War #9 - Suggestions and Feedback

[worldwideweb3]

War #9 - Suggestions and Feedback

Please post suggestions and feedback regarding War #9 in this thread for War #10's benefit

[iancudorinmarian]

Desyncs will result in both players playing against the AI unless both agree to restart the duel. Screenshots of the "player not responding" countdown and the winning turn vs AI must be provided in order to claim a win or replay. Screenshots of the "Game Won" screen are insufficient. If both players beat the AI, and one player takes a screenshot while the other does not, then the player with the screenshot wins. In the event both players win or lose, and both present screenshots, a reduel will be ordered. The exception to this rule is if both players agree that one player would have won/lost if it were not for AI misplays. All games can be appealed to WMs, but there must be indisputable evidence provided that one player would have clearly won. Whether one player would have clearly won is decided strictly, and providing more information makes it more likely that an accurate ruling will occur.

Te yellow part seems unnecessary imo.

[worldwideweb3]

Desyncs will result in both players playing against the AI unless both agree to restart the duel. Screenshots of the "player not responding" countdown and the winning turn vs AI must be provided in order to claim a win or replay. Screenshots of the "Game Won" screen are insufficient. If both players beat the AI, and one player takes a screenshot while the other does not, then the player with the screenshot wins. In the event both players win or lose, and both present screenshots, a reduel will be ordered. The exception to this rule is if both players agree that one player would have won/lost if it were not for AI misplays. All games can be appealed to WMs, but there must be indisputable evidence provided that one player would have clearly won. Whether one player would have clearly won is decided strictly, and providing more information makes it more likely that an accurate ruling will occur.

Te yellow part seems unnecessary imo.

As said in chat, this ruling was taken from previous war. Seems like it wasnt followed last war, so it will be removed.

[Vangelios]

In the market price upgraded are the same prices of unupgraded? then show just the unupgraded prices, because visual pollution gets smaller.

[Ginyu]

Points of chat discussion:

1. Blind Auction - needed?
Pros of Blind Auction:
- increase the raise cost of a team member you're interested in (if I put 150 down for a player during the blind auction, once it goes open it'll cost 220 for someone to outbid me)
- it makes all "first minute bids" happen simultaneously instead of as the respective generals log on

2. Reducing of money to begin with (and discarding accordingly) in order to avoid OP decks everywhere
- will be done

3. Write in rules OP, that roles can be moved between players.

Postponing War by some days may be a good thing to discuss these things with the new WM(s) properly.

(may be updated while the discussion is going on)

[mrpaper]

5x12 = 60 players to recruit we might get to 60.. but barely and since it ain't ideal to let everyone in aka having no subs and being forced to take players who submitted but aren't worthy at all for many reasons... I suggest changing the wording into:

pick 5 players as long as there is at least 70 applications.
pick 4 players as long as there is at least 55 applications.
pick 3 players as long as there is at least 40 applications.
pick 2 players as long as there is at least 30 applications.

The number could change a bit to be a multiple of 12.. but I believe it sounds about right... the more people we have at start, the more subs we are likely to need.

[SpikeSpiegel]

Following what Ginyu wrote (after a chat discussion with me, Afda and www) and what paper said (I agree with him), I'm gonna write here what, imho, we need to do (more or less, in order):

- to postpone deadline to apply for war; new deadline should come after new WMs are hired.

- to define, as paper suggested, a new number of players per team.

- to reduce the money to begin with (according to the size of teams too); if market was made to "avoid famous decks abuse", the total money of team should set carefully (example: it's useless to set the price of shard to 170 if we have all enough cash to buy as many shards as we want to...)

- to redefine auction phase; a blind auction where isn't possible to win a player followed by an open auction makes the first one literally useless. At this point, if we don't want a draft like last war, let's go straight to an open auction.

- to remove the cap of money usable for auctions.

- to edit discards according to number of players per team and money to begin with.

These things to fix aren't so...faint, I believe we have some serious points to work on asap.

Waiting for community feedback and above all an answer from WMs.

PS: www, i don't envy you atm, but i wish you best of luck for your task and I'm up for any kind of help (aside, I cannot apply as WM since I'm leading a team).

[Helston]

- to redefine auction phase; a blind auction where isn't possible to win a player followed by an open auction makes the first one literally useless. At this point, if we don't want a draft like last war, let's go straight to an open auction.

The blind auction is there to reduce the impact of generals being unavailable as soon as the open auction starts. This prevents someone quickly posting a heap of 50-point bids and getting the first stake on cheaper players.

[SpikeSpiegel]

- to redefine auction phase; a blind auction where isn't possible to win a player followed by an open auction makes the first one literally useless. At this point, if we don't want a draft like last war, let's go straight to an open auction.

The blind auction is there to reduce the impact of generals being unavailable as soon as the open auction starts. This prevents someone quickly posting a heap of 50-point bids and getting the first stake on cheaper players.

During the blind auction, bidding on desired players isn't the best strategy, it would barely raise their cost. Bidding on undesired players just to raise their cost would be risky and (potentially) counterproductive. Best strategy would be to send WMs a blank list. That's why i consider this system not the best one at our disposal.

[mrpaper]

Postpone deadline ain't needed now since the new wm would have 3days after his nomination anyway... And they can juste make the auction wait à bit if needed.  Btw which wm dropped? Also, i'd gladly help wms with whatever.. But I will play this war so I cant be a real wm

[mrpaper]

5x12 = 60 players to recruit we might get to 60.. but barely and since it ain't ideal to let everyone in aka having no subs and being forced to take players who submitted but aren't worthy at all for many reasons... I suggest changing the wording into:

pick 5 players as long as there is at least 70 applications.
pick 4 players as long as there is at least 55 applications.
pick 3 players as long as there is at least 40 applications.
pick 2 players as long as there is at least 30 applications.

The number could change a bit to be a multiple of 12.. but I believe it sounds about right... the more people we have at start, the more subs we are likely to need.

This has not been answered by www... but teams should aim to pick 4 players instead of 5 since we barely went above the 60 applications (I think 63)which would be needed for 5 players.... and it would mean hell as soon as a few drops which happens every war.

[Fippe94]

Also with so few players, most teams will probably reach the max mid value, which ruins a lot of the point of auction.