34 messages
In order to add more fair play (and so.. interrestigness) to the ELO mode, we have read the message boards and an idea seems very interresting: limit the ability to challenge another ELO player based on both ELO values.
We don't want to penalize refusals in general, because we think it's too much uncomfortable for the honest players.
Here come the proposal: an ELO player can only challenge a player whose ELO value is between -50 and +150 of his own.
Example:
A 1000 player can only challenge someone 950 to 1150.
A 1100 player can only challenge someone 1050 to 1250.
A 1200 player can only challenge someone 1150 to 1350.
A 1300 player can only challenge someone 1250 to 1450.
A 1400 player can only challenge someone 1350 to 1550 (if any at THAT level one day).
Thus, a courageous lower than you, player can challenge you but a higher elo player cannot "choose" his opponents in the lowers players for easy wins. It would also limit some kind of cheat (arranged games).
Let us know what you think of it. If you are OK, we'll add it quickly.
We don't want to penalize refusals in general, because we think it's too much uncomfortable for the honest players.
Here come the proposal: an ELO player can only challenge a player whose ELO value is between -50 and +150 of his own.
Example:
A 1000 player can only challenge someone 950 to 1150.
A 1100 player can only challenge someone 1050 to 1250.
A 1200 player can only challenge someone 1150 to 1350.
A 1300 player can only challenge someone 1250 to 1450.
A 1400 player can only challenge someone 1350 to 1550 (if any at THAT level one day).
Thus, a courageous lower than you, player can challenge you but a higher elo player cannot "choose" his opponents in the lowers players for easy wins. It would also limit some kind of cheat (arranged games).
Let us know what you think of it. If you are OK, we'll add it quickly.
2/34
I like it, however I'd like it more if the upper limit was 200. I like challenging the highest possible
3/34
The only problem that i see here are people for who play the game late in the week, I noticed that if i start playing ELO on Friday, most of the scores that i see are 1200+, also since my score is 1000, that would actually make my chances of finding an opponent in the Danger Zone kinda low, don't forget the chances that they will also refuse my challenge.
Other than that, its a good idea.
Other than that, its a good idea.
4/34
Seems interesting.On the surface looks great.I still think it penalises those who have troubled to improve their decks though.Any bans,limits,etc are a penalty to those of us who have spent much time and money on our packs.Why should a "noob" or miserly player share eaqually in the spoils?Their chances,after all, are on even base should they be dedicated enough to obtain the cards.Perhaps have a grading system where your history of wins depends on what grade you play and each grade has its prizes.This also gives incentive to elevate as a player.
6/34
The only sorta problem i could see with this is...
That someone goes REALLY WELL in an ELO Tourney, ie 1500 elo value (and is 1st of course), but then, since he can't challenge anyone under 1450 (probably 99 -100% of everyone else) he can't challenge anyone, so unless there are some brave players he won't be able to make his daily 6 fights (as it says in elo rules(dunno what happens then.. anyone know?))
and...
yeah...
but other than that it sounds pretty cool
That someone goes REALLY WELL in an ELO Tourney, ie 1500 elo value (and is 1st of course), but then, since he can't challenge anyone under 1450 (probably 99 -100% of everyone else) he can't challenge anyone, so unless there are some brave players he won't be able to make his daily 6 fights (as it says in elo rules(dunno what happens then.. anyone know?))
and...
yeah...
but other than that it sounds pretty cool
7/34
8/34
I like the idea of limits being set in place. letting the "underdogs" so to speak have a change to
raise up in the ranks instead of always being kept down.
so with the limits in place a player who was 1000 would only be able to challenge as low as 950 and as high as 1150
and someone that was 1100 would be as low as 1050 and as high as 1250,
1200 would be 1250 the low and 1350 the high am I correct that this is what you are saying the proposal is?
raise up in the ranks instead of always being kept down.
so with the limits in place a player who was 1000 would only be able to challenge as low as 950 and as high as 1150
and someone that was 1100 would be as low as 1050 and as high as 1250,
1200 would be 1250 the low and 1350 the high am I correct that this is what you are saying the proposal is?
9/34
Blanow: as we said, we dont want to penalize refusals.
All: there is obviously less opponents availables at the extremes part of the ranking. However, it would be impossible to have a perfect solution, and we want to keep the rules as simple as possible.
In any case, we'll constantly monitor and change the min/max values if we see that there is a problem globally.
All: there is obviously less opponents availables at the extremes part of the ranking. However, it would be impossible to have a perfect solution, and we want to keep the rules as simple as possible.
In any case, we'll constantly monitor and change the min/max values if we see that there is a problem globally.
The Urban Rivals team is made by lovers of all kind of Collectibles Cards Games and Trading Cards Games like: Magic the Gathering, Dominion, Vampire, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Pokemon, Wakfu TCG, Assassin Creed Recollection, Shadow Era, Kard Kombat and Might & Magic Duel of Champions.