War #4 - Feedback

[dragonsdemesne]

Banning subs would be another possible solution.  If a team bids on a player who can't play, tough; they can be put onto the bottom of the team roster where it won't matter.

Another solution could be, rather than banning subs outright, grant each team X subs per War, say three of them.  You can use those three subs for any reason at any point during War, but you don't get any more, period.  (unless maybe an event modded this, like +1 sub?)  It would be like World Cup football where you get 3 subs per game, and if you use them all up and something happens, like a player gets hurt, well, too bad; you're effed in the butt.

[Sevs]

@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.

So are you saying torb's way of getting marks is skill? What you are essentilly saying is that torb can sub for every darkness player and use 6 marks every time.

Are you saying that anyone else can sub for someone else because they dont have a card like arsenic? because they have never won one in the spin. your argument doesnt make sense.

[RootRanger]

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.

What makes the team's match the individual's responsibility? The individual is only representing a deck made by the team.

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!

Nice comparison, but there is another factor that your comparison overlooks. Malignant cell is negative to the game because it imbalances the game, causing fewer strategies to be available. Allowing players to use substitutes if they are lacking nymphs opens up more strategies.

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

You're remembering things differently. You clumped all of the ultra-rares together. Go back and read the thread if you have to.

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.

Eh. Believe what you want. You're never really going to change on issues like this anything I suggest.

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. 

Your original suggestion has major consequences. Change it if you wish, but don't pretend your original suggestion is something different.

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.

Seriously? I've always been arguing to keep marks skill based, while you've wanted to randomly give them to people that complete skill-less tasks in PvE. You suggested here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31976.0.html) that "every time you got a platinum spin, there was a 1 in 50 chance that one of the possibilities was an ultra-rare," and clarified when you wrote, "by 'ultrarares' I meant the nymphs/marks." Platinum spins are definitely not something involving much skill, and a 1 in 50 chance is indeed random and luck based. I opposed this idea because I wanted to keep marks only won through skill based ways.

This definitely isn't the first time you've totally changed what I'm saying to try to make me look bad while shifting your original point when you realize you're wrong. I'm getting tired of it, but it's not too bad, because by now I think there's no one left on the forums that doesn't see through you. Nevertheless, I'm really tired of responding you. Bye.

So are you saying torb's way of getting marks is skill? What you are essentilly saying is that torb can sub for every darkness player and use 6 marks every time.

TORB's way of duplicating marks is an exception to the standard rules. I'm not basing my ideas off of exceptions, but by the standard for most of the forum.

Are you saying that anyone else can sub for someone else because they dont have a card like arsenic?

Yes.
Teams with better strategy/decks shouldn't be severely disadvantaged because of worse luck with spins.

[dragonsdemesne]

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

You're remembering things differently. You clumped all of the ultra-rares together. Go back and read the thread if you have to.

Yes, I did say that in that thread, but I'd revised my opinion in other threads since then, if you'd like to quote those ones, too.  No?  That's okay; I already mentioned the idea earlier, but you forgot to quote it.

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.

Eh. Believe what you want. You're never really going to change on issues like this anything I suggest.

Not likely, unless you can come up with a logical argument that invalidates mine.  I don't believe one exists, but that doesn't mean there isn't one, though it hasn't yet been presented by anybody.

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. 

Your original suggestion has major consequences. Change it if you wish, but don't pretend your original suggestion is something different.

That's the whole point I'm making; it would have (intended) consequences.  Ultra-rares should be less luck based, and not based on how long a player has been around to spin oracles or play in events.  If I'm a better player than someone that's been around a lot longer, I shouldn't be penalized for that.
 

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.

Seriously? I've always been arguing to keep marks skill based, while you've wanted to randomly give them to people that complete skill-less tasks in PvE. You suggested here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31976.0.html) that "every time you got a platinum spin, there was a 1 in 50 chance that one of the possibilities was an ultra-rare," and clarified when you wrote, "by 'ultrarares' I meant the nymphs/marks." Platinum spins are definitely not something involving much skill, and a 1 in 50 chance is indeed random and luck based. I opposed this idea because I wanted to keep marks only won through skill based ways.

I've argued for both PvE and PvP skilled tasks, such that people aren't limited to two attempts per week.  Some of us don't have the luxury of being able to be here 24/7 even if we wanted to; the rest of us have jobs and lives and such.  A skilled player accomplishes the same PvE tasks in less time than a less skilled player, and rewards should reflect this. 

This definitely isn't the first time you've totally changed what I'm saying to try to make me look bad while shifting your original point when you realize you're wrong. I'm getting tired of it, but it's not too bad, because by now I think there's no one left on the forums that doesn't see through you. Nevertheless, I'm really tired of responding you.

I may have misunderstood some of your points, but I haven't misrepresented anything.  I've quoted you; if that looks bad... well, if the shoe fits, wear it.  I'm not responsible for what you post, and wouldn't want to be.  I'm not interested in a popularity contest, or a pissing match, or a troll war, so you'll have to find somebody else who is.

Bye.

I hope so; it will spare the community and myself a lot of grief.  People are definitely tired of you (scroll up a bit), and they are probably growing a little weary of me, as well.  I do apologize for my conduct here.  Due to my training, I'm about as left-brained as possible, and by your posts, you are clearly the opposite of me in most ways, and this is likely the root (not a pun) cause of our conflict.

I'll put you on ignore so that this doesn't happen again.

[Avenger]

So are you saying torb's way of getting marks is skill? What you are essentilly saying is that torb can sub for every darkness player and use 6 marks every time.

TORB's way of duplicating marks is an exception to the standard rules. I'm not basing my ideas off of exceptions, but by the standard for most of the forum.

Such "exceptions" that are not "standard for most of the forum" like mark duplication and subbing for nymphs change the outcome of war, you know.

[Jenkar]

Root. Have you just considered, for a tiny weenie bit, that allowing that kind of strategic subbing will make people play less? As in, the one with the required nymphs will play most decks, and others... little, if any?

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.

Seconded.

[The_Mormegil]

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.

I don't think this is a good idea. Real life can be harsh and losing a match because one player can't play is not... fair to the rest of the team. I have been in two teams plagued with inactivity, and this kind of ruling is just... too harsh.

[kev]

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.

Seconded.

Ok, I kind of assumed deuce was kidding and UTA was being facetious but now I'm starting to think you guys are serious.  Stop and think about how the rule proposed rule would incentivize me to behave if my deck is a big underdog.

Really it'd give an advantage to teams that are better at arguing and documenting their activity and take away from what War should be about: skillful constrained deckbuilding and skillful play.  We'd end up with a lot less completed matches, it'd come down to WM rulings, and for both those reasons War would be a lot less fun.

Subbing is necessary.  The rules surrounding subbing need a tweak, but subbing is necessary.

[dragonsdemesne]

Subbing is necessary.  The rules surrounding subbing need a tweak, but subbing is necessary.

The solution I proposed to allow 3 subs (or whatever number is deemed a good one) could work.  You'd get enough subs to be able to handle unforeseen circumstances (somebody's internet gets cut off, their grandma dies, school exams, etc) and you could use them for any reason, but you'd have to manage them very carefully, because once they ran out, that's it.  This would also give incentive to bidding on players who will actually play.

We can also already change the team order to accommodate planned absences.  On team Time, for instance, TheManuz has not played recently due to IRL commitments, and since we aren't fielding 8 decks anymore, we can just give him byes.  Subs are intended more for solving last second problems rather than chronically absent players.

[PlayerOa]

Another sub system would be to just allow one sub each round.

[majofa]

I have a solution:

Don't have 0 salvage rounds. They allow for free subbing. If you don't have those then you'll always have to sacrifice something to sub.

No need for fancy/complicated subbing rules.

[The_Mormegil]

I still believe my idea is better:

Maybe the following would work: subbing is only possible in the last day of battles, each substitution adds 6 to the next Round's discarding. This way no strategic subbing is possible and subbing always has a penalty (even subbing a lost match).

By impacting next round's discarding you eliminate strategic subbing (most of it: planning to lose 6 cards next round when you don't know how many wins or losses you'll take is rather difficult).
By adding a generic discarding penalty you make sure subbing always has an effect, regardless of other rules.