offline {) Veteran  
Tuesday 06/11/2012, 19:18

*disclamer* just to start this of i am not some pro l33t player or anything like that and this just my opinion and it is subject to change.

tier 1-

GHEIST their bonus is just so damn stong and well their cards are much better than their counterpart the Roots imo, i dont think they are the best and they have their weakness "like SoB" and their mono decks arent as stong with the recent perma banns

Montana that attack reduction is just insane, they have so many good cards like Mona, Griezzo and Spiaghi probably the best clan, makes a nice mono or half deck

Skeelz so solid good in a half deck, mono and splash does pretty much every thing. nuff said

Piranas before i get started i have to say they are my main "well used to be" their bonus is really good, clans that need it like Rescue and GHEIST are just slaughtered most of their cards have huge power, pill manipulation is real strong Scrubb can just overpill and get away with it. Only down side half deck isnt so strong imo and their perma banns really make a difference.

Vortex their clan bonus is so forgiving and allows you to make huge plays and not geting punished for it, however the main problem is their bonus doent win fights. btw they are on the edge of being top of tier 2 but im nice like that.

ok so thats the end of tier 1 i just wanna say that thats not in any order and that if your favourite clan isnt there tier 2 is still very viable they just have down sides that tier 1 dont.

offline ghelas Titan E X C A L I B U R
Wednesday 26/12/2012, 11:41

I am not sure about that "never overpowered" thing. When I first started getting somewhere in ELO, Piranas were one of the strongest clans available, and there were weeks when about a third of the player base ran them. 8 powers were less common, so even plain 7-powered Piranas fought almost everything on equal footing. Cards like Taljion and Raeth were hands down some of the best round-winners available, and Raeth would get player-banned every once in a while.

But nevermind all that! Of course power creep is a good thing. The game cannot progress if cards don't get stronger. If stronger cards were not regularly introduced, the meta would stagnate, with several cookie-cutter decks becoming incredibly popular. Playing in a game with no power creep would mean you simply pick one of the top decks and try to become a good bluffer/reader: a glorified version of Rock-Paper-Scissors.

It is because the meta is constantly FORCED to evolve that I have the opportunity to experiment. I have hit t100 half-decking almost every clan at this point, and it is the discovery of new strategies that keeps me coming back for more.

offline wats_happenin Colossus Casual Grind
Wednesday 26/12/2012, 13:48

I don't really understand comparing 4* across the board. Saying something like Nellie or Quibik is better than Raeth is a strange comment. I mean they have different bonuses to begin with and thus different restrictions on their abilities/power etc etc.

It's almost as if your complaining Raeth isn't strong enough and needs something more. Raeth is still a pain in the behind to face, and I'm sure most people agree with me. I would say he is still a very strong card and is still a great example of a balanced card.

I don't think they're releasing things that totally overshadow him. I mean sure you can consider using a 5* or a 3* over him in some builds but where's the harm in that? It's like saying that you want staple cards at each star count that must be in your deck to be successful with that clan. That's what has turned ELO into a pile of turd. People using the same stuff over and over and over again. I think it's great that people sometimes use Raeth, but other times may choose a different card to spice up their decks.

Take Esmeralda as a great example. She is still a very good 2* card, however now people may choose Bertha or Wonald over her. They may even up the star count. Is it because Esmeralda has become weak? No! It's because there is more variety and some people prefer other cards...and I would say that is a very good thing indeed.

offline Filariel Hero Synergy
Wednesday 26/12/2012, 18:43

@ Wats_hapenin
I love your deep understunding and your way of seeing the game...i want to add that even if a card is supposed to be the best in a certain clan at a star number, it doesn't mean we have to choose it, for exemple when i use a mono piranas deck it happened to me to choose kristin over scubb, kristin with her conditional soa fit greatly into the pirans strategy who need to win most of the time 3/4 having scubb, tajillon, ector and tula who all are killed by soa as ability i prefer to minimise that weakness by changing scubb and also because i play selma and hawkins whose bonus is usless at the final round as scubb so...
sorry if i didn't speak about the subject...and excuse me for my shaky english

offline subclavianHoA Imperator Harbingers of Ares
Saturday 29/12/2012, 01:44

Having a bunch of choices at every star count in every clan was probably what the staff intended with their NB releases in the first place. But the power creep leaves many older cards and clans in the dust.

Consider FPC, Pcats, la junta, or ulu many usable cards in those clans were *not* created in the last 2 years? Almost all their older cards have become out-dated, either due to power creep or the 14-life change. These are old clans that have 4 or 5 pages of unique characters that are supposed to make their clan well-rounded in every format, and yet some of them have trouble making a mono deck due to the sharp dropoff in card quality after their handful of staples.

I think some combination of regular elo permabans and perhaps a better implementation of the standard system will be better for the game in the long run than letting power creep become the driving force of metagame evolution.

offline ghelas Titan E X C A L I B U R
Saturday 29/12/2012, 02:21

Well, we have a bunch of different characters in every clan. Many of them are in no way comparable in power. Some of them are woefully outdated, some of them are painfully unfair, and others are just right. ANY way of balancing the game at this point will mean that some of those characters can't be used -- there's simply too vast a difference in their power levels.

I prefer power creep, because it is the most constructive form of game balance, given the situation described above. Instead of banning tons of cards that have become iconic to players, or forcing players into a format where only middle-of-the-road cards are allowed, we are adding strong new cards that can compete with existing ones.

The down side to this? At 4 cards every 2 weeks, it is a long process. But I think it's ultimately what's best for the game. Most games of this nature have some degree of power creep, and unless it's tied to some other dynamic (for example: a cash grab) it does not tend to be detrimental.

offline wasteroftime Titan Open Casket
Tuesday 01/01/2013, 04:39

Power creep is the wrong way to create balance. real diversity is what creates balance.
creating god tier cards is bad for ANY kind of game.

Lehane was god tier, Caelus was god tier, Sytlh was god tier.... these cards should never have been released into the environment, and eventually they received their well deserved bans

new god tier cards have been released -- Jean, Beeboy, Spyke, Kalindra --- i imagine they will meet the same fate as the other god tier cards. spyke has already felt it..

could cards like the one above be released and not lead to the slippery slope of cards getting more and more powerful

Beeboy at 7/6 is still a very strong card.... but the option of using Mr. Fixit or Bodenpower is still there depending on what the state of the meta. But Beeboy at 7/7 basically makes him the only real choice.

Jean at 7/1 would also be usable.... and now you could actually consider Mindy or Ashiko depending on what is going on with the meta.

Taking a power or dmg off kalindra would also drop her down a notch without making her unusable. Spyke... lowering his power or increasing his minimum could balance him.

Cards that are inherently powerful is not the best long term plan for balance in the future. Cards that are meta specific are much better -- you only have to consider the release of Randy -- he was the best 3 star they had, and Robb Cr was already availabe -- why? the meta, not the card itself... then the game shifted again and Robb Cr became the top dog for the AS.

There are imbalances that can happen as a result of the clan having certain card combinations -- i.e. Ratannah and Ulrich both banned due to overall clan strength rather than something inherent in the card. This is far harder to avoid. But outright releasing top cards when it may not be necessary --- well i suppose that generates NB pack sales -- which is good for UR and therefore good for all of us.

Eventually ELO will be reinvented and hopefully it will be done in an interesting way

edited by wasteroftime tuesday 01/01/2013, 04:39

offline 0_4DPaladin Veteran  
Tuesday 01/01/2013, 04:23

"Ector and Selma are 7 power characters with no combat bonuses. This is the easiest Mark in all of ELO. "

Your the only person online I've ever seen use the black version of the word mark. + Rep.

offline ghelas Titan E X C A L I B U R
Tuesday 01/01/2013, 05:10

@ Waster: I think this is just a misunderstanding of terminology.

"Power Creep" is a slow, natural upward progression in card power. Shifou is a good example of this -- an amazingly strong card that is basically on par with Edd Cr. Shifou is strong by today's standards, but he's not exactly making everyone want to run FPC. IMO, the introduction of cards like Shifou is ultimately a good thing.

"Overpowered cards" are the "god-tier" cards you listed. That is a separate phenomenon from "power creep." The purpose of these cards from a game design point of view is to shake up the meta, suddenly making certain clans more desirable, encouraging people to build unorthodox counter-decks... And at some point, these cards fall down a deep, dark ban-well, never to be heard from again. I don't think that's a natural way to balance the game, and I don't think it's ideal, but... it's not terrible.

I can't help but think that ELO is fine the way it is, and the things that are being done to balance it are working. Three of my recent T100s have been with an Ulu/FPC deck, a Roots/Vortex deck, and an Ulu/Vortex deck. These were grind-free t100s, with big win streaks from about 1300-1400 range. I don't consider myself an amazing player. If I can get these results, other people can, too. Why does ELO need reinventing when this sort of thing is possible? Instead of getting discouraged by OP cards, try a new setup to match or beat them. smiley

offline Cyber Colossus E X C A L I B U R
Tuesday 01/01/2013, 05:41

"Raeth who forces 2 more pills to beat is bad ? its not always about winning the round its about gaining pill advantage , which i'm fairly certain you never looked at , you only look the cards out of context as i can clearly see you don't have that much experience in elo , elo mode is all empiric and posting random comments on the boards here doesn't get you experience"

Totally agree with Void on this.

offline 0_The_Oracle Imperator Open Casket
Tuesday 01/01/2013, 10:18

@ghelas yah this guys good smiley

agree with you thing is your suggestions on beeboy and jean makes them kinda so underpowered. robb cr is not the hot dog i still think he is kind of bad i dont see how he even deserves his ban when there are SO many SoAs running around.

yah power-creep is like improving in technology, its like natural, and makes the game more fun and diverse.

Answer to this subject

Clint City, night.