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.
Okay I'm going to try to be constructive here. This isn't a smart move. At all. The winners won't ban what makes them win and with winning getting you more votes the strong cards are going to stay in. You're going to get a situation where the middle ground cards are what get cut out and only the top and the bottom stay in.
I understand what you are trying to do with this, but I can't for the life of me see why this was the path taken. If it was an inverse voting system, where the lower in the rankings you are the more votes you get I could see it. Oh, sure, people would still abuse it, but this isn't going to get what you want at all.
I... geeze. I'm just going to watch. Not that I've had much time to play recently, but, geeze.
I am somewhat skeptical too but willing to see what happens. I dislike the "covert voting" too... It introuces luck and guessing where none should be. Plus fairness in banning... erhem... one clan might be hit VERY hard by losing a single card - up to being unplayable. (Think of kicking Kolos from Nightmare. Then again, Nightmare is nowhere in the top clans... yet).
One fear of mine is that this actually kicks out some clans right before the ELO week has started. There will always be "uncrippled" clans, I assume... and some take losing one card better as I said before.
I also feel skeptical of the "let the players decide" thing. My experience is that what players want is not necessarily good. Then again, this is a special place with clear restrictions... So I don't really know.
(Personally I think the problem of dominating clans lies in power creep. Look at the clans with 8 power cards etc... clans without those simply cannot compete as good as those with. Strategy with other things has unfortunately been killed - or rather not been killed yet but sent unconscious and bleeding - by [too!] high power. Will we have base power 10 cards in a year? )
(Besides, why didn't I get a vote? I should have got one if I read correctly. Not that I mind that much.). As said... I am skeptical as to what effect this will really have.)
In short: Let's see what happens for the next month...
Hey i like this...
but is there anyway to hide the numbers????? the voting then becomes strategic... so at this point it looks very clear that hawk lehane and copper are gone.
so if i had 7 votes id spend it elsewhere.... so i might as well hammer other good but not unbalanced cards....
we then end up with severely weakened clans.... which opens the door for the weaker clans. This is awesome if this is the intention actually.
the current system seems to favour using your vote to BAN cards rather than allowing.... ie. i would not waste a vote trying to save a strong card that i know the masses will hammer. i might as well ban another strong card. or maybe try to save a "fair" card that is in danger
anyway. nice idea. i guess its a matter of playing a few weeks to see how it goes
Hmm, I barely even seen what you guys are talking about. The better players have the power to change things, in favor of keeping marco cause they themselves use him, the ppl who can barely make it past 1050 can only vote once, or twice, i didn't read it thoroughly, but of course, the better and higher ranked players (divinity, titans, whatever) will vote for they're favorite cards, the ones they have, and the others (veterans, seniors, heroes) will vote against the really good cards they don't have.
put it short, I'm in agreement with what Vexrm said
Like Simple said, a card has to get at least 5% of the vote in order to be banned for the week. Right now only Hawk, Lehane, Striker, Smokey, Copper, Kerry, and Charlie have been voted on at least that much. So only one clan is facing having more than one card banned for the week, and it's not the whole clan like it used to be. All the people who are freaking out that all the good cards from a clan are going to be banned should take this into consideration.