War #3 - Feedback

[artimies7]

I, and most likely others more new to the game, would join if it was more simple.

4 soldiers that battle thrice a day with preset decks made by deckbuilders? I'd be one of those, and anyone who has a moderate amount of coordination could be one as well.

N00BS FOREVER!!!

[Scaredgirl]

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).

I responded to that other topic about this.

It's better to just design Event Cards so that current team size doesn't matter. Tactical Point for example could easily be fixed so that smaller teams won't get a disadvantage.

[TimerClock14]

I'd like the desync policy changed from "clear winner with SSs" to "auto-redo". It makes it fair, and less drama will ensue.

[UTAlan]

I'd like the desync policy changed from "clear winner with SSs" to "auto-redo". It makes it fair, and less drama will ensue.

Except then it's too easy to have your browser crash or network connection cut out when you're 1 turn away from losing and get an auto-redo. With the current policy, if you really think a redo is more fair, you have the opportunity to come to an agreement with your opponent on that.

[YoungSot]

I'd like the desync policy changed from "clear winner with SSs" to "auto-redo". It makes it fair, and less drama will ensue.

Agreed. If one player wished to forfeit a desynched game that they would have lost, they could still do so, but it wouldn't be required. It would be one less thing for the organizers to worry about.

Except then it's too easy to have your browser crash or network connection cut out when you're 1 turn away from losing and get an auto-redo. With the current policy, if you really think a redo is more fair, you have the opportunity to come to an agreement with your opponent on that.

True, but of the two problems, I think the players of War are more likely to be in dispute over who could have won than to outright cheat. But it's a valid worry.

[kirchj33]

My war experience has been soured for several reasons.  Many of them stem from losing our master as the event began, causing members of our team to step up leadership roles.

There are more broad, general things I feel could be improved; however.

The initial stages of war are where the event really shines.  Everyone has a chance to participate, and deck creativity plays a huge role in team's success.  Unfortunately, the penalties for failing are very minuscule at this point.  Deck creativity and the element of surprise eventually goes away when the stakes really matter.

Dwindling vaults cause a situation where it becomes a pain in the ass from an administrative standpoint.  Juggling these vaults and taking penalties really takes a lot of fun out of things for people.  Dwindling vaults also exponentially decreases creativity and increases predictability.  This further penalizes elements with major flaws in the way that these flaws are more easily exposed in the deeper rounds.

Why even limit vaults in the first place?  The rules restrict in a way that keeps decks true to their elements already, and allowing teams to shape their decks according to opponents would make for more interesting matches.  There are other ways to keep track of standings, without making them entirely dependent upon vault sizes.

I would also propose that war be shortened.  To have the event span months is much too long.  In time, it becomes an endurance contest based off of who most successfully avoided silly penalties, who was blessed by RNG in matchups, and who was seen as "strong" enough to have other teams surrender to them, thus further enhancing their positions of power.  Again, removing vaults would help to simplify these problems and encourage a more fun, competitive war.

[BluePriest]

Perhaps a good idea would be to allow ALL players to use a certain amount of upped cards. General a whole deck, leutenant half deck, and then the peons only 1/4 - 1/8 a deck. Certain upped cards create a whole new play experience, and create much more versatility when considering your deck.

[kirchj33]

Perhaps a good idea would be to allow ALL players to use a certain amount of upped cards. General a whole deck, leutenant half deck, and then the peons only 1/4 - 1/8 a deck. Certain upped cards create a whole new play experience, and create much more versatility when considering your deck.

I think this may be crossing over more towards upped war, which apparently is another event in development.  I put some more thought into my idea of removing vaults and think I have come up with a good solution.  To summarize.

Masters (Generals) will pick their teams as captains in a schoolyard game would pick their football teams.  A random order of draft would be determined and then teams would be selected.  Generals would start with 8 upped cards and each subsequent selection on their team would have to fight with 8 - n upped cards.  n = the order they were drafted in.  Players would then be put in a large double elimination tournament where standings would be determined by the reverse order of when the last person on your element's team lost.  There would be no vault restrictions; however, players in each element would need to stay true to the format of having at least 50% of your deck represented by your element.  This would allow more variation in deck choices and remove the tediousness of vaults.

Event cards could still play a role in the process.  Some examples would be: resurrection - revive one of your "dead" players who has lost twice, traitor - ability to play a deck with only 25% of the cards from your element, etc.

Allowing generals to have more upped cards and those selected at the beginning of the draft allows the Elements community to feed their status/title/reputation obsession, but as war progresses (either as a rule or event card), those who win could have the ability to mimic the amount of upped cards for the next round if they beat someone from a higher status than themselves (possibly until they lose).  Those who have a higher "status" (more upped cards) could never drop down below their number of ups upon losing.  It is only a way others can benefit.

How does everyone feel about these ideas?

[Sevs]

Perhaps a good idea would be to allow ALL players to use a certain amount of upped cards. General a whole deck, leutenant half deck, and then the peons only 1/4 - 1/8 a deck. Certain upped cards create a whole new play experience, and create much more versatility when considering your deck.

I think this may be crossing over more towards upped war, which apparently is another event in development.  I put some more thought into my idea of removing vaults and think I have come up with a good solution.  To summarize.

Masters (Generals) will pick their teams as captains in a schoolyard game would pick their football teams.  A random order of draft would be determined and then teams would be selected.  Generals would start with 8 upped cards and each subsequent selection on their team would have to fight with 8 - n upped cards.  n = the order they were drafted in.  Players would then be put in a large double elimination tournament where standings would be determined by the reverse order of when the last person on your element's team lost.  There would be no vault restrictions; however, players in each element would need to stay true to the format of having at least 50% of your deck represented by your element.  This would allow more variation in deck choices and remove the tediousness of vaults.

Event cards could still play a role in the process.  Some examples would be: resurrection - revive one of your "dead" players who has lost twice, traitor - ability to play a deck with only 25% of the cards from your element, etc.

Allowing generals to have more upped cards and those selected at the beginning of the draft allows the Elements community to feed their status/title/reputation obsession, but as war progresses (either as a rule or event card), those who win could have the ability to mimic the amount of upped cards for the next round if they beat someone from a higher status than themselves (possibly until they lose).  Those who have a higher "status" (more upped cards) could never drop down below their number of ups upon losing.  It is only a way others can benefit.

How does everyone feel about these ideas?

it sounds different, maybe since this is my first war, I really like the idea of the vault, it makes you think on what you will salvage, makes you prepare for rounds after the round you are in, if you took that out of war, it wouldnt be war anymore and just be a tournament that you prepare for with your friends.

[UTAlan]

...

Sounds like a fun event, but it doesn't sound like War. Maybe as a separate event, this could be really fun.

[kirchj33]

...

Sounds like a fun event, but it doesn't sound like War. Maybe as a separate event, this could be really fun.

Yes, from what I'm reading.... the vault is war.  According to a post made by SG on the upped war thread, she views vault as one of the two main components of war (element vs. element being the other).  I kind of despise the way the vault functions but I would guess I am in the minority.  It's overly complicated, predetermines too much, and is extremely time-consuming.

[BluePriest]

I dont quite understand war rules all the way, so ignore my ignorance please. If Im not mistaken, if you win with a sub, you dont get to salvage as much, am I correct? If so, and it isnt like this already, losing to a sub shouldnt be as harsh either.