War - Feedback

[Scaredgirl]

To team .

I locked that battle topic to avoid pointless drama. When I lock one topic, that doesn't mean you can go to some other topic and continue where you left. This feedback topic is for talking about possible ways to improve the event. This is not about talking some individual match results, or decisions made by Warmasters.

There were some issues with what happened during the match and how the points were counted. Warmaster made a decision which I think was a fair one. The whole match was replayed, and lost 0-2. That's all there is to it. Like I said in your private section, after that rematch happened, no more appeals are possible. But even if they were, it wouldn't make any difference.

This matter is now settled. If you want to further discuss about it, use PM's. And I really mean that last part.

Now.. lets concentrate on round 9.

[Daxx]

This feedback topic is for talking about possible ways to improve the event.

I think Gl1tch made a good faith suggestion to improve the event. Unilateral decisions are a pretty bad idea, and it's best that we avoid them in future.

EDIT:

I have a suggestion of my own. Since Scaredgirl has made it clear that concessions of duels or matches are not part of her vision for the spirit of the game and that the organisers should decide who wins, that this be codified into the rules for the next War. Without proper guidance, people will continue to concede matches without consulting organisers, and that will almost certainly cause problems again. This can probably be extended to all portions of the game's social contract.

[Scaredgirl]

I think Gl1tch made a good faith suggestion to improve the event. Unilateral decisions are a pretty bad idea, and it's best that we avoid them in future.

You are probably talking about that earlier post by him. I agree, that's a good suggestion. I was talking about that other post (one I deleted) which wasn't feedback, but actually part two of a locked topic.

I have a suggestion of my own. Since Scaredgirl has made it clear that concessions of duels or matches are not part of her vision for the spirit of the game and that the organisers should decide who wins, that this be codified into the rules for the next War. Without proper guidance, people will continue to concede matches without consulting organisers, and that will almost certainly cause problems again. This can probably be extended to all portions of the game's social contract.

Lets get one thing straight. Organizers don't decide who wins or loses, it's the duels that do that. It's only when there is a problem, that organizers make a ruling based on evidence at hand. It's not always easy because there is contradictory evidence, and if there is no clear evidence, we always do a rematch. This is what happened in that last match. First match was a disaster, we had a rematch that was clean, and now we have a winner. Case closed.

[Daxx]

I think Gl1tch made a good faith suggestion to improve the event. Unilateral decisions are a pretty bad idea, and it's best that we avoid them in future.

You are probably talking about that earlier post by him. I agree, that's a good suggestion. I was talking about that other post (one I deleted) which wasn't feedback, but actually part two of a locked topic.

Ah. Crossed wires there. Sorry about that, I should have been more clear.

I have a suggestion of my own. Since Scaredgirl has made it clear that concessions of duels or matches are not part of her vision for the spirit of the game and that the organisers should decide who wins, that this be codified into the rules for the next War. Without proper guidance, people will continue to concede matches without consulting organisers, and that will almost certainly cause problems again. This can probably be extended to all portions of the game's social contract.

Lets get one thing straight. Organizers don't decide who wins or loses, it's the duels that do that. It's only when there is a problem, that organizers make a ruling based on evidence at hand. It's not always easy because there is contradictory evidence, and if there is no clear evidence, we always do a rematch. This is what happened in that last match. First match was a disaster, we had a rematch that was clean, and now we have a winner. Case closed.

The match aside (that's not what I was talking about, actually), what should we do about people conceding duels or matches in the future? If they are or are not allowed to that, it should probably be written down somewhere along with the circumstances under which it's acceptable. It's the same sort of issue we had with Event cards - a social contract issue where people's expectations about the way that the game is played are different and this causes conflict.

My previous experience with writing rules for other systems is that implicit rules that are part of the social contract often get challenged by new people when they are first presented with the rules. When stuff isn't written down, they will make assumptions (which could well be incorrect) and then other people complain because their assumptions were different. That's why it's important to codify as much as possible, especially in large multiplayer games.

There are a few other things that probably need to be worked out too - such as, whether allowing opponents second chances if they mess up is acceptable, what lengths people are supposed to go to for organising matches, when screenshots should be taken (every victory, just in case? Or just contested ones?). Admittedly some of them are edge cases and it would be preferable that they just not come up, but this is a case where I agree with Sir Valimont that closing down rules loopholes in order to reduce potential for cheating, mismatched assumptions, or even plain misunderstanding is probably a positive thing.

[MrBlonde]

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.

Not that it matters but it was going from 2nd to 10th.

[smuglapse]

I told my War teammates that I would make a post after the War about Event Cards and randomness.  I was gone the week the Age of Light card was introduced so I didn't have a chance to consider or discuss it before the Event Cards were abandoned.

I think most players (especially those that enter War) know that there is a lot of luck involved with the game.  Deck building and vault building are used to attempt to manage that luck, as well as having multiple games per match.  So any additional luck introduced through other means is unnecessary.

As far as the 'simulating War' aspect of it, I think players can abide a bit more luck thrown in to add atmosphere as long as it affects everyone the same.  I don't think anyone complained the first week because the extra salvage card affected all teams fairly evenly.  Much like a storm coming onto the battlefield, both armies have to deal with the same adversity.  The Age of Light card though, was not equitable and would be more akin to one army happening across nuclear silos in their territory.

In summary, while Event Cards can be fun and atmospheric if you take it too far you might as well throw dice to see who wins a particular round.  There is enough luck involved in the game, that any added has to be carefully considered and have minimal impact or else just leave it out.

I haven't read anything about War 3 and this may be a moot point... I just wanted to follow up with what I told my teammates.