War #3 Suggestions

[kobisjeruk]

I find the statistical biases you're proposing quite interesting from a mathematical perspective. But to be perfectly honest I don't think the concept that using such a system makes things more "fair" is at all desirable.

The way I see it, the whole point of competition is to compete. When someone gains an upper hand, that is part of the nature of the competition. Forcing those who hold an advantage into a harder position invalidates the advantage in the first place, making the competition self-defeating. I don't really see the appeal in that.

what kael is proposing is something similar to 'swiss round (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament)'
you might not see the appeal but it have been used for a number of high level competitions and regarded as a proven system

[the dictator]

We were forced. We took Darkness cards and discarded out of element cards and did not have enough on that round we suicided to make enough legal decks. 118 darkness cards cannot make 8 decks.

I'm not talking about a situation during a specific later round. I'm talking about the previous decisions that led to that situation. You know all those earlier rounds and the cards discarded during them. Like I said earlier, this is a discussion we should have after War when secret sections are made public.

To show it is possible to fight the whole war without suicides: team is out by now (round 6) ( ),  but we haven't build any suicide decks at all. But, to do so, our starting vault had 300 water cards, and with only 416 cards at all.

[Kael Hate]

We were forced. We took Darkness cards and discarded out of element cards and did not have enough on that round we suicided to make enough legal decks. 118 darkness cards cannot make 8 decks.

I'm not talking about a situation during a specific later round. I'm talking about the previous decisions that led to that situation. You know all those earlier rounds and the cards discarded during them. Like I said earlier, this is a discussion we should have after War when secret sections are made public.

To show it is possible to fight the whole war without suicides: team is out by now (round 6) ( ),  but we haven't build any suicide decks at all. But, to do so, our starting vault had 300 water cards, and with only 416 cards at all.

But the thing also is your decks were unable to carry you even without suicide.

[Malduk]

We were forced. We took Darkness cards and discarded out of element cards and did not have enough on that round we suicided to make enough legal decks. 118 darkness cards cannot make 8 decks.

I'm not talking about a situation during a specific later round. I'm talking about the previous decisions that led to that situation. You know all those earlier rounds and the cards discarded during them. Like I said earlier, this is a discussion we should have after War when secret sections are made public.

To show it is possible to fight the whole war without suicides: team is out by now (round 6) ( ),  but we haven't build any suicide decks at all. But, to do so, our starting vault had 300 water cards, and with only 416 cards at all.

Losing a lot prevents suicides, yes. While losing, you're shrinking your Vault, means you have to field less players, and you're not bringing in off-element cards.

[Sir Valimont]

But the thing also is your decks were unable to carry you even without suicide.

I think it's just a matter of allocation. If for the first 4 rounds a team was playing with an extra 30 pillars in its Vault, it should be fine. The key is having enough pillars so that there's no way to burn out. Either general success keeps the supply at a usable level, or general failure burns enough members off of the team that the pillar pool is still sufficient.

In my opinion any team who did not have an extra 30 pillars, at least, when they built their first-round decks, did not take enough pillars in their starting Vault.

[Zeru]

I dislike the use of the word "forced" in that situation. [...] It's all about Vault and risk management.

That being said, there needs to be a system to prevent that from happening because I'm sure that the teams will do the same thing again in War #3. Basically we need a system that lets you somehow obtain non-Pillar cards of your element, or get rid of off-element cards, or both.

Do we really need a system like that? Current system allows you to chose between a strong, stable vault that can take a lot of loses and still be competitive or you can make a vault with many powerful decks that increase your chances of winning.


Current system rewards strategic thinking. Your proposition is imo too forgiving for the teams.

[Kael Hate]

Do we really need a system like that? Current system allows you to chose between a strong, stable vault that can take a lot of loses and still be competitive or you can make a vault with many powerful decks that increase your chances of winning.

Unlike Entropy which has both?

[Zeru]

Do we really need a system like that? Current system allows you to chose between a strong, stable vault that can take a lot of loses and still be competitive or you can make a vault with many powerful decks that increase your chances of winning.

Unlike Entropy which has both?

[pridetalk] What do you really know about Entropy's vault?  8) [/pridetalk]

Sadly, I will not share Entropy's strategy with you. War is not over yet. Our vault is excellent but it took many rounds of good decisions to make it this way.

[TimerClock14]

New Role Idea:
Scorekeeper - the scorekeeper will make a thread at the beginning of war which will include some sort of table or organizer to arrange the Wins to Losses for each round and update this thread until the war is over/the team is out of war. The scorekeeper will also be in charge of sending their team's Win/loss count to the warmasters every round so they can update the standings. This would make updating the standings far easier and less time consuming for the warmasters.

[Demagog]

As I've suggested before, make matches best of 5. That is all.

[guy_fawkes]

only if pvp engine would be a little more stable ...

[Dragoon1140]

If at all possible, ban spectate.  The subject was bound to surface eventually, so I might as well be the one to address the elephant in the room.

It isn't necessarily a bad thing to spectate other teams' testing decks, but it is questionable or unethical to some.