What will be different in War #2?

[Dragoon]

I think both random and systematic have their pros and cons.  You could always do it more systematically for the first 2 (or 4 rounds) and then after that go to a more random system since things might get more complicated with each team having varying number of decks that can be made.

[Kuroaitou]

I think both random and systematic have their pros and cons.  You could always do it more systematically for the first 2 (or 4 rounds) and then after that go to a more random system since things might get more complicated with each team having varying number of decks that can be made.

I agree with the highlighted statement. Even though I (and other elements) would have preferred to have our match-ups decided through a more systematic system rather than a randomized one in the first round (or second round, now that I think about it...), at some point, trying to do the battles systematically would actually cause each team to design elements to 'fight off' certain elements with perfect ease, as you would pack a certain amount of counter to fight them (say, having purifies in your deck when you know you're about to face every other round).

It should be systematic for the first round at least, but everything afterwards could be a 'skewed systematic randomizer' (systematic, but possibly randomized if the elemental team did very well/poorly in the first round), or adjusted randomizer (if an element has to face a team twice, they get one more chance of randomizing from another element, otherwise, they'll either have to face two elements anyway, or they'll end up with the same element again).

Then again, all is fair in love and war :-p

You keep on saying this quote - even though it's funny (kind of ), I'll have to state these Dema. 

"I know all's fair in love and war but when you go off and try to be by yourself and it ends up on the front page of the press it's frightening, knowing your life is under such scrutiny." - Michael Hutchence

"Just because something seems good, doesn't mean it's correct. Just because something appears to be fair, doesn't mean it's right." - ~

[tyranim]

i have an idea regarding the looting process of the duels. how about we implement a kind of "tax"? something along the lines of "for every card of our element that is used in the winning deck, we get to loot 1 card from the losing deck" or something like that.
EXAMPLE:

a deck uses 4 flying weapons, and wins.
air then gets to choose 4 cards out of the losing deck and loots them as a way of payment from the element that used their cards. kind of like a sponsorship.

[jmdt]

2. When a player loses, he/she will only discard 24 cards (not 30). This way players with 30 card deck don't lose all the cards. (this is not confirmed yet)

So do you mean losing team salvages 6 cards, or loses 24 cards?  If there is 30+ card decks would 24 still apply?

Either way this idea will be great for upping the number of playable decks each round.

[Glitch]

Another thought, instead of doing another war in two months, why not start that good versus evil thing again.  Except instead of good versus evil, let's just have two arbitrary teams based on playstyle.
 
 

I thought they were pretty balanced...

[bojengles77]

Another thought, instead of doing another war in two months, why not start that good versus evil thing again.  Except instead of good versus evil, let's just have two arbitrary teams based on playstyle.
 
 

I thought they were pretty balanced...

I'm gonna have to agree with Glitch here. can you imagine planning and carrying out war every two months, then dealing with trials, then doing war again, and the cycle continues? I think if war is going to be special, it has to be, say, every six months as opposed to every 2. In between we should have lower-maintenance events so that masters aren't always scrambling and crunched for time.

[Demagog]

Remind me why war has to be special?

A longer time period between events doesn't make something more special, it just makes it more anticipated. If you get tired of it, sit out for a war.

Point is, if there are people willing to organize it, and people willing to play, there is no need to delay it for months. Sure, two months may be short, but six months is way too long. I'd say six weeks rest after the end of a war should be plenty of time.

[$$$man]

okay i just had an idea what if war was seperated into 2 tiers so round 1 would be as it is now but then round 2 would be like this assuming the following teams were in these positions

    they would all only be seeded with each other and

    would only be seeded together and then in round 3 the standings would change depending on who won and lost

Yeah so thats my 2 cents feel free to tweak the idea

[Svenningen]

I think 3 wars a year is excellent, and make it last for 45days! And trials should also be 3of every year imho

[Troh]

*this idea was influenced by someone, I forgot who. I would guess it was Troh you suggested something similar but feel free to correct me.

Yes it was me, the only difference is that i was calling it "sacrifice" sounds more war-ish
and beside reducing the suicide phenomena it also bring benefits to skilled deck builders, cos you can take no pillars at all in your vault, and after seeing the first drawings ( first round enemies ) you can choose what cards to sacrifice (this way you will be always one step ahead drawings)

[Troh]

+
it will become impossible to have an illegal deck ( cos with scarification  you can bring your deck to 50% of your mark)
so it's another solved problem

[coinich]

If accurate records of what exactly was/were sacrificed, would the reverse, ie turning the pillars back into that Fog Shield work?