War #4 Brainstorming and Planning

[Scaredgirl]

Maybe a good compromise would be "all mercenaries" (see, got rid of the word slave already! ). You could choose up to X elements (probably 3 max., as it already is) for which you definitely wouldn't want to play (that restriction would be optional - you could choose only 1 or 2 banned elements, or even choose not to impose any restrictions). It doesn't solve the problem of players who just want to play for one specific element, but at least should avoid people having to play for elements they hate.

I'm ashamed I didn't think of this option.  Nice work, ffun.

Yeah, I like it too. Definitely the #1 choice atm.

[The_Mormegil]

What about my idea of increasing the number of upgraded cards in the event? I'd like to see what other people think about that.

Ok, Entropy has a good chance to win this War too now. This had me thinking for a while, actually, because even if Aether and Water rocked this War, at the bitter end it was the same old decks - hence the same old elements - to have the upper hand. Fire, Entropy... there is a reason for people calling them unbalanced. I'm starting to believe it's true.

Hence, the idea: how can we make sure other elements have an even (or at least slightly greater) chance? By adding more upgrades.
The execution is simple: get rid of most team roles as Vault is being automatized (and I believe it will be, because it's just a strictly better solution), get rid of Vault Editor, Salvager etc. Reduce the roles to General, Lieutenant, Strategist, Organizer, Soldier, Soldier, Soldier, Soldier. Increase the number of upgrades in the event allowing Soldiers to use 3 upgrades, Lieutenant to use 6 and General to use 9.

Why? Because allowing for a greater variety of decks will probably benefit some teams, because upgrades are something that really change your deckbuilding possibilities and because I think it would be more intresting and fun. As for people needing to HAVE upgrades, well, most members of this community have a decent FG grinder - any FG grinder really - and we all know that upping 3 cards is an hour's work, tops. If you need 3 upgrades every week and can't farm that much, you're probably not playing Elements at all...

We are a growing community, and this is the most elitist event. I think increasing the number of upgrades, although slightly, could potentially change the face of the whole event, increasing the chances of different teams and producing more intresting and balanced Wars.

[Scaredgirl]

What about my idea of increasing the number of upgraded cards in the event? I'd like to see what other people think about that.

I think this would be a good idea. Changing it to 3, 6 and 9 would definitely make deckbuilding more interesting. We had less ups previously so that the event would be more newbie friendly, but nowadays I think most War team members can gather that 3 upgraded cards per round.

[wespebbles50]

I don't know if I post this here but could someone tell me how to join war please

[YoungSot]

I don't know if I post this here but could someone tell me how to join war please

This current "War" event has ended. If you stick around though, the next one will eventually be announced later on this year, and you can apply to join then.

[wespebbles50]

I don't know if I post this here but could someone tell me how to join war please

This current "War" event has ended. If you stick around though, the next one will eventually be announced later on this year, and you can apply to join then.

Thank you

[the dictator]

Problem with "all slaves" system is that we have some lame players who refuse to play elements they don't like, and will make threats to sabotage the team if a specific General buys them. But I don't think there is any other fair solution for this but to go with "all slaves". If someone has a good solution (that isn't something 100% different), let me know.

Yeah the problem was with players who either would quit, half ass it, or threaten to quit when bid on thus potentially disrupting the auction.  But Zanzarino them.  Everyone will just have to be aware that they're at risk of being drafted by any team, and if that's not good enough then don't join the War.  All slaves is a better system except for the problem individuals and it doesn't make sense to build a ruleset around them.  Plus some of those specific individuals are no longer around and maybe if we dispose of the three tier system we can finally get rid of the word slave.

Also, the first war I really wanted to join team Fire (sad I didn't make it, or I would have a war winner icon (already)), so when I recieved no as an answer I just pm'ed all masters that didn't seem to have a finalized team, and so I joined team Water instead, which turned out to be lots of fun, even though I disliked team water before. So my advice to people disliking certain elements would be: play them, get to know them, and start to like them. War is great for this, because you are forced to use 50% of your element, which means you have to use it, but are not limited to mono strategies.
And then, if you really don't want to play for a certain element, you can always try to have another master bid higher on you, if you are well known enough to make that happen, you deserve it, and if not, you most likely haven't been around for a long time, which probably means you haven't even tried that hated element.

[TStar]

I think all mercenaries is great.  Possibly bump the banned elements from 3 to 4, meaning a player can ban up to 25% of the elements. 

Another option is to allow players to ban any number of elements they wish, but each ban carries a "minimum bid value" with it.  Since the max bid is 24 and there are 12 elements, lets say each ban is worth 2.  So a player who went loyalist under the current format for example would cost a minimum of 18 cards (9 banned elements at 2 cards per element).  A player who wants to only play for 6 teams would cost a minimum of 12 cards.  A player who bans nothing costs just 1.  This would still allow players to have some control over their team options, while at the same time increasing the cost of that player the more restrictive the options become.  It would also eliminate the need to classify different "ranks" of players for the bidding and would allow everyone to just post applications in a single subforum.  It also makes it harder to get a discount from "backroom deals" since to really keep a players cost down to the level of a current loyalist would mean a General would need to work out a deal with 5 other Generals instead of only 2.  Needless to say that becomes more and more unlikely the further a player tries to reduce their cost.  It also gives players the option to basically handpick their teams before War starts at the cost of 24 cards, if that elements General agrees with that price.  I think it does well at preserving the flexibility of players having some say in the current system while making it much more difficult to arrange below-market deals on players.

Another option that could make the entire auction process last a week or less is to combine the all-mercenary idea or even the idea I posted above with a hidden auction format.  Those not familiar with that format, basically you write down the amount you are willing to pay for something and submit it.  All the bids are tallied and whomever bid highest wins.  No counter bids, no multiple auction extensions.  This also makes back room dealing not only harder, but incredibly risky.  You can agree to a deal and the other player can simply ignore it and you wouldn't find out until after the auction ends.  Generals trying to get players at a steal run a big risk of someone else overbidding them.  This type of system basically encourages people to bid the exact amount they feel a player is worth rather than the minimum they think they can get them for.  Not only that, the entire auction process can last 2 weeks at most.  Give players 1 week to post applications, and Generals 1 week to submit all their bids.  It's that quick and simple and cuts a week or more off the auction process.

[TStar]

Another idea about the Underworld process:

I think it would be better for everyone if Underworld was able to enter War sooner.  It would let their players get more games instead of 1 only in some cases.  It would let teams scout them out earlier instead of going in blind in the middle rounds against a team that theoretically could have almost every teams Vault figured out.  It removes the heavy advantage UW can get from studying the meta of War before having to build a vault to best deal with it.  Then there is the problem with some players interested in playing on an UW team but unable to since it's fairly certain they would get drafted.  So my idea is turning UW into a real team.  Before the War auction you can hold a small tournament of players who want to be the General of UW.  The winner then gets to be a General and conduct War normally, complete with auctioning for players and building a full vault.  This has the advantage of allowing UW access to more players, especially veterans and allowing players who wants the option of being on UW to get bid on.  It also opens up tons of new strategies since every team will need to plan for UW starting in round 1 and they can bring better decks against them instead of sometimes having to try to piece things together.  The number of players in War remains the same and players who want to be a War General have a shot at it without having to become a Master first (a process that newer players have more difficulty with due to the lack of a wide range of upped cards).

[Sevs]

Another idea about the Underworld process:

I think it would be better for everyone if Underworld was able to enter War sooner.  It would let their players get more games instead of 1 only in some cases.  It would let teams scout them out earlier instead of going in blind in the middle rounds against a team that theoretically could have almost every teams Vault figured out.  It removes the heavy advantage UW can get from studying the meta of War before having to build a vault to best deal with it.  Then there is the problem with some players interested in playing on an UW team but unable to since it's fairly certain they would get drafted.  So my idea is turning UW into a real team.  Before the War auction you can hold a small tournament of players who want to be the General of UW.  The winner then gets to be a General and conduct War normally, complete with auctioning for players and building a full vault.  This has the advantage of allowing UW access to more players, especially veterans and allowing players who wants the option of being on UW to get bid on.  It also opens up tons of new strategies since every team will need to plan for UW starting in round 1 and they can bring better decks against them instead of sometimes having to try to piece things together.  The number of players in War remains the same and players who want to be a War General have a shot at it without having to become a Master first (a process that newer players have more difficulty with due to the lack of a wide range of upped cards).

I think the tourney for the general only sort of defeats to purpose of UW. It allows many decent players who are not known enough to make a team to actually get war experience. None of the current UW team had any experience for example. But that none experience made it hard for the first couple rounds to get situated with S/D/C. What if we do what you say and have a small tourney for general who then picks 3 in the auction. the next 4 are decided by another quick tourney.

On another note you really only get to see 3 rounds of war because we must finalize the vault before round 4 is over. I think the only team at the time that we actually knew a great deal about their vault was gravity. (sort of an outlier). The heavy advantage you speak of really isnt that helpful since you must make 8 preformed decks to face any of 12 teams. That is coming from my experience. the initial rounds for UW have been 3-5 and 4-4 in war 2 and 3 IIRC backs up my claim of no heavy advantage. granted the losses were close but so were our wins.

[Onizuka]

I'm partial to the UW tourney system, but Sevs idea has potential. (I'd personally only let  the general get 2 auctionwise, to keep the "outcast" idea of the UW somewhat founded. Its kinda like the outcasts have found sympathetic people to lead them to victory .

Also, I'd like to throw my substitution of the substitution rule (currently only allows one)

Instead of the formula being a flat -6 penalty, I think it should be -6n. Where n=The number of people you have replaced+1

Ex: You need to replace one person, and haven't replaced anyone before hand. ( (-6)(1) )= -6, which would be the penalty.
Ex: You need to replace three people, but you've already replaced a person before hand. ( -6(2) + -6(3) + -6(4) )= -54, which would be the total penalty.

[YoungSot]

I dislike the way that the current system punishes teams that have a large vault by making them play proportionately more games. Because a loss is -30 and a win only adds 6, a team with an excellent win-percentage that plays more total games will almost always lose more total cards than a team with a worse win percentage that just plays less games. This means that the front-runners are unfairly weakened, artificially extending War's duration. It also exacerbates the effects of strategic exploits such as the 60-card sweet spot, allowing teams to "turtle" with a small but select vault, and do better than larger teams that are forced to play more matches. In my opinion, having more cards should mean that your "army" is larger and thus can concentrate on your opponents with a number advantage, rather than being forced to be spread thin and fight at a disadvantage.
On the other hand, vault management and the idea that "you're eliminated when you don't have the cards to play your matches" are both important parts of War, so we don't want our solution to remove those concepts. I've been brainstorming different ideas for how to fix this issue, and here is my favorite so far:


At the start of each round a Warmaster checks to see how many matches each team can play and finds the average. Subtract one from this average number, and you have the number of matches that each team will be required to complete in that round. The Warmaster then assigns those matches normally. If your team has more cards than is required, it will make deckbuilding easier. If a team has less decks then necessary to complete all their assigned matches (so any team more than one deck under average) they will have to assign decks to more than one matchup, and receive salvage or discard cards from the deck as normal for each win and loss. This solution is promising imo, because it is simple enough to understand/implement, it doesn't remove any of the key components of the War experience, it doesn't punish teams that have large vaults, nor does it reward them so much that a middle-of-the-pack team has no chance to overtake them. It should hopefully be more intuitive in it's results. 

Any thoughts or suggestions?