War #9 - Planned Changes (Discussion)

[Dm]

My interpretation of the market was each team has x amount of money to spend on cards in a round. And how much money you can spend varies from round to round. I am probably wrong with this assumption, but as majors said, we need more info

Mine was different -

You got x amount of money before the auction. You used that money to get players and the remaining amount you used to buy cards. Each round you gain money for a win and lose money for a loss. (and could buy/sell cards accordingly)

This is the correct assumption. If this was unclear, I apologize.

[andretimpa]

I thought we lost cards instead of money, but if you can buy/sell everything it's not so different.

[hainkarga]

Each round you gain money for a win and lose money for a loss. (and could buy/sell cards accordingly)

I suggest encouraging "winning" over "not losing". I think one of the most annoying things in war is that the award of winning is vastly dwarfed by the award of not losing. This leads to a bad taste situation where people have more chances to win the event if they avoid playing. Also, losing throws the vaults off the balance which is sufficient punishment (losing being -30 cards as opposed to winning yielding +6)

So just pseudo: Award +4x for winning, +1x for the total matches you played (including losses). No punishment for losing. Losing should be as neutral as possible..

[trashduke]

Each round you gain money for a win and lose money for a loss. (and could buy/sell cards accordingly)

I suggest encouraging "winning" over "not losing". I think one of the most annoying things in war is that the award of winning is vastly dwarfed by the award of not losing. This leads to a bad taste situation where people have more chances to win the event if they avoid playing. Also, losing throws the vaults off the balance which is sufficient punishment (losing being -30 cards as opposed to winning yielding +6)

So just pseudo: Award +4x for winning, +1x for the total matches you played (including losses). No punishment for losing. Losing should be as neutral as possible..

Intriguing suggestion, but how would you define the win criteria? Would the winner have to reach a certain vault size/money amount?  That would make it less of a "teams starved out" competition, than a race to the top; it would dramatically change war. But it would also get complicated with the new ideas on the vault and card worth.

[Avenger]

Maybe he was sarcastic, you can never know. Decks that never go away would definitely make this a different war.

[andretimpa]

you can add a fixed amount of cards that must be discarded per round to counterbance this.

[Blacksmith]

All in all I really like the changes and ideas!

• Unlimited Shards - No thank you. Either make the shards very expensive or limit them to certain roles.
• Auction system - Why not. Draft was good one war to create some variation but ultimately auction is more fun.
• Roles - How I've been waiting for this. Me gusta!!!
• Market -   Sure an interesting way to balance stuff. But it will demand a lot of balancing work for the TO's!!
• Sideboards -  This is basically like the role strategist we had in war 6#. I wonder if it's not better to make it a certain role again? instead of allowing a sideboard to everyone.
• Soft bans - I don't know if this is needed with a market?

Maybe make some pools with yes/no answers for the different ideas?

[UndeadSpider1990]

Sideboard is kind of a big deal for deck planning, is it still up for debate or has there been a decision? *EDIT* I actually don't think it's a good idea anymore, as it could allow some pretty hard counters.

Also, if sideboards were in, could you change your mark between games too? I think this would be a bad idea, as it would allow decks to change quite wildly. But for the sake of argument: pends in a mono deck could allow off-element splashes by using the sideboard and a change of mark.

Spoiler for EXAMPLE:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bt 5bt 5bt 5bt 5bu 5bu 5bu 5bu 5bu 5bu 5c0 5c0 5c0 5c0 5c0 5c0 5de 5de 5de 5de 5de 5de 8pn

–3 Cockatrice, +3 Deflag, Change to Fire Mark

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bs 5bt 5bt 5bt 5bt 5bu 5bu 5bu 5bu 5bu 5bu 5c0 5c0 5c0 5de 5de 5de 5de 5de 5de 5f6 5f6 5f6 8po

[Vangelios]

I don't like of sideboard in war

Edited - I found this one in 3.2 is for one soldier.

"tinkerer" (your pillars and pendulums become target element for this match, so your deck is still technically legal and you must use your team's own mark)
Sideboard of 3 cards