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.
I think banning more cards doesn't solve the problem. There will *always* be a few dominant clans, and there will *always* be comparatively overpowered cards. Even if they banned every single card except Ogoun Kyu and Frank, Frank will still be ridiculously overpowered compared to Ogoun kyu. Crazy, rotating bans are great, and they certainly stop players from using the same deck every single week, but it does little to increase the variety of clans used in elo, as everyone will just figure out the dominant clan that particular week and run with it.
So I don't think the problem is banning more, banning less or banning unpredictably, if the goal is to increase elo clan variety. If they want to keep popular clans/cards from dominating the scene, they'd have to adopt more of a DT approach to elo, where the cards being used in the game has some effect on the elo score gained or lost. They could tally the frequency of a particular card being used in games, with less frequently used cards getting more elo points and often-used cards getting less. So a guy using Robb and Marina would have to win 66% of his games to reach 1300e, while someone using Frank and Ogoun Kyu would only have to win 50%. I think this will be an incentive for people to create usable decks with rarely-used cards and clans
Elo penalty points wouldnt stop someone from using a dominant deck... a win is a win is a win. winning a few extra games is far easier than winning games with mediocre decks.
i do think that getting 1300 with bad elo records is kinda funny. play enough games and win maybe 5-10 more games than you lose and you can still be 1300+.
"everyone will just figure out the dominant clan that particular week and run with it."
im not sure i agree with that.... in the past it has taken weeks and weeks for the dominant decks to become obvious. Sentinels did not immediately dominate with Hawk and Lehane. Robb was not always the obvious choice for the 3 star spot in All Stars builds.
When the community vote for ELO first came out... cards like Charlie Smokey Yayoi were getting hit with bans periodically -- the obvious big cards were more regularly banned. Leaders were not getting banned. Then Hugo was getting banned... then Morphun, then Eyrik, and then even Elkore. eventually the system settled down and it was predictable. Voting turnout was also much much much higher that they have been recently -- but as a lot of players figured out, doesnt matter who you vote for really --- you will do just as well or badly each week.
i think good players can quickly make top decks right from the start and adjust decks as needed based on what they see during the week.
weak players wont do as well at the start since they will be too busy trying to figure out what presets the top players are running... and the following week they are left in the dark again. so they start their week a bit disavantaged.
this doesnt sound like a bad thing
I dunno Wasteroftime... Iv built 10 solid ELO decks, all centered around 2 cards as many decks do. And it has been accepted that every week 2 or 3 of these decks will be unusable because of ELO bans, and that is fine. However when all 10 of my hard built decks are rendered unusable it is very disheartening. It seems the only power clan to be un hit as of yet is the La Junta with Emeth and Bryan.
But back to staple cards being hit... I feel that there should be a limit in place for the number of cards being banned. I do like the "limit card" solution, however the problem with this is it will turn into the situation we have right now, where all powerful cards will be under the "limit section" Thus rendering split deck combos weak at best. Instead, I feel that a 15 card ban should be in place. Similar to the 5% and above rule, however, only 15 cards will be banned, and these cards are the ones with the most votes for "ban". If this rule was to be in place, than the voting system would be completely changed. Where there would only be one button to push when voting, and that would be "BAN" If a player doesnt want their staple card to be banned, then they should vote on the next closest card with votes and hope that card will recieve more "BAN votes" then their prefered card does.
I think that this idea is very reasonable and would solve a lot of problems. But lets take it to the people!
Ya i know what you mean iseethematrix.... you built 10 ELO decks centered around 2 cards.... with the banning of those 2 cards, you are now forced to use other decks (some players may or may not like this... but in a collectible card game --- giving people reason to collect more cards isnt a bad thing). eventually as people collect the bans affect them less and less, since they can adapt to every ban list that comes up.
believe me La Junta isnt the only viable option. lots of builds are still possible (people just have to put the right decks together). yes Emeth is a powerhouse of a card (Bryan isnt, hes the LaJunta Methane -- a bit scary but not dominating) in the current environment.... so is Shann.
Skeelz and Jungo are relatively untouched (they are basically the same as before these bans
UluWatu are untouched and can counter Bangers
Junks lost Rowdy and Gil but all it does is open the door for Junks builds that has Tremorh in there.
FPC and Freaks can now compete
over the last few months i have noticed that there has been a tendency for a lot of people to run mono decks. This is not a surprise with the release of new more cards (more clans become playable in mono)... but the loss of "staple" cards can often be filled in by running split decks and filling in gaps.
It still in early stages this new format and some clans have been crippled this week (Rescue + Montana), but that is due to the combination of community vote bans and the the temporary staff bannings.
Solution... start voting to keep cards. Vote turn out USED to be high. it is now low. I dont have the stats, but i can bet that more people voted then... and greater proportion of people then would vote to keep cards compared to now. You can see this from the banned cards trend. Only a handful of cards would get banned then.. and some cards would receive tons and tons and tons of votes. Now people vote more tactically and target cards... so you see more cards get banned and more cards receiving over 5% of the votes, since ppl assume over 5% probably means its going to get banned.
Vote to keep cards is one way to counter clans getting crippled
Ya once I get my ELO score back up to 1400 then ill be placing all my votes under 'Keep' rather than 'Ban' Just to save even a card like Yookie so I can at least play my Roots.
I've spent 15k buying up new Freak cards, I figure with all the powerhouse cards gone for this week it is the perfect time to start experimenting without lossing too hard.
I understand that things CAN be changed positively with the rules still in place by voting for 'Keep' and not 'Ban' however I have been reading one of the forums by Euzebe about the bans for this week, and a lot of the people commenting on that forum are banding together to take out staple cards from each clan. And even if it is not the community that wants to take these cards down, its the Moderators and UR staff that are removing them. Therefore it doesnt matter if we vote 'Keep' because chances are the cards we want to keep is not even on the list and if they are, then these banded together players will out vote me, a single player
(by the way shadowcouncil the creator of this forum is one of those banded together players, ironic that he started this forum)
@Wasteroftime: By the way you are enticing people to change up their styles, it wouldnt surprise me if you are one of those UR staff members who are for the removal of staple cards.
Penalty points worked for DT, we are seeing much fewer Uppers-Montana featuring the Vickie Cr-Jackie-Lyse Teria Cr-Zatman combo. I like the idea because it doesn't physically stop people from using overpowered cards, it just makes it harder for them to reach a high score.
I guess I just don't like seeing elo becoming increasingly different from all the other formats...banning the top 10% of cards in UR seems a tad extreme.
"lets see some crazy bannings"
As you've already professed, you're more for some kind of hevy event style rotation. That's fair, but there's a good deal of players (at least half from the feedback given) who consider this kind of move unwelcome. Not because they can't or won't adapt to change, but because events_already_exist and Elo was something else, something more stable, something simpler.
The limit system has the potential to balance elo and give even more variety, and there would be no need to ban anything other than the truly game breaking (staff list originals plus caeluls). I've not read one decent argument against it yet.
The current mass ban strategy is causing the same obvious dominant flavour of the week clans/builds to emerge in the meta. i truly see no benefit aside from, what appears to be, a brief transitional kick of dust into the air as people frantically scramble to find the next best thing.
Time will tell. The first set of stats will be too influenced by the excitement of the massive switch to be conclusive, give it a month or so and if the variety hasn't increased by a significant margin then all we've done is disable some clans to the point of them being less used (GHEIST, ALL STARS) and enable others to take their place.
A simple swap of the dominant might appear fresh in the short term, but it fixes nothing against a real scale.