War #3 - Feedback

[RavingRabbid]

My proposal? Every player gets a guarantee that, when you need to change that player (for a valid reason), gives you back the amount of cards he was bought for divided by 4.

I buy Billybob for 20 cards.
Billybob gets hit by a meteorite, and won't be able to understand anything in the rest of his life. Don't ask how you get to know it.
You get back 5 cards.
You can use these cards for getting another player.

(At 24, and only at 24, a replacement becomes free.)

It would be:

24 - 6
23/20 - 5
19/16 - 4
...

[TheonlyrealBeef]

I'd like to see players getting the same element several rounds in a row less often, here's Darkness' matchups so far:

TheonlyrealBeef	RavingRabbid	Hisar	hrmmm	gavsword
Wizardcat	QuantumT	avenger	Kamietsu	Terroking
suxerz	Malebolgia	vagman13	Devilloss	crimsonflippa
Mithcairion	Batcountry	Marvaddin	The dictator	BluePriest
mrpaper	Timerclock14	EngPhys	Svenningen	UTAlan
Malignant	G|1tch	Bootsza	edunavas	Jappert
Onizuka	wavedash	hrmmm	omegareaper7	Hisar
jaymanfu	Mrblonde	einherjar145	Zeru	ak65ala

As you can see, Wizardcat is getting Earth for the third time in a row, mrpaper's getting all our matches vs Aether and several other team mates are also already getting to face the same element twice already. Since it barely matters it would be nice if people would almost never get the same element twice (except in latter rounds of course, when it's inevitable).

[Avenger]

I noticed wizardcat too. It is odd.

[TStar]

TNG is not only facing the same element () for the second round in a row, he's facing the same player (kirchj33) as well lol.

Why not let General's be General's?  List what the matchups are each round and the General's can simply post in their teams Forum which players they are sending against which element.  This way you might have a player who plays a certain deck very well so you use them in the matchup that deck is going to be used in.  Maybe you have a deck that is a perfect play but needs the 6 upped cards to work so let the General play that match this round.  It would definitely take away some of the monotony of playing the same element over and over, plus it lets team get more involved in choosing which specific matchup to play in.

[Jen-i]

I love the suggestion TStar - and it doesn't really add any time to the game - if player assignments are due by the end of deck building - it just means matches can no longer be arranged during deck building - they have to be set up during the duel phase - and that seems to be the predominant trend anyways

[YoungSot]

TNG is not only facing the same element () for the second round in a row, he's facing the same player (kirchj33) as well lol.

Why not let General's be General's?  List what the matchups are each round and the General's can simply post in their teams Forum which players they are sending against which element.  This way you might have a player who plays a certain deck very well so you use them in the matchup that deck is going to be used in.  Maybe you have a deck that is a perfect play but needs the 6 upped cards to work so let the General play that match this round.  It would definitely take away some of the monotony of playing the same element over and over, plus it lets team get more involved in choosing which specific matchup to play in.

Thirded! That's a cool idea TStar. More choices > More rng.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

Well there's one problem I see with complete liberty of choosing: upgraded cards.

During deckbuilding phase you take into account the upgraded cards an opponent can use, while this would eliminate that since you don't know whether they will. Technically, all teams could gang up on one poor team - who has done nothing wrong - to eliminate them asap (8x general hurts so bad).

Just more spread out randomness please, upgraded cards can make such a huge difference...

[YoungSot]

Well there's one problem I see with complete liberty of choosing: upgraded cards.

During deckbuilding phase you take into account the upgraded cards an opponent can use, while this would eliminate that since you don't know whether they will. Technically, all teams could gang up on one poor team - who has done nothing wrong - to eliminate them asap (8x general hurts so bad).

Just more spread out randomness please, upgraded cards can make such a huge difference...

I think in play what would happen is that teams would often "gang up" on the current winning teams, but as soon as a team is cut down to size most teams will then want to devote their general and lt to the next "scariest" team. The end result is that the war as a whole would tend to be "closer". I don't really see a problem with that, and if it allows us to replace a decision made by the rng with a decision made by the players, I say it's a net gain.

[TStar]

Well there's one problem I see with complete liberty of choosing: upgraded cards.

During deckbuilding phase you take into account the upgraded cards an opponent can use, while this would eliminate that since you don't know whether they will. Technically, all teams could gang up on one poor team - who has done nothing wrong - to eliminate them asap (8x general hurts so bad).

Just more spread out randomness please, upgraded cards can make such a huge difference...

The current system doesn't prevent teams from being ganged-up on (see Death in Round 2).

And the fact that upgraded cards make a huge difference is completely the point.  RNG decides your General is facing an Element where the perfect counter deck to play works just as well unupped as it would with 6 upped cards.  Meanwhile you have a match against another element where you can play a perfect counter if only you could up 3 or 6 cards.  Why is it bad to allow teams to have flexibility?  Your argument seems to me to just be saying that adopting the system I proposed would make it harder to predict what you'll face and harder to prepare perfect decks to go against it.  Harder and less predictable isn't necessarily a bad thing imo.  Right now we have the strategic elements of a war in place (deckbuilding and gathering vault intel).  Allowing teams to pick and choose who fights what battle would add that second crucial component that is a part of every war, the tactical planning.  In reality if you are fighting a battle against multiple opponents, it's common for different factions to try and prevent one from becoming too powerful.  You have to balance throwing all your top resources against a powerful foe against using them on matchups you feel they could be the difference between winning or losing.  In the end, getting a better chance at a win is better than trying to prevent someone else from getting one.

If you really want to discourage "teaming up" a small rule tweak could be that upgraded cards used in General/Lt decks can be salvaged as upgraded cards that can be used by any member of the winning team.  This way throwing you General/Lt at a strong team only makes sense if you think you will win, otherwise you run the risk of making that team even stronger.  So for example Higs uses Fractix on me and I win.  My team could salvage 4 Minor Phoenix and they would stay in the Vault as MP's that any member could use at any time in the future.  The benefits here are some teams will be more hesitant to use their General/Lt against elements they view as very powerful, but if the perceived weaker elements beat them the added potential upgraded cards can help close the gap between them and the their stronger enemies.  This might be too significant of a change however but something to consider.

Or you can even set up something like:
Regular Player defeats General: Can salvage up to 6 of the already upgraded cards from the deck
Regular Player defeats Lt: Can salvage up to 3 of the already upgraded cards from the deck
Lt defeats General: Can salvage up to 3 of the already upgraded cards from the deck
** Any other wins result in the normal salvage of only unupped cards

[Marvaddin]

My biggest complain is that is very difficult (impossible, in some cases) to arrange the matches vs players of other time zones in week days. We should be able to play in weekends. Easy to correct, just change round time from 6 days to 7, having 4 days (instead of 3) to deck building or duels. Please let us duel at weekends.

Another small thing, "official" way to post results (title of the threads) is not the better in my opinion.
"(Team1) PlayerA 2 - 1 PlayerB (Team2)", I think, its much better than "(Team1) PlayerA 2 - (Team2) PlayerB 1". This would make sense if it could use 2 lines, like this:

(Team1) PlayerA - 2
(Team2) PlayerB - 1

But the way it is, its just harder to locate the matches of your own team.

[Boingo]

My biggest complain is that is very difficult (impossible, in some cases) to arrange the matches vs players of other time zones in week days. We should be able to play in weekends. Easy to correct, just change round time from 6 days to 7, having 4 days (instead of 3) to deck building or duels. Please let us duel at weekends.

Another small thing, "official" way to post results (title of the threads) is not the better in my opinion.
"(Team1) PlayerA 2 - 1 PlayerB (Team2)", I think, its much better than "(Team1) PlayerA 2 - (Team2) PlayerB 1". This would make sense if it could use 2 lines, like this:

I like the consistency of thread titles this war but  agree the symmetrical format of thread subjects would be better as you mentioned:

(Darkness) BillyBob 2 - 1 Ninjadude (Aether)

The scores are central, the player namess are easy to see and the teams are quickly identifiable as they are in brackets.  It worked well for many posts in War #2.

[Scaredgirl]

My biggest complain is that is very difficult (impossible, in some cases) to arrange the matches vs players of other time zones in week days. We should be able to play in weekends. Easy to correct, just change round time from 6 days to 7, having 4 days (instead of 3) to deck building or duels. Please let us duel at weekends.

Another small thing, "official" way to post results (title of the threads) is not the better in my opinion.
"(Team1) PlayerA 2 - 1 PlayerB (Team2)", I think, its much better than "(Team1) PlayerA 2 - (Team2) PlayerB 1". This would make sense if it could use 2 lines, like this:

I like the consistency of thread titles this war but  agree the symmetrical format of thread subjects would be better as you mentioned:

(Darkness) BillyBob 2 - 1 Ninjadude (Aether)

The scores are central, the player namess are easy to see and the teams are quickly identifiable as they are in brackets.  It worked well for many posts in War #2.

I like this suggestion very much. I've always found reading those titles difficult, but for some reason I've never done anything about it. Unless someone has an objection, I think we should move to this system asap.