War #3 - Feedback

[Scaredgirl]

It never ceases to amaze me how seriously some people take tiny details like this seeding thing.

At first we had 100% random opponents. Tons of people complained about this during both War #1 and War #2. I know it because I was there. Now when we do something many players wanted (a compromise between randomness and too much randomness), it is suddenly something that nobody wanted. Well, that is a lie, plain and simple.

Seeding system is what it is. It could be something different next time, but for now we will use what we have. This is not a big deal, so lets not make it one. I'm sure that everyone has their own opinion on what the seeding system should be like, but I don't see the need to start raging like a child every time you don't get your way. We cannot please everyone no matter what we do, so why do you think you should be the one that makes the final decision. For every person we find that dislikes the new seeding rule, I'm sure I can find 10 that have no problems with it. How I know this? Because the new seeding system is exactly what so many players have been requesting.

[TheIdioticIdiot]

^^
despite not knowing what seeding system is (should probably go check it out), QFT, if you petition for something, DON'T HATE IT WHEN IT HAPPENS

[The_Mormegil]

SG, was an actual poll ever instituted on the subject? Just asking.

[kobisjeruk]

you're probably not here before
unlike event card shenanigans in last war this issue has been discussed to death
no point in making a poll when theres tons of suggestion regarding pairing/seeding in previous war feedback plus a lot of whinage in chat/secret team/result thread etc regarding how unfun it is to get pair up with the same element over and over again

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

oh so much fail in here its laughable

Tons of people complained about this during both War #1 and War #2. I know it because I was there. Now when we do something many players wanted (a compromise between randomness and too much randomness)

before valimont started debating that tons of people and many players does not make a community, i'm just gonna say this: SG has already made the executive decision and that should be the end of this drama

now, about War#4...
+1 like

[The_Mormegil]

you're probably not here before
unlike event card shenanigans in last war this issue has been discussed to death
no point in making a poll when theres tons of suggestion regarding pairing/seeding in previous war feedback plus a lot of whinage in chat/secret team/result thread etc regarding how unfun it is to get pair up with the same element over and over again

Quoting a mentor of mine... "You don't argue about nuclear energy after Fukushima the same way you don't argue about death sentences with someone who just got his family murdered." I mean, stupidly aggressive or not, Sir Valimont does have a point on this. The poll should have been done thoroughly before this War started, with all the people relaxed and probably over last War's hard feelings.

Now, I don't think the poll would have ended up as SV said. In fact, I believe it would end up with the opposite result: lots of people who actually care NOT to have the rule introduced would vote instantly, but then the poll would be filled by all the people who think otherwise, and it would end up with the opposite result.

But, I also think a poll would be fair and square, and it could help people get over this. After all, if the majority enjoys this rule more than not, why shouldn't we introduce it? But, a fair poll would clear things, in my opinion. That's all.

Of course, such a poll could be done for War #4 if Warmaster decide so.

[kobisjeruk]

i'd feel much better if what i'm about to quote was posted on any other day
but even if it was in jest, theres a hint of truth in it :-

Listening to lots of community feedback since the birth of War has pretty much backfired, because now we are somehow required to do polls about every single rule change, even if it was something that many people were requesting during last War. It's getting ridiculous to be honest.

I think that many players don't fully understand how much work goes into organizing the War, or they just don't care. They somehow think that the organizers job is to start dozens of polls about every single rule detail, wasting tons of time in the process. To everyone who thinks it should be like that, I recommend you run a big event like this, and then we'll talk again.

So lets have some respect and let the Warmasters do their jobs, shall we?

putting up a poll for every single rule change is ridiculous
whats next? 1+7 per team is too small? make a poll!
underworld requirement is too restrictive? make a poll!
team roles are bad? make a poll!

[SnoWeb]

The 1er avril is almost over. You guys can pull off the joke now. 

[Avenger]

The 1er avril is almost over. You guys can pull off the joke now. 

Maybe it wasn't a joke at all

[Daxx]

Heh, I miss a day and look what happens. As Bluepriest has asked, I'll sum up my thoughts.

I don't agree that the change should be implemented in order to prop up "weaker" elements. I don't think that increasing "fairness" in and of itself is a good goal to have (though I do believe it is a good goal to have where it reduces unfun outcomes).

I do, however, believe that the change is good for a different reason, in that it means that it reduces the chance for outlier results in the matchups and therefore is a better test of each team/element's abilities when fighting all other elements. It trades skill in adding flexibility and adaptiveness to your strategy for the skill it requires to play a wider variety of opponents. It also leads to fewer unfun outcomes, which I believe improves the game as a whole.

As an aside, I don't buy the argument that having "make this game as much fun for as many people" as a core design goal is for scrubs or "casual designers". Fundamentally my philosophy on game design is that designing elegant or technically excellent games is nice, but not in fact the aim of the process. I normally champion elegance and simplicity in game design, but usually as a means to the end of creating a game which is more fun to play. An elaborate and pretty optimisation problem can be beautiful from a design standpoint, but if it is not fun for its intended audience to play, then it is a failure as a game.

[Boingo]

I'm not going to reflect on what the seeding rule means for the greater scope of fairness/luckiness/etc of the War event.  But from my experience in War #2, the most unlucky teams were not the ones who faced a given element multiple times in a round, they were the teams who faced multiple Generals/lieutenants in a given round.  This rule change of seeking to minimize the times 2 teams can face each other will increase the chances of the multiple-generals scenario happening.  I don't think 4 vs 4 is that fun either, but a cap at 2 team A-team B pairings/round seems reasonable to me.  Of course, I'm not a Warmaster (nor do I desire to be) so it doesn't much matter.



Other feedback:  Make every timer countdown available in an easy-to-find place in the War thread.  It could even be the same place for every timer throughout the event since there are only 1-2 deadlines going at any given time.  (In this case, the deadline for finalizing a Vault seems to have eluded me for longer than a reasonable amount of time (1 hour.))

[Onizuka]

Other feedback:  Make every timer countdown available in an easy-to-find place in the War thread.  It could even be the same place for every timer throughout the event since there are only 1-2 deadlines going at any given time.  (In this case, the deadline for finalizing a Vault seems to have eluded me for longer than a reasonable amount of time (1 hour.))

If you haven't found it yet, its in the War question thread

[RootRanger]

It should still be made more clear. Apparently, only one person on the team was given the vault countdown.

Generals were notified of that time and will be the earliest it will conclude.
It may change because its tentative.

What if the one person who happens to receive the vault countdown isn't active? Then someone has to ask for the deadline. It would be easiest to have a thread with all of the current countdowns.