War - Feedback

[Istari.]

To be fair, we started with enough cards that we didn't have to worry about it as much

[QuantumT]

To be fair, we started with enough cards that we didn't have to worry about it as much

True, but I think it shows that it's possible to survive a 2-7 round.

[Xinef]

A properly constructed vault with appropriately chosen decks could make it through the entire war without this being an issue, regardless of their record. If you can't afford to lose 30 on element cards, then don't play a deck that has 30 on element cards in it. If you want to use decks with 30 on element cards, then build your vault such that you can afford to lose 30 on element cards.

That's quite impossible IMHO. With poor records you can't possibly make it through the entire war. Unless losing counts as 'making it through'.

I don't think it has to be one or the other, and I think team is a decent example of that. We're doing quite well for ourselves, and that's after having a disastrous 3rd round. Our vault had enough redundancy in how it was setup that those losses were something we could suffer without being completely ruined.

Well... I just have some experience from the previous war. And based on my experience I thought 'well... the approach we used in first war wasn't good enough... we need some other vault building strategy, more risky, but giving a better chance of winning the whole event'.

I'll just say, that our approach in first war was the very defensive one. IE. take 11 strong decks, add them together, add a few cards to make it 360 cards, and voila, a nice little vault. This approach meant that basically, no matter how many decks are lost, even the last one will be a strong, legal deck. And this approach didn't work. Why? Because it wasn't versatile enough. And the only way to make a vault more versatile is to replace some cards with other cards... and if you are going to win, you assume that 'at the end of war your vault will still contain cards', and so vault building is about predicting which cards will be left at the end, and replacing them with something more useful
Of course this approach fails if it doesn't win the war, since it's basically built on assumption that you win the war. But... it's the only good approach, since a vault that assumes it doesn't win the war has very dim chances of actually winning the war. A vault that doesn't assume anything about winning or losing, still loses to a vault that assumes winning, if that vault achieves it's goal.

So... to conclude it all...
Vaults that didn't win a war failed.
Vaults that did win the war... Antagon'd.
The question is, do we change the rules in a way that encourages the failing vaults to die with dignity, or should they all lose with either poor records, or pillar problems, or not enough in-element cards, or poor luck.
By dieing with dignity, I mean losing with proper decks, not some suicide, half-suicide, or left over decks. And by dieing of poor records, I mean those vaults that were built in such way as to prevent pillar problem, in-element cards problems, and other problems. Vaults, like the one we used in war #1. They don't prevent one problem - The losing the war problem.


And by the way, I'm saying it all so that you guys at least put up some fight before we win the war. I hope I'm clear enough about that.

[Shantu]

Lieutenants really need mod rights in the team section. :/

[QuantumT]

Lieutenants really need mod rights in the team section. :/

Seconded. Again.

[hainkarga]

There was this issue with timeline of underworld matches. Team:Underworld had to declare its vault before round5 deckbuilding phase started. For team:UW, 240 card limit means one thing; "build 8 decks and declare it as your vault". See where this is going ?

Everyone was talking about how advantegous Team:UW was, just because we had information about other teams vault. But this was totally negated by the fact that we had to build our decks BEFORE we knew our opponents. That is just the opposite of every other team since they could just wait to see opponents, THEN build their decks.
So, we knew the decks other teams used in previous rounds, but we had no clue which team we would face hence knowing other teams vault was almost useless. And when we knew our opponents, our decks were already sealed, so we had zero counter decks. All we could do was building 8 generic decks that should work against each of the 12 elements. And some of them twice (as we were matched with 2 and 2 members).

Conclusion: Please extend team underworld's vault declaration deadline on war #3.

[Scaredgirl]

There was this issue with timeline of underworld matches. Team:Underworld had to declare its vault before round5 deckbuilding phase started. For team:UW, 240 card limit means one thing; "build 8 decks and declare it as your vault". See where this is going ?

Everyone was talking about how advantegous Team:UW was, just because we had information about other teams vault. But this was totally negated by the fact that we had to build our decks BEFORE we knew our opponents. So, we knew the decks other teams used in previous rounds, but we had no clue which team we would face hence knowing other teams vault was almost useless. And when we knew our opponents, our decks were already sealed, so we had zero counter decks. All we could do was building 8 generic decks that should work against each of the 12 elements. And some of them twice (as we were matched with 2 and 2 members).

Conclusion: Please extend team underworld's vault declaration deadline on war #3.

Motion denied.

Letting Team Underworld build their Vault after seeing their opponents, is way too big of an advantage.

In War #3, Team Underworld will get 36 cards per team member (total of 286) so they will have some room to play with.

[Zeru]

There was this issue with timeline of underworld matches. Team:Underworld had to declare its vault before round5 deckbuilding phase started. For team:UW, 240 card limit means one thing; "build 8 decks and declare it as your vault". See where this is going ?

Everyone was talking about how advantegous Team:UW was, just because we had information about other teams vault. But this was totally negated by the fact that we had to build our decks BEFORE we knew our opponents. That is just the opposite of every other team since they could just wait to see opponents, THEN build their decks.
So, we knew the decks other teams used in previous rounds, but we had no clue which team we would face hence knowing other teams vault was almost useless. And when we knew our opponents, our decks were already sealed, so we had zero counter decks. All we could do was building 8 generic decks that should work against each of the 12 elements. And some of them twice (as we were matched with 2 and 2 members).

Conclusion: Please extend team underworld's vault declaration deadline on war #3.

Ehm, counter 8 strongest elements?

[the dictator]

I would prefer some standart times, because now one deckbuilding and duel phase ended at 22:00 GMT, one at 20:30, the last one (round 5) ended at 23:00 GMT, the others I don't remember, and I can't quote the posts to check, but it doesn't matter.

I get it that ddevans tries to give everyone exactly 3/4 days for the deckbuilding and the fighting, counting from the moment he posted it, but I would prefer some standardized times, to prevent confusion.

For example, I can home at the end of the deckbuilding phase of round 4 at 19:45 GMT with the idea of finishing the deckbuilding in the next hours, but I found myself in a hurry, because this phase ended earlier (I still had the times from the previous phase in my head). We got it done, nilsie and RR almost went crazy, because I wasn't there, and no one in the team had the rights to edit my posts (Essence just had left).

That is why I think standard times might be the best way to go, even if that means a phase will last only 69 hours (instead of 72), it would make it easier to fit the deadline into your own timezone. I know that it will suck for players where the deadlines will be during their night, but having deadlines that are somethings during nighttime, and sometimes not, will make things even more confusing.

[EvaRia]

For War #3:

What if during the next War, there was a select team of "Mercenaries"?

They would have their own vault, and use decks from their vault.
They don't participate actively in the war, but instead are hired by teams in exchange for the right to salvage if they win and a card penalty to the team hiring them. It could be similar to Underworld, in that only people who were not bidded on can join this team.

Wouldn't that be cool?

It would mean that instead of playing suicide decks, you could sacrifice a small amount of cards from your vault to hire a mercenary to fight for you.
It would also let people who did not receive bids have a chance to participate in the war without actively competing.

[Legit]

For War #3:

What if during the next War, there was a select team of "Mercenaries"?

They would have their own vault, and use decks from their vault.
They don't participate actively in the war, but instead are hired by teams in exchange for the right to salvage if they win and a card penalty to the team hiring them. It could be similar to Underworld, in that only people who were not bidded on can join this team.

Wouldn't that be cool?

It would mean that instead of playing suicide decks, you could sacrifice a small amount of cards from your vault to hire a mercenary to fight for you.
It would also let people who did not receive bids have a chance to participate in the war without actively competing.

I like this idea, mainly because suicide decks ruin the fun for a lot of people. The only problem I see is if the "Mercenaries" had their own vault, and if multiple ones were hired they may know what other mercenaries are using in their decks.

[hrmmm]

Seeing as demand/interest in the war is pretty huge (just look at the number of people trying out)..

What about having 2 squads per element? Of say 6 or so?
Make them basically independent - separate vault, separate matches, wins/losses separate - but able obviously to share tactics and deck help to win the war for their element.

That way more people get to participate (I think 12 dedicated players would not be such a stretch.. by next war I assume interest will have grown again)
Also with 12 players all supporting the same element, if someone has to be away for a week due to 'real life' then there are a lot of players to help out and get things organised.

I would guess the easiest way would be to have inside the secret section
Squad A
Squad B
Strategy ect
Fix your own squad then help the others kind of deal?

Could even have different rules (more upped?) for the different squads.
Give those more experienced players (in Squad A) a proper end-game event?

For example:
Squad A
General (6 upped own element, +6 others)
Lieutenant (3 upped own element, + 3 others
The Rest (3 upped own element)

Squad B
General (+6 others)
Lieutenant (+ 3 others
The Rest

Just because I think war is one of the best events on the forum.. and really I think 2 squads of 12 isn't a push considering current activity..

Theoretically you could have trade between them, which could be nice too.. (but is not necessary..)

i really like the idea of splitting teams for the next war.
it would allowed to make bigger teams (more ppl could participate) without a insane bureaucracy.

because troop support is crucial in every war, i came up with this:

squad team:
primary lethal force. fighting like in war 2. last team standing, wins the war.

support troop:
fighting for resourses for the squad.
there are 12 quarrys/mines/pillars (each for one element, of corse). each quarry produces (say) 6 cards from the quarry's element.
the support troops can occupy/defend the quarrys.
i imagine a non-vault fight here. just decks with certain limitations (50% cards from team element, maybe with some restrictions for the occupied quarry-> 3 cards from occupied quarry e.g.).
the support team determines defending decks/agressiv decks in advance.
any team can only attack 2 different quarrys per round.
if more then 1 team attacks a quarry, the fighting element would be choosen by randomizing.
support teams have to build an attack priority list in advance.


thats basically just a rough theme i figured.
there are lots of details i didnt see or could be exploited.
i just liked to throw this in, for a discussion.