War - Rules

[willng3]

I have to note these are the old rules, there is no guarantee anything will stay the same for War #3 (including the rookie part).

where can I see the new rules?

They still have yet to be decided.

[zupermannd]

I have to note these are the old rules, there is no guarantee anything will stay the same for War #3 (including the rookie part).

where can I see the new rules?

They still have yet to be decided.

Are they decided now?

[willng3]

I have to note these are the old rules, there is no guarantee anything will stay the same for War #3 (including the rookie part).

where can I see the new rules?

They still have yet to be decided.

Are they decided now?

The rules are mostly updated now on the first page of this thread.  However, there are still a few tweaks which need to be worked out at the moment (the 8th team member role being an example).  Nothing will be officially finalized until Auction has ended, so don't take anything for granted, yet.

[Sir Valimont]

The rules are mostly updated now on the first page of this thread.  However, there are still a few tweaks which need to be worked out at the moment (the 8th team member role being an example).  Nothing will be officially finalized until Auction has ended, so don't take anything for granted, yet.

In general there are too many roles. It is actually unhelpful to the teams to have so many different people in charge of setting up threads. There should be two or three team members who handle salvage, deckbuilding, strategy, etc threads.

This community is big on titles, awards, etc ad nauseum. It's nice to include people. Forcing them into roles that make the team less efficient, however, is just plain annoying. There will always be 2 or 3 people who are most active on the team: for them not to have moderator access to the necessary threads because the one person who's online once a week is in charge of it ... well that's just counterproductive.

Yes, the organizers are trying to encourage all team members to be "engaged" but it doesn't actually work. People who are not online much are not online much. They don't come online more because they have a less-important job like "salvager." All that really happens is it becomes annoying for the rest of the team not to have someone regularly curating the salvage thread.

I suggest the roles are reduced to:

General
Lieutenant
Forum Curator 1
Forum Curator 2
Soldier
Soldier
Soldier
Soldier

This would greatly simplify things and make the event more fun overall.

[PlayerOa]

General
Lieutenant
Forum Curator 1
Forum Curator 2
Soldier
Soldier
Soldier
Soldier

This would greatly simplify things and make the event more fun overall.

I think this is a great idea. Not complicated nor too much work for the ones with "higher rank".

[Daxx]

I think it's an excellent idea. We should really be putting more emphasis on teams to decide their own organisational structure anyway; putting together a team that works like a well-oiled machine is a vital part of War.

[Scaredgirl]

Like explained earlier, teams do not have to follow the role system by the book. In fact, each team can have their own system if they so choose.

The reason why have these roles is that teams that don't have their own system, have at least some kind of a fall-back system. it's basically designed to help less organized teams get less penalties, and organizers have less headaches.

I witnessed War #1 with it's more open approach. I also witnessed the countless problems, failures and penalties related to that system. I can say for certain that we are not going back to that.

[xdude]

Like explained earlier, teams do not have to follow the role system by the book. In fact, each team can have their own system if they so choose.

The reason why have these roles is that teams that don't have their own system, have at least some kind of a fall-back system. it's basically designed to help less organized teams get less penalties, and organizers have less headaches.

I witnessed War #1 with it's more open approach. I also witnessed the countless problems, failures and penalties related to that system. I can say for certain that we are not going back to that.

Not to say you're wrong, but also look at War 1 decks. And Vaults. Both of these were weaker (not to offend the Masters of course).

Back then, it was a new thing. Now people seem to have gotten the hang of it. Also, dare I say, teams with weaker organizational skills deserve a disadvantage. If I remember correctly, Light had no penalty under my reign.

[Scaredgirl]

Like explained earlier, teams do not have to follow the role system by the book. In fact, each team can have their own system if they so choose.

The reason why have these roles is that teams that don't have their own system, have at least some kind of a fall-back system. it's basically designed to help less organized teams get less penalties, and organizers have less headaches.

I witnessed War #1 with it's more open approach. I also witnessed the countless problems, failures and penalties related to that system. I can say for certain that we are not going back to that.

Not to say you're wrong, but also look at War 1 decks. And Vaults. Both of these were weaker (not to offend the Masters of course).

Back then, it was a new thing. Now people seem to have gotten the hang of it. Also, dare I say, teams with weaker organizational skills deserve a disadvantage. If I remember correctly, Light had no penalty under my reign.

Not all teams failed, but a couple of them did. Big time. Like the teams that had no leadership and no direction and nobody did anything because they were waiting for the General to do something. Those teams took huge penalties and maybe lost the War because of it.

As for "deserving a disadvantage", that was an argument someone used earlier. My response was, and still is, that War should be mainly about fighting PvP, not organizational or leadership skills. If we have a method to help teams, I don't see why we shouldn't use that. There is no downside to these roles because teams can use their own system if they so choose.

[Sir Valimont]

Well it's only the third time War is happening, so things are still being worked out, naturally, with the system. It will be a long while yet before two Wars in a row have the same ruleset; and it will indicate that we've become experienced enough to know exactly how best to run it.

Right now one of the weaknesses in War is with the masters system. It is far too easy for a master to be overturned in the trials system ... and really the problems that you have described, SG, those of lack of leadership in War, stem from inactive or poor mastery. Putting a better premium on leadership -- by making it harder to become or replace a master, or making it more closely related to reliable activity rather than a burst of activity; or by changing the way War leadership is determined (i.e. lieutenants are chosen in a different process) can contribute to this. Still, having all kinds of roles and responsibilities in War just doesn't make sense the way it's done now, as a backup plan or otherwise.

If an entire team is of inactive players, it doesn't matter what system you have anyway; they will be inactive in any case. If there is a team with a few inactive leaders, it's actually better to use a system with fewer roles so the one or two more active players can handle everything. What you're talking about is essentially having someone to blame for anything that doesn't get done so that a penalty is connected to a name.

The best solution may be this: have major penalties of inactivity threaten a master's position. Every time a master's team takes a card penalty related to inactivity, that master will receive a -1 penalty in the next trials. Combined with making it difficult to overturn a master, this will guarantee over the long run that only active and responsible players are masters.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

The best solution may be this: have major penalties of inactivity threaten a master's position. Every time a master's team takes a card penalty related to inactivity, that master will receive a -1 penalty in the next trials. Combined with making it difficult to overturn a master, this will guarantee over the long run that only active and responsible players are masters.

So if a Master's team becomes inactive, (s)he has to everything by her/himself or pay? That doesn't seem like a solution, it's currently too much for one person with a job/education to handle alone. And what about Masters who don't appoint themselves as general? Not every general is a Master, so Masters might appoint someone else as general to avoid the risk of a penalty.

[Sir Valimont]

The best solution may be this: have major penalties of inactivity threaten a master's position. Every time a master's team takes a card penalty related to inactivity, that master will receive a -1 penalty in the next trials. Combined with making it difficult to overturn a master, this will guarantee over the long run that only active and responsible players are masters.

So if a Master's team becomes inactive, (s)he has to everything by her/himself or pay? That doesn't seem like a solution, it's currently too much for one person with a job/education to handle alone. And what about Masters who don't appoint themselves as general? Not every general is a Master, so Masters might appoint someone else as general to avoid the risk of a penalty.

These are non-problems.

If a master appoints a different general, s/he does not get a bonus in the next trials. You don't earn it, you don't get it.

If a general chooses a bad team, s/he suffers the consequences. People should get bid on in War for activity as much as for "skill." Most of success in War is organization, strategy and deckbuilding -- not being "skillful" for the ten minutes per week that a player is actually fighting.

There is nothing wrong with a competition that holds people accountable for their decisions. If you want to consider a "master" or a "general" to be an important position at all, those positions need to come with responsibility. If they don't, they are meaningless. A general should take responsibility -- and the consequences of that responsibility, good or bad -- for his or her team in War.