Easy to say in theory, but try that in practice. With the current rules, we were missing some in-element cards at the beginning (and had to take some as a propaganda bonus) and we are running out seriously now.
Sorry but the first part in particular shows a lack of vault planning. If you were missing in-element cards from the beginning, then you didn't do a very good job building your vault.
Nope, that shows that it's War with limited cards and not a PvP tournament. To completely avoid missing in-element cards at the beginning you'd need 54 (6*9) of each in-element card. Otherwise, you won't be able to design any deck you want with in-element cards.
In other words, let's say I take 24 Devonian Dragons. I can't take more than that, according to rules. Then, I'd like to field 5 Dragon rushes, each with 6 Devonian Dragons. Hmm... I'm missing in-element cards... you call that 'a lack of vault planning' ?
Of course I'm not giving the exact numbers and the exact cards, to avoid giving out informations about our vault. The situation is more complex though, so I'll try to explain it a bit more clearly:
Let's say I take 18 of each in-element card, and 24 of the ones we might need the most, and 150 pillars/pendulums.
That's a bit above 400 cards.
And then, it happens that we want to field for some reasons 4 dragon rushes, ok, we can do it, and 4 deja vu rushes... oops, we can't... we didn't expect that so much deja vu will be optimal for the given situation. So, should we take 24 of each in-element card?
No, no, no, and once again no. Because we will be missing tons and tons of out-of element cards. So, we have to cope with the fact we will be missing in-element cards and balance it with the fact we will be missing out-of-element cards even more.
I agree, to the point where I never worry about my on-element cards and always discard them first.
If you discard them first, then you are not keeping your off-element cards, since you force yourself into converting them to keep yourself able to field legal decks with enough pillars. You either discard off-element cards, or discard in-element cards and convert off-element cards... any way, you are losing off-element cards, and these give you versatility.
This is only true in the beginning. Come round 6,7,8, I'll be able to convert so many cards that it won't matter.
Come round 6,7,8 and you'll be able to convert only one or two decks, since that's what is left of your vault. At this point converting into pillars is mostly unnecessary, since losing decks causes you to discard 30 cards and thus drop the number of people playing. Pillar/Pendulum shortages are caused by losing pillars/pendulums in early rounds, when you can lose cards without decreasing the number of people playing. In round 6 you will usually have enough pillars for each player, unless you somehow salvage enough cards to bring one player back into play, in which case you might want to convert eg. 15 cards into pendulums to give him a reasonable deck.
The conversion isn't supposed to allow you to completely skip out on any vault planning whatsoever. Being able to convert an entire deck's worth of new cards is too much.
I'm only giving this as a reply to you saying that with my suggested system you can make up for losses in in-element cards through conversion. You can't unless you keep going 7-2 or better for the whole war.
The optimal number will increase because I'll always want to keep as many cards as possible off element so that I have more options. I also think that having to use the same deck over and over again at the end is what makes this War, instead of just a series of PVP brackets.
That's one thing I don't like about these whole wars. They are extremely intensive in the beginning, when you need to manage 9 people, and 60 cards per person. Then, in the middle of the war, it becomes simpler - you are left with a few decks, and it's mostly a choice which deck goes against whom. Then, at the end, it's a boring - one duel per week, without any thought. Sometimes you might be able to change your deck with your 'sideboard' (ie. the cards you salvage/keep >30 but <60)... but, the probability is quite low, so most often it's the same deck, once a week. Boring. Epic struggles at the end of war should be full of last bits of strategic decisions, risks that may allow you to survive one more round, or push you into oblivion... and definitely, converting your whole deck into mono, and going like 'tonight we dine in hell' or 'it's show time!' or 'for the Overmind!' is much more epic than losing with some duo deck, that accidentally depends more on the other element.
I can keep track of it in my head more or less. It's just that with so much going on, the chance for a mistake to go by is much higher, regardless of how well you can keep track of it in your head. It's more complicated, and therefore more prone to mistakes.
I think our debate largely stems from our differences in opinion on how the war should be set up. You want it to be more forgiving, whereas I place a large value on foresight, and think that a lack of it should be punished to a degree.
Well, depending on how well you keep track of that, chances of mistake might differ. One person might make mistakes more often when checking the conversions, another while checking the decks, depending on the way it is encoded in their mind and what is more natural to whom. The laws of Gravity might be complex, but it doesn't stop you from falling down when you should. In the right circumstances, mistakes can be avoided by choosing more natural (subjectively, for the organizers) rules, rather than simpler rules, for example. I don't know what the organizers will decide in this matter, so I'm simply expressing and developing my idea. And making it clear since you seem to be interested in in, even if you are against the majority of it.
As for the differences in opinion, I simply think that my suggestions would solve some problems like suicide decks, would increase the importance of your main element, and would increase the epicness of the late game.
They are not at all forgiving, since with these rules a poorly designed vault will lose anyway (especially if it depended on conversions too much), and a well designed vault can gain through proper conversions.
The main problem is that vault building is a choice - either you build an aggressive vault, that does well as long as you keep winning, but loses a lot strength after losing too many times.
OR, you build a 'damage prone' vault, with many pillars, more in-element cards, and generally more 'strong decks of your element' than 'counter decks'. A vault, that is still capable of fighting after suffering heavy losses, but is unable to adjust and loses much flexibility when compared to the aggressive vaults.
The aggressive vault usually goes either 7-2, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3, 7-2,... and so on, or 4-6,... 2-7,... 0-3... 0...0...0
The defensive vault most of the time will go 3-6, 3-6, 3-6, 2-4, 1-3, 0-2, ... 0, ... 0,... 0
So, if you want to win the war you generally have to build aggressive vaults, and these tend to suffer heavily from losing streaks, no matter how well designed they are, or how skilled the players are, or how strategically the decks are designed. So, if some team is having pillar shortages, it doesn't necessarily mean that they poorly designed their vault. It might mean that they designed it in a way that gave them let's say 15 % chance of winning this war, instead of 2% chance... and simply the RNG decided to still return "false".
anybody wanna cookie?
Yes, please :]
Just not the Darkness Cookie, since that cookie is a lie. They already ate it.
