Hello all !
Veterans are well aware that we have always wanted the ELO to be both a highly strategic and very open game mode. Our desire to have as many strategic options as possible has lead us to revise the ELO mode rules several times. First of all, we created the list of banned characters gathering those who appeared to be most abused. This list enabled us to solve the main balance issues.
Next, however, the metagame gradually crystallized around the two or three dominant clans at the time. In order to prevent the metagame from stagnating, we then introduced a ban on the clan having dominated the previous week. Unfortunately, this course of action did not work as well as we had hoped. Though it provided a certain variety among the clans used to play, it mostly led up to a very negative feature: the "cycling" phenomenon that we are currently experiencing between Roots and Sentinel (and also All Stars for good measure). In addition, the ban of an entire clan is too drastic an initiative.
The point is we are now discussing ELO, not T2 which you can bring any 5* like crazy. Assume your opponents has only 6 stars room for two cards(a pretty average value considering the 25*/8 rate), I think Hawk + any 1* is much easier to beat than Lehane + any 4* - Its just unfair to say "prefer Lehane than Hawk as my opponent", unless your opponents are using two decks with the only difference of Hawk VS Lehane, which is very unlikely to happen in ELO.
@wasteroftime : we had several goals with the voting system and of course, giving the player a way to make themselves heard was one of them, but we also expect this system to balance the ELO, and i think we're headed in the right direction. Players focused on the Sentinel for the first votes, but this week it's already much less the case and in the futur it will be even.
I totally understand the point that if we wanted to have a really well balanced ELO we should have done it ourselves and impose a fixed list of ban characters. It's great when the calls are obvious (and we did it with the obvisously overpowered cards) but it's not so good when there's very valid point going both ways as it just leads to frustration from many players. Also, it can leads to too much stability in the metagame and can end up with a mode that is boring and repetitive (not what we want) and it's also very difficult to adjust this system when new cards are released that impact the metagame.
The voting system on the other hand forces the metagame to refresh itself, is quick to adapt to new cards or decks and is "inteligent" as most player who vote take interest in the mode and vote based on their experience. Of course they might not vote the way you'd want them to, but you can explain your opinion in boards and/or read what they say to understand theirs. Granted, the success of the voting system will very much depend on the "quality" of the player votes and that's why we know it will work
Qouting the Admin: "The voting system on the other hand forces the metagame to refresh itself"
I believe that is good for the game to make it less stale as it was. However, time is needed to tell if certain players who support certain clan (by that i mean clans that wins a lot in ELO) will exploit the votes they bag in for winning a lot (because they are using the winning clans) for last minute voting. If that is the case, then a stale state will return where certain clans will always dominate week by week because their pet card is saved through last minute voting. Well if that happens, hope the admins will impose new bans or introduce "hate cards"-cards that works best against the dominant clans-or anything they see fit to remove the stale state. So far i see that the voting system is just fine and achieved its objectives.
You know... that would probably be the best idea, neogenex. If every clan had a general weakness to another specific clan people that always chose the best deck would find themselves at least to a weakness against specific other decks.
Random idea/example would be like how there are stop-activated abilities. Only maybe in a '-# opp attack' activated bonus or ability.
Hehe that's beyond the topic of ELO though.
An idea to reduce the effectiveness of last minute voting, increase the value of strategic voting and increase the variation of votes.
Introduce a new line in the rule: "The card with the most ban vote will get a mandatory ban (regardless of having more keep votes than ban votes)" So, the message in will read like "NAME will go for receiving the most ban votes, for now."
Possible reaction of players (using last week's voting pool as example)
->Uppers supporter not only have to vote to keep Zatman, but also vote to ban Marco at the same time so that Marco get the most votes.
->Marco supporter have to vote to ban Zatman to at least safe Marco. ome might do it for "If i don't get my Marco, you ain't getting your Zatman either."
->Seeing that Zatman has the most vote and doomed for a mandotary ban, other non-Zatman, non-Marco user can instead put their votes into keeping their pet cards or banning other cards that give them trouble.
->Some Zatman supporter may see no point to keep Zatman and use their votes to ban other cards that give them trouble.
Just an idea...may be full of flaws.
Well as involving as voting can be I really don't think it's working: of all the major used clans Uppers remained 100% unbanned from ELO (a few other clans were untouched too, but Uppers by far is the main used one). It didn't really change the metagame so much as disable whatever was used to combat the main used deck. Though it definently was a good attempt at it. It's very likely this will be the usual result every week.
Though I'm actually sort of glad it's so obvious. It'll change faster if it's obvious.