1. Restrict it to the Danger Zone only. If you need to rely on the computer to help you play, you shouldn't be playing ELO.
2. UR needs to create a program addition for ELO that states that the total stars you draw from your deck for a game is between 11-15 stars. I'm tired of this random garbage with the computer who gives me 8-10 stars worth of cards when my opponent gets 16+.
If ELO is supposed to be a tournament structure, then randomness needs to be reduced significantly and equal for everyone.
The game is meant to be random, designed to be random and is a fine game. All the best games have a high amount of skill and an element of luck, stops it being too predictable. I do, however, agree with the idea of an Ironman tourney held in the DZ, maybe held across the whole month, but I suspect the coding for two seperate ELO scores might be a little complicated
"little fish who thinks he has a chance can ride a Lucky streak to the top 10."
hehe, funny but so not thrue
Iron man... as i recall, that was a type of play, where defeated cards get destroyed after they lose...
but i guess people wouldn't play that way
This kind of contest would also rise the prizes and stop the current inflation onto the market....
But this would not be a contest based on the skill in play or the deck build but onto who is ready to spent more money onto this game....
I would lose
You certainly wouldn't see people playing with 60,000 clint cards as much though...
"I'm tired of this random garbage with the computer who gives me 8-10 stars worth of cards when my opponent gets 16+."
If you get 8* from 4 of your cards, that means that your 4 others are worth 17*. So you are yourself trying to pull that same
exact trick that you are complaining about. That's pretty silly isn't?
Oh... you felt clever when you added those 1-2* cards to counter-bablance for those big guns.... well, too bad for you and get
back to the drawing board.
As for the random factor: the game would be boring and predictable without it. That would remove any element of strategy
cuz you would just know what card to match with those of your opponent. Most games would just be decided well in
advance, just by looking at the cards.
Randomness should even out. If you play a large amount of games, you'll be as much Lucky as you can get unlucky. So in the
end, if you keep on losing, don't blame the random factor = you might be doing something wrong.
Restricting ELO play to the Danger Rooms would be a terrible idea for those of use who play in the Pacific (GMT- timezone. By the time we're ready to play in the evenings, all of Europe is in bed, and good luck finding more than two people to play with in the Danger Room.
Plus, for me, at least, I tend to switch back and forth between the two rooms when playing ELO. When I get frustrated by losing a few battles due to randomness in the Dark Corners, it's off to the Danger Room. When having the outcome pre-ordained by the end of Turn 2 gets old in the Danger Room, it's back to the Dark Corners.
Also, I agree that the random factor does even out in the long run. Considering the number of battles you'd need to fight to get your ELO rank into the top 10, there's no way to get there just by dumb luck.