First we group all cards into tiers. Now don't bicker with me about who should be in which tier, this is literally just a quick example to show you what I mean:
GHEIST Tier 1 -
Rolph, Toro, Leviatonn
GHEIST Tier 2 -
Bristone, Methane, Wardom, Anibal, Z3r0 D34d, Arkn
GHEIST Tier 3 -
Now, we simply add two new conditions to Elo deck building rules:
Your Deck can contain no more than 2 tier one cards.
Your Deck can contain no more than 4 tier two cards.
- All types of cards get used. No Longer will we simply see the same old from every clan.
- No mass bans need to happen.
- Potential disagreement about which tier each card should sit it.
Discuss, feedback, and so on...
Hmm could work but I'm worried about the bad draws that could cause people to lose because of the tier system and wheter the 3rd tier will stand a chance vs 1st tier cards causing weaknesses in hands.
e.g. two 1st tiers and two 2nd tier in your hand will be very hard to beat if your opponent draws two 3rd tier and two 2nd tier cards.
then we will be back to square one and why I didn't like ELO because cards became overpowered during weeks with no succifient counters.
Well as I said earlyer (and i do get what you are saying), UR allrdy has its tier list in stars.
The stronger the card the higher the star count (duh xD), and implementing a new tier on top of than wouldnt still make anything more balanced ... There would again be cards in some tiers that werent equal in power...
What Im trying to say is for instance- GHEIST tier 2 cards will still be much more stronger than The Freaks tier 2s, and so on...
I dont think you can balance the sistem by adding a new tier list...
The only way to balance out the game is to rework some cards, like lets say Toro, add like confidence to his ability and bam, he would be quite standard but still used I guess...
Too bad UR doesnt rework cards -.-
OK supposing this idea would go through would you say a fixed amount of tier 1 cards for each clan etc. etc.
e.g. You've put 3 cards in GHEIST in Tier 1, but does that mean that Freaks would have to have any cards in tier 1?
Putting 2* cards in Tier 1 is a little silly though. More often than not they're just fillers and I'd rather see a card like Dayton put in tier 1 than Lehane, purely because 2* cards aren't that overpowering. Sure there are cases like Gil where they can devastate as much as a 5* but DR/blocker 2* should not be placed in tier 1, regardless of how overpowering they are.
IMHO The idea of banning is rediculous. ELO has a problem in that everyone is playing the same cards, of course they are, they're the good cards. So in order to get everyone to stop playing the good cards . . . well heck lets just ban every good card we have, then everyone will have to play with the bad cards. Unfortunately it's fun to play with the good cards and people have invested a lot into getting those good cards so it's kinda a slap in the face when they can't play them.
I like the idea of the teirs, or at least limitting the good cards as a form of balancing. There needs to be some creativity in the solution instead of just taking the 30 most popular cards and banning them.
How about putting a - ELO score penalty on cards (Caelus comes with a -5 to your gained score or something) so people can have Caelus and Ghumbo in the same deck but they come with a -10 penalty to the gained score.
The Clans could get a bonus like +5 if you win with 2 or more Freaks in your deck and cards like Darth gives a +2 score if you win with him in your deck.
Weekly missions for winning with certain clans to balance things out (win 10 fights above 1200 ELO with 2 or more FPC for 3 credits)
The teir idea is another good one.
Simply banning everything that people like to say is a little too heavy handed and "quick fix."
just my 2 clintz
My biggest concern is that you've taken deck construction for ELO and made it a much more complex affair. Right now it is basically a single equation with a changing set of restricted values. With this it would require balancing solutions for 2 equations and still have a changing set of restricted values, adding essentially another dimension to the problem. In my experience adding an additional dimension to a problem tends to square the difficulty.
That additional level of difficulty at the deck construction level might just turn folks off and point them towards T1 or T2 which is essentially "anything goes!".
I'd rather see a paradigm shift in the solution, rather than additional complexity. Unfortunately I don't know what that solution would be.
"My biggest concern is that you've taken deck construction for ELO and made it a much more complex affair."
No I haven't. I've added one new stipulation, it's hardly complex itself and it's definitely not MUCH more complex.
So let's say we go with the tier one list only. We simply take all the cards that we we agree on as a consensus to be slightly too powerful, denote them as tier 1 by marking them somehow, then adding this to the Elo deck build list:
Your Deck can only contain 2 tier one cards.
That's really very simple.
"What Im trying to say is for instance- GHEIST tier 2 cards will still be much more stronger than The Freaks tier 2s, and so on...
I dont think you can balance the sistem by adding a new tier list..."
Who's to say that Freaks would have ANY tier one cards? You've made a lot of assumption here instead of asking questions about an idea you clearly don't understand.
It has NOTHING to do with star count. The tier system would be about cards that are considered slightly too powerful. Toro would be a tier one card as a 4*, as would Smokey Cr as a 3*, as would (potentially) Spiaghi as a 2*.
"I dont think you can balance the sistem by adding a new tier list..."
Limiting the use of the cards that are seen to be overpowered would prevent decks from being full of the obvious cards BUT would allow you to use these cards still.