Uk flag Half Wtz from guild War Party with 364 battle points won 3 101 Clintz + 1 Credit.
War Party 6th in DT
was 1 point behind 5th and 60 behind top, i lost a few games to but somehow made it quite high
You have 5 ELO banned characters, that's probably a good place to start. You do indeed lose 2 points per character during a DT if you win with an ELO banned character in the team. I don't doubt that that's a very powerful team. Type 1, 23*. Uppers All-Stars, no doubt you facerolled everyone.
but more than half of your deck (5/8) WAS BANNED BY THE STAFF in ELO rawrawrwrwrwarwrawr. That's what that cross-out pill symbol in the upper right of the card means. I mean this strategy apparently works, but at what cost? You seem to be very aware of this however- take a look guys and gals. He's not using 5* bans, he's using 2*, 3*, 3*, 3*. These characters are losing points, but he's evening this loss out because they're winning so much and those low star counts create high point amounts when they do win. No reason we can't learn while you do as well.
Other than that: Were you playing fast enough? Resolve your rounds quicker- that means you get into more fights, which means you milk more points out of people.
Some people don't like this, but occasionally you end up dominating someone with 1-2 characters without actually killing them. They have 0 pillz, and you have... more. There's no reason to take #3 and win when you can take #4 and win, and then take #3 and win.
Did you do full knockouts, or 1 pill left knockouts? That's 2 points. It's a max of 1 so no need to save more than 1, but if you get a KO, see if you can't save a single pill. Pretend they're filled with chocolate.
"You have 5 ELO banned characters, that's probably a good place to start. You do indeed lose 2 points per character during a DT if you win with an ELO banned character in the team. I don't doubt that that's a very powerful team. Type 1, 23*. Uppers All-Stars, no doubt you facerolled everyone."
Not correct. Only the permanently staff banned cards carry this penalty. As far as i can see, you have no cards with penalties due to ELO bans.
Now see, that's confusing. I mean it makes sense now that you say that. The game rules do say anyone staff banned in ELO is penalized. Then, the rules have a short list (the perma bans.) Then, you go to make an ELO deck in the deck or market screens, and the list under "valid for ELO" is suddenly larger. It's not hard to accidentally jump to the conclusion that everyone in the larger list is simply penalized as well. If you use the "Banned characters" screen it's confusing as well. The center group is "temporarily banned by staff."
Now see, if they didn't want to make that so confusing, they need the Game Rules DT screen to say "Anyone permanently banned by staff" in ELO, not just "Anyone banned by staff in ELO." I didn't know temp bans didn't count until you pointed that out just now, so that explains why my type 1 decks failed so bad- there's a whole host of borderline characters I could have been using this entire time.
That also explains why, when you're in the market, certain characters have the ELO symbol by their card picture descriptions in the lineup (The place where you can actually buy them), but some of them don't have that until you click on the card itself. See, without knowing the truth, I thought that was just bad bookkeeping or something.
Ya know they could make all that simpler by just having 2 differently colored ELO symbols.
Black for -2 perma bans.
Pink for "temp unusable in elo but no point penalty."
It's 29 cards, and it would clear everything up.
You're going to make me quote the rules page, something I didn't want to do. Go to the rules page. Go. I'll link it.
Now, look at what it says. Look at exactly what it says.
*If you win and your team of 4 contained characters banned by staff in ELO, 2 points will be removed per character.
Now, that's fine. There's a list under it, which you were nice enough to quote for me. However, please pay attention to exactly what it says right there. "Banned by staff." It doesn't say "permanently banned." It says "banned." That has implications.
Now, right before that list on that page, read what this says:
"The characters currently banned from the ELO mode by the staff are:"
"Currently banned." As in "if they go in your deck, you can't go into ELO." Now, pay attention. Go here.
See this screen?
Go right into the middle of the screen. There's a line there before that second grouping. Look at what it says.
"Characters temporarily banned by the staff."
What I'm calling attention to is that. That, and what's quoted on the rules page itself.
"characters banned by staff"
"Characters temporarily banned by the staff"
Are you understanding now? I don't care that there's a list in the rules page. There's an entire part in the ELO page that states "from staff." Logically I can say "all temp bans should be penalized" and according to the exact rules I'm right.
It's their wording. When someone like me reads that exact wording, that's exactly what I think.
You can say "BUT DUDE ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS READ THE LIST LOL" to which I say: "Shut up."
According to the EXACT TEXT in the rules which states "banned by staff" and not "permanently banned by staff", I can forever argue that temporary bans should fall under the umbrella cast by that first statement which has no scope because of the wording from the ELO page.
You said read the rules. I did. I am quoting them directly. Their exact wording is what I'm harping on. K?
I'm here to help, dude. Heck, they could just make it say "permanently banned by staff" in the rules page, and that would clear everything up forever. That graphic thing would just help in market evaluations. They could say "The following is a list of cards that are currently banned by staff in the ELO mode, and that are penalized:" and that would clear it up too. Now that sentence is directly telling you what's penalized.
But the only sentence in the entire rules text that talks about a penalization is THAT ONE. So when it says "Banned by staff" with no scope, and you read "banned by staff" anywhere else, you CAN assume they're linked. That "list" is not defining the scope of that statement because the statement doesn't acknowledge the list in any way and the list doesn't acknowledge the statement.
364 points is a respectable total. but that score leaves many things in the hands of your competition. You'll need a higher total in order to have more control as to what position you will finish in.
There are so many ways they could clear this up. Heck, all they need are 3 words changed total. Here we go. New words are in parenthesis, and one word even goes away.
DT page: *If you win and your team of 4 contained characters (permanently) banned by staff in ELO, 2 points will be removed per character.
DT page: "The characters (permanently) banned from the ELO mode by the staff are:"
Yes, that other word "currently" goes away. By definition, something can't be "currently permanently" banned. Permanent means "forever." Currently means "temporary." Something can't be, by definition, "temporarily forever." That's an oxymoron. We just need permanent. Figured I'd clear that up now, since, well, God only knows.
Now the penalization has a scope: "permanents." Now you can point to the "permanents" list. Now you can point to the rules and be right instead of anywhere from vague to outright wrong by the literal rules of the English language.
I do hope this doesn't turn into me explaining this again and again. Yes, it's such a ghastly and obnoxious thing I did here, pointing out that there's possible confusion in the wording for players that may be readers. Sorry guys. It's just that I'm good at my language, and my language is telling me different here. I have no doubt that the situation is exactly as described- sure, only perma bans are penalized. That sounds like a much more fun game than I thought. But that's not what I've thought for my entire time here.