War #4 - Feedback

[MatrimKK]

using people outside of auction defeats the purpose of Team Underworld imo

[UTAlan]

using people outside of auction defeats the purpose of Team Underworld imo

Agreed. I think if the UW tourney doesn't fill up from War applicants, there isn't a Team for that War.

[TStar]

I still think the best way for UW is to hold the tournament before the auction even starts to determine who will be the General of UW.  This player then starts with the same initial vault as the Masters do and bids on players the same way and partakes in all phases of War, including propoganda and such.  This is probably the most fair way overall at the cost of giving players a chance to walkover their way, er I mean play their way, into War.

[Sevs]

I still think the best way for UW is to hold the tournament before the auction even starts to determine who will be the General of UW.  This player then starts with the same initial vault as the Masters do and bids on players the same way and partakes in all phases of War, including propoganda and such.  This is probably the most fair way overall at the cost of giving players a chance to walkover their way, er I mean play their way, into War.

I feel like this goes against everything UW was made for though... To give new players a chance to make a name for themselves in war and in the community.

[TStar]

I still think the best way for UW is to hold the tournament before the auction even starts to determine who will be the General of UW.  This player then starts with the same initial vault as the Masters do and bids on players the same way and partakes in all phases of War, including propoganda and such.  This is probably the most fair way overall at the cost of giving players a chance to walkover their way, er I mean play their way, into War.

I feel like this goes against everything UW was made for though... To give new players a chance to make a name for themselves in war and in the community.

There would still be the same total number of players in War.  They would just now all need to be taken in the auction phase.  As it is, I'm not entirely sure the current UW team would even be capable of building a vault in time had I not signed up.  Without some form of active leadership this team will be doomed to failure in every War especially when there are only a handful of players who don't make it in via auction.

[Sevs]

There would still be the same total number of players in War.  They would just now all need to be taken in the auction phase.  As it is, I'm not entirely sure the current UW team would even be capable of building a vault in time had I not signed up.  Without some form of active leadership this team will be doomed to failure in every War especially when there are only a handful of players who don't make it in via auction.

Yea to be honest i dont understand why there wasnt such a big turnout this time. Last war we had a full 50+ people who wanted to be part of UW, This time there was trouble filling a group of 16 with active people

[The_Mormegil]

There would still be the same total number of players in War.  They would just now all need to be taken in the auction phase.  As it is, I'm not entirely sure the current UW team would even be capable of building a vault in time had I not signed up.  Without some form of active leadership this team will be doomed to failure in every War especially when there are only a handful of players who don't make it in via auction.

Yea to be honest i dont understand why there wasnt such a big turnout this time. Last war we had a full 50+ people who wanted to be part of UW, This time there was trouble filling a group of 16 with active people

Partly my fault, I guess. :/ upgrades.

[nilsieboy]

with the UW tourney for war, maybe take people who lost in the trials before that war?

still fits with the 'revenge part' as they can kill the generals who actualy beat them before.

[willng3]

I'm far from the first to voice this opinion, but I really do not like how the War rules were modified this time around.

First of all, one of the things that I enjoyed about War #2 and War #3 was how...they seemed like Wars.  The first few Rounds were used for scouting purposes; if a certain strategy didn't work then you were able to revise your tactics and engage the opponent in battle again.  I see this as gauging the opponent's strength and then retreating to reconsider your strategy for the next battle, and the 6 discard displayed this perfectly.  However now the discards are set to 24 cards.  If your team takes the wrong approach at predicting the opponent then they will pay the consequences greatly.  The ability to adapt to your opponents based on your experiences from last Round is now practically non-existent if your team places anything less than 4-4.  Considering that Round 2 was realistically the first "true" Round of War and that teams were already being forced to field suicide decks by Round 3, I'd say that there's a problem here; it's like they had absolutely no chance of winning from the very beginning and that does not make for an enjoyable experience in the slightest.  Weren't we trying to avoid these situations during the last War?  I don't believe that the slightest mistakes in the beginning should cause the outcome of the rest of the War to shift greatly against you, as it stands it just means that the stronger teams get stronger and increases the gap between the top teams and the lower teams significantly and quickly due to simple errors; the event becomes very one-sided and less interesting very quickly as a result.

The current Vault size in addition to the discard amount now severely limits the options that you are left with as "backup" in case things don't go according to plan.  For Elements that find it difficult to form effective synergy with other Elements, this causes an even bigger setback.

I understand that these changes were made to the rule set because of the complaints about the last War being too long.  But the way that this problem was addressed doesn't make much sense to me.  Let's consider the duration of War an experiment where your aim is to reduce the time that it takes to fully complete.  The most efficient way to gauge whether or not your efforts are successful would be to modify one variable at a time (in this case these variables would be the starting Vault size and then the number of discards per round).  But this was not done.  Both of these variables were changed at once.  Now if people are largely dissatisfied with this War experience, how will you know which of these changes caused the problem?  I'm sure you could rationalize where the problem was based on the feedback given, but what happens if it the feedback makes this unclear?  How then will you decide what needs to be changed next time?

Last War I was displeased because the Event lasted too long for my team.  Now I am displeased because multiple early losses put your team at a great disadvantage and are easily capable of crushing the spirit of the team completely as that ability to recover for the Round(s) that follow is removed in a short amount of time.
So...I guess my remaining question is:  Is it more important to have War last less amount of time or for it to be more balanced in each team's favor?  And is there a way to find a balance between the two of these that works for (almost) everyone?

[Jappert]

Will said it all really.

I just want to add that the excitement builds up when War is about to start. Auctions, Deck Building, Team Roles, etcetc. When it comes down to actual playing it's over in one round really. (Shantu played only one match...). It's just not fun, literally. I think PvP events should be about fun, Even Budokan was complained about cause it could potentially be a one-round-event. This war feels like it's a sudden death tournament.

I love the best of 5 matches btw

[Boingo]

I'm far from the first to voice this opinion, but I really do not like how the War rules were modified this time around.

...

Last War I was displeased because the Event lasted too long for my team.  Now I am displeased because multiple early losses put your team at a great disadvantage and are easily capable of crushing the spirit of the team completely as that ability to recover for the Round(s) that follow is removed in a short amount of time.
So...I guess my remaining question is:  Is it more important to have War last less amount of time or for it to be more balanced in each team's favor?  And is there a way to find a balance between the two of these that works for (almost) everyone?

I agree with much of what you have said.

Minor point: You cannot balance something in everyone's favor.  It is either balanced or it favors someone, but not both.

Larger point:  The War has to end somehow.  Cards have to be lost so that players, and eventually teams, get eliminated.  This way will be faster, I hope, and possible too fast, but it will still end with a single winner and a bunch of losers.  I favor a shorter War, but not too short--one that at least allows every player a few matches before exiting.  Suicide decks in round 3 seems a bit early, but I cannot comment fully without knowing what other team decisions led to that event.

Take the previous War (#3) as an example:  it had a runaway leader team with substantial vault-size advantage mid-war (or what ended up being mid-war) that ultimately failed to place in the top 2.  They went 8-0 in the 7th round!  If the War had been shorter via more punishment for early losses, the other teams may not have been able to recover.

As for tinkering with one rule change per War, this would be ideal but not practical I think.   We don't have glacial amounts of time to get things just right through methodical trial-and-error--as it is, Wars last for months.  The longer they go the more problems we have with absentee players, subbing, etc.

P.S.  The "reinforcements" this war does something to negate the problem of UW having a totally unknown vault while everyone else has shown a good deal of theirs.  It also allows teams to recover crucial cards that they will not otherwise see.

[Dogg]

Will said everything perfectly. I completely agree with all of it.