After the (chaotic) release of the Standard mode and the first feedbacks, we have taken decisions on several things we want to let your know. We think you will be satisfied with the future improvements we will add first.
• Improvement of the quickbattle system in DTs.
We already made corrections, it seems that the small decks vs big decks problem is far less met. We will keep on working on it until the partition T1/T2 is not a problem any more.
• Penalties on some characters in DTs.
The first 2 points penalties per character are already operational and you can find the list here: http://www.urban-rivals.com/help/?category=9-0
Except for Leader, for the moment there are no penalized Standard characters. It may change, we give ourselves time to analyse DTs.
• DTs divided in two.
Finally we won’t alternate DT’s. We will let you have two DTs at the same time, 1 Standard, 1 Extended. With two different rankings.
• Length of a DT shorten but increase of its frequency.
DTs length will decrease from 1 hour to 45 minutes with a 15 minutes break between each tournament and then you can play again. It means there will be 24 Standard DTs and 24 Extended DTs per day.
To prevent abuses, a limitation of 8 DT credits per day and player will be added (you will receive all other rewards if you play more than 8 DTs).
• Survivor Standard and Deathmatch Standard rooms.
They will be open soon, we are working on an update of the flash game.
Questions you may want to ask:
• The number of CR remain at 5. It might change in the future.
• A PM will be sent to you each evening if you made a top 150 during the day so as to inform you if you have won a collector (or not).
• The timer will be reduced from 60 to 50 seconds again.
Clearly it's up to me to solo the 50 mil damage event so that the staff can get back to work on trying to do something about the serious issues the game is developing.
1) There isn't just a bias against new players. Calling it bias doesn't do it justice. Let's do some more math: According to one source, 30 credits per week is doable, okay. Assuming you're a new player and you don't want to drop cash on this game yet, you get that, plus around 2000 Clintz for your fights/slot machine/ELO reward(assuming you're skilled and lucky.) So you purchase 3 packs every two weeks. I estimate that packs average out to maybe 3-4k each, and that's kind of an optimistic estimate. So your monthly UR income if you're a very skilled, very lucky novice that plays for a few hours every single day: 32,000 Clintz. Now, Spyke and Elvis together cost roughly 28.5k. That's TWO good staple cards. Sure, some clans have less expensive staples, but many cost at least 10k a pop -- and that means newcomers are going to be crushed by cards like Spyke over and over again, sometimes for months, before they can afford them.
In short: New players NEED a significantly better way to get strong cards before they up and quit.
2) Standard is a mess, and the matching system is a mess. DTs were a mess before, and they're a mess now. If you want to play against competent people instead of trying to exploit the system and crushing newbies running 4* Timber with your 16* deck, your only choice is still... ELO.
I would love to see these concerns acknowledged and addressed ASAP.
We've diverted the attention of many of our players from the most balanced, most sensible mode of play in the game, by "encouraging" them to play broken modes for better rewards, while simultaneously alienating all of our current and near future newcomers. That is... really, really bad.
Nothing except sitting down and directly fixing those problems is going to fix these problems.
You can release all the new Lds in the world, run any number of events, and tinker with the DT timers until the cows come home -- but these are not direct solutions.
Give new players access to more good cards. Not 3 or 4 months in, but a few weeks in. Give them more free credits over time, or give them nice sums of Clintz when they hit certain levels. Maybe each 10th level should yield a 10k reward, Timber and Vansar should be playable by default, and all other leaders should be unlocked at level 30.
Balance Standard by taking out the cards that make it ridiculous, or kill it. THEN try to think of a good way to encourage people to give it another try, if they're so inclined.
Kill the needlessly complicated DT matching system. Just fix DTs by penalizing power cards as heavily as they deserve to be penalized. This may be a bit drastic, but I think Ambre and Hugo users could easily compete even if their DT scores were cut by a good 30%.
These are all relatively easy, sensible fixes. We need something like this weeks ago.
Can someone tell me how the match-making system values player and deck winrates? Are they combined less important than the deck star total? It seems odd to me that I (and Waster, apparently) are having no issues with it while some of my guildmates and several posters on this thread are facing strings of unfair match-ups. It would be very helpful if the players were informed of how this new system is supposed to work; if it's broken, it needs to be fixed, but if it's working as it should, the public opinion seems to favor removing it.
I don't think that anyone other than a staff member would be able to reveal the exact numbers (and even then, it might not be in their best interests -- having a formula out there may just make it easier to exploit.) I can only speak from personal observation.
I've made several new decks for DTs, 24 stars or less. I have been playing in the Standard room more often than not, trying to give it some kind of chance. It seems like every new deck I make runs into lower-level players far more often than not for the first 5-10 games. These are games that are quite frankly almost impossible to lose. I've seen players with level 4 leaders, two leaders, and four cards from four different clans in that room during that initial period.
Once you rack up a decent number of consecutive wins, the situation seems to change drastically. It's not uncommon to go against hands that are 4 or 5*s higher -- normally a situation that wouldn't be a huge concern, but when you're playing, say, a 20* deck and you run into a hand with Ambre and any three decent cards, that's probably not a game you can win.
This particular issue could be easily rectified by splitting DTs into a "24 and below" room and a "25 and above" room.
there are many DT winning decks (or at least top 10) out there which are less than 32k clintz atm ...pretty much any mono uppers or mono montana (without mona) will fit that budget, as will sentinel or junkz
so after a couple of weeks of grinding any newbie can buy a playable deck with 32k clintz and start looking for higher payouts from DTs / elo.
That's assuming that a newbie will save up clintz for certain quality cards instead of buying any random cheap card they can afford. I speak from exp. When I was a new player, I didn't know what I should buy; there were so many cards and I wanted them all.
Preemptively@Waster and others
Does Standard change that? Not at the moment; Standard is currently too underused to affect anyone's market decisions.
What will happen when it does become important? Will those cards that dominate it become more expensive and further from new players? (I'm not being rhetorical, I'm actually asking.)
Well yes I did buy a Gary as one of my first cards since he was the cheapest 5* but I still remember that I managed to reach a competitive stage within a few weeks, within a few months I was hitting top 10 in the DTs so I guess it's just the initial rush. And plus past 1k there aren't too many cards which you'll regret buying unless it's a new blood which drastically drops in price.
And it's hardly the game's fault that there's a lot of market choice
I managed to get past 400 BPs in a DT today with a deck worth less than 3k clintz right now...so it's not that hard to get a decent playable deck for a lot of money.
on the opponent selector working comment
I am running a 24 star deck and have run into18-19 star hands about 10 times in my last 60-70 fights.
Theoretically if I had a 100% winning ratio and so did my deck and my opponent had a 0% winning ratio and so did their deck then the maximum star count above mine should be 6 (From Fraggles post) I don't have a 100% winnng ratio neither does my deck, and most of the opponents that have had these high star hands have been over level 50 with strong decks so the other part isn't correct either.
Lets say the maximum difference should be 4 above my deck so 28 stars that gives them a total of 9-10 stars for the other half of their decks, possible except in the same group of fights I have not faced a single hand with that low a star count in the time I have faced 10 opponents with the 18-19 star hands so simple statistics show that the oponent selector is completely broken. and try running 9 stars against 19 in a hand!
I also know someone (who is a good player) who is running a 38 star deck who has run into opponents fielding 8 stars hands which shows further that the oponent selector is not working.
It will be a simple math error in the code and that is why it is so annoying that ti isn't being sorted out.
I have been keeping tabs on this which is why I know it doesn't work
Lack of variety means you run into the same few hands time and time again
Zoidberg.... we dont have the numbers mate
but 4 star difference is tiny... i will guarantee it is set at higher than that.
and i imagine it has a variable of amount of time... if it surpasses a certain amount of time, it will match you up anyway. and believe me, in a competitive environment you want the match instead of sitting there a few extra seconds after each match
document it in detail, then you have something... casual observations wont do mate.
when the selector first appeared we ran trials as a guild.... saw that it was functioning within acceptable ranges (6 star gap once in a while which was horrible, but smaller gap the vast majority of the time).
track it and report it if you want to go this direction.... then run some stats on it and see what the distribution curve is.
@ Trippie: While you raise some good points, your experience does not necessarily reflect the experience of someone coming into UR. Kudos to you for being able to build a good budget deck that's competitive, but you have been playing since 09, and you have a far better understanding of the game than someone relatively new would. What's more, UR is a CCG. A large part of the entertainment value of this game comes from being able to build multiple viable decks. There are only so many 300-400 Clintz cards that are playable, and your successful 3k DT deck is probably one of the very few possible in the game (maybe it includes an Ld or two to cut down on the costs, also?)
I'm not saying that a relative newcomer should be able to place #1 in a DT, but he shouldn't feel like he's losing 75% of his matches to a superior draw, either. Would you agree with that?
@ Waster: I think there's a point where casual observations regarding the matching system are enough. If the majority of the player base feel it works poorly, no amount of math will be able to defend it. It doesn't matter if it's functioning as intended. What matters is that it's making the game less fun.