War - Feedback

[Kael Hate]

Question:
If vaults where half the size and each player could use any 15 cards of their element even if not in the vault there could never be an illegal deck. Would this fix the balance and cause for suicide or simply remove tactical gameplay by giving them half a deck for free?

[Malduk]

Question:
If vaults where half the size and each player could use any 15 cards of their element even if not in the vault there could never be an illegal deck. Would this fix the balance and cause for suicide or simply remove tactical gameplay by giving them half a deck for free?

Both.
If teams are always able to have 15 cards of their own element, I doubt they will be any reason to field anything other than the best deck possible (the other half of the deck will eventually get weaker, which is fine). That itself would make for more interesting fights.
Additionally, what I find positive about this, is that elements without many different decent attackers ( for example), will be able to field more decks with their "best" creature.
Downsides are, suckish creatures probably wont be used at all. IE, didnt pack crappy Virus in the Vault, but if you give me 15 "free" cards every round, I wouldnt put Spiders in either; I'd take them only for decks with upped cards, or if I need Web, so you'll get Mummies running around all over the place.

About Vault building, having a good vault with those set of rules wont be any less important that it is now. Yes, fielding decks would be easier, but better designed Vault will still have advantage over poorly designed vault.

[Xinef]

Question:
If vaults where half the size and each player could use any 15 cards of their element even if not in the vault there could never be an illegal deck. Would this fix the balance and cause for suicide or simply remove tactical gameplay by giving them half a deck for free?

Both.
If teams are always able to have 15 cards of their own element, I doubt they will be any reason to field anything other than the best deck possible (the other half of the deck will eventually get weaker, which is fine). That itself would make for more interesting fights.
Additionally, what I find positive about this, is that elements without many different decent attackers ( for example), will be able to field more decks with their "best" creature.
Downsides are, suckish creatures probably wont be used at all. IE, didnt pack crappy Virus in the Vault, but if you give me 15 "free" cards every round, I wouldnt put Spiders in either; I'd take them only for decks with upped cards, or if I need Web, so you'll get Mummies running around all over the place.

About Vault building, having a good vault with those set of rules wont be any less important that it is now. Yes, fielding decks would be easier, but better designed Vault will still have advantage over poorly designed vault.

I'm afraid there will be too many people against this idea, so even if you find a few people supporting it, it will be extremely controversial. I guess it would be better to avoid it and try to find a solution that lies somewhere in the middle. (Also, bigger decks are once again discriminated)

That's why I would support possibility to convert cards into in-element cards other than pillars, with some set of rules limiting what can be converted into what, but with little limits on the number of cards converted. This would fix the ratio problems, salvaging would be always a good thing, and it would strengthen/allow mono decks to be played (right now they are often impossible to be made). On the downside, it would make intelligence harder and could make vault building a little less important, but that's where proper limits to 'what can be converted into what' comes to play.

For example, with the rules I've given earlier in this thread a deck like this:

Code: [Select]

4vl 4vl 4vl 4vl 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55l 55l 55l 55l 55l 55m 55m 55v 55v 55v 55v 55v 55v 576 576 576 576Can be converted into only one possible set of Time decks:

Code: [Select]

5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rk 5rk 5rk 5rk 5rk 5rk 5rn 5ro 5ro 5ro 5ro 5rs 5rs 5rs 5rs 5rs 5rsWith reverse times interchangeable with precognitions, pharaohs interchangeable with anubises, and pillars interchangeable with pendulums.

As you can see, a very poor deck. Yet far better than a suicide. Yet, any deck that can counter Time well, will counter this deck even easier.

And as far as my suggested rules go, once you change a card into a Time card, you cannot change it into another Time card, even from the same category. Thus I think my suggested set of conversion rules wouldn't hurt intelligence that much, and vault building would be only slightly easier.


And yeah, this example is a bad one, since you would never convert a whole 'opposing element's deck' into your own, but rather off-element cards from your vault, but I simply wanted to show how poor decks result from this kind of conversion, so that people like QuantumT are not afraid of a sudden rush of mono decks breaking their intelligence apart.

[geekz_always_win]

There should be an opt-out option for teams which are easily winning, where they are simply taken out from war.

For example, Entropy, who will obviously win (I mean, let's be realistic) should be able to opt-out of war and receive first place, and let the remaining teams fight it out, which would make it more interesting. Maybe if like every single team left agrees, a team may opt-out and recieve first.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

There should be an opt-out option for teams which are easily winning, where they are simply taken out from war.

For example, Entropy, who will obviously win (I mean, let's be realistic) should be able to opt-out of war and receive first place, and let the remaining teams fight it out, which would make it more interesting. Maybe if like every single team left agrees, a team may opt-out and recieve first.

If I were a master I wouldn't rest for second best. No matter how hard the challenge, there's no need to give up, just the fact that there is a huge challenge would make it all the more glorious should you become triumphant.

No victory is certain.

[Memorystick]

There should be an opt-out option for teams which are easily winning, where they are simply taken out from war.

For example, Entropy, who will obviously win (I mean, let's be realistic) should be able to opt-out of war and receive first place, and let the remaining teams fight it out, which would make it more interesting. Maybe if like every single team left agrees, a team may opt-out and recieve first.

If I were a master I wouldn't rest for second best. No matter how hard the challenge, there's no need to give up, just the fact that there is a huge challenge would make it all the more glorious should you become triumphant.

No victory is certain.

Agreed. Just look at team - they went from 3rd to 10th all because of one round.

[Glitch]

Next time one team charges another with foul play, and the results of a match are changed, it would be nice if the arguments were made public, so the defending team would have a chance to make a... defense.

[Memorystick]

Next time one team charges another with foul play, and the results of a match are changed, it would be nice if the arguments were made public, so the defending team would have a chance to make a... defense.

It would be nice if the change would be posted too- I was confused as to the change in vault totals when I checked them today

[Korugar]

Next time one team charges another with foul play, and the results of a match are changed, it would be nice if the arguments were made public, so the defending team would have a chance to make a... defense.

It would be nice if the change would be posted too- I was confused as to the change in vault totals when I checked them today

Wait, did I miss something?

[geekz_always_win]

There should be an opt-out option for teams which are easily winning, where they are simply taken out from war.

For example, Entropy, who will obviously win (I mean, let's be realistic) should be able to opt-out of war and receive first place, and let the remaining teams fight it out, which would make it more interesting. Maybe if like every single team left agrees, a team may opt-out and recieve first.

If I were a master I wouldn't rest for second best. No matter how hard the challenge, there's no need to give up, just the fact that there is a huge challenge would make it all the more glorious should you become triumphant.

No victory is certain.

However, don't you think that this system would provide a better way for determining 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc?

Wouldn't it be better for those runner up teams to fight each other to prove who's best than one team getting a higher rank because they ended with more cards?

[Dragoon1140]

However, don't you think that this system would provide a better way for determining 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc?

Wouldn't it be better for those runner up teams to fight each other to prove who's best than one team getting a higher rank because they ended with more cards?

The winning team deserves to decide the outcome of the other teams mostly because, you know, they're winning.  I'm all for things being fair and love-like, but even I love to crush other teams while leading the pack, and folding, which doesn't sound very optional as you describe it, would end the War in a lackluster manner.

[Memorystick]

Next time one team charges another with foul play, and the results of a match are changed, it would be nice if the arguments were made public, so the defending team would have a chance to make a... defense.

It would be nice if the change would be posted too- I was confused as to the change in vault totals when I checked them today

Wait, did I miss something?

KDZ vs Nyma ended up being entropy's win, instead of life's. I've seen nothing about the result outside of the R9 matchups. Closest is this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,17928.msg244663#msg244663)