The ELO mode is evolving

The ELO mode is evolving

321/373

Euzebe - Monday 23/03/2009, 08:52
Imperator - The Saiyans

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.

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

322/373

Aasha - Monday 20/04/2009, 05:53
Master - White Lightning Guild

In other words:

"To beat kolos build a deck designed for him"

xD
323/373

DerMagus - Monday 20/04/2009, 12:07
Legend - Tequila Sunrise- UR

With Kolos being up, I predict: People will jump on him, banning him with an excessive amount of votes and nobody will bother defending him. For once the Kolos scare factor kills Kolos :O. Then, Nightmare will vanish for a week. (I am amazed that the new cards seem to have made Nightmare THAT much more playable. Or incited that many more players to try them, I rather think. Personally I did not (and do not) feel as if they rose to top tier o_O). I am wondering what will happen to other cards, though.
324/373

V3ctor - Monday 20/04/2009, 20:00
Colossus - Galaxy rivals

It isn't a good idea to not allow to vote the ones who were banned last week...

You see, those who are voted are the overpowered or game-changing cards... they should be up for the vote as if they will no-longer be considered a threat or other will be considered a greater game changer, people will not vote them anymore.

In my opinion, Lehane and Hawk are the best examples... they are overpowered and should remain banned...
325/373

Arkindred - Monday 20/04/2009, 20:20
Guru - URBAN MADNESS

The ELO mode now is quite impressive, i have to say. it makes the game a little bit more challenge, pizzazz, and strategy.
326/373

Shwqa - Monday 20/04/2009, 21:34
Novice

I'm glad zatman finally got a ban!
327/373

X-Thuga-X - Monday 20/04/2009, 21:44
Legend

I have to agree to neogenex in some of his ideas...
328/373

TooStoned - Tuesday 21/04/2009, 06:50
Master - The Cold Turkeys

I believe that if your intention where not to banned for life a clan it failed because the cops are dead for good and I can't understand why it's like they are not that abusive and coalition of high elo player will keep them banned in the futur. I believed card should at some point be removed from the list to avoid this situation .
329/373

Cool Penguin - Tuesday 21/04/2009, 09:11
Hero

What if the % of the vote needed to ban a card increased every time that card got banned for a week? It could increase by about 1 or 2 % every time the cards gets banned for a week and it could cap at maybe 15-20%. It would reset back to 5% after they are unbanned. It would ensure that cards like hawk and lehane will still get banned a lot but that every month or two they would be playable for a week.
330/373

DerMagus - Tuesday 21/04/2009, 11:46
Legend - Tequila Sunrise- UR

IMHO, if anthing, a card that gets a constant voted ban should be perma-banned by the UR team. I mean seriously, it is a quasi-democratic vote! If at some point you say "nah, you cannot vote on this now, we be making an exception matey, yarr!"... why stop there? Why then not other exceptions?
Rather ask, if a card gets banned again and again an again and never sees the light of ELO... maybe there is a reason to it? Maybe that card should indeed nver have been made? I strongly think so of Lehane - I mean, that cards is WELL playable in a deck as only Sentinel card! [it strictly beats, for example, Flo in a Mono-Allstars deck - WITH Flo's bonus and WITHOUT Lehane's! Think about that for a second. Power creep, yes... here it is visible as its "finest"].
Making a card most people want banned unbannable "every once in a while" would feel like a bad, bad joke to me. Same with increased % - either this is a strict vote or the vote is a pharce.
(That said, I am still not utterly convinced by the current system)
331/373

Neon-chan - Tuesday 21/04/2009, 13:10
Imperator

"IMHO, if anthing, a card that gets a constant voted ban should be perma-banned by the UR team. I mean seriously, it is a quasi-democratic vote!" That's a great plan [irony off] So now you ban Lehane and Hawk and the people can use the votes they don't need here on other cards so cards that are now sometimes banned, sometimes slip through become banned every week....so you perma-bann them too. So more votes are freed and you just work your way down the cards until you have to play Diego oO

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

The ELO mode is evolving

The ELO mode is evolving

Answer to this subject