I have always wondered what UR's deal is with Blaaster. For some reason he has stayed off the long
permo-banned list when he himself is rather OP for a 4*.
This isn't the first time though with the strict bans back in summer seeing Blaaster somehow surviving the temp ban list before getting banned in a last minute decision.
I don't wish to create this into a malicious attack on UR or trigger some troll response, although that is impossible these days, but just question them on their decisions to not put this card down as well as how they choose what becomes banned because for all we know they might use a dart board to choose the permo-bans like they do with the Crs (apparently). Perhaps it's the simple reason that they didn't want to be draconian with their ban Hammer in saving Blaaster with the permo-ban of Shann and the loss of verymn n at 3*. On the other hand a complicated cynical reason would be that they wanted to cause a price surge with him so that people would buy credits although that would just cause inflation so only non-credit buyers would miss out.
Why should he be banned?
- solid base stats
- harsh ability + bonus (becomes a monster with both of these in tact).
- Has a tonne backup ( Chlora, verymn n, Shogunn all suitable replacements)
- The Bangers shouldn't be affected a whole lot in meta-game.
I could go on forever on long complicated points but I am reaching my character limit.
The new clan brings in lots in terms of strategies and is healthy for the game. But, common? I think 0 pilling Vortex shouldnt return any pill at all. Two of the cards there can be played with zero pill (the -3 damage guy and the +10 attack guy). Imagine if Morphun is in play, it gives them +2 pills per round for free which is alot in ELO.
When you go to look at "ELO" decks, thanks to the targeted bannings each week, and updates to the perma-ban list, about 90% of the decks filed under "ELO" can't be played in ELO, which is kind of useless...
Could there be an automatic trigger that when you have a deck posted for ELO that gets banned portions, it reverts to Deathmatch or T1?
As of January 31st 2011, Copper, Bridget, Rolph, Rowdy, Lou, Shann, Emeth and Oshitsune will join the list of characters permanently banned by the staff in the ELO mode.
This month will also see the launch of some new experiments in ELO. During the weeks to come it will no longer be possible to play “semi-evolved” characters in this mode. In addition to this, the starting life points in the ELO room will be set at 15.
If these changes prove to be successful, they can become a permanent feature.
In my opinion, the 15 life point feature is unnecessary. Rather, if we agree to limit the cards used in ELO as those with a maximum power and damage of 6, that would be interesting! Will stabilise the market of the weaker cards as well.
I haven't played ELO much to be honest, but was planning to sooner or later. However, I log in today to find this message at the front page:
"This month will also see the launch of some new experiments in ELO. During the weeks to come it will no longer be possible to play “semi-evolved” characters in this mode. In addition to this, the starting life points in the ELO room will be set at 15.
If these changes prove to be successful, they can become a permanent feature."
Wow. Isn't this like a MAJOR change? How come nobody is discussing it? Or is this a pre-April's fool's joke and I'm not aware of it?
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.