War #3 - Feedback

[OldTrees]

Reality:
Games of equal complexity and fairness can vary drastically in degrees of luck involved.
Games with no luck and games of only luck of equal complexity (take TicTacToe a solved game and Anonymous Rock Paper Scissors) take less skill than any game of intermediate luck.
It is controversial to claim that the ideal maximum skill version of war is closer to either Sir Valimont's side or Kael Hate's side.

[Amilir]

Gl1tch, if you play chess without any pieces except a king, that game also takes less skill than tic-tac-toe.  Betting is a similar portion of poker.  You can't change the game completely and hold on to the analogy.

[gavsword]

IMHO neither side is listening to the other, tempers will only get worse about this topic and neither Kael or SV will budge. War is supposed to be fun.

I feel like limiting the amount of matches a certain element will face against another element is a good idea, but should not be so restricted to the point that they only play each other once. I say raise the limit to two or three (probably two) matches per round. It's nothing big, but limits (to a point) the excessiveness of playing one element again and again, while still allowing a variety of games and scenarios to play out. Some elements are weaker than others, but that really changes by environment. I feel the differences between war 1 and war 2 showed that (especially for and ).

War to me is basically an extended version of rock paper scissor, where now and again the RNG breaks that rock you were holding and turns it into paper. Heck if you want to make it purely element vs element then remove the human elements and have the ai play against itself over 1000 games to eliminate the luck element.

Luck will always be a part of this game, luck will always be a part of war, I see no problem with trying to limit the luck just a bit, but I'd rather not go extreme and try to eliminate some of the random factors of war.

[Glitch]

Gl1tch, if you play chess without any pieces except a king, that game also takes less skill than tic-tac-toe.  Betting is a similar portion of poker.  You can't change the game completely and hold on to the analogy.

I see your point.  Still, it is one thing to recognize an opponent is right, and another to recognize I am wrong.  Let me think on it some more.

[TimerClock14]

@SV, I'm going to try and say this in the most un-flamish way I can:

I think that you are being the childish one here.

Dropping out of the war because you don't like something about the rules is no skin of my back, but making a fuss about it after you've quit is something I can't leave alone. The harsh reality of this argument is, quite simply, somebody is not going to walk away happy. The idea of "fairness" is a very unreliable idea, nor is the idea of "fun," but to a lesser degree.

Fairness is a completely idiotic ideal because life isn't fair, we all know that, and an internet medium makes no difference. If something in life could actually be "fair" then the world wouldn't be in it's current state of turmoil. But the fact is, it is in turmoil, and by the law of syllogism, that means that something in the world isn't fair. As long as that stays true, someone is not going to walk away happy.

Unlike fairness, however, fun is a completely different story. "Fun" is a concept, an intangible, abstract noun that is, in many ways, similar to art. The main similarity is that the concept of "fun" lies in the eye of the beholder. What may be fun for Bob may not be fun for Jill, and vice versa. This is supported by the fact that some people would rather not play Elements the Game and others would want to play Elements.

Stepping away from that subject, I'd like to talk about luck. Luck is, essentially, 50% of the metagame of Elements the Game. It's a fact, and I'm not about to ignore the elephant in the room. I've had issues with that factor on both personal and professional levels. Luck-based games are fun in their spontaneousness and unpredictability. Skill-based games are fun in the way that they make you use your head to perform complex problem solving in controlled situations. A mixture of these two things requires finding a very fine "happy medium," as it is commonly referred to, so that you won't have too much of one thing, but rather a nice balance of the two.
Elements the Game has some slight issues with this, but as I see it, it has been balanced very well.

Your statement, "Unlucky =/= Unfair" is a little off, when you understand the balance of the game itself. Unlucky is most certainly not very good, in any situation. But unfairness is, as I mentioned earlier, is a constant fact. The contradictory in your statement is due to the fact that the unluckiness of one is caused by the constant of unfairness, and consequently making unluckiness unfair.

Saying that these two are not equal is like saying Cheddar Cheese isn't cheese.

[BluePriest]

This conversation has been going on for a while, and it has gone all over the place. Perhaps the people with the strong beliefs of what it should be (im not one of those) should re evaluate their position, and make clear concise points to state why they think it should be how they think it should be. I dont know enough of how it will currently work in a single round, so if someone could give me a hand on that then i will be able to better understand the situation instead of having my very limited scope. Actually, I think ill go to chat to find out.... if someone wants to clarify here though, I think that should be wise. I always think it best to state what the situation currently is very clearly instead of just saying why you think it should be changed.

[TimerClock14]

Please don't misconstrue the facts:

It's not complicated.

Nothing was wrong with the previous rules in War.

*cough* event cards *cough*

Kael changed them because he had a personal issue that is irrelevant to almost everyone else in the community.

If I remember correctly reading the letters on kael's post, it was a collaborative decision between the warmasters. I'd rather you not point fingers like that.

All this discussion after the fact about whether the rule makes sense is good. I think it could not be more obvious that the rule is based in completely inane concerns with "fairness" and "randomness" and that it's extremely useless and harmful.

If you are referring to my post (and i think you are), then you have completely missed the point of my post. In my  post, I'm referring to your argument, not the rule itself. Don't put words into my posts.
If you are not referring to my post, however, then ignore the text above.

But that's what discussion is for. This is what should have happened before this rule was applied.

So if anyone has more to say about the rule itself, let's hear it. If you're posting about something else, you're off topic.

So then you admit that your posts accusing Kael of applying the rule based upon personal influences were off topic? I'll gladly agree with you, but that's just my opinion.

But yes, let's get back on topic, shall we?

[TimerClock14]

I'm referring to your argument, not the rule itself.

Then you should go back on topic. We are talking about the rule, not whether you approve of my arguing style. That conversation goes nowhere.

Back on topic:

--

It's not complicated.

Nothing was wrong with the previous rules in War. Kael changed them because he had a personal issue that is irrelevant to almost everyone else in the community.

All this discussion (even though it's after the fact) about whether the rule makes sense is good. I think it could not be more obvious that the rule is based in completely inane concerns with "fairness" and "randomness" and that it's extremely useless and harmful. But that's what discussion is for. This is what should have happened before this rule was applied.

So if anyone has more to say about the rule itself, let's hear it. If you're posting about something else, you're off topic.

If that is the case, then so it shall be:

I completely approve of this rule. Bell curves in the randomization are always for the better, the way I see it.

[UTAlan]

The team that wins War should, in my opinion, have shown the ability to succeed against every other element (or as many as possible). I am for a rule that increases the distribution of match ups.

[DrunkDestroyer]

Some way to get more creative deckbuilding into the UW tourney wouldn't hurt.
As a player, I'm expecting Fire Stall, Fire Stall Counter, Generic Rush Deck and Actual original deck to appear in that order. At least on the winning side.
3 cards per deck is what Underworld itself does.
I suggest making 2/3/4 of one type of card max, or 3 element min, or something like that to make this event more enjoyable.
Something like that anyway

[DrunkDestroyer]

(http://www.smiley-faces.org)
Say whatever you want, but whenever Sir Valimont takes extreme interest in a subject, it becomes much more interesting for a lot of us. Meaning me.
It's always nice to get the vocal and intelligent people together in one room, having a well thought out debate.
And maybe take out their baseball bats after the diplomatic approach fails.

[SnoWeb]

If you must limit it, again, there are better ways to do so.  Say, no more than three matches in two rounds?  A classical round robin?  No more than X matches without fighting Y element?

I agree. Remember Kael, when we discussed it in chat, most of us told you than a strong "not more than once" was too much ... I'd make a less drastic rule