And I beg the moderators not to ban this message just by treating a "delicate" subject.
I consider absolutely unfair the use of semievos. I think that corrupts totally de ELO mode.
You consider there are too powerful cards that must be banned so the game gets more balanced. But you allow the possibility of putting in the deck semievos that keep their properties and let the player put lots of nukes in his deck.
When the semievos appear the battle is not automatically lost, cause they can still reduce damage and let some option for the player to win.
But when all the nukes appear together, come on... that's a circus.
I know you can get in the top ELO without semievos, but that's really more difficult. You only need to have a look to the usual decks of the top players.
I find it contradictory that there's a room for T2, where you can use the most bestial decks, but you allow in ELO, allegedly the most strategic and balanced mode, this kind of abuses.
Well I know probably nothing is gonna change, but I just want to say what I think.
To be honest, I don't see what the problem is allowing cards that are not fully evolved in ELO.
No, they shouldn't. It's like keeping Mudkipz at mudkipz instead of evolving him.
If someone wants to play Yayoi at 3* (a Yookie in disguise), Or Gwen at 1* (Who is never getting pilled), they should be allowed. The only real argument I have seen for banning semi is that they give the rich an unfair advantage, but the whole game favours the rich (albeit not much, but someone with Shann > someone without but still plays Bangers, someone with Mona > someone without etc). I don't see playing semis as "an abuse". The semis are not "keeping their properties". Yayoi at 3* is less of a nuke than Yayoi at 4*, Gwen at 1* is not as strong as Gwen at 3*. Capiso 1* (6/1 Sakhrom) is not the same as him at 3*.
Truth be told, assuming all you said was true, banning semi still doesn't stop someone building a 5,5,5,2,2,2,2,2 deck stacked with nukes.
It is just a tradeoff that the players are winning to make. I don't see it any different than playing a 3* Montana over a 4* Montana or a 2* allstar over a 3* allstar.
I would ban EVOS at level 1 mostly.the level 2 and ups arent so much of a bother to be honest,but like ive said a million times before,it corrupts the whole equal pill rule.if you want to use yayoi at level 3 or Charlie at level 4 go nuts,but dont spit on my cupcake and call it icing when a level one Gwen matches another 7 powered card and wins because its lower and then turn around and call it the same as using a card at a certain level over another,it obviously is not.its the only real gripe i have with evos.The nukes that get stuffed into a deck due to a card's flexibility will probably end up being more of a hinderance than help most of the time,but i either want the equal pill rule disabled on evos,or level one evo disposed of,completely in ELO.
No. they cost clintz. people only ever see the negative of evos when they are losing to deck with evos. they rarely see the positives of facing semi evos... and the negative costs that it has for the ones using them
I agree with banning of EVOS because right now in ELO, Charlie and Wanda, and now Gwen, are banned because of their semievo capabilities. And i agree that they have to be banned so long as semievos are allowed in ELO becase look at this:
All withing 25*, has amazing DR and 5 possible 2HKOS without fury. Because of this, and other semievo decks, i cant use Wanda or Charlie even when they are fuly evolved in my deck.
Well, honestly... (and I beg again the mods not to ban this new message), I understand that the use of evos in ELO is a good way for earning money for Acute Games. Thats ok, I understand that mantaining this all means a lot of work of a lot of people, and of course Acute Games is not a charity organization... that's absolutely normal.
But I feel sad because I consider that unless I waste my money buying evos I will have less chances of climbing into the top ELO. Yes, and I know you can earn clintz without paying real money, but I see all this big ELO boys speaking about their collections of 40 Wandas at level 1, or 20 Vermyns at level 3... and do you think they have bought all that cards just playing daily tournaments and saving credit after credit... I don't think so.
Thank you for letting me to exprese what I think.
I'm not a seasoned veteran of the game but I feel that the semi-evos don't make or break a deck nor are they impossible to obtain for relatively new players.
In my short time on this game I've managed to break 1300 in elo consistently when I put in the effort, with some decks consisting of semis and others not. I feel the most important factor to success in this format is to a versatile deck with few weaknesses and a solid game plan.
I took a vacation from Elo for a few weeks the game format was changed back from the "summer experiment" mostly to build up my clintz to get the cards I needed to be competitive. Now that I'm happy with my collection I managed to get to 1300 again relatively easily
SemiEvos don't matter on the road to 1300...they do on the road to 1550 tho. Up there the Evos are like with the 0 in roulette....that one doesn't make a huge difference cause it's just one of 50(or so) fields....but overall this 0 is why roulette is unfair and the bank will always win on the long run.
And for a 3* Vermyn N you have to invest up to 5k more than for a 4*. That's really not a thing that every noob can invest easily twice every week....and if your opponent draws a Vermyn N 3* then that definitely does not mean that you got an easy fight ahead.