Hello everyone. I'm sure you have all noticed the effect of a 5* card in a game. Whether it's Beeboy, Cliff, Dorian, Avola, Spyke (see what I did there), you can say more often than not the whole match revolves around making sure that 7/8/9 damage does not go through. The whole metagame is affected, and the presence of such nuke cards make games unbalanced. To call a Beeboy bluff? Pill to beat him? Or do I DR? Against a hand with Avola, you know what happens. 1 pill Angelo, 0 pill Oscar, 1 pill Spiaghi, all pill Avola and win.
How is ELO a strategic game mode when most games depend on whether or not a 5* is in your hand. Competitive decks actually use 2 5* when possible, like Avola + Don, Cliff + Sledg, Dorian + Herman/Lady, Troompah +Ongh, Beeboy + Bodenpower, etc. Because even with a mediocre hand, having a 5* means you can just luck your way inti a win. The result is that even good players lose a good % of their games, and then it requires more and more games to get a top score because you average +/-. It's a cliche to say you need 1000 games in order to win the ELO tournament, but I wonder how far that estimate is from the truth.
I'm not doing this for the sake of whining, but out of actual concern on how ELO is played. The recipe for winning is to pack as many 50/50 cards as possible, and force your opponent to predict each one or lose. A guildie of mine proposed that all 5* be banned from the game, but this is a bit too drastic IMO. Perhaps a 24* format?
@Dussel: I think that what you're really complaining about is bad luck, and I'm right there with you. Sometimes you just can't regain momentum after a first-round play doesn't go your way, and that sucks... But there's no good way to take that out if the game, and I don't think 5*s are responsible.
I think your deck is actually going to have a little trouble. Roots are sitting it out this week, but there's still enough SoA to rob you of your damage, and make Lady a more predictable card. There are several good strategies that help counter the coin flips, and there are 3/4*s with damage similar to that of 5s... Unlike 5s, they will always have a down side. That may be a lack of round winning power, or they may be killed by SoA, or some other inherent weakness exists in them
The trick is use synergy to negate that weakness the best you can. Then you might end up with 2-3 strong nukes in a hand with 0 5s, and you may find that due to synergy, they don't have all that much trouble getting their damage through. Nyema with his unassisted 7 power looks outdated until you toss him in with a Vortex half. Freaks low-stars will hit for 8+ damage, and work great in a half-deck with lifegain or strong walls. Any clan with ability attack manip can work well with Montana. Etc, etc, etc. Find the synergies that are not 100% obvious and use them to make your low-stars strong!
Forcing opponents to do what they believe to be a 50/50 guess is the most sure way to win, besides mathematical superiority. There's not enough time to force mindgames of any worth in, chances are you'll rarely if ever face the same player twice, and if you do the hands will be different and so you will have to play differently anyway.
I've often done things just like that; playing Andsom in the first round vs. a non-attack manip clan forces them into a dilemma, should they 2pill to beat my bluff, 3-4 to beat my counterbluff, or 6pill to beat my obvious choice?
Urban Rivals is just a big collection of choices made by the factors seen at hand. If they see I have only three 2* cards in my hand besides, they're almost sure to play high pills, because it's overall safer to not let my best card through. On the other hand, if they see three 5* cards they'll likely 0pill their weakest card, and save their good cards/pillz for dealing with them.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that saying 5* cards simplify the game into guessing due to their overwhelming power is ignoring the psychological and statistical factors that come into every decision. As long as both players are assumed to be equal skill and ability, the play could go either way depending not on who rolls better dice for their pill plays but by who analyzes the situation better or faster.
@LoA USA Yes I do realize that, I've addressed the issue many times. I don't complain because I lose to these cards. You can't argue "just build decks to deal with them." I guess we should let Spyke free since we can use SoA anyway. We should let Jackie Cr back into ELO, after all we have Stop: cards anyway. It's not just the ability of a 5* to wim. Its how at any moment 8-12 damage. Please read the thread and the discussion before you make inaccurate comments. A 2 5* deck is 5/5/3/3/3/2/2/2, not too different from the 5/4/4/3/3/2/2/2 build. Again this is not to argue about the advantages and disadvantages of having 5stars in your deck.
@Ambre It's not as simple as it sounds. Leading with walls makes DR play obvious, and you might expect this and pill low, and the opp may sneak in their 5* The thing is with a big damage card a player can negate the pills you spend to win previous rounds with low damage walls. It's not uncommon to see round 1 auto wins due to over pilling to beat a 5* For example in my game against 0 Incignito he had powerful walls in Kerozinn Cr, Shifou, Flanagan and Tremorh. Each of these cards easily beat my nukes: Oxen, Lady and Rubie. But I managed to pull an easy win. I created a situation where even with a powerful wall like Kerozinn Cr against my weak 5 power Rubie I still force him into a bad situation, despite him having 4 walls.
@ghelas Yes its probably partially to complain about luck. But I still believe they are too powerful compared to th
E other cards. Ibeleive that 2, 3* cards with great utility can and will beat 5* pill for pill, and their value cannot be understated. The reason why Olga and Freaks are very strong is that every card, no matter the star count, can hit for huge damage. We can say that SoB counters them, cards like Blaaster can easily beat Grudj, while Flinch beats Bogdan, they do not in any way diminish the threat of their damage potential. 5s are even more flexible because their damage applies any time in the game. If you build a deck specifically suited to beat cards, you will find yourself weaker against the other decks.
@Ritz It's not as complicated as it sounds. While the ramdomness of a decision is not exactly a coin flip in the sense that you can analyze the game and your opponent to make the right decision. But when one is given two choices with different possible outcomes - win or lose - you have a 50% chance of getting it right. If he analyzes the situation from round 1 he will realize he can call the fury or call the old. For example in my 2nd round against 0 Incognito, the choice is very difficult for him to play. Now, psychologically, he might be able to read my decision and pill just enough to beat my Rubie. It still leaves me in a favorable position for another chance-play due to my 5* DR. Remember he has to make a choice in the second round; if he makes the wrong one (which he did) he loses and if he picks the *perfect* and most stastically correct choice I am still winning.
Sorry you wrote a bit too much didnt read everything. just going to criticize the examples.
1st example: sorry you are obviously at a disadvantage in hand, pretty much forced to win 3? unless you catch two of Methane/ XU52/ Bristone. its a very bad example, cuz you just got unlucky with hand.... and i think this is the... 'strength' of GHEIST i guess. they are powerful in sheer damage and just pilling randomly with them can be powerful. and i mean he had a 15* hand.... plus dolly is now banned. well i dont think XU52 is that big of an issue here.... would be worse if it was something like Leviatonn.
for me GHEIST isnt really my cup of tea, i like more strategic play instead of random pilling with big damage cards.
second example: well you deserve the well off situation you are in, you read your opponent PERFECTLY first round if you havent realized.
and honestly most 5*s are posed with major weaknesses, well DR counters most of them nicely. a handful would be weak to SoA too. a Montana hand with Avola would be strong in most cases, but absolutely terrible in the cases against Roots/ GHEIST. you may say thats only two clans, but actually even 1 SoA with like 1 DR (Pegh + Jean pretty common) can be very annoying too.
1st example: Yes I'm at a star count disadvantage, but this is usually overcome by damage potential (as example 2 shows), which I do have with Freaks. Now, my opponent's damages are 8/8/7/4-DR. From the start this game is tough, he leads with Dolly and I have to guess. He over pills, which he can afford to do, because his damage is so high. There's a line where pills and damage relate, and when the damage is high enough you can ignore the pills you use. If Leviatonn were in the game in place of XU, the game will be much easier. I can pill Olga safely, knowing I don't have the threat of an instant win hanging on my head throughout the match.
2nd I did get Lucky on the Oxen play, but I usually play 6 or 7. A player shouldn't be so heavily punished for getting it wrong by a pill, but Lady and Rubie punish my opponent quite handily. Even if Flanagan happens to old and I spend Pillz, I am still winning, because I get the damage in first, and I pose the threat.
I don't disagree with you that 5* have weaknesses. But there are just as many and usually more strengths to 5s than weaknesses. For example, you can say SoA takes out Copper's ability, but no one is saying he should come back. Caelus is destroyed by Protection: Power and is tied by all the All-Stars, but there's no reason he should come back. In fact, cards like Fuzz, Cliff, XU, etc. are less shaky than their banned counterparts. The magical 8 damage is very, very dangerous, even when coupled with 6 power, and wall-prone.
Imo, there aren't enough elo-legal 4 stars that are solid enough to justify not having a 5* (or two) in your deck.