War #3 - Feedback

[BluePriest]

And its near impossible to fill war with just vets. There are not enough. Its that simple. 12 elements. even 5 players would involve 60 vets. And that would be 60 vets that feel like devoting months of their time to it.

[TStar]

The other concern is that it's grown into a massive bookkeeping competition as well.  Miscounting even by a single card can lead to big penalties costing lots of cards and forcing teams to forfeit matches.  While you can't allow teams to get away with things like that, it might be better to develop a system with a little more leeway to give a team a chance to correct a minor mistake.  Having teams losing dozens of cards probably isn't the overriding goal of the rules I'd imagine.

[Kael Hate]

The other concern is that it's grown into a massive bookkeeping competition as well.  Miscounting even by a single card can lead to big penalties costing lots of cards and forcing teams to forfeit matches.  While you can't allow teams to get away with things like that, it might be better to develop a system with a little more leeway to give a team a chance to correct a minor mistake.  Having teams losing dozens of cards probably isn't the overriding goal of the rules I'd imagine.

Penalties are there to make teams think its important enough to do the work that keeps the event fair.
You have 8 people on a team to double check that these simple tasks are maintained.

If you get to the final battle and claim the title and then its found that 2 extra cards came out of nowhere to give you an edge the whole war, a lot of people are going to feel a lot more cheated than you would for getting the penalty.

[TStar]

The other concern is that it's grown into a massive bookkeeping competition as well.  Miscounting even by a single card can lead to big penalties costing lots of cards and forcing teams to forfeit matches.  While you can't allow teams to get away with things like that, it might be better to develop a system with a little more leeway to give a team a chance to correct a minor mistake.  Having teams losing dozens of cards probably isn't the overriding goal of the rules I'd imagine.

Penalties are there to make teams think its important enough to do the work that keeps the event fair.

I'm not arguing against penalties.  I'm simply saying that there are probably situations where penalties aren't the best answer.

[suxerz]

To me war is fine as it is - not too complex and not too simple. Just the right combination for supposedly the biggest event in this community. Also, I believe war can also be seen as an ultimate team PvP event where great teamwork will grant your team great results.

Rules are there for a reason, thus penalties are a must; whether intentionally or not. On the other hand, it is not really fun when you destroy your opponent after they have been bombarded with penalties.

My suggestion is instead of discarding cards as penalty, how about replace that with "unable to salvage from 1 winning match"? A few more tweaks may be done such as "the said winning match will be chosen randomly" or something else similar. This may not be the greatest solution, I'm just throwing some ideas here.

[Sevs]

I have a feeling that once things start a turn for the worst the people involved are not as motivated to do well because they are at such a big disatvantage. it is almost like kicking them while they are down. maybe start with less cards so it doesnt go on as long?

[TheonlyrealBeef]

I'm quite upset about last match, so I really think this shouldn't even be possible.

In the Mithcairion vs Bluepriest match they had some trouble connecting, and with desyncs and everything it took a while. Apparently Bluepriest conveniently had to leave for 2 hours after we won 1-0, only to have a rock solid strategy thought up to counter our deck while Mthcairion was winning the desynching matches... really? I do not think something similar should be possible, and leaving during the best of 3 should result in a loss. Should never have started the games if you don't have the time to play them out.

[Scaredgirl]

My suggestion is instead of discarding cards as penalty, how about replace that with "unable to salvage from 1 winning match"? A few more tweaks may be done such as "the said winning match will be chosen randomly" or something else similar. This may not be the greatest solution, I'm just throwing some ideas here.

I don't see the difference because they lose cards anyways. It doesn't matter if I first salvage 6 cards, and then discard them, as opposed to not salvaging in the first place.

maybe start with less cards so it doesnt go on as long?

I was thinking about the same exact thing yesterday. I don't see a huge problem with War Vault numbers, but maybe we could decrease it just a bit, to make War last 1-2 rounds less.

I'm quite upset about last match, so I really think this shouldn't even be possible.

In the Mithcairion vs Bluepriest match they had some trouble connecting, and with desyncs and everything it took a while. Apparently Bluepriest conveniently had to leave for 2 hours after we won 1-0, only to have a rock solid strategy thought up to counter our deck while Mthcairion was winning the desynching matches... really? I do not think something similar should be possible, and leaving during the best of 3 should result in a loss. Should never have started the games if you don't have the time to play them out.

This would be a perfect rule if not for desyncs. Players might find the time to play a match, but not be prepared for having tons of desyncs. But while this kind of rule would have problems, it would still probably be better than the current system, so it's definitely something we should think about.



Thanks for suggestions.

[BluePriest]

maybe start with less cards so it doesnt go on as long?

I was thinking about the same exact thing yesterday. I don't see a huge problem with War Vault numbers, but maybe we could decrease it just a bit, to make War last 1-2 rounds less.

This may not work, however, perhaps another idea (so that plenty of decks could be made at first, allowing more strategy) would be to increase the penalty for losing. Right now its very easy to break even. If you had to discard 1.5-2x the current amount it would speed it along, while still allowing plenty of strategy at start. Thats how regular wars would be like anyways. You lose a lot, gain a little.

[Scaredgirl]

maybe start with less cards so it doesnt go on as long?

I was thinking about the same exact thing yesterday. I don't see a huge problem with War Vault numbers, but maybe we could decrease it just a bit, to make War last 1-2 rounds less.

This may not work, however, perhaps another idea (so that plenty of decks could be made at first, allowing more strategy) would be to increase the penalty for losing. Right now its very easy to break even. If you had to discard 1.5-2x the current amount it would speed it along, while still allowing plenty of strategy at start. Thats how regular wars would be like anyways. You lose a lot, gain a little.

I think we already have that. starting from round 5, the difference between winning and losing is 36 cards. That's no joke. Besides, I like the fact that you discard 6 cards times the number of the round. It simplifies things because it's easy to remember.

Decreasing the starting Vault just makes more sense to me.

[BluePriest]

Ahh ok, sorry, wasnt aware of that.  Ignore my suggestion then

[the dictator]

Mixed feelings. This event card is just so great, but it really hurts if a team is left with 2 players. Good thing it didn't appear later.

Zeru got quite a point here. (Pun intended)

That is why I think it might be a good idea to have the event cards devided into a few different groups: 8 event cards to make the first 5/6 rounds, then 8 to make the next 5/6, and 8 to make the final 5/6. (considering war isn't likely to take more than 15/18 rounds).

Or a few cards only for early rounds, a few only for later rounds, and the rest just randomly assigned.

Cards like Sacrifational Altar and Tactical Point could be for early round only, while cards like Reinforcements would be better in later rounds (I mean, what is the point in picking 12 extra cards in round 2 or something).