I've tidied up my proposed solution and changed the thread title to avoid confusion. I've also changed the name of the proposed idea to avoid bickering about tiers.
Solution - Limit System.
- Mark all considered overpowered cards (Toro, Rolph, Smokey Cr, Charlie, etc...) as 'Limited'.
- Add new stipulation to Elo deck build rules:
Your Deck can only contain X Limited cards.
- Limited cards would only be the cards that are considered too powerful. So some clans would not have any Limited cards at all.
- The limited list could rotate, or it could even be placed under player vote.
- This would stop decks being made up with the obvious cards, but would allow us to still play these cards in a limited capacity.
Discuss, feedback, and so on...
The previous thread can be found here: http://www.urban-rivals.com/community/forum/?mode=viewsubject&forum_page=0&id_subject=1529651&subject_page=0
Thank you to everyone who gave feedback.
I still like the tier idea, but with more limitation. Maybe like one tier 1 (overpowered cards) and a few tier 2 (very good cards). Then also incorporate the old system of voting for bans each week. This would allow most cards (not the staff banned ones) to be used, but not at the same time so one deck can't be too powerful. The different bans each week would also promote variety so the same decks won't constantly be used.
The tier system doesn't make as much sense.
Tier 3 cards would be too underpowered: if a player draws all tier 1+2 and the other 3+2.
This is the same idea, just with the limit where it truly needs to be on cards such as Toro et al.
Well the problem is, for example
Let's say Rolph and Toro are the overpowered cards in GHEIST. Without tiers, that means Bristone and Leviatonn could be used freely, and people could still use the strong half deck of Bristone, Leviatonn, Toro, Z3r0 D34d/Arkn. If we add them to the overpowered list, people would still use Toro or Rolph and some other cards. That's why I think they should be different tiers, so only one of each could be used.
About one player drawing all high tiers and the other drawing all low tiers. Set tighter restrictions of one tier 1 and one tier 2, so each player would have to have at least two tier 3 cards. This would lower the unfairness even if it is two tier 3 against four tier 3. And bad draws are usually going to be a possibility anyway, no matter what deck is used.
Of course, this idea could probably work fine without tiers, I just think it would add a little more balance.
I hate this idea. Toro is a great card yes, but elo is made for great players. Setting a limit on the cards a player can use even more, or making a tier system is a sure sign you should quit elo. Just because you are dealing with a hand of Toro and Rolph or a combination similar doesn't mean its impossible to beat. Every clan has some they are great against and some they are bad against, but a great player will not have a problem dealing with these clans even at a disadvantage. Elo is fine as it is, its not supposed to be easy for players, as the prizes are cr's, clintz, credits, and cards. Yea you'll win some and lose some in elo, but no matter what at the end of the week its the players skill to know when to pill right, call bluffs, take risks, and keep on playing that gets him that higher score. Balance is in the 25 stars, balance is in the regulated bans, balance is in the perma bans, the only thing you have to do right is learn to balance your deck properly with a clan you are comfortable with.
Jin, this is an idea that is supposed to be in place of the bans. You do know that Toro and Rolph are both currently staff banned from Elo mode, right? You can't use either of them and probably won't be able to for quite some time.
With the bans we NEVER get to use Toro, or Rolph (or it's highly unlikely that they'll rotate it often to let them out)
With this system you will definitely be able to use 1 (or two, depending on what we decide x should be).
So yes, I think you missed the point.
Shadowcouncil: I agree, yet three of the cards in that deck are banned from elo. If we want bans removed, these cards have to be limited somehow, even if they are nowhere near gamebreaking OP.
Jin Kisaragi: You say this is "Setting a limit on the cards a player can use even more" and "balance is in the regulated bans"
This is not setting more of a limit, it is changing how the limit works. The idea is to create the same balance that the bans do, but in a different way so players have a wider variety of cards to choose from to "balance [their] deck properly".