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.
I am a little bit confused. Does "Keep" means to keep that character in ELO play and "Refuse" means to ban it from ELO? I guess the part where it confused me was the part where is saids " ____ will go, for now." or "____ will stay, for now." and it have the Keep and Refuse underneath it. I'm thinking the meaning varies as the Keep and Refuse correspond with the will go or will stay so I just want to make sure. And does the percentage number stands for the current % that had voted in favor of ban or it stands for the total % of the people in UR who have voted?
I don't understand the unbanning of Zatman. Noodile and Tyd are in the top 4 card used in their clan, yet zatman has an amazing ability with those stats. Can't we just have a 8/4 no ability 3* upper? He is clearly so overpowered that he has raised the price of the entire upper clan. People are literally paying any price to use him.
Surely the voting system is the wrong way around. Giving more votes to players who are already strong will just allow them to vote out more characters who beat them making them even stronger. If a balanced game for all players is the intention, then giving less votes to higher players and more to the lower players would be better. Also, starting the vote allocation at about 1150 would mean that only the serious players would be able to change elo, rather than players who come in just to get the clintz and credits, but aren't looking to get high in the rankings.
@ 0 Adan
I personally believe that specific card bannings is indeed better than just power shifts between 1 to 3 clans every week..I mean..it almost always ends up with this or that being the top1-3 clans every week and the next week and the next with specific clans being banned and unbanned respectively every week. With specific card bans through voting, players can get the feel of banning what needs to be banned for the following week and thus making the meta better and more balanced.
"Just imagine next week, without Sentinel,Pussycats and cards like Smokey (C)... only put hope on Jungo..."
if that would be the case, then ELO players will likely adjust and vote a ban on a specific Jungo card to cripple them in ELO, that is if Jungo will be a threat next week. And you're forgetting All-Stars..a strong clan that can make things hard for Jungo. Other than that, then it is a good way to expose unused clans in ELO to adjust if that was the case. The way I see it, it is better balanced this way than what was allowed in the past.
@ Darth Ninja
a post from Fraggle from another thread:
"Fraggle - Admin Fr flag
Today at 12:15
Also, about the "top players controling the cards because they get more votes"..
Just to put it in perspective:
the total number of votes "available" is this week: 22 273.
the total number of votes for the 1400+ players is: 1 434 (6%)."
-surely 6% is not a big threat when it comes to controlling bannings in ELO
Not to be ornery, but I think you underestimate the actual impact of high-scoring players by assuming 100% voter turnout . Obviously we won't know until the changes take hold in earnest, but I suspect that turnout among 1300+ players will be much higher than folks with scores like 1050 or 1125. 1300 and 1400 players may well end up with 50% of the effective vote, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Mass action coordinated by guilds will be a larger problem. Mark my words. There will be last minute "carpet bombing" campaigns to move cards into ban territory, hammer down a ban, and so on. I assume that the staff is aware of this and has taken this into account, or attempted to, already, but suspect that players will wail and moan about how "big guilds" are making it impossible to play with certain cards, or conspiring to keep "abusive and expensive!" cards in play.