We've already told you that we were going to see how things would be going with the secret voting system about possible changes in ELO mode. And that's exactly what we’ve done.
Firstly, we’ve decided to leave the voting system as it is. It works well and should work even better in the future with characters banned thanks to votes.
We've checked voting results and the most frequently played characters in ELO stats.
We've decided to permanently ban 5 characters: Kolos, Marco, Zatman, Hawk and Ratanah.
Kolos is permanently banned because it was obvious that you did not want him in ELO any more. He’s been banned nearly every weeks since the voting system release and we thought it was pointless to keep on using your votes against him.
Marco, Zatman, Hawk and Ratanah have also been frequently banned by your votes so we thought that these permanent bans would offer a fairer game.
Admittedly Ratanah was banned less often than Shakra but we calculated that her ban would greatly help in reducing the Roots' dominance while still making them playable. Whereas Shakra’s ban would have left the Roots with very strong chances of building powerful half-decks for a reasonable amount of stars.
We didn’t want to ban any All Stars or Piranas (Smokey or Striker, for example) even if they were concentrating a large part of votes. We figured out you would be more free to vote and decide by yourselves which characters need to be remove from ELO.
Have fun !
Those 3 clans will be weaker but not dead. Without Zatman... Dorian will not be banned as often so Oxen, Rubie, Dorian, Wendel is ceraintly still playable. Sentinel will be much weaker but with Ratanah banned roots won't be around as often to destroy cards like Copper. With a couple good releases this problem could be fixed.
HyperSumthin Guru Tuesday 08/09/2009, 17:00
I'm very surprised....I am pretty happy kolos is gone.
Marco was pretty tough for me to battle but i am pleased he is gone....again...kinda happy i had a "taste" of his power though.
Zatman...I'm sad about him gone, but it has to be...
Yes Ratanah is gone, I'm very happy!!!!!! xD Mostly becuz she has the same stats of taham or Daliha but in that 4*.
I'm kinda surprised about hawk....although he is very strong he shouldnt be since we know he can bet compared to the power and strength of jackie.....
but what's done is done
Hopefully this will work in elo to have other clans like junkz, sakrohm montana ulu watu and bangers to be in the top 10 for once
R.I.P uppers. I knew you well.
Fact is that without Jackie, zatman and most likely dorian (who seems banned every second week or so) there really isn't much left for uppers. There's a reason most uppers you run into are half decks, since there really isn't enough for a decent monoclan deck.
So, in other words, the ppl who do best in ELO got to decide this, because they get the most votes.
Bummer. 3 of my fave clans are now wrecked. Most of the "improvements" that've been going on remind me of an old adage:
if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
ELO is a chess ranking system and makes a few fundamental assumptions, one of which is field parity. It's certainly true that the different clans are tiered - some are stronger than others, some are more expensive to play than others, etc. But a player with 50k clintz or so (which you can easily get from a single 420 credit purchase, or 1-2 months of dedicated DT grinding) should be able to make a deck with any set of non-evo, ELO-legal cards they want. After that, cash really isn't/shouldn't be an impediment to ELO play, and the field should be level ...
... but it's not, because people use EVO cards, which have an incredibly high maintenance cost. Playing 20 games at 1300-1400 ELO and using a 1* Gwen is going to cost you several thousand clintz. Playing with 1* Gwen, 1* Wanda and a 4* Charlie is going to cost tens of thousands of clintz per week. It's simply not a sustainable play style for people who only buy credits once or, forbid, never buy credits.
It's not a bad thing, per se, but the presence of so many semi-evolved cards at the upper echelons of ELO play sort of ruins the egalitarianism feel that the staff seems to strive for in the environment, as opposed to the "anything goes!" of DT's. Even limiting the number of smei-evo cards to one per deck would lower the cost curve and help tame the wealth bias perceived by some.
Lost_YDG Master Tuesday 08/09/2009, 18:50
Well after seeing this I understand why i am seeing so much Rescue. People turn to rescue when they cant ust other Power manipulating clans.
Banning marco did nothing to weaken Rescue.
So, now we wait to see which cards are essentially perma-banned by players. I predict - Caelus, copper, smokey, marina, striker, and dorian; wait, scratch Dorian because with Zatman gone, Uppers will be seen WAY less. Personally, I'll be voting to ban Mona (such a pain), Sylth (almost as scary as Kolos, and with 1 more power and equal life gap with SoA), and to keep Smokey (since Uppers are gimped, I'll be going back to either piranhas or rescue). Remember, we can vote to keep cards as well as ban them!!
engsoc Veteran Tuesday 08/09/2009, 20:34
Well this should certainly create a shift in what clans will be the most used.
I don't think this makes ELO any easier and that there will be less "unfair" cards, will just mean the "unfair" cards will be some whole new now.
Striker, Marina, jessie(expect to see 1-2 of these allstars banned each week) and smokey, welcome to the top of ELO vote banning . Also charlie is probably getting ELO banned again.
Uranus and Spiaghi......don't get banned or my deck sucks .
Just a thought, but how about Cure Poison as an ability for a new card? Maybe a 7/4 3* so it wouldn't be useless. Granted, it would be used rarely (and thus will never be ELO-banned), but cards like Sylth and Greem, and the entire Freaks clan wouldn't be able to use the "9-pillz-in-the-first-round-and-watch-the-enemy-waste-away" tactic. Rescue seems like the obvious choice for such a card (so maybe 6/3 would be more appropriate), but it could be useful for clans that lack damage as it could nullify a lot of poison damage.