WAR - RULES

[Rastafla]

Winning team gets:
- forum award icons
- forum background image will be changed to show which element won
- possible ingame prizes (we'll have to talk to Zanz about this one)

If ingame prizes exist I will drop out. It will generate more drama and I don't want to be a part of that.

[Terroking]

Winning team gets:
- forum award icons
- forum background image will be changed to show which element won
- possible ingame prizes (we'll have to talk to Zanz about this one)

If ingame prizes exist I will drop out. It will generate more drama and I don't want to be a part of that.

Add prizes

Jk, although it won't really be adding much. Just a bit more incentive to win, since Masters are already fighting for a title.

[Demagog]

I've done some more calculations, and I've found that with four people per team, there will be a maximum of 1728 cards left at the start of the third round, assuming there are 60 cards per person when the war is started. If you have six people per team, there will be a maximum of 1728 cards left at the start of the fourth round. 1728 cards is enough for 57 thirty card decks, but only 144 cards per team assuming even distribution, which means 3 people per team can play. So, at the sacrifice of a single round, you could add two more people per team. If you wanted to add only one more person per team, the number wouldn't be the same after 3/4 rounds, but it would be about the same. Adding only one more round is only three more days. It's pretty clear that five or six people per team would hardly affect the length of the war.

It's probably possible to find the maximum and minimum amount of players that can play in each round (depending on how the cards are distributed), but I don't remember a single thing from calculus... 57 thirty card decks sounds high, but it's not because I highly doubt there would be more than 44 people able to play in the rounds I've discussed (give or take, I'm just guessing). With each following round, the number of people able to play decreases dramatically.

Oh, and I just recalculated the five people scenario, 2160 cards at the start of the third round, 1440 at the start of the fourth. No matter what, everyone will get to play at least two games (because there are 60 cards per person, but an exception would be if the team designed their vault poorly). After the second round, if your team did well, you'll have more people able to play, and if your team did poorly, you'll have less. All of that is for 4/5/6 players per team.

If your team loses all its matches in the first two rounds, you're out. If you win them all, you'll have 48/60/72 more cards than you started with in your vault, depending on how many people there are per team.

Anyway, I just thought some people might like to see the numbers. Again though, it wouldn't hurt at all to add one or two more people per team.

[plastiqe]

In the opening round there will be 24 matches scheduled between 48 players.  While having an organized matchmaking structure is good in theory, the more I think about it the more difficult it seems to execute.  It's gonna be hard enough just getting the players to find each other.  Look how long it took for 12 matches in the Masters Trials, here we're talking about 24 in 6 days and that's just the first round.  Perhaps a free formed matchmaking system like the pvp leagues would work better.

I like that you'll know who you're up against before you design your deck but because of the harsh penalty for losing, at least 24 decks are eliminated after the first round.  And that is assuming all matches are played, if you have any that don't happen both players lose as per the rules so there is the possibility of 23W/25L or more.

I really believe we need to rethink this whole Card Vault acts as "life points" theme for the event.  With the current deckbuilding limitations (50% cards from own element, cannot change decks during matches) if you guess wrong you're screwed.  Is there really any point to having extra cards in your vault if your starting lineup is eliminated?

[xdude]

I think the teams are too small... almost all Masters are having problems selecting members, and I see people in chat which just can't find a team... So yeah, bigger teams would be cool.

[killsdazombies]

[00:32:45] jmizzle7: but if each team has reserves, then of course let more in

reserves would be an awesome idea, it kills 2 *or 3* birds with one stone
solves
noshows
member complaints
people who drop out.
ext ext

[Scaredgirl]

Lots of people have been asking for bigger teams.

Right now the situation is that some elements are overbooked while others are half-empty. Increasing the roster now would only make the situation worse. With smaller teams, players are "forced" to join the less popular elements, giving us a nice balanced War.

We will first get the 48 players, and then if there are still people wanting to join, we will increase the roster by 1 (making the total 50).

Also we are most likely going to have 1 reserve player who fights the battle if one of the main team members is unable to.

If your team loses all its matches in the first two rounds, you're out. If you win them all, you'll have 48/60/72 more cards than you started with in your vault, depending on how many people there are per team.

Winner salvages 6 cards. So if a team of 4 wins all first-round matches, that team gets +24 cards to Vault.

In the opening round there will be 24 matches scheduled between 48 players.  While having an organized matchmaking structure is good in theory, the more I think about it the more difficult it seems to execute.  It's gonna be hard enough just getting the players to find each other.  Look how long it took for 12 matches in the Masters Trials, here we're talking about 24 in 6 days and that's just the first round.  Perhaps a free formed matchmaking system like the pvp leagues would work better.

Since battles happen individually from each other, it doesn't matter if there are 1, 24 or 1000 of them. In theory it takes just as long. Of course some battles might not happen, in which case the loser is the inactive side or even both sides. Warmaster makes the ultimate decision based on evidence at hand.

I really believe we need to rethink this whole Card Vault acts as "life points" theme for the event.  With the current deckbuilding limitations (50% cards from own element, cannot change decks during matches) if you guess wrong you're screwed.  Is there really any point to having extra cards in your vault if your starting lineup is eliminated?

Well, the smart way is to design your deck in a way that it's not a one-trick-pony that automatically loses to some decks.

Sure you are in trouble if you lose all round 1 matches, but isn't that the point? I mean if you lose all first 4 matches, you are supposed to be at a disadvantage.

Here's the tip I always give: Don't lose.

[killsdazombies]

SG is that your favorite tip? youv said that about 60 times

[Xinef]

I heard a similar tip somewhere*... "Don't stop not dying!"
It probably makes sense during a war

*
http://noneedforbushido.com/2009/comic/342/
http://noneedforbushido.com/2010/comic/392/

[Anothebrother]

Winning team gets:
- forum award icons
- forum background image will be changed to show which element won
- possible ingame prizes (we'll have to talk to Zanz about this one)

If ingame prizes exist I will drop out. It will generate more drama and I don't want to be a part of that.

Add prizes

Jk, although it won't really be adding much. Just a bit more incentive to win, since Masters are already fighting for a title.

Winning team gets nymph codes
Runners Up get Mark codes

[Dragoon]

So if someone beats a Master, can they take their upped cards?  Or will they turn back to normal cards?

[Xinef]

Winning team gets nymph codes
Runners Up get Mark codes

I'd prefer a time mark over a nymph



Anyway, I'd like to suggest a slight modification of the rules. With the rules as they are right now it's obviously recommended to make 30 card decks, so you lose less cards in case of defeat. It's not very harmful for most elements, as and rainbow are the only ones that often benefit from larger decks...

Ok, we can make 30 card decks or make bigger decks and keep to the rule "Don't lose" ;P

But my solution would be to simply lose 30 randomly chosen cards from the losers deck, rather than the whole deck. This way the amount of cards lost in each round would be the same as with the current rules, but it would make slightly larger decks (eg. some stall decks) more useful in this war.