War #3 Suggestions

[Kael Hate]

Don't look at me!  Facing 2 x fire (one of which is master), 1 x entropy, 1 x light, and a water master isn't a ****ing party.

hear that, someone is getting it easy.

But if those are markers, meaning they're randomly one of the members of the team, that seems like 20 times more fair.

Well in your team roles you are allowed to select your order of commital or priority. It should be ralted to this, so if you want to mix your general with their higher priorities you put him in 1, if not you put him in slot 2-9. Its like Cricket or baseball, your best batsman don't open, you slot them in a little down the way so they have the best advantage.

[coinich]

Guess there was no love for my tier system.

[Kael Hate]

Guess there was no love for my tier system.

The issue with the tiers i see is that it separates the teams rather than meshing them fairly.

[coinich]

Guess there was no love for my tier system.

The issue with the tiers i see is that it separates the teams rather than meshing them fairly.

To be honest that sort of was the point.  To somewhat dissasociate pairing teams with large vaults from playing teams with minuscule vaults often.  Essentially reducing the amount of randomness technically by hopefully allowing the teams to more equally compete with each other.

[Kael Hate]

Guess there was no love for my tier system.

The issue with the tiers i see is that it separates the teams rather than meshing them fairly.

To be honest that sort of was the point.  To somewhat dissasociate pairing teams with large vaults from playing teams with minuscule vaults often.  Essentially reducing the amount of randomness technically by hopefully allowing the teams to more equally compete with each other.

With my swiss method you are playing as equal as you can while only playing the same team once. Note that Entropy, Fire and Death are the peak teams, but earth doesn't have to face them and the water with 3 matches plays a low mid and high range team rather than multiples of or all higher teams. So a tiering exists based by their vault strength but doesn't dissasociate the teams.

[coinich]

Doesn't a Swiss style remove all/most randomness from the system however, or is it based off of individual player records?  If so, then wouldn't a team's status be only marginally responsible for a player's success, at least in the earlier rounds?  Glitch lost a number of rounds until he finally won one, but that doesn't mean as much when we view the event as a team based event and not necessarily player score based.

[kobisjeruk]

i tried suggesting way, way earlier on how we could eliminate double pairing of the same teams etc but it wasnt flesh out properly
while i think coinich and Kael are trying to achieve the same thing, i like kael's idea better since coinich is entirely manual and are prone to errors and controversy (seriously, fixed match will do that)
but we need to see how kael actually achieve this result with the pairing generator

magnets, how do they work?

[coinich]

How is mine prone to errors if its completely computer generated?  I volunteered to write the script myself.

[Kael Hate]

Doesn't a Swiss style remove all/most randomness from the system however, or is it based off of individual player records?  If so, then wouldn't a team's status be only marginally responsible for a player's success, at least in the earlier rounds?  Glitch lost a number of rounds until he finally won one, but that doesn't mean as much when we view the event as a team based event and not necessarily player score based.

It can remove randomness.

Currently Strength is based on team Vault Score not individual player score.
Currently the teams choose the order of their players using the Member Roles topic.
Currently Teams will never play the same team more than once in a round
Currently a bye is issued to the weakest team if there are an odd number of duels
Currently the play count is based on the 36 rule as listed by SG for next war


Any of these can change as required. Players within a team can easily be randomised if required, but said randomisation will cause indirect repetative conflict. I would add ruling that markers are set for the matchups and when deckbuilding has been declared, the player for that marker be declared at the same time. Thus the warmaster need not track any players at all and allows the team the ability to commit the generals upped card advantage to the duel of their choice.




Two things I need to know to proceed.
1. When a team has more players to duel than the number of other teams, will that team get byes on those extra duels or be matched with a duplicate opponent? IE If entropy has 500cards and has to play 9 plays, but 6 teams have already been eliminated. How many games does entropy play? the number of other teams 5? or 9 playing the same teams multiple times.

2. When a team has more duels to play than total number of all opponents players, how many play? Ie entropy is 9 players, and the remaing other teams Life Death Fire total only 7 players. What happens to the 2/6 extra players? do they double duel wining opponents or just get byes?

For both questions I think byes are best but what do you think?

[Kael Hate]

i tried suggesting way, way earlier on how we could eliminate double pairing of the same teams etc but it wasnt flesh out properly
while i think coinich and Kael are trying to achieve the same thing, i like kael's idea better since coinich is entirely manual and are prone to errors and controversy (seriously, fixed match will do that)
but we need to see how kael actually achieve this result with the pairing generator

magnets, how do they work?

Players are given a weight based on strength multiplied by a percentage of the team position in relation to that players team compared to all opposing teams. Then players with the highest weight are paired with the next highest weight.

Um, easier to show you a result then explain.

[geekz_always_win]

I think the penalty for subbing (the no salvage rule) should be gone. Or, at least, half the number of cards you may salvage. It's just not fair. If someone lives in the eastern half of the world and someone else the western, who has to take the loss and risk not salvaging? That's stupid. You can't penalize people based on where they are living.

[Scaredgirl]

I think the penalty for subbing (the no salvage rule) should be gone. Or, at least, half the number of cards you may salvage. It's just not fair. If someone lives in the eastern half of the world and someone else the western, who has to take the loss and risk not salvaging? That's stupid. You can't penalize people based on where they are living.

So you want a system where, in theory, one person in the team can fight all the battles during the whole War while others just watch?