War #3 - Feedback

[Zeru]

Why would we not sub?

[deuce22]

Why would we not sub?

I completely agree with you. Even if all non-aether teams win without subbing (knocking aether down to 130), they are still putting themselves at a disadvantage going further because they are more likely to lose with 2 Round 12 matches compared to just 1.

[Kael Hate]

I'm inclined to think that falling below 36 should be elimination. That is with the current rule set.

The current situation does offset weaker teams vs MEGA vaults tho.

[Zeru]

I'm inclined to think that falling below 36 should be elimination. That is with the current rule set.

The current situation does offset weaker teams vs MEGA vaults tho.

And when exactly did the rule change to 36? A team is eliminated below 30 cards.

[majofa]

I'm inclined to think that falling below 36 should be elimination. That is with the current rule set.

The current situation does offset weaker teams vs MEGA vaults tho.

And when exactly did the rule change to 36? A team is eliminated below 30 cards.

It didn't. He's saying for future WARs.

[Zeru]

So you can technically build a deck and fight, but you are eliminated anyway? That makes little sense to me.
The current rules state that a team is eliminated when it cannot make a legal deck. Kael is looking at the precise maths constructed around it but forgot about the core idea.
I see no problem about teams in the "60 card sweet zone".

[Kael Hate]

I'm inclined to think that falling below 36 should be elimination. That is with the current rule set.

The current situation does offset weaker teams vs MEGA vaults tho.

And when exactly did the rule change to 36? A team is eliminated below 30 cards.

It didn't. He's saying for future WARs.

So you can technically build a deck and fight, but you are eliminated anyway? That makes little sense to me.
The current rules state that a team is eliminated when it cannot make a legal deck. Kael is looking at the precise maths constructed around it but forgot about the core idea.
I see no problem about teams in the "60 card sweet zone".

Like Majofa said, it isn't atm, but more my veiw against the current ruleset.

Currently teams are choosing not to salvage because they don't want to have to risk 2 weaker duels than 1 stronger duel and because of the 30 card for last deck but 72 cards for a duel, that last peg can hold the team out for 1 week +1 extra week for every solo win they can milk out of the vault while still having 1 duel when they lose. This condition is what people are complaining about. Another thing would be to ask the question "If a team is only commited to playing 1 duel, why aren't they eliminated when they lose that duel?"

Making the elimination cutoff 36 the same as the duel commital level between 1 and 2 duels, would fix that and thats where my opinion came from. I also said above tho that this quirk in the weighting of duel commital and vault gives teams a chance to hold out. so I would ask "Is it a good thing that teams can exploit the vault size vs commital to make their teams last longer?" From your comment I'd assume your answer is yes.

[Zeru]

The thing is, that no would want to get into this zone.

Imagine a situation where you are the last player to duel in a round and your team has 90 cards left. Do you make a decision to lose on purpose to get a 60 card vault? I would say it's a very harmful decision and no team would agree to that.
It's similar to "perfect round", when your team is gets a bye and is limited to 1. There are reasons why giving the bye to the weakest team is good.
You are trying to change a fine system due to small issues.

[Marvaddin]

I also thinks that if a team can create a legal deck, its not eliminated. Sub to avoid 2 duels next round seems valid to me. Offset vs MEGA vaults? C'mon, I would love to be in team aether situation. They have cards to counter almost anything, while we need use a lot of strategy and crazy decks trying not let them counter our decks easily, and so we need some options. But if we lose, we are most probably eliminated. If I remember it well, no team won after having like 40 cards in vault.

About the bye, like I said, I would make it random, or give it to the team in the middle position in standings. When weakest team get it, it can overlast other teams, like time survived Darkness this war, and I dont think its fair.

[Zeru]

About the random byes, think about the betting. I think that max 6 places really matter. A team overlapping positions 7-13 is nothing to worry about because a positions below top6 are nothing to be proud off. Random bye may give a chance of overlapping on a higher spot.

Point is following:
1) A bye gives a team one extra turn of survival for free and may result in achieving a higher place.
2) The lower place, the less important the team order is.

Therefore it's best to put the bye on the very bottom or replace it with something else.



About Kael's idea. I just realized that capping the vault at 36 not only is against the original idea of the war, but it doesn't solve the problem. Basically, a team with 66-71 cards is still safe after a loss, so they have good reasons to sub, while as a team with 60-65 cards has no reason to sub at all. The only thing you achieve is putting them in danger. Another paragraph is about it.

People, after War#2 there was a strong voice that vault management was too difficult and we received a rule of 36 cards per player. We also reduced the amount of players to 8. It's obvious that the war will be a lot longer. When you write in this topic, you need to think about all consequences of the change, not propose something and then cry about the unwanted side-products. Of course I don't mean to generalize here. If you want the war shorter, tweak the numbers, not rules, because numbers won't give a dozen of side-effects.

[Skydaemon]

People, after War#2 there was a strong voice that vault management was too difficult and we received a rule of 36 cards per player.

That wasn't about vault management, it was the situation where halfway through the war you were facing fielding 9 decks with 270 cards and being forced to field literally your entire vault across 9 legal decks.  It also had the effect of eliminating categories of strategies like stall decks which often need more than 30 cards to work.  The old rules basically ruined the event for teams that ended up with the wrong multiple of cards when their vault was still half full (and in theory they still had a chance of winning).

Right now, having to field 1 deck with 60 cards also means you have more options to choose from, and aren't completely predictable for your opponents.  Last war, they knew you were going to play a 30 card deck, what the cards were going to be in advance, and that it wouldn't be a stall.  Not exactly sporting.

Yeah, moving to 36 adds 2 rounds to war, but the previous wars were basically over by round 5 (by the time your vault was hitting the 270 limit, and most people were more or less going through the motions for 2 months after that.

[BluePriest]

People, after War#2 there was a strong voice that vault management was too difficult and we received a rule of 36 cards per player.

That wasn't about vault management, it was the situation where halfway through the war you were facing fielding 9 decks with 270 cards and being forced to field literally your entire vault across 9 legal decks.  It also had the effect of eliminating categories of strategies like stall decks which often need more than 30 cards to work.  The old rules basically ruined the event for teams that ended up with the wrong multiple of cards when their vault was still half full (and in theory they still had a chance of winning).

Right now, having to field 1 deck with 60 cards also means you have more options to choose from, and aren't completely predictable for your opponents.  Last war, they knew you were going to play a 30 card deck, what the cards were going to be in advance, and that it wouldn't be a stall.  Not exactly sporting.

Yeah, moving to 36 adds 2 rounds to war, but the previous wars were basically over by round 5 (by the time your vault was hitting the 270 limit, and most people were more or less going through the motions for 2 months after that.

Couldnt the same thing still happen, but instead of being forced to use 30 card decks, be forced to use 36 card decks? Changing the number just raises the number. People would be in the same predicament with 36 card decks if they had 324 cards. Imho, its easier to scrap together more 30 card decks than 36 card decks, especially with a limited card pool where all must be used. Of course, I might be misunderstanding something though.