a change of 6000 max cap for all players to a 7500 cap to a single one, i call that a huge hole in the rules that can backfire randomly
it was pointed out, your answer was "then don't bid"
u was able to fix that in 1 minute, u want a higher cost/player? raise the cap to all players to 10000, it was so easy it was pointed out by a council member since u can crititize things only if u have a staff position
it is possible in this community for one time stop acting like being a competition organizer is like being a god? or even better, stop crying everytime i say something?
Want war to be exactly like you want it to? Thena pply to be WM next time around.
then i'll try to lost my trial final next time
Post by: MyNameIsJoey on December 08, 2018, 04:26:16 am
if u don't have time don't make the wm your not having time isn't a justification
I had time when i applied, i got a job since then.
other nongenerals tried to help
you ignored most of our concerns about this new blind auction system
we made a dozen polls and did everything you asked, i dont see how that,s ignoring you
i
u can't call "detail" a change of 6000 max cap for all players to a 7500 cap to a single one, i call that a huge hole in the rules that can backfire randomly
it was pointed out, your answer was "then don't bid"
Yeah. My answer was, dont be a dumbass, and it wont be a problem. And it was a problem. I wonder why.
it is possible in this community for one time stop acting like being a competition organizer is like being a god? or even better, stop crying everytime i say something?
This has nothing to do with me being organizer, this is about me being sick of you having no respect whatsoever. If you want to take this conversation to council/admins and want my role removed go ahead, I don't mind.
Post by: Manuel on December 08, 2018, 01:46:45 pm
this time isn't a community vote or something like trials, i followed the exact rules U made
don't worry i don't need to call my internet """"friends""""" if i have an argument with someone or even worst, i won't put any kind of effort ub trying to ruin your staff carrier
i actually would like to put effort in building the vault if i didn't screw up 1/3 of my points for a blind auction
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on December 08, 2018, 02:13:20 pm
You knew you would get deuce with a max bid.
You asked for 3 players.
What did you think would happen?
This is nobody's fault but yours (though 4 days rather than 2 could have been better)
Post by: Manuel on December 08, 2018, 03:12:38 pm
it was an exaggeration bid on deuce? yes but if torb in last war costed almost 5k isn't something so crazy, 7 time master + several wins in war, is normal pay so much a player with so much experience he is currently the only and last to have that record
if i was going to bid only 7500 for every player yes, i was stupid, i did nothing bad or wanted to autosabotage myself
Post by: SurfAngel87 on December 08, 2018, 03:20:49 pm
Post by: Aves on December 08, 2018, 04:50:57 pm
Is there a post somewhere explaining the basics of war?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/war/war-12-rules/
The first two paragraphs there. Even that is a bit verbose, so tl;dr 12 teams face off against each other to represent their element over the course of a few months.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on December 08, 2018, 04:55:24 pm
hopefully stay under 10k (yes, i was thinking to not being able to get moe for "only" 3k, same for playeroa), which end up being still terrible looking at other what other gens did
it was an exaggeration bid on deuce? yes but if torb in last war costed almost 5k isn't something so crazy, 7 time master + several wins in war, is normal pay so much a player with so much experience he is currently the only and last to have that record
if i was going to bid only 7500 for every player yes, i was stupid, i did nothing bad or wanted to autosabotage myself
Manuel, please stop complaining. If you think the WMs are so unfair, then why are you here in the first place? You can always be replaced from the General's position or abandon War altogether. It is true we need more War players and not less, but we also need less trash-talkers. Sorry for being harsh...
Post by: Manuel on December 08, 2018, 06:00:54 pm
Post by: Wyand on December 08, 2018, 06:33:51 pm
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71Bj466lNeL._SX425_.jpg)
Post by: shockcannon on December 08, 2018, 06:55:27 pm
Edit: Wyand uses fire extinguisher. It was not very effective. Wyand dies in the flames. :P
Post by: Wyand on December 08, 2018, 07:01:32 pm
Post by: deuce22 on December 08, 2018, 09:52:43 pm
other nongenerals tried to help
you ignored most of our concerns about this new blind auction system
we made a dozen polls and did everything you asked, i dont see how that,s ignoring you
I believe what Manuel is alluding to is when the draft rules were changed, myself and other vets expressed our concerns about the revised rules and suggested how to further improve them, which were largely ignored.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on December 08, 2018, 11:39:29 pm
explaining what happened is trash talking now?
trash talk = make boastful or insulting remarks in order to demoralize or humiliate a sporting opponent.
Well, WMs are not exactly a "sporting opponent", but I think War is a sport in general and WMs are your opponent and yes, you demoralize and humiliate them. Because of these, I think the definition of "trash talking" still stands. Do you wish to remind you of your "boastful or insulting remarks" too?
Post by: worldwideweb3 on December 08, 2018, 11:51:29 pm
It seems (from the General's perspective) that this blind auction/draft system was suboptimal. I have a somewhat simple suggestion that could improve this system for future wars (if it isn't completely overhauled).
Current System: (Highest Bid General with Open Roster Spot) gets (Player X) for (Highest Bid on Player X made by General with an Open Roster Spot).
Proposed change (Highest Bid General with Open Roster Spot) gets (Player X) for (2nd Highest Bid on Player X made by a General with an Open Roster Spot)+1.
For example:
InsignificantWeaboo really wants DoubleCapitals on his team. In a blind auction that means he needs to bid pretty high to have confidence he will get DoubleCapitals. To make sure, InsignificantWeaboo bids the max 7500. However, other generals do not rank DoubleCapitals as highly, and the next highest bid by a General with an open roster spot is 1002 by ShockCannon. Because InsignificantWeaboo bid the most on DoubleCapitals, he receives DoubleCapitals onto his team, but because the next highest bid was 1002, it only costs InsignificantWeaboo 1003 points (not 7500).
This allows the general that bids the most on a player to get that player, but the cost is determined at a "closer to market" rate rather than a blind guess by a single general.
Generals who prioritize a player or two would get them at whatever other Generals essentially valued those players at. If two generals really want a player, that player will cost much more, but in many cases this helps alleviate the price hike that comes from the blind nature of the auction.
I understand there is a certain amount of strategy to be employed in the current blind auction system, and some generals probably quite enjoy that. This proposal changes the nature of such strategies, but I am certain it still leaves quite a lot of potential for strategic bidding.
Loophole: bidding highest amount possible on vets. kinda like shock's modification that you pay average of highest and second highest bid.
@Everyone else, this thread is for S&F. everyone is entitled to their opinion. Let's stay on topic.
Post by: dawn to dusk on December 08, 2018, 11:54:06 pm
I had the same thought, but if everyone does this then everyone is priced at 7500 so it doesn't make too much difference.It seems (from the General's perspective) that this blind auction/draft system was suboptimal. I have a somewhat simple suggestion that could improve this system for future wars (if it isn't completely overhauled).
Current System: (Highest Bid General with Open Roster Spot) gets (Player X) for (Highest Bid on Player X made by General with an Open Roster Spot).
Proposed change (Highest Bid General with Open Roster Spot) gets (Player X) for (2nd Highest Bid on Player X made by a General with an Open Roster Spot)+1.
For example:
InsignificantWeaboo really wants DoubleCapitals on his team. In a blind auction that means he needs to bid pretty high to have confidence he will get DoubleCapitals. To make sure, InsignificantWeaboo bids the max 7500. However, other generals do not rank DoubleCapitals as highly, and the next highest bid by a General with an open roster spot is 1002 by ShockCannon. Because InsignificantWeaboo bid the most on DoubleCapitals, he receives DoubleCapitals onto his team, but because the next highest bid was 1002, it only costs InsignificantWeaboo 1003 points (not 7500).
This allows the general that bids the most on a player to get that player, but the cost is determined at a "closer to market" rate rather than a blind guess by a single general.
Generals who prioritize a player or two would get them at whatever other Generals essentially valued those players at. If two generals really want a player, that player will cost much more, but in many cases this helps alleviate the price hike that comes from the blind nature of the auction.
I understand there is a certain amount of strategy to be employed in the current blind auction system, and some generals probably quite enjoy that. This proposal changes the nature of such strategies, but I am certain it still leaves quite a lot of potential for strategic bidding.
Loophole: bidding highest amount possible on vets. kinda like shock's modification that you pay average of highest and second highest bid.
@Everyone else, this thread is for S&F. everyone is entitled to their opinion. Let's stay on topic.
The second modification is better though in my opinion because it alleviates the mind games of "What if they do max bid"
Post by: InsignificantWeeaboo on December 09, 2018, 12:13:07 am
Can you please fix market prices? Even now the ones in the table by element and first table dont match up. Its the reason why I didnt give feedback as I thought this would be fixed a month ago. i still dont know how much Sofree actually costs now.
+1, as of right now some of the prices are wrongly positioned (95 point Miracle above 100 point Purify) and some of them are inconsistent. (SoFo is 160 points in All Cards, 180 points in Creatures,
Post by: deuce22 on December 09, 2018, 12:53:45 pm
Post by: iancudorinmarian on December 09, 2018, 04:02:44 pm
Any reasons why we still don’t have access to team sections? Or is that just me?It's just you. I do have access... to team entropy's section :silly:
Post by: kaempfer13 on December 09, 2018, 04:16:24 pm
Post by: shockcannon on December 13, 2018, 10:59:55 pm
Relics can be used to give one upgrade to a deck OR they can be used to add an actual copy of the relic card to a deck for that round (this card would not count towards or against the 50% in-element rule).
Post by: Wyand on December 17, 2018, 12:44:57 pm
Same price as Azure?
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
Post by: kaempfer13 on December 17, 2018, 01:12:19 pm
Post by: Wyand on December 17, 2018, 02:15:53 pm
life and air have a bunch of more quantaefficient attackers, which is why their dragon doesnt stand out as much by comparison.
So they have even more attack power, so let's make their dragon cheaper? Strange logic.
Quote
A lot of entropy is balanced around nova and discord being a bit too good,
Nova can be used by anyone... in fact it IS used. If Discord is considered 'too good', then it should be reflected only in Discord's price,
not in the Dragon's.
Quote
i suppose air dragon isnt more expensive due to airs generally high prices. either way, now is too late to talk about that.
I don't want to make air's dragon more expensive, I think entropy's dragon is too expensive. Btw, just one moment earlier you argued
that "Purple Dragon is expensive, because that element has other powerful (and pricy) cards", and now you say
that "Azure dragon isn't expensive, because that element has many pricy cards". Eh?
Quote
either way, now is too late to talk about that.
I know, but it just bugged me for weeks, had to spill it. Maybe a good advice/idea for possible future wars.
Post by: kaempfer13 on December 17, 2018, 02:44:34 pm
Post by: Wyand on December 17, 2018, 11:38:26 pm
At the same time, if you look at offensive Entropy creatures, you'll see that they are pretty pricy, too. Nvm, let's continue
this after war.
Post by: serprex on December 17, 2018, 11:47:27 pm
Post by: Afdarenty on December 18, 2018, 12:57:10 am
As a final remark re market prices, please remember that market prices don't only serve the role of balancing war, but also of creating a fresh meta
That might have been the aim, but I don't think I've seen it succeed just yet.
Post by: immortal feud on December 18, 2018, 12:37:22 pm
Post by: InsignificantWeeaboo on December 18, 2018, 05:44:57 pm
Post by: Higurashi on December 18, 2018, 05:48:43 pm
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on December 18, 2018, 05:53:22 pm
Are we supposed to have access to a section called "War General Private Section"?
Generals are, yes. It's for WM-to-Generals and General-to-General discussion. Hasn't been needed in a while though.Would have been nice for that mass pms discussion we had with warmasters before the draft started, for example. Much better to just use a forum for it.
Or the discussion on the discount deadline.
Those (kinds of) discussions belong in that section.
Post by: Wyand on December 19, 2018, 10:49:22 pm
tricky, I don't believe ppl will have much time caring about that between Dec 23 and 25. Seems like a small extension would be fair.
Post by: asdw152 on December 20, 2018, 04:20:35 am
Post by: Wyand on December 21, 2018, 04:24:24 pm
I REQUEST for a Vaultbuilding time extension. First I tried to cope with the crazy deadline,
but now everything gone fubar and I'm on the brink of a nervous breakdown.
Today my winter shoe just broke (yes, a shoe can break), which meant I couldn't finish
buying things, and I absolutely don't know when will I able to do that, since that is
my only winter shoe (yes, fuck you, teachers, you were stupid enough to choose such
a profession, shut up and be glad that at least you have a home - so pls don't tell me
to buy another quickly). I'm trying to fix it with some glue, but the solution is temporary
and drying needs 24 hours, which is already a huge setback.
I don't know about the life of other Generals, but before Christmas (and often
during Christmas, too) all hell breaks loose, and while I was able to fit in Generalship
into my life nicely, certainly the situation is different when it is Christmas, plus
your only shoe gets wrecked.
It is the Winter Solstice, the darkest day of the year. I ask the WMs to bring some light.
Post by: deuce22 on December 21, 2018, 05:47:04 pm
As a final remark re market prices, please remember that market prices don't only serve the role of balancing war, but also of creating a fresh meta
That might have been the aim, but I don't think I've seen it succeed just yet.
It never will... no idea why so many people want to hang onto this system
Post by: InsignificantWeeaboo on December 21, 2018, 05:48:47 pm
It never will... no idea why so many people want to hang onto this system
So far, there doesn't seem to be a better alternative.
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on December 21, 2018, 05:55:15 pm
I don't know about the life of other GeneralsChill back and relax while family arranges stuff, there isn't a single time in the entire year that I have more time. I should probably spend some of that with said family instead of on elements, though.
It is the Winter Solstice, the darkest day of the year. I ask the WMs to bring some light.Unacceptable.
War during the holidays has always been met with resistance, so might as well delay it further, in my opinion. If propaganda deadline is made to match, maybe I'll have time to get serious about it. That'd be something.
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on December 21, 2018, 07:41:40 pm
It never will... no idea why so many people want to hang onto this system
Some bad elements want more of their bad cards than the good elements have of their good cards
Post by: Wyand on December 22, 2018, 02:06:58 pm
I don't know about the life of other GeneralsChill back and relax while family arranges stuff, there isn't a single time in the entire year that I have more time. I should probably spend some of that with said family instead of on elements, though.
Enviable. Enjoy while it lasts.It is the Winter Solstice, the darkest day of the year. I ask the WMs to bring some light.Unacceptable.
War during the holidays has always been met with resistance, so might as well delay it further, in my opinion. If propaganda deadline is made to match, maybe I'll have time to get serious about it. That'd be something.
Uh, what is unacceptable? Light? :)
I think it is fairly normal that ppl wish to focus on Christmas instead of a game.
Post by: Manuel on December 22, 2018, 02:33:09 pm
Post by: RavingRabbid on December 22, 2018, 07:51:08 pm
Post by: dawn to dusk on December 23, 2018, 01:54:25 pm
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on December 23, 2018, 03:30:19 pm
Post by: shockcannon on December 23, 2018, 03:41:17 pm
Post by: Wyand on December 23, 2018, 04:20:29 pm
Team Fire is fine with anything. Extensions only prolong the inevitable roasting that the other elements will receive.
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AncientBabyishAmericantoad-size_restricted.gif)
Post by: kaempfer13 on December 23, 2018, 04:54:51 pm
Post by: Wyand on December 24, 2018, 12:36:02 am
(https://i.ibb.co/zhKq4cg/wms.jpg)
Post by: shockcannon on December 24, 2018, 04:19:10 am
All the WMs would then have to do is find a way to make those google docs the official vault. Or maybe they can copy that example spreadsheet and then send out new links? Alternatively, everyone can just self calculate their vault to ensure it's legal (maybe using this example spreadsheet) and then just use the links we were given anyways. All the really matters after round 1 starts are that the counts for each card are correct. Points and 50% in-element don't matter after that. Would be more work though and prone to miscalculations or lack of honor code.
Also thanks Kaempf for doing that work on the spreadsheet.
Given the prospect of Darkness providing a useable testing area (hopefully), I'll be so kind to share a coupon simulator with you. Obv, inelement allowed totals and percentage will be calculated for time given the basis I worked on (for total points this is irrelevant though and its easy enough to change this yourselves) and this is not the version that I myself use and you cannot edit it (this is for your own good really, dont want everyone to see your vault).
Instead, while being logged into a gmail-account you click on File -> Make a copy to get an editable copy.
Put the cards you want in VaultCostCalculator, the cards will automatically be transferred to the three sheets for simulated coupons. You can then see the total costs in the respective sheets.
Enough talk, here is the link to the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LXsm8fdS68-TRRxu7uzFUmQskm-FSjIEG7qyrEfVhmA/edit#gid=869944792)
Some copypasting errors may have occured, please point them out!
However, no you are not allowed to complain about the bg color being a little inconsistent due to copypasting!
Post by: asdw152 on December 24, 2018, 04:21:11 am
[8:22 PM] Joey: I would add something along the lines of
[8:22 PM] Joey: ''And the WM's wish you all a merry christmas''
[8:23 PM] mathman101: "Happy holidays"
[8:23 PM] Joey: yeah holidays is better
[8:23 PM] Joey: since not everybody celebrates christmas
[8:23 PM] mathman101: Be inclusive to those that dont celebrate Christmas.
Post by: Vindilos on January 01, 2019, 02:32:35 pm
This is one of the top events of the season and costs a lot of time. The reward to effort ratio compared to weekly tournaments and league seems poor.
Post by: Wyand on January 01, 2019, 02:57:33 pm
Would it be possible to get a trophy icon for second and third place (like league)?
This is one of the top events of the season and costs a lot of time. The reward to effort ratio compared to weekly tournaments and league seems poor.
There is no 2nd place icons for TCBOO neither... and I think War is a big battle royal, and we all know that there are no silver/bronze medals in war...
(Btw, what you are saying is quite logical, but I just think the philosophy here is different than your viewpoint.)
Post by: worldwideweb3 on January 01, 2019, 03:57:53 pm
Would it be possible to get a trophy icon for second and third place (like league)?
This is one of the top events of the season and costs a lot of time. The reward to effort ratio compared to weekly tournaments and league seems poor.
Imagine 15 people getting trophies from one event... Also pvp events dont do trophies for 2nd or 3rd, probably cause otherwise everyone will have so many that the achievement of winning something won't count as much.
Post by: Wyand on January 01, 2019, 04:03:45 pm
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on January 02, 2019, 04:45:47 pm
Would it be possible to get a trophy icon for second and third place (like league)?
This is one of the top events of the season and costs a lot of time. The reward to effort ratio compared to weekly tournaments and league seems poor.
Loser's mentality :P
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on January 02, 2019, 05:29:14 pm
Would it be possible to get a trophy icon for second and third place (like league)?
This is one of the top events of the season and costs a lot of time. The reward to effort ratio compared to weekly tournaments and league seems poor.
Personally, while I like the idea, I think that in all team events (e.g. Brawl) we reward only the members of the winning team with an award icon and not even the second team gain anything (except for +rep maybe). Moreover, War has been rewarding only the 1st place since the beginning of the community and it is really difficult and awkward to change this right now...
Post by: Vangelios on January 03, 2019, 03:29:25 am
Post by: iancudorinmarian on January 03, 2019, 07:39:35 am
You mean www3's mentalityWould it be possible to get a trophy icon for second and third place (like league)?
This is one of the top events of the season and costs a lot of time. The reward to effort ratio compared to weekly tournaments and league seems poor.
Loser's mentality :P
Post by: moehrpi on January 07, 2019, 11:30:59 am
Post by: InsignificantWeeaboo on January 07, 2019, 07:03:12 pm
Post by: deuce22 on January 08, 2019, 04:05:13 am
This seems like a big oversight or miscalculation.
Ultimately, this is a product of the market system and hording large amounts of useless cards, which just prolongs war and makes the event less enjoyable.
If you want to keep the current system, fine. But I suggest putting a limit on starting vault size.
Kudos to team time for taking advantage of the system. Curious to see how everything will play out. I expect them to outlast most teams just because they can afford so many more losses, maybe they can pull off a win like life last war. If so, I see most gens next war going super cheap with teams if WMs don’t make a change
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on January 08, 2019, 04:30:50 am
Teams with high in element costs are not even capable of such a large vault since it needs to be 50% in element.
As long as there are vault discards, fodder needs to be expensive enough to mitigate its use as discards.
Post by: kaempfer13 on January 08, 2019, 05:52:08 am
Post by: Jen-i on January 08, 2019, 02:36:23 pm
While I always enjoyed the challenge of vault management with quanta sources ... I understand if that is a challenge that many people find uninteresting. I'm just noting that we seem to have traded one issue (vault management) for another (vault fodder).
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on January 08, 2019, 03:19:42 pm
Post by: Blacksmith on January 08, 2019, 04:21:01 pm
I think dropping card costs below 30 was a terrible mistake that strongly contributed to it. 30 was once set as the minimum when I emphasized the strength of fodder, and even then many teams packed useless cards for the sake of fodder.Agreed with above. Cap at 30 was good or maybe even slightly to low. The fact that there are only 2 elements with cards that cost 15 makes makes things unbalanced.
Teams with high in element costs are not even capable of such a large vault since it needs to be 50% in element.
As long as there are vault discards, fodder needs to be expensive enough to mitigate its use as discards.
So, 500+ cards in starting vault...that is just ridiculous. Imagine if most/all teams had 400+...war would last forever...Lets make a comparison between war 7# and war 12#
This seems like a big oversight or miscalculation.
Ultimately, this is a product of the market system and hording large amounts of useless cards, which just prolongs war and makes the event less enjoyable.
If you want to keep the current system, fine. But I suggest putting a limit on starting vault size.
In war 7# we had a vault with 240 cards ( which was average ) the war before we had slightly less. War 4-5 vault size was around 300-350.
We had 6 matches a round and about 1/4 of vault was pillar and pends.
This gives 30 none pillar cards a game in war 7#
For time this war it's 125. More than 4 times as much which is just ridiculous.
War 9# we started with bigger vaults, more upgrades and market. All to balance out :aether which dosen't benefit as much from bigger vaults and more upgrades. But now it's gone to far.
The super large vaults reduces the point of the market. With a big vault a team can still afford all the best cards and still have a fairly big vault. Average vault card cost is about 90, having fodder at 15 basically means you can switch 1 random card in vault for 6 discard fodder which is way to many. I agree with Kaempfer that reducing starting points is the way to go. 24K should be enough and 8K to be spent on draft/auction. Maybe even 20K and have 6K on auction/draft.
Post by: Vineroz on January 29, 2019, 06:23:20 am
Deckbuilding Duel phase has started Deadline: 27th Jan GMT 0:00 blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah | Duels Fighting ends! Deadline: 30th Jan GMT 0:00 blah! blah blah blah?? blah blah blah blah!! |
Post by: Mobian on January 29, 2019, 02:38:48 pm
Post by: moehrpi on January 29, 2019, 03:19:31 pm
Best way to get the best of both worlds is to change HOW discards are handled. Instead of a static card limit, discard must be worth X amount of points.
That goes a bit too far, as in complexity. Ideally, market prices have to take this into account and should reflect that. So there isn't even any need for it.
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on January 29, 2019, 03:33:16 pm
Other option is to say you can't discard more than 2 cards under 45 dust from vault discards per loss
Post by: serprex on January 29, 2019, 04:00:04 pm
Post by: Manuel on January 29, 2019, 04:21:25 pm
air can discard one card for a loss
10/10 balanced
if u want a static ratio for discards u need to totally remove the market and swap it with the 1:1 ratio system
Post by: Kalinuial on January 29, 2019, 04:47:08 pm
Post by: dawn to dusk on January 30, 2019, 01:25:10 am
But what if we ran 2 smaller wars each year? Had some discussions with Jen earlier, and this was the end result
The first, a "losers" war, would feature the bottom 8 teams of this war (or the bottom 8 from a Masters tourney or something), where they fight. The top 4 of that war then join the leftover 4 for a "winners war", where the winner of that is prestigious or something. With the bottom 4 from that war demoting back down to the losers war. Trials can be handled between the winners war and the following losers war, with Brawl in the middle of the year. With the smaller amount of teams, it can be balanced to average the War to 10 rounds or so, and due to the setup, new Masters will always get a chance to win the winners war.
The problem would be that not all elements would feature in every war, but the idea might still have some merit
EDIT: Noted that I had discussions about this with Jen, who initially brought up the discussion with me and suggested a few of the things. I don't want to take full credit~
Post by: iancudorinmarian on January 30, 2019, 06:20:41 am
So with all the discussion around how next war will have fewer players, many have liked the idea of "Dual elements" war, but I feel like it wouldn't feel as satisfying to win, if you share the win with another element.That's actually a really cool idea. +1
But what if we ran 2 smaller wars each year?
The first, a "losers" war, would feature the bottom 8 teams of this war (or the bottom 8 from a Masters tourney or something), where they fight. The top 4 of that war then join the leftover 4 for a "winners war", where the winner of that is prestigious or something. With the bottom 4 from that war demoting back down to the losers war. Trials can be handled between the winners war and the following losers war, with Brawl in the middle of the year. With the smaller amount of teams, it can be balanced to average the War to 10 rounds or so, and due to the setup, new Masters will always get a chance to win the winners war.
The problem would be that not all elements would feature in every war, but the idea might still have some merit
Post by: InsignificantWeeaboo on January 30, 2019, 06:29:03 am
So with all the discussion around how next war will have fewer players, many have liked the idea of "Dual elements" war, but I feel like it wouldn't feel as satisfying to win, if you share the win with another element.That's actually a really cool idea. +1
But what if we ran 2 smaller wars each year?
The first, a "losers" war, would feature the bottom 8 teams of this war (or the bottom 8 from a Masters tourney or something), where they fight. The top 4 of that war then join the leftover 4 for a "winners war", where the winner of that is prestigious or something. With the bottom 4 from that war demoting back down to the losers war. Trials can be handled between the winners war and the following losers war, with Brawl in the middle of the year. With the smaller amount of teams, it can be balanced to average the War to 10 rounds or so, and due to the setup, new Masters will always get a chance to win the winners war.
The problem would be that not all elements would feature in every war, but the idea might still have some merit
Post by: iancudorinmarian on January 31, 2019, 08:09:54 pm
I'll have to see the results to see if the current one does that, but the issue still remains for future rounds and future wars.
Also, permanently ban Zawadx for coming up with the idea of super event cards.
Post by: Manuel on January 31, 2019, 08:39:49 pm
initially the goal was make a simplified war (and this mean everyone can be active with few hours/week), last round the decision was discussing what bonus take, this time is totally different (add all the 4 pages of r4)
if u want to make a sec make it only for really small bonuses, and small mean small not +10 ups than your opponent
Post by: Wyand on January 31, 2019, 09:34:37 pm
So with all the discussion around how next war will have fewer players, many have liked the idea of "Dual elements" war, but I feel like it wouldn't feel as satisfying to win, if you share the win with another element.
But what if we ran 2 smaller wars each year? Had some discussions with Jen earlier, and this was the end result
The first, a "losers" war, would feature the bottom 8 teams of this war (or the bottom 8 from a Masters tourney or something), where they fight. The top 4 of that war then join the leftover 4 for a "winners war", where the winner of that is prestigious or something. With the bottom 4 from that war demoting back down to the losers war. Trials can be handled between the winners war and the following losers war, with Brawl in the middle of the year. With the smaller amount of teams, it can be balanced to average the War to 10 rounds or so, and due to the setup, new Masters will always get a chance to win the winners war.
The problem would be that not all elements would feature in every war, but the idea might still have some merit
EDIT: Noted that I had discussions about this with Jen, who initially brought up the discussion with me and suggested a few of the things. I don't want to take full credit~
-1
Post by: MasterWalks on January 31, 2019, 09:51:10 pm
So with all the discussion around how next war will have fewer players, many have liked the idea of "Dual elements" war, but I feel like it wouldn't feel as satisfying to win, if you share the win with another element.
But what if we ran 2 smaller wars each year? Had some discussions with Jen earlier, and this was the end result
The first, a "losers" war, would feature the bottom 8 teams of this war (or the bottom 8 from a Masters tourney or something), where they fight. The top 4 of that war then join the leftover 4 for a "winners war", where the winner of that is prestigious or something. With the bottom 4 from that war demoting back down to the losers war. Trials can be handled between the winners war and the following losers war, with Brawl in the middle of the year. With the smaller amount of teams, it can be balanced to average the War to 10 rounds or so, and due to the setup, new Masters will always get a chance to win the winners war.
The problem would be that not all elements would feature in every war, but the idea might still have some merit
EDIT: Noted that I had discussions about this with Jen, who initially brought up the discussion with me and suggested a few of the things. I don't want to take full credit~
-1
Care to elaborate why -1? What changes would you make?
Post by: rob77dp on January 31, 2019, 10:05:42 pm
Post by: Wyand on January 31, 2019, 11:36:42 pm
So with all the discussion around how next war will have fewer players, many have liked the idea of "Dual elements" war, but I feel like it wouldn't feel as satisfying to win, if you share the win with another element.
But what if we ran 2 smaller wars each year? Had some discussions with Jen earlier, and this was the end result
The first, a "losers" war, would feature the bottom 8 teams of this war (or the bottom 8 from a Masters tourney or something), where they fight. The top 4 of that war then join the leftover 4 for a "winners war", where the winner of that is prestigious or something. With the bottom 4 from that war demoting back down to the losers war. Trials can be handled between the winners war and the following losers war, with Brawl in the middle of the year. With the smaller amount of teams, it can be balanced to average the War to 10 rounds or so, and due to the setup, new Masters will always get a chance to win the winners war.
The problem would be that not all elements would feature in every war, but the idea might still have some merit
EDIT: Noted that I had discussions about this with Jen, who initially brought up the discussion with me and suggested a few of the things. I don't want to take full credit~
-1
Care to elaborate why -1? What changes would you make?
I just happen to like ALL elements going to War at the same time. "Dual elements" or "different division" just dilute the original idea. I think the format only needs
some balancing. Make a reasonable market, or replace it with something which brings more balance into War. Currently it feels like the distribution of nuclear power
in the world. There are some superpowers with vaults full of nukes, there are those who has a few rockets, and there are those who just watch the big boys playing.
Post by: rob77dp on February 01, 2019, 12:01:27 am
In which category are you placing Life? Also, ask the Element which I'm sure many of the teams are "gunning for" as a likely end-game leader and you'll find them quite a ways down the initial vault-size food chain. Aside from just complaining that the game has some elements that just don't quite keep up as easily in the current War event meta/ruleset, what are some actual things you see causing the imbalance if not just built-in elemental aspects? :-\
Post by: Wyand on February 01, 2019, 12:22:10 am
Wyand-
In which category are you placing Life? Also, ask the Element which I'm sure many of the teams are "gunning for" as a likely end-game leader and you'll find them quite a ways down the initial vault-size food chain. Aside from just complaining that the game has some elements that just don't quite keep up as easily in the current War event meta/ruleset, what are some actual things you see causing the imbalance if not just built-in elemental aspects? :-\
I just go back testing decks. :) It was a mistake I haven't answered that to MW in the first place. Simply don't have the time to flesh out my opinion.
ps: My comment was vague on purpose. And I should have used a different word for 'vault' with my nuke metaphor.
Post by: dawn to dusk on February 01, 2019, 01:43:55 am
It's pretty much impossible to prepare for. With such a drastic change to the format, the first war will almost certainly be disgustingly unbalanced. This is fine if it were only for 1 war, but even 2 or 3 wars down the line, I feel like some of the kinks will still be ironing out. The decision to choose the pairings needs to be more than "first place with last place", "opposite elements", or something similar, else you're going to end up with one or two pairings being horrendously stronger than others, while others would be much much weaker.
Assuming the pairings change each war (and I don't see why they wouldn't unless you go opposite elements), a crapton of work would need to go into balancing the market. And initial market prices are almost never perfectly balanced. Trying to balance for dual elements is worse than trying to balance for mono elements as well. It would be that much a hassle that you'd honestly need to get rid of Market (which is what some want anyway, but still). However it does go back to the thing of "how are elements decided"? As to how much a nightmare market pricings would be
Last thing I'll note, I feel like " "Dual elements" or "different division" just dilute the original idea." is grossly underplaying. I mean it's bad enough that you'd need to share your win~ But the idea is more like a PvP Event than a War Change. Solo is almost always more popular than Duo, assuming the duo exists at all. Tennis being the primary example. Solo accomplishments feel better than duo accomplishments.
Minor note but the banner would be weird, but you could probably manage the banner being one element and the icon being a different element, or something similar.
Onto a few questions about Prom/Rel that were asked
Quote
Will the winning teams stay the same if they promote?It would probably be optional. Players can opt in to stay on their original team, else they would be put up on auction.
Quote
WM workload?I have never been a WM, so some of the stuff here is from Math and Asdw in chat
Most of the work would be done for the first war of the year, presumably. Rules would remain the same, but a few unbalanced things could be ironed out. Vault Tools are a pretty hefty problem, but the workload is reduced by a lot with the introduction of GDocs, and they could probably be optimised further. With less teams, the workload of individual wars would drop, and the war in total would only really have to go for 10 rounds or so, maybe less maybe a little more depending on rules and such. WM's could switch between wars, and you can still hire the pre-War Warmasters, as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread (which is an idea that I fully +1).
Post by: Linkcat on February 01, 2019, 03:22:25 am
(https://gyazo.com/43ba8450f80f3e155b5890abc95972cf.png)
We have to adapt to what we have become. Dawn's idea is a great way to keep the integrity of the event. Two 10 round Wars a year does sound a bit much, with prep time and delays that can be half the year or more spent actively Warring. I suggest shortening the first War to 8 rounds and/or extending the cycle past a year. Having a War planning team is also a great idea as it lets people improve War who would rather play than WM and don't want to deal with all the bullshit drama during the War. We can further streamline War by creating the simplified market that dd was talking about, making simpler ECs, getting rid of Super ECs, keeping some form of draft, having clear rules and costs to substitutions, and clearly setting out penalties for different situations.
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on February 03, 2019, 10:00:28 pm
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on February 12, 2019, 10:55:14 am
Post by: serprex on February 12, 2019, 11:53:24 am
I will suggest something extreme, but I think I am against having any transmutation dust and alchemy role at all; it just breaks the market system imo. Do you want an in-element card really badly? Buy it several times from the start. It is a more unforgivable suggestion but more fair imo...
Just needs to not cap out at 155+, maybe say can't transmute 200+, but transmutation is necessary, a team that salvages enough would end up in a position where even if they started with 80% in element deck discards will've depleted most of their in-element, more so for teams on elements which aren't often featured in duos (How often has Life been able to salvage Life cards?), don't think 24 cap is necessary tho given market
Post by: dawn to dusk on February 13, 2019, 01:08:37 am
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on February 13, 2019, 10:07:39 am
I will suggest something extreme, but I think I am against having any transmutation dust and alchemy role at all; it just breaks the market system imo. Do you want an in-element card really badly? Buy it several times from the start. It is a more unforgivable suggestion but more fair imo...
Just needs to not cap out at 155+, maybe say can't transmute 200+, but transmutation is necessary, a team that salvages enough would end up in a position where even if they started with 80% in element deck discards will've depleted most of their in-element, more so for teams on elements which aren't often featured in duos (How often has Life been able to salvage Life cards?), don't think 24 cap is necessary tho given market
My problem is that in past Wars the was the 2:1 ratio rule where you could discard 2 off-element cards and gain 1 in-element card, but all cards costed the same back then. Now, we have the market system but the market card's cost and the transmutation dust's cost is not necessarily the same and that triggers me. What if each time you salvage a card you get exactly X transmutation dust where X = sum of market prices of each salvaged card and you can then use X/2 to buy as many in-element cards as you can afford? Also, unused transmutation dust should carry from round to round in order for this to be both more fair and add a more in-depth strategy. What is your thoughts about it?
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on February 13, 2019, 11:28:49 am
Post by: Blacksmith on February 13, 2019, 04:14:19 pm
A lot of that has to do with other stuff than the player bass. There just isn't that many new card ideas, deck ideas, buff section, nerfing section, grinders to post about. The game has been pretty much the same since 2012. If you look at people online or new members added, it's not as dramatic.(https://gyazo.com/43ba8450f80f3e155b5890abc95972cf.png)
So, regardless of anything else, I personally think the flexible team size is a success. Every player got onto a team and we still have a decent number of matches for each team, regardless of their actual size. I definitely think this is a keeper. We don't have the luxury of an enormous player base, so including everyone that wants to join is good.+1
One more thing. War usually starts in July or August. Pushing it forward a few months - that was done this time - was a misstake. We should aim to have war 13# starting in July or August.
Post by: Manuel on February 13, 2019, 04:50:07 pm
Post by: dawn to dusk on February 14, 2019, 12:07:48 am
lol i played against 4 gens (losing 2 times) in 2 round without saying nothing, now the biggest issue is rework how pairing worksSo have we, so has Earth, so has Death, it's not an uncommon occurrence to play 4 Gens in 2 Rounds. And we all did it without the SEC reducing Gen upgrades. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying sharing 3 elements between 2 rounds is stupid and should be forced out, as should facing the same team 3 rounds in a row.
Post by: Manuel on February 15, 2019, 12:21:24 pm
every gen of every element is strong by default, while depending on the element u face twice it can even be easier for you, depending on the standing, is vault of the overall match up u have against that team
Post by: dawn to dusk on February 15, 2019, 12:47:30 pm
then why facing 2 teams 2 times in a row is an issue and facing 2 gens isn't?The problem was 3 teams 2 times in a row. 2 teams 2 times in a row was the solution, but 1 team 2 times in a row would be optimal
every gen of every element is strong by default, while depending on the element u face twice it can even be easier for you, depending on the standing, is vault of the overall match up u have against that team
EDIT: 1 team 3 times in a row is bad too
Post by: RavingRabbid on February 18, 2019, 07:19:01 pm
I like the extra salvage on winning 3-0.
On the contrary I hate the extra discard on losing 3-0 and in particular 3-1 SO MUCH. That and the fact they are heavier than their salvage counterpart bonus. It just puts so much emphasis on not losing instead of winning.
Post by: Wyand on February 18, 2019, 07:34:34 pm
Since we're out now and it doesn't affect me anymore.
I like the extra salvage on winning 3-0.
On the contrary I hate the extra discard on losing 3-0 and in particular 3-1 SO MUCH. That and the fact they are heavier than their salvage counterpart bonus. It just puts so much emphasis on not losing instead of winning.
So true. I agree with all.
Post by: RavingRabbid on February 20, 2019, 12:23:33 pm
Post by: iancudorinmarian on February 20, 2019, 01:08:10 pm
Also, for the vault doc, separate the deck discards from the vault discards by inputting them in two different cells maybe? It feels slightly tidier.Might be better having a generic cell for all vault discards combined and have just the deck discards cell for each deck.
Post by: RavingRabbid on February 20, 2019, 01:44:53 pm
That may also work but in the (fringe) case where you're vault discarding more than 60 cards there may be some issues.Also, for the vault doc, separate the deck discards from the vault discards by inputting them in two different cells maybe? It feels slightly tidier.Might be better having a generic cell for all vault discards combined and have just the deck discards cell for each deck.
Post by: iancudorinmarian on February 20, 2019, 02:09:31 pm
The rest could be added in the "penalties" cell, but I doubt that's ever going to happen. Unless we get some explosive mine EC...That may also work but in the (fringe) case where you're vault discarding more than 60 cards there may be some issues.Also, for the vault doc, separate the deck discards from the vault discards by inputting them in two different cells maybe? It feels slightly tidier.Might be better having a generic cell for all vault discards combined and have just the deck discards cell for each deck.
Post by: immortal feud on February 25, 2019, 02:01:51 am
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on February 25, 2019, 06:58:36 am
Post by: serprex on April 30, 2019, 07:50:39 pm
Remove vault discards, reduce size of starting vaults. Remove bonus discards when not losing 2-3, if you're keeping score result impacting discards then players should play out all 5 games of the set, but don't see that being popular
Teams should field 4 players every round. Eliminate teams at 60 or 90 cards. Suicides should be removed from the rules (any team can field 60 pillars)
Gambler is worthless (yes, we won 6 relics off of Gamblers, 3-1 is the only thing worth betting). Low chance of gaining any relics, at best gains 3. Whereas Lt is basically 'here's 4 relics' & old Upgrade role was 2 (I think roles being worth 2 upgrades is a fair ballpark goal). Only value is gambling 0-3 on suicide, which are never necessary with free pillars making for such versatile vaults all the way to the end. JCJ leans towards 6 perfect, 2 for being one game off. I say drop gambling theme, just say "gain 3 relics if you win this match"
Remove Discard role. It only helps lowtier teams & makes it harder for midtier because lowtier sends good deck vs midtier while sending Discard vs hightier. Rules should try encourage aiming for 1st
Sideboard should be exempt from in-element-upgrades requirements & removing cards to make a less-than-50%-in-element deck should be legal. Should be able to play with cards removed in first game of match. If this sounds like it'd make sideboard OP again, reduce to 4 upgrades, but I don't think these sideboard benefits are as strong as 6 relics, going by benchmark that a role should generally be worth about 2 upgrades
Base upgrades should be 9. Then Lt should only be +3 upgrades. Going along with this rule-of-3 line of thought: only require 3 in element upgrades, sideboard has 6 upgrades. Drawback of this is that it'll make it that much easier for teams to bring rolhope, but let's be real, janky rolhopes are the cool part of the war meta