War #3 - Round 10

[coinich]

So you want every event card to scale to the vault size?  Thats somewhat impractical and not very fairly weighted sometimes as well.  The only way this event card is not perfectly impartial is because there's no ruling yet on what it does for Underworld.

[Kael Hate]

It does nothing for team underworld.

[suxerz]

I must say I'm quite surprise this event card got picked.

As Kael have confirmed, it has no benefit to UW and that's kinda sad.
It's very similar to the Loyalty (

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24353.0.html) event card in Round 2. IMO, event cards should be unique - no similarity with other event cards.
[/list]Nevertheless, I'm sure this will be remedied in next war as stated by SG here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,26196.msg359571#msg359571). 

[Zeru]

On the other hand, I hope that those requirements won't be too strict or we will end up with a bunch of very boring cards.

[LongDono]

So you want every event card to scale to the vault size?  Thats somewhat impractical and not very fairly weighted sometimes as well.  The only way this event card is not perfectly impartial is because there's no ruling yet on what it does for Underworld.

No it's just that every other team can take advantage of this, and we can't not a disadvantage at all. *eyeroll* Also I think I read that we can't use this, so yea...
No not every event card, you assume way too much, but certain event cards should only be allowed at the start of war as they will favor a team that it already winning, not so bad but this has been true with almost every event card that has been played from the time UW came into the war.
@ Zeru: Not every event card, just the ones that are very one sided to favor the top team vs everyone else. Late in the war this can just destroy the chances of anyone beating aether as they wont lose full decks now.

[Higurashi]

When it comes to deckbuilding, this event card is almost nothing like Loyalty. The difference between complete mono and just the mark is enormous.

However, thanks to vaults being relatively small this late into the War, it's hard to field anything but a mono if you want your own mark. Why? Not enough off-element pends or alternative means to gain quanta. To add to that, taking off-element pends isn't very practical in the long run. Luckily, being able to convert more cards per round makes them much less limiting.

Either way, if we limit almost every event card to specific rounds, there won't be much randomness left. Yes, some event cards are almost useless in certain rounds for several teams, but not every event card has to be that specifically balanced either. This one, for instance, probably won't make any difference whatsoever.

[LongDono]

If we went overboad with limiting event cards I would agree, I am just saying we find a middle ground and limit them a little. For example I think we all know the 35 card deck one would make alot more people rage this round than any earlier round. Why would they rage? well this is easy to see.
Also even with some limits there is still tons of randomness, and that goes double if there are more event cards to choose from next war.

[Avenger]

When it comes to deckbuilding, this event card is almost nothing like Loyalty. The difference between complete mono and just the mark is enormous.

However, thanks to vaults being relatively small this late into the War, it's hard to field anything but a mono if you want your own mark. Why? Not enough off-element pends or alternative means to gain quanta. To add to that, taking off-element pends isn't very practical in the long run. Luckily, being able to convert more cards per round makes them much less limiting.

Either way, if we limit almost every event card to specific rounds, there won't be much randomness left. Yes, some event cards are almost useless in certain rounds for several teams, but not every event card has to be that specifically balanced either. This one, for instance, probably won't make any difference whatsoever.

Limiting some of them to first 3 rounds, next 5 rounds, and final rounds would be useful though.

[LongDono]

When it comes to deckbuilding, this event card is almost nothing like Loyalty. The difference between complete mono and just the mark is enormous.

However, thanks to vaults being relatively small this late into the War, it's hard to field anything but a mono if you want your own mark. Why? Not enough off-element pends or alternative means to gain quanta. To add to that, taking off-element pends isn't very practical in the long run. Luckily, being able to convert more cards per round makes them much less limiting.

Either way, if we limit almost every event card to specific rounds, there won't be much randomness left. Yes, some event cards are almost useless in certain rounds for several teams, but not every event card has to be that specifically balanced either. This one, for instance, probably won't make any difference whatsoever.

Limiting some of them to first 3 rounds, next 5 rounds, and final rounds would be useful though.

This
Who cares if it kills some of the randomness of it? I seem to remember the way matchups are formed had a change to them just like this, to take some of the randomness out, and I like it. ( I know i use to say I hate it but no more. ) When luck can screw people over that hard then it's NOT a good thing.

[Higurashi]

Oh, it is. It's a lot better than something that's predetermined by non-participants. Why? Because randomness is always fair. That's why we use it in so many processes in War, PvP Events and Tourneys. If TO's were to decide who to win rather than coinflip.. people would ragequit.

In other words, people who standardised rules for tournaments in general care, I care, and everyone who agreed to use the randomised processes here care.

[Avenger]

Oh, it is. It's a lot better than something that's predetermined by non-participants. Why? Because randomness is always fair. That's why we use it in so many processes in War, PvP Events and Tourneys. If TO's were to decide who to win rather than coinflip.. people would ragequit.

In other words, people who standardised rules for tournaments in general care, I care, and everyone who agreed to use the randomised processes here care.

I'm not sure you did read my proposal, you just answered LD's incorrect guess about the results of the proposal.
Actually, limiting the event cards the way i proposed, wouldn't kill any randomness, it would just remove some huge advantages for the winning team. It would actually, give more options to the teams in general, because it would restrict the event cards to slot where they are more useful to more teams. TO's would still predetermine the cards before the event, so it wouldn't really help any teams specifically.
Events that mandate a large deck, or reward a mono deck, are always beneficial to the already winning team. Events, like the clockmaker would be much better (meaningful) in the endgame, etc. Btw, it is always bad if an event enforces any deck. It should just give some kind of reward for fulfilling the requirements.

[Higurashi]

Um, yes, if my post is below his, I'm answering him.

As for you, yes it would inevitably reduce randomness. A little of that doesn't do any harm, but you can't deny it does. Applying fitting cards to certain rounds make the most of the strategical aspect in them, but it still reduces randomness. TO's organize tourneys though; they have nothing to do with War Event cards.

As for forcing a deck type, it was accepted that event cards won't be doing that in the future, but rather opt for optional bonuses.