offline Kantimplora Legend  
Saturday 25/09/2010, 21:43

And I beg the moderators not to ban this message just by treating a "delicate" subject.

I consider absolutely unfair the use of semievos. I think that corrupts totally de ELO mode.
You consider there are too powerful cards that must be banned so the game gets more balanced. But you allow the possibility of putting in the deck semievos that keep their properties and let the player put lots of nukes in his deck.
When the semievos appear the battle is not automatically lost, cause they can still reduce damage and let some option for the player to win.
But when all the nukes appear together, come on... that's a circus.
I know you can get in the top ELO without semievos, but that's really more difficult. You only need to have a look to the usual decks of the top players.
I find it contradictory that there's a room for T2, where you can use the most bestial decks, but you allow in ELO, allegedly the most strategic and balanced mode, this kind of abuses.

Well I know probably nothing is gonna change, but I just want to say what I think.

offline BesucherXia Titan XiongDang
Monday 27/09/2010, 16:16


And I will add the fact that the richer players may even sacrifice their 3* Vermyn N or Yayoi to win some rounds, just to get another victory. I have never enough time to finish 1400, but I am quite sure many players above that are not relying on lucky steaks but better winning rates which is a common sense for professional card games. So an extra victory, or more preciously an extra move option may means serveal hours play for them.
And I am not talking about those most richest players that win rounds with 1* wanda. (if you never care about clintz, why not pill with an 8-powered card to block?).

I am willing to pay 30k for a "top card" because I know I am meanwhile collecting, but I would never consider throwing them into the endless hole of semievos.

offline Kantimplora Legend  
Tuesday 28/09/2010, 04:03

Well, and what's more... some characters are permanently banned because they are considered too unbalacing. Say Jackie, Tanaereva, Vickie Cr... Their only presence can determine the result of the combat.
It's supposed that 25 * decks with the allowed cards will give balanced games... but no. The use of evos that, maybe, keep their properties (always deffensive properties) let an amount of nukes impossible to reach for a normal deck. And even if there is a single evo without his/her bonus, if it comes with other 3 nukes, it takes completely irrelevant.
I can win with only 3 cards, if I have three 5 star cards. At one round I put no card, no pilz waste, no resistance: I eat all the damage. Never mind, my other 3 nukes solve the game.
I have a look to the decks of some top players and week after week, always, they contain evos. That's meaning something.

offline Raisinbman Guru  
Tuesday 28/09/2010, 05:58

Semi-evos should be banned. UR for some reason doesn't want to retrofit the abilities to make them only work at max star for all cards, yet they did it TWICE for Galen and Orlock. Semi-evos should be banned so those of us who aren't rich/exploitative can use certain cards like Charlie and Wanda without fear of perma bans. UR, you've got to bring Pussycats back up to their former shape! We need replacement cards!

offline swagmaster420 Guru TRiNiTY
Tuesday 28/09/2010, 06:56

Well, a 3* Vermyn N is a weaker Uranus.
A 4* Charlie is a weakened 4* Vermyn N.
Those 1* means you're gambling up to 1400.

offline Archer Fish Titan THE_POWER
Tuesday 28/09/2010, 08:22

I dont see a problem with semi evos... Vermyn N is way way expensive, and I dont ever see him around to be totally honest. 3 star Yayoi? dont see her. i use 2 star Deebler cards, thats not a big threat to the game. 1 star Svethlana(sp?), very unbalanced card. Copper... pff, Copper has become almost a joke and doesnt get banned very much, and no one plays him at 4 stars (except me, but its not worth it).

i believe a revolving elo ban list would be fine, sorta as we see now. All the cards should get released at one point or another excep the obvious obvious "broken" cards like Jackie or Ratanah or the Rescue big boys/

the mods/creators of the game are trying so I give em credit for that.

offline BesucherXia Titan XiongDang
Tuesday 28/09/2010, 12:35

3* Vermyn has nearly identical DR as uranus, but his extra power makes him definitely more flexible given you can afford to use.
No one would choose power5+8atk over power 7 card if he really need it to attack.

And the key point is that not many people would vote to ban semievos if everyone could use them without upkeep. But now they cant and thus feel unfair. And here is not about pure deck cost which can always be overcome given time and efforts are paid, but an endless investment which only depends on how rich you are.

offline Zee Deveel Master  
Tuesday 28/09/2010, 14:22

I don't get why semievos is even a " "delicate" subject"
It's not an abuse, it's mostly even a weakness (with the exceptions of good semievo cards) that i'd like new players to "exploit". smiley
Having a semievo in your deck means you sacrifice "solidness" of one of your cards so you can fit better cards in your deck. For example, you'd like to fit 3 5*'s in your elo deck. For the chance to get at least one of the three powerful cards in your deck in your hand, you employ 1*cards with no ability with the base stats 6/1. For every advantage there's a price, it's what you call opportunity cost.

offline All-GioYNWA Novice  
Tuesday 28/09/2010, 16:41

Yes, they should. Not everyone can afford them
Having a 7/1 SoA, or an 8/1 Dr for only 1 star is completely broken, even if they are somewhat conditional.

Answer to this subject

Clint City, night.