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.
It should be mixed up. But banning too many cards (especially entire clans 3 at a time) would be too drastic. I don't think the object is to force people to go without entire clans so much as just use new variations of the clans
It shouldn't just simply be about who has the better cards or why bother playing? It's no longer a game but a film then. I personally feel like everytime I lose to someone that has Kolos as though it should be a voided game. That card is too harsh of an advantage. ANY error and you lose against a deck with Kolos in it. No second chances!
~ Anyway... It's not that better cards shouldn't exist, but there should be an attempt at balance to make sure one clan doesn't trump all the rest or everyone uses the same cards. Some clans have an unreasonable advantage against others. Uppers obviously wears the crown for now.
You shouldn't get presumptous or defensive, gta004. Nothing said is to be taken personal.
And better skill is a good thing. Those that have good foresight and planning in this game are fun to play with. But even so it's a straw mans arguement to imply better cards don't rule the battle against evenly skilled opponents (i.e. just because Uppers an uppers player may or may not suck in skill doesn't mean he should have cards that are absolutely unforgiving).
When you go against kolos, kenny, azgroth and ead h all in the same hand, it can really be a challenge to win, but I dont think that the cards should be banned just because they make it a challenge. after all if thats the opp best hand, imagine their worst, and then ask yourself if you'd have a complaint if you vsed that hand.
Sure the game does depend heavily on the strength of your cards, and some of the best cards are near unattainable but what can you do? Ban every card that people think is too strong? you'd end up with nothing left. When you ban 1 card another takes it's place and so forth, just look at what happened when hawk and lehane got banned...
Well I know Kolos has his weaknesses. SOA cards being one. but it's not like SOA can be played every turn normally. And it's too easy to end up bluffed out of all your pills or 1-hit KOed while expecting a bluff. He's one of those 50-50 gambles if you don't have a SOA ability to toss on him. And if you get it wrong you lose. if you counter Kolos correctly then the battle resumes. If he gets though it's a win. if he bluffs and people fall for the bluff it's usually a win. His advantage is definent.
All cards have advantages and disadvantages. Having an advantage does not mean I'm saying they can't lose. But it does mean I'm implying they leave less or no room for a bad call then other cards.
50-50 gambles can make a player 1200, maybe 1300, but never 1400. As he keeps on climbing, a single lose will hurt more than he can get from a victory. So why care about that so much? I personally also find it noobish and cheap to play ELO just gambling on Kolos 12D, but I can live with it.
Well to be honest I don't like facing Zatman and Dorian from the Uppers either but I tend to have a victory over them more often then against Kolos. I'm sure that's due to using Piranas as my main clan though. Can't KO as swiftly.
BesucherXia (that's a hard name to type out without several glances ), it's only a 50-50 gamble for the opponent. The Kolos user can just be bluffing. Or not. If they're hit it's not going to be a KO; the battle will just go on. Well, unless they used all their pills on fury and attack in one turn. If they fail after pilling-out then they're doomed if the opponent still has pills.
ELO never should be for richest players! It's supposed to be for BEST players. But how, let's say better player, can be victorius there when:
-opps. draws best card he never/in long time will not have? How he is supposed to win against Zatman, Dorian, Oxen and Wendel with only Wendel, Oxen, Nellie and Frankie Hi?
-Opps. constantly draw 2 Uppers/2 Sakrohm ("superior" deck) and he 3 so called "useless/non combat" bonus and 1 attack manip. (so called "combat" bonus) in deck 3/5? I had such situation. Over 70% times i have drawn 3 Freaks out of 3 in my deck during my fall from 1284-1087! Currently because of bad draw i fall from 1217 to 1068... I almost never get uppers/sakrohm bonus when i need it and same with Freaks/Junta/Jungo! Try to outpill Zatman with Olga or Ongh and you will see what i have in my mind. Whatever cards i use, most expensive cards destroy my visions. The only clans i did not used ine elo are Junkz, GHEIST, Sentinel and Nighmare and All Stars. Every other i've been trying. Mono piranas? Been there done there. Famous Jungo/Freaks too. Freaks/Pussycats also. But because i do not have Hawkins, Charlie, Uranus, whatever i get squashed. Even when i had know i was really better.
Currently ELO is not for best players. It's For best Cards. I know i can win with hands like Olga, Akendram, Esmeralda, Stanford against strong hand. I've done that before. I'm not squashed by strong hands but most expensive ones. And Toro & Zatman are most dangerous/hated by me there.
Aasha: uh... harsh, generally with any Nightmare deck you (guess what?) lose with the first mistake you make. Don't claim "Card I hate" kills me at first mistake. Many cards do. Killing needs not end the game... A lost duel with Smokey where you spent about 5 pillz is pretty much game over, too... and on top of it you have to sit through an now unwinnable game (95% of time). Frankly, Kolos does not come up in front positions on my "cards I dread facing" list. But reading this again he is likely one of the top Shock-and-Awe cards still.
But I generally still stay with the complaint that with the higher power of newer cards many games boil down to guess right in one round (be it 1st, 2nd or 3rd) to win... or lose.* There is too much luck in UR right now and that is _not_ limited to random. Ironically so-much-complained-about Nightmare is still way back in terms of power.
*Note: as I have most of those cards a "you are just envious of better cards" argument fails. I just totally dislike that by now the game is too much about power. Old cards are almost unplayable in many cases. Take Frank. I loved him. He was great and almost nobody thought about him. He was very well playable and a real threat for cards with