War #3 - Feedback

[Sir Valimont]

Two questions (related):

1) Why is there a new rule regarding the non-random nature of battle matchups?

2) Why was the community not informed of this change beforehand and why was it not up for community debate in the first place?

[Kael Hate]

Two questions (related):

1) Why is there a new rule regarding the non-random nature of battle matchups?

2) Why was the community not informed of this change beforehand and why was it not up for community debate in the first place?

1. The pairings are random within constraint. It is being used for this war to offset the complaint that teams had an advantage or disadvantage by being forcibly matched against the same opponent multiple times. We will decide based on feed back if it works or not for future wars.

2. It has been in the rules for a fair time. Was discussed in the feedback from last war and decided upon definatively by the Warmasters.

[Sir Valimont]

1. The pairings are random within constraint. It is being used for this war to offset the complaint that teams had an advantage or disadvantage by being forcibly matched against the same opponent multiple times. We will decide based on feed back if it works or not for future wars.

2. It has been in the rules for a fair time. Was discussed in the feedback from last war and decided upon definatively by the Warmasters.

1. There were plenty of complaints that Discord is overpowered in PvP. I don't see a rule that makes Discord illegal in this War.

Being a crybaby about matchups is not an argument, and not a reason to change the rules of the event, regardless of who is doing it. Warmasters should realize the very basic difference between "unlucky" and "unfair" and not ruin the integrity of the event by trying to appease the crybabyism.

2. I did not see this in the rules when I signed up for War. Can you please confirm whether or not this was actually in the rules themselves when applications were put up? Or was it added to the "Rules" post later on?

[Kael Hate]

1. The pairings are random within constraint. It is being used for this war to offset the complaint that teams had an advantage or disadvantage by being forcibly matched against the same opponent multiple times. We will decide based on feed back if it works or not for future wars.

2. It has been in the rules for a fair time. Was discussed in the feedback from last war and decided upon definatively by the Warmasters.

1. There were plenty of complaints that Discord is overpowered in PvP. I don't see a rule that makes Discord illegal in this War.

Being a crybaby about matchups is not an argument, and not a reason to change the rules of the event, regardless of who is doing it. Warmasters should realize the very basic difference between "unlucky" and "unfair" and not ruin the integrity of the event by trying to appease the crybabyism.

2. I did not see this in the rules when I signed up for War. Can you please confirm whether or not this was actually in the rules themselves when applications were put up? Or was it added to the "Rules" post later on?

1. It was evaluated that Discord as a card from one team is not affected by RNG but is at the players discretion to use and be aware of. There are also plenty of meta methods and new cards that have been developed since the last war that will affect how it plays. It was decided that no deliberate action would be taken against discord.

The Pairings no player has control of or can affect, either before the rule or after the rule change.

Being a crybaby about the current rule because you don't like it doesn't help either and we will try to run a better event for the community as a whole and not pander to your crybabyism.


2. Discussion of this was from march 5 (the day I became Warmaster) through to march 9, The rules where adusted to include this as of March 9. The signup was offered by SG before warmasters where officially decided ran from march 4 - 14. Warmasters considered this fair time before bidding even began for generals (which was 3 days starting from march 14). You are free to drop from the War if you don't like it.

The rules were also adjusted to include tweaks like the 24 card conversion rule, 8 member teams, and that substituting players will be allowed to use the deck as it was originally prepared. Also the 8th position was renamed to "Dogsbody" on the 20th.

Will you quit because you didn't have information available to you about "Dogsbody" when you signed up?

[Kael Hate]

I understand that with 64 players there was a need to speed up the UW tourney, and thus change to single elimination.
I believe that this is not capitalising on the best players for the team as losing in a single elimination gives them no showing of skill.

For Future wars I believe we should consider,

a. Allowing the players to change deck in between rounds of their best-of-3
b. returning the event to double-elimination with a smaller opening player pool.
c. use the players showing of commital to making their game happen proof that they are war ready.

[Jappert]

a. Allowing the players to change deck in between rounds of their best-of-3
b. returning the event to double-elimination with a smaller opening player pool.
c. use the players showing of commital to making their game happen proof that they are war ready.

I agree with A for a 100%.
Please explain what you mean exactly with C.

[Kael Hate]

a. Allowing the players to change deck in between rounds of their best-of-3
b. returning the event to double-elimination with a smaller opening player pool.
c. use the players showing of commital to making their game happen proof that they are war ready.

I agree with A for a 100%.
Please explain what you mean exactly with C.

If candidates can't get their act together to play a tourney round, how can they be expected to play on a team in the same fashion. If they lack the time and or effort to get to a round they are not suitable to be on the team to begin with.

[YoungSot]

Pardon me if I am misunderstanding the topic, but:
While unlucky doesn't equal unfair, most people would prefer to have skill and wise decision-making play as large a part as possible in determining the victors of this or any event. If a rule change decreases the role of luck within the event, then It seems to me that's a change for the better.

[Sir Valimont]

Pardon me if I am misunderstanding the topic, but:
While unlucky doesn't equal unfair, most people would prefer to have skill and wise decision-making play as large a part as possible in determining the victors of this or any event. If a rule change decreases the role of luck within the event, then It seems to me that's a change for the better.

Skill is largely about adapting to circumstances and preparing for any type of luck. Taking away the possible number of situations you have to deal with makes the game much easier to predict and therefore requires much less skill to win.

[Amilir]

To put it another way, twelve decks, one for each other team, is now a semi valid tactic.  You won't ever have to adjust some more of your decks to play well.  Granted, you still have to switch decks to avoid being predictable, but that's not the point.  This change penalizes adaptability and innovation.  It also reduces bad luck, but frankly, if one team is very much stronger against you than another, you did sometthing wrong.

[Sir Valimont]

To put it another way, twelve decks, one for each other team, is now a semi valid tactic.  You won't ever have to adjust some more of your decks to play well.  Granted, you still have to switch decks to avoid being predictable, but that's not the point.  This change penalizes adaptability and innovation.  It also reduces bad luck, but frankly, if one team is very much stronger against you than another, you did sometthing wrong.

Extremely well said. Literally worth a silly +1 post.

[Kael Hate]

To put it another way, twelve decks, one for each other team, is now a semi valid tactic.  You won't ever have to adjust some more of your decks to play well.  Granted, you still have to switch decks to avoid being predictable, but that's not the point.  This change penalizes adaptability and innovation.  It also reduces bad luck, but frankly, if one team is very much stronger against you than another, you did sometthing wrong.

There is the point that the opponent also has that option and once they beat you once any advantage against them is lost.
What it does do is prevent one team which is stronger in card stock from dominating because they could force an opponent who was randomly paired multiple times against them to over commit and lose out. Where a team that has weaker card stock has no chance to pick battles.

If you already have weaker card stock should you be forced to be over commited also? Being paired against a variety of teams means that with your limited stock you can compensate somewhat and only have to risk your keys in the battles you want to, not have to.


Random pairings without constraints benefits the faction with the better card stock and does not allow any fair handicap to the faction with less effective cards.