In the coming weeks (hopefully starting this week) I will be running a little test. In the previous week Kalindra was in play and I noticed a ridiculous amounts of games where I knew I had the game won or lost after the 1st round.
I will be be tracking the following stats from my games:
number of games decided prior to playing a single round
number of games decided after the 1st round
number of games decided after 2 rounds
number of games that was determined on the outcome of round 3
If it is a matter of opinion, then why be critical of the older players who feel the game has become less strategic????
an increase in games decided in the opening round makes the game less strategic.
the current meta creates a less strategic gameplay (but likely increases deck building options, but then increases the element of luck) due to the cards available
releasing the some of the perma banned ELO cards would be interesting and create an increase in interest (it has been done before)... not sure if that makes things better though. Changing the amount of life would also shift the format a bit. Adjusting clan bonuses could also change things a bit. Whether or not any of these changes would be good or not? who knows, but the only way to know is to implement something and see what players do with it
Sir Waster, you and your opinion are different things. I am not critical of YOU. You care about the game, are a great player, and so on. That's great. I just disagree with your opinion -- partially because I see people complain about ELO a lot, but I seldom see people talking about which aspects of ELO work well. That's human nature; happy people don't complain. But I feel it is important that the other side of the issue is represented. I think many people are quite happy with current ELO.
Lol not this again...
the game has become less strategic to some people... their opinion. newer players are in no place to judge other players' perceptions of how the game has changed if they were not around before and after the change.. newer players cannot possibly have the experience needed in order to form a comparative opinion on old elo vs new elo. no idea how someone can disagree with an opinion, especially when one claims there is no wrong or right answer.... AND is not in a position to have an informed opinion on it.
as ive said several times, the veteran players who played elo under the many different elo systems and the current system are the only ones that can really have an opinion that can make comparative comments
bottom line... more games now are decided in the opening rounds (0,1 or 2) that before. this is an increase in the luck factor (bad), this is an increase in deck buildings ideas (bad and good -- good for variety, bad that in that luck of the draw as to what cards are drawn become too important, very very bad IF decks eventually become rock paper scissors).
is the format strategic, sure... im sure it will remain so for a while.
is the current elo fun, sure... fun enough i guess
is it better than before??? well that is a matter of opinion, and i lean towards saying, no it is not.
subclavianHoA Imperator Sunday 18/11/2012, 03:17
There are obviously not enough happy players as only 9880 people participated in elo last week:
Kate, Monday 12/11, 09:02
You took part in the latest ELO tournament. Here are your results:
You finished 293rd out of 9880 players with ELO 1316.
The winner reached ELO 1501 and the Jackpot was 1977253 Clintz.
That is down drastically compared to just 10 months ago:
Kate, Monday 23/01, 09:08
You took part in the latest ELO tournament. Here are your results:
You finished 871st out of 13441 players with ELO 1309.
The winner reached ELO 1504 and the Jackpot was 2967441 Clintz.
Both weeks happened during the school year outside of special holidays, so seasonal variations can't be blamed. And I remember a time (before the 14-life change and exclusion from DT), when elo participation regularly broke 18k and the jackpot reached 3mil+. It's not just old players shouting at clouds, the decline of elo is very real and some sort of change is needed to break the trend.
I think the biggest issue with ELO is the lack of incentive.
Top 100 is almost entirely for bragging rights.
12 CRs are given away within the Top 100 -- that means your odds of winning a CR for a week's worth of work are pretty low... Even if you do a great job. I have seen frustrated players with 7 or 8 or even more Top 100s, and no CR win (and until pretty recently I was one of them! The humanity!!) Unless you can make Top 100 on a very regular basis, you simply do not stand to profit much.
Now that you have a smaller but much more frequent chance to obtain a CR through DT play, combined with being able to win not 1 but 2 credits per hour through DT, it's a no-brainer for anyone who's playing just to expand their collection.
IMO that's all there is to it. ELO's current reward payout is given almost entirely in player pride, rather than tangible benefits.
AznRepublic Guru Sunday 18/11/2012, 06:06
Lack of incentive? I play DM all day and I get nothing. ELO, you get everything.
SubclavianHoA is right, I've noticed the "low" amount of the Jackpot the previous week too.
The elo format is ugly and less funny now, add this to the lack of good prizes some weeks and the time/effort that you need to reach a good score.
Elo: 12 cr's per week (3 to 40 hours/cr)
Dt's: 70 cr's per week (hour/cr every day, max. 2)
Jungo weeks, freaks weeks, roots/sentinel weeks... and with gheist always around (if you win all your 50% you can reach the top easily with them), this week people banned askai and troompah, meanwhile, other people were saving bogdan just to play against the jungo (they were a plague these previous weeks).
Freaks are too good, you can win the game just winning the first round, you must guess it well (from 0 to 10 pillz).
Jungo are too dangerous (to win with askai or troompah is half of the work, you just need to win other round).
These are just a few examples.
Is it strategic? sure.
Good players will be always there, they minimize the randomness playing a lot of hours, if you could put any limit about the time that you play the unfair weeks, you would see a lot of new people reaching top 100 (and a ton of presets saying "hey, my first top 100 with mono-jungo, I'm really good!... change kreen cr to askai".
Now, I should suggest some ideas to improve it, but I'm a mere player and I will adapt as always, I know this is not my war.
Right now, elo is the easiest way to earn 10 credits every week, we would say thanks to the staff about this fact.
I don't have the internet connection to play regularly anymore and you know life
Some of the changes have also affected how the market behaves recently this is also trends with some power creep in recent releases
I'm not sure how I feel about some of this yet
Interesting points. I think there are a main thing that has been driving the luck bar higher over the years is the increased prevelance and reliance on late game monsters, those cards with both high winablitiyy
First the increase in life a while back has made poison and heal into very high life sep abilities.