War #4 - Feedback

[TheonlyrealBeef]

I found the matchups to not be well distributed: Darkness almost always ends up facing Entropy. To confirm my hypothesis I went and summed up how often Darkness faced each element for wars 2-4:
: 13
: 15
: 11
: 11
: 18
: 14
: 8 (logical considering Gravity did terrible in wars 2 and 3)
: 9
: 10
: 7
: 12
: 4 (logical considering UW enters later and gets eliminated early)

So I'm basically asking for a better randomizer! :P
To see a strong deviation from the norm against the one element you hate facing the most is very sad.

[Jenkar]

Not big enough sample. Not enough ponderation by elimination. So nu.

[Higurashi]

Just as a low number for Gravity makes sense, a high number for Entropy makes sense. I'd gather stats for all teams to see if the difference is noticeable. Otherwise there's no actual reference point.

[Scaredgirl]

If there were two zeroes after those numbers, then we might be onto something. Right now the sample size is so ridiculously small that I am really hoping nobody will start wasting their time doing conspiracy calculations.

[hainkarga]

I found the matchups to not be well distributed: Darkness almost always ends up facing Entropy. To confirm my hypothesis I went and summed up how often Darkness faced each element for wars 2-4:
: 13
: 15
: 11
: 11
: 18
: 14
: 8 (logical considering Gravity did terrible in wars 2 and 3)
: 9
: 10
: 7
: 12
: 4 (logical considering UW enters later and gets eliminated early)

So I'm basically asking for a better randomizer! :P
To see a strong deviation from the norm against the one element you hate facing the most is very sad.

There is a lot more for an accurate statistics for matchup frequency for an element. First, you need to factor total number of matches each element did. Then the ratio of the element doing matches against for every single round. These still wouldn't be enough because you need to factor the number of matches an element did in a particular war versus their match count. And it also depends when they are facing because it isn't really bad luck to have multiple matches when you are strong in counters and entropy is weak at the moment, tho terrible luck if you face too many times when they are strong and your vault is all good except against entropy.

This could be a theoric scenario;

Suppose that on war X, on rounds both 5 & 6, Team faced team 4/8 of their matches and their vault got toasted by entropy and by other elements (and they could only field 1 counter). Now they can only field 2 decks each round for 3 more rounds which is never entropy. Where team on the same war, fielded 8 decks for 10 rounds and facing once per round, also has been virtually annihilated on round 8. Darkness is doing fine even tho they have only 1 counter in their vault too, which is being enough.
In the end, did more matches than did on war X but homogenic and less brutal and far easier compared to

[MrBlonde]

ToRB's post kinda piqued my interest. Only counted our entropy matches though and we fought them 18 or 19 times in the same time frame (i think it's 18 though). I wish we would play them less as well but i don't think it has to do much with the randomizer. I don't think it's needed for us to create a randomizer that takes into account how many times we've actually faced an opponent.

[Onizuka]

Just a note about the betting system.

I dislike having to vote with your team. It only serves to negatively affect teams that do worse in war.

Arguing that someone might sabotage matches to do better is putting little faith in the team to not catch that person/stop it.

[Dogg]

Just a note about the betting system.

I dislike having to vote with your team. It only serves to negatively affect teams that do worse in war.

Arguing that someone might sabotage matches to do better is putting little faith in the team to not catch that person/stop it.

Heh, i also found it quite ridiculous when i had to bet that my team would win the match in which we sent a suicide deck.

[Scaredgirl]

Just a note about the betting system.

I dislike having to vote with your team. It only serves to negatively affect teams that do worse in war.

Arguing that someone might sabotage matches to do better is putting little faith in the team to not catch that person/stop it.

Heh, i also found it quite ridiculous when i had to bet that my team would win the match in which we sent a suicide deck.

Yes, but if there was no such rule, you would score one point for certain because you know something most people do not. It's like real life insider trading, which is also illegal.

But the main reason for the voting rule is the fact that betting against your team would be terrible for team morale. Imagine a General always betting against players he thinks are the weakest links in his team. What kind of message is that sending to that one player? It could also lead to a situation where a player throws the fight knowing that it will probably not decide the final outcome of the War, but could maybe help that player to win the betting.

Letting players pick the winners how they want is clearly not the best option here.

For War #5, we could look into changing the betting so that you will not bet on any of the battles where your team members are involved, and will instead gain 1 point for each 2 such battles. That would basically mean randomly auto-picking winners, and since you have a 50/50 chance, we would assume that you make 1 correct guess for each 2 guesses. 

[Demagog]

So what if we remade the format of war? Some of the basic concepts would be there, such as the vault and deck-building rules. What I'm thinking is turning war into a round-robin event. During each round every team plays against one other team. Assuming there are 9 members on each team, the match between each team would be best of 9.

I have to leave so I can't really go into detail. but basically the concept is to combine war with 3-man Team PvP. It's not an elimination tournament, though. Once each team has played every other one, the top 2 or 4 teams duke it out to win the war.

[Sevs]

I guess this is where i should put this. For war betting only 13 of the people who have started the betting process, have actually submitted every round. I think this is kinda of significant in that it shows the process might be a little bit too difficult. Not that it is hard, but the most of the time people are more focused on war activities themselves, and the time to meaningfully go through 30-50 matchups just isn't there. 

What if instead of each individual matchup, we bet on how each team does per round. So like a mix of the old betting system and the new betting system. I think this would cause a much greater participation rate then the current one.

[Onizuka]

There's not much incentive to continue to bet after you see you're trailing behind, especially for a losing team.