War #3 Suggestions

[geekz_always_win]

Alliances?

Make it with more strategy in a real world, like an Alliance system, where you can declare an alliance. Alliances should be public. and of course may be broken off at any moment. (backstab! )Additionally, there should be like trading between alliances, each deckbuilding phase, in one alliance (if you have 2 or 3 you can do that with them too). you may trade 3 cards for every person you have dueling, (2 people, 6 cards; 3 people; 9 cards, etc.)

Finally, alliances should be able to "assist." If I assist another alliance I discard an X amount of cards. X/3 or X/2 is the number of upped cards ONE single person may use in a round. This could lead to more inter-element PMs and strategy. E.g. Entropy discards 9 cards to let a member of Fire use 3 minor phoenixes, while Fire offers to discard 9 cards to let Entropy use 3 Chaos Powers.

Downside of alliances, you still have to battle each other. Maybe no salvage if you defeat an alliance element.  Also, maybe a general sabotage option to any element
Sabotage: Discard X cards, and force the opposing element to convert 2X cards into something else. (should be done late game)

If this whole alliance/trading thing is too complicated, then you should have 1-2 alliances maximum at a time, and you will not battle anyone from that element. (obviously if there are impossible situations, like when the number of elements are dwindling, we can remove the alliance method)

I want to make this war a bit more strategy-oriented.
I think the assisting can be done without too many headaches, the two team masters (who are assisting) can just PM each other until they reach an agreement, and the PM the warmaster, who will allow the assist when the oversee the decks. They should be noted, like  assists  or something in the battle thread and in the secret deck thread.

EDIT: Experience System

Rewarding people who perform well. I don't want this to be super complicated, but if someone wants to make a good clear system, feel free to.

+6: You are eliminated from fighting (seriously)
+4-5: You must discard 4 extra cards after a loss
+2-3 losses versus wins: You must discard 2 extra cards after a loss.
Equal wins losses/+1 losses versus wins or +1 wins versus losses: Nothing. Just regular
+2-3 wins versus losses: You salvage 2 more cards
+4-5: You salvage 4 more cards.
+6-7: You are upgraded to lieutenant status, 3 upped cards.
+7-8 (anyone who gets here is GOOD): You are upgraded to master status, 6 upped cards
+9-10 (anyone here is Antagon): I dunno, forum icon?

EDIT x2 The Library/Black Market/Graveyard


Library: Every turn the library visits 3 elements.
When the library comes, simply swap any cards you don't want for cards you want. Some cap here or penalty here, like must discard 6 cards for every 30 you swap.

Black Market: IDK, maybe some system of trading with a loss of course (for desperate teams)

Graveyard: You get to see all the discards from last round, and take 1/2 discarding number (like round 1 it's 6, round 2 it's 12, round 3 is 18, you know) of cards NOT in your element.

Can we just have some form of alliances? This should be more of a team effort, like REAL war.

[lokiburn4]

Playing/Deckbuilding with upgraded cards is fun and while I get the RP ideas behind the generals and lieutenants having the advantage, I think it would be more enjoyable all around if that concept was altered to something along the lines of every team member gets 6 upgrades in their deck vs. 1/4 lieutenants, and 1/2 for generals. This would solve the "im subbing and I can't use the deck properly" issue. It would also keep our brains working toward interesting ways to deal with the vault "situation" later in the war. Mostly its just about the fun tho.

[DrunkDestroyer]

If we are looking to bring back event cards, can I suggest we make them much more subtle, and make them last 3 rounds, rather than just one. A new event card would still be released each round, as one was retired.
This way the effects would all be more subtle - and would add multiple layers to strategy. I would think the first round would start with just 1 to ease things into it, then to, then finally 3 before the rotation begins.
Another advantage is that there could be ideas such as 'Any team defeating their opposite recieves 3 bonus salvage cards' - (if this happened in a specific round, a team could have no matchup against their opposite. In 3 rounds it is more likely that they will encounter each other. That idea isn't ideal since near the end of the War, it would only affect some elements, but I like the idea of disputes between opposites, so I threw it in there anyway.

While I like this idea, for adding some extra layers to the strategy, feel free to completely disagree with me.

[kev]

Here's an idea nobody will like:

Rather than building a vault of individual cards, teams build a number of decks and a sideboard.  If after bidding closes a team has 450 cards they can build 15 30-card decks with 0 sideboard, 13 31-card decks with 47 sideboard, 7 60-card decks with 30 sideboard, etc.  Decks must each be at least 50% on-element and the total number of on-element and off-element cards used in decks plus sideboard is 24 and 12 max, respectively.

If a player loses, his deck is gone.  If he wins there is no salvage.

Using predetermined decks means deck "building" is really just deck "allocation."  Sideboards are used during this allocation, not between matches.  With no salvaging, discarding, and deckbuilding to speak of, matches would happen quickly.  There'd be no penalties except maybe someone using the wrong deck which would just result in an instaloss.  It'd be way less to manage and as a result we could make the event open to as many people as we want.  More people means either higher card maximums than 24 and 12 or more constrained deckbuilding which is always fun.

One might argue that having to discard your entire deck rather than just 30 cards hinders stall decks, but it also makes stall decks more effective.  This methodology also eliminates the problem of suicides, can be used to shorten the War, and ends the discussion of determining placement during elimination.

[kev]

Here's a list of player concerns gleaned from this and other threads:

Ensure one team doesn't fight another a disproportionate number of timesEnsure good teams fight good teamsEnsure one team doesn't fight Generals/Lieutenants a disproportionate number of timesDetermining placement during eliminationSubstitutes and upped cardsShorter WarRookiesThe suicide dilemma

The first four, to be honest, I don't have a problem with the current system.  I wouldn't have a problem with a system that minimized playing the same team repeatedly but I would have a problem with a system that matched top tier teams.  I'm all for parity but against blatantly aiding teams that are underprepared and punishing teams that are better equipped.  I discussed my thoughts on determining placement during elimination here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18431.msg250891#msg250891).

It looks like SG intends to eliminate the sub position and allow subs for Generals/Lieutenants to use upped cards, both of which are improvements.

It's been recommended in a couple places that we change Round 1 to an 18-card discard, and I'd be in favor of that in an effort to shorten the War.  We could also start bidding with fewer than 500 cards and/or emphasize losing rather than earning cards with the revised Event Cards.  I really enjoyed managing a large team but I see that some teams were starting to come apart at the seams, so if shrinking teams is necessary, I guess it's necessary.

I definitely feel that rookies have a place in the War, to the point I might recommend we add more to each team.     Seeing new players folded into the community should be one of the chief goals of PvP Events in general.  I recognize I was unusually fortunate in my rookie choice, however.  Allowing longer tenured players to fit the rookie designation probably makes sense.

The suicide dilemma needs to be addressed.  I, like others who have posted, thought a lot about vault management.  It was clearly possible to avoid suiciding in War 2 through a combination of having many extra on-element cards and little salvaging.  Most teams were faced with a decision in many rounds: whether to sacrifice some effectiveness this round to help maintain legal decks in future rounds.  And because teams are optimistic, they’re hesitant to do so.  Switching to 24-card conversion will help, especially combined with a shorter War and fewer teammates.  I don’t know whether it’ll totally alleviate the problem but I suspect it will.  Allowing teams to convert to cards other than pillars/pends just isn’t an option.

[Kael Hate]

Here's a list of player concerns gleaned from this and other threads:

Ensure one team doesn't fight another a disproportionate number of timesEnsure good teams fight good teamsEnsure one team doesn't fight Generals/Lieutenants a disproportionate number of timesDetermining placement during eliminationSubstitutes and upped cardsShorter WarRookiesThe suicide dilemma

The first four, to be honest, I don't have a problem with the current system.  I wouldn't have a problem with a system that minimized playing the same team repeatedly but I would have a problem with a system that matched top tier teams.  I'm all for parity but against blatantly aiding teams that are underprepared and punishing teams that are better equipped.  I discussed my thoughts on determining placement during elimination here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18431.msg250891#msg250891).

It looks like SG intends to eliminate the sub position and allow subs for Generals/Lieutenants to use upped cards, both of which are improvements.

It's been recommended in a couple places that we change Round 1 to an 18-card discard, and I'd be in favor of that in an effort to shorten the War.  We could also start bidding with fewer than 500 cards and/or emphasize losing rather than earning cards with the revised Event Cards.  I really enjoyed managing a large team but I see that some teams were starting to come apart at the seams, so if shrinking teams is necessary, I guess it's necessary.

I definitely feel that rookies have a place in the War, to the point I might recommend we add more to each team.     Seeing new players folded into the community should be one of the chief goals of PvP Events in general.  I recognize I was unusually fortunate in my rookie choice, however.  Allowing longer tenured players to fit the rookie designation probably makes sense.

The suicide dilemma needs to be addressed.  I, like others who have posted, thought a lot about vault management.  It was clearly possible to avoid suiciding in War 2 through a combination of having many extra on-element cards and little salvaging.  Most teams were faced with a decision in many rounds: whether to sacrifice some effectiveness this round to help maintain legal decks in future rounds.  And because teams are optimistic, they’re hesitant to do so.  Switching to 24-card conversion will help, especially combined with a shorter War and fewer teammates.  I don’t know whether it’ll totally alleviate the problem but I suspect it will.  Allowing teams to convert to cards other than pillars/pends just isn’t an option.

I think I agree on all counts.
I would like to add one tho, and thats the detil about rulings and penalties.

If a any declaration of penalty or ruling is made everyone in the war see's it publically and everyone is forced to abide by the ruling.
Hiding information about a ruling or having a variance in the implementation of a ruling leaves those on the sharp end of the stick quite unhappy and less interested in maintaining a commitment to the game and often creates a resentment between those players and others who are getting off lightly. Players should be happy that they were beaten by a team with better skill and tactics not resentful that they received a ruling that cut them alone.

[nerd1]

in case nobody said this yet, although, in 11 pages someone probably did, War 3 should be part of WoE, and have the number of players in the team set to the number of the players in the team with the most elements, however, most of these players would be minions, meaning if they die once, they're out, however, the core of the army would be the same as War 2, also, the team doesn't lose cards off of minion battles, when it is the minion that loses, but if someone like the general was facing the minion, then that team would still lose their cards, but the minion would not salvage. For this plan, it is necessary to say, you would not know who you are facing until you are in the same hex/square/triangle/whatever scaredgirl finally uses to divide WoE.

[ddevans96]

in case nobody said this yet, although, in 11 pages someone probably did, War 3 should be part of WoE, and have the number of players in the team set to the number of the players in the team with the most elements, however, most of these players would be minions, meaning if they die once, they're out, however, the core of the army would be the same as War 2, also, the team doesn't lose cards off of minion battles, when it is the minion that loses, but if someone like the general was facing the minion, then that team would still lose their cards, but the minion would not salvage. For this plan, it is necessary to say, you would not know who you are facing until you are in the same hex/square/triangle/whatever scaredgirl finally uses to divide WoE.

War and World of Elements are completely different events. They should not be combined in any way.

[Daxx]

Yep, I agree. Keep War and WoE apart. Combining the two just for the sake of it will eliminate a successful event and fold it into one that is just getting on its feet.

[Shantu]

A possible solution for the current silly placement system (placement by vault leftovers):
What if we gave the same number to all the elements that had fallen in the same round?
For example, War#2 would have looked like this:
1. Entropy
2. Air, Life, Fire
3. Aether, Time, Underworld
4. Earth, Light, Death, Gravity, Darkness
5. Water

This way there would be no argument about e.g. Fire being better than Life but placing lower.

What do you think?

[Scaredgirl]

A possible solution for the current silly placement system (placement by vault leftovers):
What if we gave the same number to all the elements that had fallen in the same round?
For example, War#2 would have looked like this:
1. Entropy
2. Air, Life, Fire
3. Aether, Time, Underworld
4. Earth, Light, Death, Gravity, Darkness
5. Water

This way there would be no argument about e.g. Fire being better than Life but placing lower.

What do you think?

First of all, we don't use a placement system of "placement by vault leftovers". We use a system of "placement by during which round you got kicked out". Vault leftovers only break the tie.

I guess there are many ways to look it it. Some people see wins/losses as the most important thing, but the reason why I don't like it, is that it makes penalties less effective. I would prefer if discarding because of penalties would be as big of a thing as discarding because of a loss.

I see Vault total as the "HP" of a team. If two teams get eliminated during the same round, the team with most HP gets the higher rank. I also think it fits better for the theme of "war" because it's about how much army you have left in the end. Using wins/losses is an e-sport method because you are counting wins from individual battles, something that you don't do in a real war.

What you suggest is a "lazy" solution imo. We can easily do the placement from 1 to 12 using many different criteria, so why not do that? Not would your system produce silly things like 5 teams on 4th place, it would also kill War betting.

[majofa]

I see Vault total as the "HP" of a team. If two teams get eliminated during the same round, the team with most HP gets the higher rank. I also think it fits better for the theme of "war" because it's about how much army you have left in the end. Using wins/losses is an e-sport method because you are counting wins from individual battles, something that you don't do in a real war.

How much army you have left...?? lol
You still lose and are out of the WAR

I guess it would be better put as, how many prisoners were taken and executed.