War #4 - Feedback

[mrpaper]

the combination of penalties are fine, but I still believe a team shouldn't be able to ask someone to sub just to play card another one doesn't have.   Solution to this could be if a war deck contains a nymph/mark (which is already not common) and you get subbed (even more rare!)  the person that we're not able to play the match must take a screenshot of his cards to prove he has it, otherwise the sub must use a relic .... so no one will want that!

[TheonlyrealBeef]

the person that we're not able to play the match must take a screenshot of his cards to prove he has it, otherwise the sub must use a relic .... so no one will want that!

Hmm, but how will you prove that it's their cards, and no one elses? I mean, I could hand out some pretty screenshots to my team and substitute all matches, but eh, that makes the whole thing pointless.

Proving someone has certain cards doesn't seem right to me either way.

[bogtro]

What happened was a clear example of a exploit, and amounts to nothing but a dirty trick. I'm trying to look at this with an unbiased point of view (which is clearly impossible), but performing an action to take advantage of a rule that is clearly not intended to perform as such is an exploit, and in some games warrants a ban.

@Rootranger: Your argument is absolutely ridiculous - should we also allow players to sub out freely for marks? Malignant cells? Teams aren't required to take nymphs into their vault, and they aren't required to assign decks with nymphs to players that don't have them.

Simple solution: Impose a flat 6-card penalty for subbing that takes place at the end of the next round. Thus, you cannot influence your vault total (easily), and there is still a penalty for subbing. This also allows a team to accept the 6-card penalty in the hopes of having a better player/player with more cards play, which to me seems fair enough.

Or, less optimally IMO, do what sports does: If you are subbed out of a match, you cannot participate for the next match (the rest of the event is too harsh IMO). If you have less people that aren't "fouled out" than matches you have to play, you are forced to play a suicide deck. Again, I don't like this idea because subbing in its "pure" form is intended to be a relatively light penalty for a minor disruption.

[RootRanger]

@Rootranger: I actually agree with Root's point here (a rarity for us to agree on something!) but interestingly, I once proposed a solution to this very issue in one of the other subforums and he shot it down :p

The idea of yours that I shot down was to randomly hand out ultra-rares to undeserving, unskilled players that happened to complete some task in PvE. Your plan devalues every single tournament or league people that has rewarded an ultra-rare. But this discussion is for another thread (the one you ragequit-locked).

My suggestion, however, is to prevent players in War from being penalized or disadvantaged because they have been unlucky with the oracle.

Eh, the two ideas are completely different.

@Rootranger: Your argument is absolutely ridiculous - should we also allow players to sub out freely for marks?

Marks are mostly won by skill. Nymphs are mostly obtained by luck. There's a difference.

Malignant cells?

Having Malignant cells in your vault is an exploit even if you have them in-game. No one would be allowed to use them.

Teams aren't required to take nymphs into their vault, and they aren't required to assign decks with nymphs to players that don't have them.

In some cases, Nymphs give an advantage. Occasionally they are the only way to win a certain match up with the cards left in the vault. Denying players a substitution is sometimes denying them a win purely because they were unlucky with the oracle.

[Onizuka]

Nymphs can also be won with skill. Its a player's choice to pick a mark over a nymph. Everyone can get all the nymphs without winning one from the oracle ever.

[bogtro]

In some cases, Nymphs give an advantage. Occasionally they are the only way to win a certain match up with the cards left in the vault. Denying players a substitution is sometimes denying them a win purely because they were unlucky with the oracle.

I'll fix this quote for you: "Denying players a substitution is sometimes denying them a win purely because their team decided to give them a deck that contained nymphs in it, that the team was already gambling by putting in their vault, when it was already known that the player did not have the required cards."

If you decided pre-war to include nymphs in your vault, it's not anyone else's fault if it comes back to bite you.

Having Malignant cells in your vault is an exploit even if you have them in-game. No one would be allowed to use them.

But why? If someone doesn't have a Malignant cell in-game, isn't it clearly not their fault since they were just unlucky with the spins and thus should be allowed to sub out with a player who has them?

[RootRanger]

I'll fix this quote for you: "Denying players a substitution is sometimes denying them a win purely because their team decided to give them a deck that contained nymphs in it, that the team was already gambling by putting in their vault, when it was already known that the player did not have the required cards."

If you decided pre-war to include nymphs in your vault, it's not anyone else's fault if it comes back to bite you.

It's perfectly reasonable that substitutes should be allowed to play a deck that another player on their deck cannot make.

War is a team event; all of the major decisions are made by the team and not the individual. If the team can make a deck, they shouldn't be punished because an individual can't.

But why? If someone doesn't have a Malignant cell in-game, isn't it clearly not their fault since they were just unlucky with the spins and thus should be allowed to sub out with a player who has them?

Unlike Nymphs and Marks, Malignant cell is not intended to be a card in the game. It's likely not even possible to obtain without hacking. I doubt it would be allowed in War.

[suxerz]

What if we make this particular "strategic subs" as a legal tactic?
Each round begins with WMs posting the match-ups and positions (Gen. & Lt.) against each other and then allow the Generals to arrange who will be fighting in each match (including himself and his/her Lt.) where the upgrade advantage cannot be changed. As usual, this must be done during the deckbuilding process to allow players to arrange matches. A simple tweak in the automatic vault is also needed for this.

Tstar suggested something similar in previous war (here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23298.msg345237#msg345237)), but there was not much feedback and I didn't quite like the idea because IMO, that will change the war too much (upgrade advantages can also be arranged).

On top of that, tweaking the numbers is probably still needed to address the other "strategic subs" issue.

Not related to the above, another feedback that I have is about the zero salvage this round (and possibly until war ends?). Instead of zero salvage, I'm suggesting to allow normal salvage AND discard 6 cards. The discarded cards can also comes from the salvage itself. This way, teams have the option to slightly change their decks while not increasing the number of cards in vault.

[bogtro]

I'll fix this quote for you: "Denying players a substitution is sometimes denying them a win purely because their team decided to give them a deck that contained nymphs in it, that the team was already gambling by putting in their vault, when it was already known that the player did not have the required cards."

If you decided pre-war to include nymphs in your vault, it's not anyone else's fault if it comes back to bite you.

It's perfectly reasonable that substitutes should be allowed to play a deck that another player on their deck cannot make.

War is a team event; all of the major decisions are made by the team and not the individual. If the team can make a deck, they shouldn't be punished because an individual can't.

But why? If someone doesn't have a Malignant cell in-game, isn't it clearly not their fault since they were just unlucky with the spins and thus should be allowed to sub out with a player who has them?

Unlike Nymphs and Marks, Malignant cell is not intended to be a card in the game. It's likely not even possible to obtain without hacking. I doubt it would be allowed in War.

If the team decides to build a deck and give it to an individual, it's their responsibility to make sure they can play it.

Your second point is invalid - Malignant cell is an exploit since it was not intended to be a card in the game - yet it was! In the same way, subbing like this is an exploit because it was not intended to function in this way - yet it did!

[dragonsdemesne]

The idea of yours that I shot down was to randomly hand out ultra-rares to undeserving, unskilled players that happened to complete some task in PvE. Your plan devalues every single tournament or league people that has rewarded an ultra-rare. But this discussion is for another thread (the one you ragequit-locked).

My suggestion, however, is to prevent players in War from being penalized or disadvantaged because they have been unlucky with the oracle.

As I recall, I had suggested adding difficult PvE ways to obtain nymphs and add more PvP events to obtain marks, thereby removing the oracle luck and increasing the number of mark-awarding events, and I locked it because you had a tantrum when I suggested other comparable, even more difficult, but more frequent, means of obtaining those cards for skilled players.  Now, please keep this discussion focused on War, not your ego; I'm getting rather tired of bumping into it every time I turn around.

And, bringing the discussion back to War where it should be, it does seem unfair to restrict decks/vaults based on oracle luck; hence, my suggestion.  Hopefully a civil discussion can be held on the matter by the other people participating in the thread. 

However, one counterpoint, as has been raised, is that due to the luck-based nature of ultra-rares, it does give newer, less skilled players a bargaining chip in war auctions.  A newbie can point to their two amber nymphs or whatever and possibly earn a spot on a war team that they might not have gotten otherwise.  I guess what has to be weighed by event organizers, and Zanzarino in particular, is whether it's better that ultra-rares are luck-based, so that newbies have the same shot at using them as a veteran, or whether it's better that players are able to obtain them in skill-based methods, thus shutting out newer players from the opportunity.  Root has made arguments in favour of the first point, and myself for the second.

Suxerz: What if we make this particular "strategic subs" as a legal tactic?

In regards to the 'strategic subs', another solution could be that a winning team could simply refuse to take salvage.  It could also be made to take partial salvage, like 4/6 cards because 5 would put you over the threshold, but I think it should be an all or nothing choice, rather than that.  Another harsher option would be to make the choice between normal salvage and -no- salvage at all for any decks that won for that team.  Or we could simply accept that strategic subs are taking place and legitimize it.

Onizuka: Nymphs can also be won with skill. Its a player's choice to pick a mark over a nymph. Everyone can get all the nymphs without winning one from the oracle ever.

Well, if you'd won 144 tournaments, sure you could have all the nymphs.  Another 144 and you could have all the marks.  That's only almost three years worth of winning every single tournament and league offered, and that sort of math proves why we need more ways to earn nymphs and marks, whether it be PvE or PvP events.  Even the top-ranked players have maybe a dozen marks, and people playing since the beginning of elements might have amassed 20-30 nymphs. (1 on average per month x however long this game has existed, about 2 years I think)

Bogtro: What happened was a clear example of a exploit, and amounts to nothing but a dirty trick. I'm trying to look at this with an unbiased point of view (which is clearly impossible), but performing an action to take advantage of a rule that is clearly not intended to perform as such is an exploit, and in some games warrants a ban.

It was definitely a dirty trick (for the record, one I did not know about until after deckbuilding was done, as I was at work when the decision was made) and I can appreciate how you cannot view this in an unbiased manner.  However unintended such a ploy was in the event coordinators, it was still within the rules.  (just as gravity was within the rules not to pick an event card for round 8, though that didn't give them any advantage)  I do agree, however, that steps should be taken to prevent this sort of thing from being legal in War #5.

[deuce22]

with regards to "strategic subbing", why not just ban subbing? If one player is clearly more active, then that team gets a win with no salvage. Obviously real life can hinder players schedules, so I propose give players til the end of deckbuilding to determine if they will need a sub for the duel phase without penalty.

[UTAlan]

with regards to "strategic subbing", why not just ban subbing? If one player is clearly more active, then that team gets a win with no salvage. Obviously real life can hinder players schedules, so I propose give players til the end of deckbuilding to determine if they will need a sub for the duel phase without penalty.

Brilliant.