War #9 - Suggestions and Feedback

[mrpaper]

Proposed update to naming convention of the roles.  This will facilitate easier Battle Result post titles, and cool names are better than trying to describe the effect.

SuperSoldier - 2 extra upgrades
Tracker - extra salvage (+2)
Medic - reduced discard (-2)
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. This doesn't work with QP's QT's
Scientist - Sideboard of 3 cards - The first game must be played with the full deck. Before each match you must import the deck from vault tool. After the first game, you may remove (up to) 3 cards after importing
Mercenary - your deck only needs to be 40% in element
Gambler - bet the scoreline on this deck. If the scoreline is right, you win 2 relics.

also noting "scoreline" was spelled wrong and "doesnt" was missing an apostrophe.

Good idea to have names.. why not use the simplest way with salvager for extra salvage and sideboard for the sideboard of 3 cards?

[Zawadx]

As the war progresses and team sizes are reduced, the teams with less players will be penalized as Lieutenant is strictly worse than Soldier now. This will be especially prevelant for teams at 2/3 players, and I think it will lead to a much faster decline from them. Could we have Lieutenant be able to use a boost (which would be awesome if it could double up on boosts soldiers have used) in stead of fixed 2 extra upgrades, at least for teams at 2/3 players?

[rob77dp]

As the war progresses and team sizes are reduced, the teams with less players will be penalized as Lieutenant is strictly worse than Soldier now. This will be especially prevelant for teams at 2/3 players, and I think it will lead to a much faster decline from them. Could we have Lieutenant be able to use a boost (which would be awesome if it could double up on boosts soldiers have used) in stead of fixed 2 extra upgrades, at least for teams at 2/3 players?

Making the Lt able to use a boost is not something I would endorse if asked for opinion or allowed input.  I could possibly get behind a change where a team at 3 or fewer players (no team is at this point yet!) in an upcoming Round can choose to NOT USE Lt and instead field a selected boost instead.

[iancudorinmarian]

I'd rather not do any modifications to the rules this late in the war.

[Submachine]

I think that a team who's down to only 2 games per round will lose anyway. :/ Lt Soldier being stronger than Soldier Lt just makes it happen faster.

[rob77dp]

I think that a team who's down to only 2 games per round will lose anyway. :/ Lt Boosts being stronger than Soldier Lieutenant just makes it happen faster.

You've got it a little upside down there, Sub...

[Submachine]

I think that a team who's down to only 2 games per round will lose anyway. :/ Lt Boosts being stronger than Soldier Lieutenant just makes it happen faster.

You've got it a little upside down there, Sub...

Fixed. But yeah, that's what I wanted to write. I still stand by my point.

[Ginyu]

Recently I read a suggestion to give Lt. 3 extra upgrades to make it a little bit better than Sld. (or at least to its upgrade boost counterpart). That's not much, but could help a little without breaking anything.

[dragonsdemesne]

I just want to say that the idea to have unlimited access to pillars/pends/marks for all really makes things more fun for me.  It's one less hassle to worry about in the bookkeeping department, and we are able to have more cool stuff (i.e. not piles of boring quanta) in the vaults.

[Zawadx]

Could we please have more ECs aimed at speeding up war? Thing are really going too slow...

ECs which make it easier for weaker teams and harder for better teams is what I'd aim for. It might sound unfair, but I believe it'll increase the skill input of better teams which should make the power struggle much more interesting and fair.

[mrpaper]

Could we please have more ECs aimed at speeding up war? Thing are really going too slow...

ECs which make it easier for weaker teams and harder for better teams is what I'd aim for. It might sound unfair, but I believe it'll increase the skill input of better teams which should make the power struggle much more interesting and fair.

Speeding it up  a little...Sure
There is no reason at all to favor weak (or strong for that matter) teams.

[Zawadx]

Hmm, an example (a mediocre one) of what I was suggesting was:

According to vault placement, The player in #1 gets +4 ups, #2 gets +2 ups, #4 gets -2 ups and #5 gets -4 ups.

A team fielding 3 players can use this as a pure bonus. But if you have 5 players, it means ou have to think about how to redistribute those upgrades.

Of course such an EC cannot speed up war, so my two plans are contrary to each other. I simply believe that WMs should aim for one or the other. If we're gonna be a little slower this war, at least make it more interesting for all.