| (http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd98384/Sword_and_Shield.png) | ROUND 10 Round 9 has been successfully completed. It's time to move on to round 10, and the tide of war is beginning to thicken. Teams still have to discard 30 cards for each loss, and only 4 teams remain! If you have a question, please read War Rules (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,13006.0.html). If that doesn't help, please use War - Questions and Answers (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,14728.0.html) topic. If your question is something that you'd prefer not to ask publicly, please PM ddevans96 (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=3167) (Warmaster). 2 days of deckbuilding and 2 days of duels. Good luck and have fun everyone! | |
| Deckbuilding: Duel phase has started Teams have to build decks for all players who are fighting during this round. Team Deckbuilder starts the topic, and all team members participate in the planning. Please do not post your decks in public or talk about them in chat. All decks must be made ready before the timer goes to zero. Editing deck posts afterwards is strictly forbidden. Failure to have all the decks ready will lead to a severe card penalty, and/or automatic losses. It is highly recommended that all team members double-check their decks before the duels start to prevent illegal decks. Duels: Round has ended Duels start when the Deckbuilding clock goes to zero. PM your opponent and try to find a time that suits you both. Time Zone Converter (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html) might be useful here. If you cannot find a time when you both are online, team whose player is less active and flexible with time, has to use a substitute player. If it's unclear which team has to use a replacement, please contact ddevans96 (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=3167). If the match doesn't happen at all, both players lose by default, unless one is clearly more active and/or more flexible. Duels are "best-of-three", you must use the deck and mark built during the previous phase, and you cannot make any changes to your deck or mark during the round.
|
On a more sophisticated note: Perevpic you better kill Valimont, shove his arms down his throat, kick him to the gutter, tie his shoelaces together, cement him to a footpath, drown him in a lake, shave his eyebrows and feed him to the sharks. And in style.I took a brief vacation. Now I am back. Round 10 will be the last round of War.
Perevpic you better kill Valimont, shove his arms down his throat, kick him to the gutter, tie his shoelaces together, cement him to a footpath, drown him in a lake, shave his eyebrows and feed him to the sharks. And in style.Or he could just win, and leave Valimont in one piece ;D
sounds like what team entropy said last round, guess they were wrong eh?On a more sophisticated note: Perevpic you better kill Valimont, shove his arms down his throat, kick him to the gutter, tie his shoelaces together, cement him to a footpath, drown him in a lake, shave his eyebrows and feed him to the sharks. And in style.I took a brief vacation. Now I am back. Round 10 will be the last round of War.
I personally guarantee you Pervepic will lose 2-0. He will not win a game.
A guarantee simply means that when Pervepic wins, Sir Valimont has to either pay your money back, or replace theCutting satire there. ;)productduel with a new one.
Pretty brave talk for Entropy considering that IF Pervepic wins our duel, we get to bring QuantamT back into the game.Fixed.
True, but Team Support and all that.Pretty brave talk for Entropy considering that IF Pervepic wins our duel, we get to bring QuantamT back into the game.Fixed.
I'm not sure if that is good for you. No room for customization might as well mean your death - provided you win this round, which I hope you will. :)They can throw one of the matches next round, if necessary. As long as it's a legal suicide there will be no penalty.
So why aren't they fighting each other literally?It is in theory possible (though extremely unlikely) that one of the other elements could still win.
Making Entropy go 0-3 would help alot with this theory. That would leave Entropy with less cards, and additional opponents.So why aren't they fighting each other literally?It is in theory possible (though extremely unlikely) that one of the other elements could still win.
Right, but I'm saying it might be better to ignore the .001% chance that three decks with a total of 30-60 cards to choose from go undefeated against three decks with 270 cards to choose from until the end of the war. A single loss means goodbye, and if statistically entropy wins half of their fights, they win the war. In place of that last glimmer of hope that entropy just decided to suicide every round until the end, maybe it'd be a more fair system of air, fire, and life were playing each other for second.Making Entropy go 0-3 would help alot with this theory. That would leave Entropy with less cards, and additional opponents.So why aren't they fighting each other literally?It is in theory possible (though extremely unlikely) that one of the other elements could still win.
One of the main problems this war is that entropy hasn't won yet.I support this.
Here's what I mean:
Right now Life, Fire, and Air are all playing for second. Even if life goes undefeated, and every other team loses, then we have to fend off an entire wave of ~270 cards by ourselves, and as all 270 of those cards can go into a deck, entropy just has too great an advantage to overcome. The vault strain that would normally come into play by now is non-existant because entropy possesses over 50% of the card influence. Since they /can't/ field 9 decks, they don't have to suicide for barely having 270 cards like every other element did. They've won. So it's really Life, Fire, and Air that are fighting here, and they're fighting each other, even if not literally.
So why aren't they fighting each other literally? Looking at this war, I'm thinking of suggesting a secondary win condition of having more than 50% of the card influence. At that point, I think it's fair to say you've won, and that way it'll let the teams fight each other for second, instead of second place going to the team that resists the inevitable the longest. If life beats fire this war, it won't be because life is better than fire, it'll be because life is better at beating entropy than fire. That just seems dumb.
Unfortunately for your theory I am no longer on vacation. There will be no need for Round 11.Making Entropy go 0-3 would help alot with this theory. That would leave Entropy with less cards, and additional opponents.So why aren't they fighting each other literally?It is in theory possible (though extremely unlikely) that one of the other elements could still win.
It's a shame you didn't go to the bathroom all vacation...Unfortunately for your theory I am no longer on vacation. There will be no need for Round 11.Making Entropy go 0-3 would help alot with this theory. That would leave Entropy with less cards, and additional opponents.So why aren't they fighting each other literally?It is in theory possible (though extremely unlikely) that one of the other elements could still win.
So why aren't they fighting each other literally? Looking at this war, I'm thinking of suggesting a secondary win condition of having more than 50% of the card influence. At that point, I think it's fair to say you've won, and that way it'll let the teams fight each other for second, instead of second place going to the team that resists the inevitable the longest. If life beats fire this war, it won't be because life is better than fire, it'll be because life is better at beating entropy than fire. That just seems dumb.I dont think this would make any sense to implement anything, as if lets say two teams are dominating the war
Didn't think of that. Good idea!So why aren't they fighting each other literally? Looking at this war, I'm thinking of suggesting a secondary win condition of having more than 50% of the card influence. At that point, I think it's fair to say you've won, and that way it'll let the teams fight each other for second, instead of second place going to the team that resists the inevitable the longest. If life beats fire this war, it won't be because life is better than fire, it'll be because life is better at beating entropy than fire. That just seems dumb.I dont think this would make any sense to implement anything, as if lets say two teams are dominating the war
E.g Team A has 43% of Team B has a very possible chance of winning, turning around the odds.
Id say that their total influence has to be over 50% AND have twice as many cards as next highest amount of cards team.
Id say that their total influence has to be over 50% AND have twice as many cards as next highest amount of cards team.I would never ever give up the war just because one of the team dominated it. And just look at your idea. The would mean that there will be no epic final battle.
So you would rather position two go to the person who was best at surviving the winner, instead of the person who was best of the remaining three survivors? You'd rather all three teams fight entropy than they fight each other?I would place them according to the current rules (last standing). I disagree with the "card left in vault" rank though.
So you would rather position two go to the person who was best at surviving the winner, instead of the person who was best of the remaining three survivors? You'd rather all three teams fight entropy than they fight each other?The problem with this is the assumption that Entropy are automatically the winners because they are currently winning, when their victory is not an inevitability (regardless of SV's self-aggrandising declarations to the contrary). Also, they deserve the challenge and satisfaction of eliminating the rest of the teams. Imagine if Team Life were in that position - it wouldn't be a proper victory if we weren't given the opportunity to beat everyone else.
On second place: the real story this war is that the two teams who performed second- and third-best overall -- those teams being Fire and Death -- had single detrimental rounds late. It may feel odd for the weaker teams who are now propelled into a potential second place, like Air or Life, to be competing with relatively so little in front of them, but the fact is that their admission to second is something of a fluke. In other words, for Air or Life to be able to finish second is only possible in the combined light of Fire and Death crashing and Entropy managing to lose to them a few games in a row that were sudden death. Under normal circumstances the late-stage battling would be between those fewer well-performing teams. After all is said and done this war, we will surely all get together as a community and discuss which mechanics can be altered to improve next war, and maybe that process will alleviate some of the difficulties of lower-standing teams that seem unnecessarily tough. (60 cards = two decks is a tough rule in and of itself, for instance).I don't really see why :death deserves to place any higher than :air . Their record is only 1 win better than ours currently. We also have the best record against entropy of any team in the war.
As it is, if Fire comes out in 4th place and Death much lower, it will feel wrong. The second and third best teams this war were Fire and Death, not anyone else. Capturing that in the standings in some way -- or rather, analyzing why that wasn't captured as such -- could be useful as we move forward.
I don't really see why :death deserves to place any higher than :air . Their record is only 1 win better than ours currently. We also have the best record against entropy of any team in the war.Well, Death was a strong competitor that actually threatened some dominance ... Air racked up a couple of wins in sudden death mode when we essentially played stupid decks against you (we could have done the same against Aether, Time, Darkness, etc and their record would improve). So at no point did Air seriously challenge our dominant position. Nonetheless your point is taken, Air should probably be in the top-5 ... which it already is. I was speaking more about teams like Life who really had a pretty unsuccessful war and who have survived on RNG since round 8 ... not that Life hasn't done pretty well but their placement above a team like Death more a funny circumstance of war mechanics more than a representation of overall success.
As it is, if Fire comes out in 4th place and Death much lower, it will feel wrong. The second and third best teams this war were Fire and Death, not anyone else. Capturing that in the standings in some way -- or rather, analyzing why that wasn't captured as such -- could be useful as we move forward.Sorting the final results based on a feeling might not be the best way to go. Sorting them based on who you personally think should be in the top-3, is not a good idea either.