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.
Shadow... the main man Fraggle already commented in your proposed change in other threads.... thats pretty official.
other people have commented on your proposition -- you may not see them as decent arguments against --- but they are arguments against -- your perception of their quality is obviously biased in your favour since it is your idea. i havent commented on it -- i personally think it would work equally as well or as badly as any changes that happen.
stable stagnates --- stagnation is bad, UR is making attempts for this to happen.
as for votes -- i rarely vote now... usually it is to keep cards. ie. i havent played Jungo or Skeelz half/mono decks in a while -- so i dump 5 votes to keep on Caelus/Sylth. for my personal playing, it doesnt matter what is banned or not banned -- 1300 ELO with its 10 credit reward will happen, the only question is if ill get there in less than 30 games or not.
"A simple swap of the dominant might appear fresh in the short term, but it fixes nothing against a real scale"
yes it is fresh --- so it improves the stagnant environment... lets worry about the long term when it comes -- id bet my entire collection that once the new format gets old and boring (every new format will eventually get old and boring) UR staff will do something about it.
"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 first part is true -- that would be true for ANY change that happens (even if it was yours)
the second part is an assumption (it may be your reason) but it is not true.
i would say the majority of the people who are not pleased with the bannings are people with smaller collections. How many people have posted something along the lines of "i made these dacks now i cant use them" or "i sold all my cards to make these decks now i cant use them" "i dont want to keep selling and buying every week"
simple and stable --- DTs are simple and stable. T2 Survivor is simple and stable. ELO survivor has more variety than those 2 formats. making ELO less monotonous is not a bad thing. Yes some weeks will probably lack diversity depending on what is banned -- but at least i know that next week i wont have to put up with playing vs the same 2-3 decks again.
2 ELO formats ago you would expect to play Gheist + Piranha/Pussycats, the following week you run into Roots + Piranha/Pussycats. it eventually became Sentinels + AllStars/Piranhas/Gheist followed by Roots + AllStars/Piranhas. over and over and over again
the last ELO format took months to settle down --- this was great. Eventually the voting pattern and deck pattern created stability --- if Copper is out, expect Sentinels. and so on. Saw we basically saw 2-3 decks per week that would rotate on alternating weeks.
this latest ELO change has the potential to extend the time between seeing the same deck on weekly basis. Will there be only a handful of decks in rotation during a given week??? ya more than likely. Will i see these same decks next week?? Not likely. Will i see them again 2 weeks from now?? well this is where i hope the answer is also a big fat NO.
My solution to creating diversity would be something more extreme. Rather than banning some cards for the week and leading people to simply using the strongest cards that haven't been banned, put a limit on the use of ALL cards. It would work something like this.
Each card can only be used in X games. After that, they cannot be used for the rest of the week until Y games have been played with other cards.
This would stop the same decks from being used all week. If Y = 4X, players would need at least 5 different decks to rotate through. This, combined with a few bans, would really force players to increase their collection size. The numbers can be tinkered with to see what works the best.
To add to the complexity, the bans could be replaced by different X values for each card. It would be lower for the stronger cards, while it could be removed completely for the more useless cards. Players would have to put a LOT of thought into which cards they use to build their decks.
Of course, some sort of tracking system has to be implemented.
All in all, this idea would mean there would not be any dominant clans each week, but it may create more complications than both players and the staff want to deal with. There may also be some major flaws that I have overlooked, so please point those out.
Well, mine is an assumption as is yours waster.
That's not really the point, anyway. The point is the new changes haven't increased variety enough to justify the removal of so many cards. And the single most upsetting thing for all those opposed has been the fact that they have lost a large degree of choice in what cards to use. That the more expensive/powerful cards have been banned.
The limit system will do everything the ban system hopes to:
- increase variety
- ensure no clan can dominate
If the limits are smartly made, then it's simply an optimal system compared to the mass bans.
No actually shadow that is the point
the assumption that those who are opposed are opposed because of the lack of stability rather than the inconvenience of making new decks every week is incorrect. it was an assumption you made.
you - "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."
backing up you points with stats that make it appear like some empirical study that carries validity is convenient when people are trying to make point --- my statement that it is not true is not an assumption --- it is a claim that can be proven correct or incorrect --- we can count posts if you want. we can categorize the negative posts about the changes into 2 groups. The first group would be 1)Changes bad cause we lost stability 2)Other reasons. You claim that over half will be in category one.... I claim that there is no way that over half will be in category 1. Feel free to count, im confident in what im saying.
as for the limit system... as i said, it can work and would work as well as ANY changes in ELO. All a stagnant system need is a change.... change injects some life in the format.... do it till it is stagnant again. Just look at voting pattern... WOW when this came out it was awesome.... like 60-75% of people would vote --- sooo interesting. Now they are lucky to get 45%.
Limit systems have worked in real life CCGs. There is no reason to believe it cant work for virtual CCGs.
Will it create variety? ---- well any change after a system settles down and stagnates will create variety. So yes
Ensure that no clan (or builds) will dominate -- i highly doubt it. A few deck types will always always always be slightly mathematically advantaged. This is the truth with most games.
Would a limit system be possible for UR in the future... possibly
the current system is what we have now... it is what we have... it is what UR staff will be tweaking each week... it is what we will be living with. UR staff can take ideas here and there (they have in the past -- like hiding vote results till the end).. but i imagine the system is here to stay until it settles down --- I anticipate a long long time here. The previous ELO system lasted how long??? a year and a half or more???
No, waster, it wasn't the point as, regardless of the outcome of it, the truth remains:
Half the people I've interacted with so far (forums, pm, presets, guild forums) are entirely unhappy with the changes.
And no, yours is /entirely/ assumption too. This kind of arrogance is exactly why I stopped communicating with you before...
"Would a limit system be possible for UR in the future... possibly
the current system is what we have now... it is what we have... it is what UR staff will be tweaking each week... it is what we will be living with. UR staff can take ideas here and there (they have in the past -- like hiding vote results till the end).. but i imagine the system is here to stay until it settles down --- I anticipate a long long time here. The previous ELO system lasted how long??? a year and a half or more???"
And this is absolutely no reason to contest it or discuss other systems, so I'm not sure why you're telling us this.
I agree that *any* change is better than stagnancy, but a change that takes out the best 10% of cards in UR? If you want players to enjoy the urban rival experience to the fullest, taking out the top 10% is not the way to do it. I may be wrong (and you've been in this game much longer than me), but Elo has always been considered the ultimate test of skill. Now, it's more like the ultimate test of skill using obscure, mediocre cards.
These bans take away a huge chunk of the game itself.