I've tidied up my proposed solution and changed the thread title to avoid confusion. I've also changed the name of the proposed idea to avoid bickering about tiers.
Solution - Limit System.
- Mark all considered overpowered cards (Toro, Rolph, Smokey Cr, Charlie, etc...) as 'Limited'.
- Add new stipulation to Elo deck build rules:
Your Deck can only contain X Limited cards.
- Limited cards would only be the cards that are considered too powerful. So some clans would not have any Limited cards at all.
- The limited list could rotate, or it could even be placed under player vote.
- This would stop decks being made up with the obvious cards, but would allow us to still play these cards in a limited capacity.
Discuss, feedback, and so on...
The previous thread can be found here: http://www.urban-rivals.com/community/forum/?mode=viewsubject&forum_page=0&id_subject=1529651&subject_page=0
Thank you to everyone who gave feedback.
@wasteroftime (i think you were talking to me)
obviously, the new one wouldn't be ELO anymore
it would just be a new mode it could have different prizes and stuff
what it offers is constant change/challenge every week
that keeps people on their toes like the staff wants
while maintaining the tradition ELO for the traditional flavor
one week could be no leaders for instance
another could be no 5 stars
or no SoA
or a huge list of specific bans
I think its important not to dumb it down. i think people confuse over powered cards with those that are just tricky to play against. and when one week a few clans are banned to nothing, everyone shifts to a few equally tricky/powerful setup of different cards, so when we all go to vote, we've got them in mind, so its always going to be a nasty rotation. but last week with the bristone/leviatonn ban, they shut gheist down. so yur gheist players hopped to the next deck. which if we look at this weeks bans, would be rescue (kerry AND lea) and all stars. i think a system of perma-banned cards for each clan, the ones that are always out more than in elo, and the arguably 'overpowered' ones. then lets say there can be no more than 2 cards weekly banned from each clan. that way you wont have the surge of people jumping from one setup to the next, getting a different deck each week and getting cards banned in an almost predictable cycle, and balancing out somewhat the votes for the cards that dont need to be banned, but may be staple for mono decks. its this routine of swapping decks thats killing elo, making it predictable and boring.
"You do realize some of the clans only have 1 card that is stuck up there
cause that is really the only card they need
so if you go full mono
they will still be overpowered
i mean like skillz for example would just need Caelus"
Caleus is the single example. He should be staff banned.
I have a proposal:
Elo decks have to contain a minimum of 16 cards.
Think about it: you can still have toro and rolph in your deck, but the chances of drawing them has gone down by 50%. 16 cards also forces you to use some seldom-used cards, especially in monoclan decks. Deck-building will be more complex, as you can't just pick the top 8 cards in a clan and call it a deck. What do you guys think?
With 16 cards you can make 2 full mono decks. it wouldn't solve the problem. unless you nail down the star limit to 40 stars for the 16 cards.
the problem is actually the cards' star rating. if UR staff would just give each card the correct star for its power and/or useability, we wouldn't have the need to ban cards since fitting too many high powered cards in a deck would become a problem. the correct solution would be to adjust each card's star count to its realistic power/useability. i include useability since a card may not be powerful or pack more damage but can be infinitely more useful than a card with more damage. take uranus for example. with -5 dmg min 1, she shouldn't be a 3 star but a 4 star. after all, if you compare other DRs with her, i'm pretty sure she comes out on top as the best DR in the game. how many cards can reduce 5 dmg after all?
so then, the solution isn't a voting ban but a star rating vote. players would be asked to vote how many stars they think each card should be. take the average, and that should be the card's star count.
then, to make packing too many overpowered cards in a deck even harder, ELO should have 20 stars limit instead of 25.
that would force players to use cards with an overwhelming handicap. we would then have an ELO playing field where players are forced to play with bad hands on a bad draw and make the best out of it.
from the result, we can surmise that whoever tops the ELO ranking deserves to be there.
Just make the ban list larger, ban semi-evos (we can see the staff don't want them since they banned Gwen and Wanda), and ban for two weeks cards that got 15%+ of the voting to get banned. That's what I'd change. The tier system is far too complicated, and people just starting on the game wouldn't be able to enjoy the ELO mode as well.
@HarionVincent: Star levels can only be 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 though. While this can work in some cases (Zatman would be plenty balanced at 4 stars), in many cases you'd wind up with a card that's far too weak for its new star count. Your example, Uranus, is easily such a card. There's no way anyone would play a 4 star with 5 power without some form of power manipulation as an ability, and even then it's a risky possibility.
All I know is, the current system is horrible, and has done nothing but limit diversity even further. Last week everyone at the top played Rescue (and to a lesser extent, Montana and Uppers) because the cards that beat those clans were banned. Now there's so little to vote for cards like Yookie, Lea, and Elvira are banned. Eventually we're not going to have any good cards left.
I don't care how it's fixed, but honestly there were more competitive options before this happened.
Crazier bans would make things more interesting... it would be like playing events. At one point i only played events when i got tired of all the formats.
bad events usually had a few possible decks. awesome events had several competitive non-obvious deck possibilities.
elo bannings that lead to a heavy rotation of cards/decks is probably a good thing for UR. At the end of the day UR is a virtual CCG. A heavy rotation puts incentive for people to collect (although some wont like it). ELO is seen as the "elite" format. Players who want to be "good" must have the cards to allow them to compete and succeed regardless of what cards are allowed (aside from the big Crs) --- this is surely better than previous ELO systems where a player can compete every week using only 2-3 decks.
lets see some crazy bannings