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.
Exactly my point, waster.
"but how would u decide a cards tier or how could u limit the number of cards allowed in each tier"
There are no tiers any more. It's one set of limited cards. Read the OP, ignore the other thread.
"Why don't you make an event to test out this idea?"
Well, It would need to be run on quite a large scale for the data to be accurate. Events also don't allow for the limit system to be set up exactly, and, as it would need to be quite a large scale, it would take a lot of monitoring to assure that people are following the limit system.
I just don't have the time to invest right now.
However, I think the system would work. The maths seems to add up and I can see/have read from others no major downside.
I understand this concept completely. It is an extension of the star system. The star system was meant to do this, but obviously some 4 stars are better than other 4 stars
some 3 stars are better than other 3 stars... and so on and that is what creates the perceived powerhouse cards
so a limited system introduces some sort of sorting method to limit the amount of powerhouse cards in a deck
this runs into a few problems.... the main one is making the distinction between powerhouse cards of different star counts. Lehane and Uranus are lower star cards that are quite game changing. Leviatonn at 3 stars is also a beast. Mona is beast etc. etc.
Could you really put a limit on them? Would a player really take them and miss out on the opportunity to take limited 4 star and 5 star cards??? A limited 2 star card (if there is one) or a limited 3 star card.... becomes extremely hard to justify and may even be a silly choice.
How about 4 stars and 5 stars... well the limiting factor here will be how well it fits into the rest of the deck. 4 star powerhouse cards may often be a better choice than 5 star cards since you save a star and can beef up another part of your deck.
ie. Kerry or Sledge is a no brainer... kerry is a far better use of stars. Toro or Rolph... also a no brainer here.
how many 5 stars are actually powerhouse and would deserve a status of "limited".... aside from Caelus no one else is really overpowered in the 5 stars group. Some people would make a case for some of the Leader.... but what A LOT of people dont account for is how fat 5 stars really is.... so they remember all the games where Hugo or Morphun or Eyrik made their life really really difficult... what they never see or realise are all those games they win over players running 5 star cards but they dont draw them --- 5 star cards are balanced in UR.
Second potential issue of this --- games become more draw dependent. Between players of comparable abilities and collection, the draw plays a huge factor. When players are loaded with powerhouse cards (for the sake of argument, lets say 3 each) then in all likelihood both players should get at least one of their powercards (hence giving them a chance in the match). if one draws all 3 and the other zero.... then is game over. 2 vs. 1 the other player still has a chance. 3 vs. 1 well he needs a miracle but may still have hope.
By limiting the powerhouse cards... then drawing a powerhouse card becomes ridiculously important. With less powerhouse cards in the deck, there is a greater likelihood that one player will not draw his awesome card(s) and an opponent will not draw his.... hence the draw becomes A LOT more important in a "limited" setting -- this is not desirable i dont think, since all it does in increase the importance of luck.
In the current ELO environment I suppose there are some powerhouses left.... the one lots of people would say is Emeth or even Shann... response to this... get some SOA and DR in your decks. They are not overpowered cards, strong yes, scary yes, but they are fat at 5 stars. All peple will remember is how they got killed by emeth, but never pay attention to wins they get over LaJunta when emeth is not drawn and say "wow im glad they had emeth in their deck and had to sacrifice part of the rest of the deck"
my guess is with the staff bannings and community bannings... less powerhouse cards will be out in the wild in the coming weeks... thats not so bad. with only "fair/balanced/mediocre/whatever" cards out there... then games are less likely to be determined by the luck of the draw -- again, doesnt sound so bad.
There you got well thought out feedback on your limited format. first one is undeniable, second one is arguable
"Exactly my point, waster."
was this regarding my comment on the jubalani????? no your dont like the jubalani looks like, its clear you want some other adidas ball to be used
Wow waster, no way that post was within the 1500 word limit
Anyways, in keeping with the theme of bad sports analogies, the new elo ban is like NBA commish saying one day, "Hmm, the same teams have been dominating the league for too long, so from now on, Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Rondo and anyone who has ever made an allstar appearance are now banned from the NBA"
It would restore team parity but kill the league.
Bad analogy subclavian
the players in the NBA would be changed. the players in UR do not..
the tools of the trade is what is changing in this situation... .the football analogy works better. and just like world cup, the team that uses the new ball the best wins the tournament. and in UR, regardless of what you do to the format, better players will beat weaker players
Plus, my entire post you just responded to wasn't directed at you in the slightest.
And the first point is not undeniable in the slightest. Sorry to bruise your ego there, but it's really quite obvious that star count has nothing to do with it. Any one with an above average experience of Elo knows that cards ranging from Rolph to lehane are all potentially worthy of the limit.
Your feedback is convoluted, the system isn't.
"Well, It would need to be run on quite a large scale for the data to be accurate. Events also don't allow for the limit system to be set up exactly, and, as it would need to be quite a large scale, it would take a lot of monitoring to assure that people are following the limit system."
well I don't think you need such a large scale for it to be accurate.
You can just use the power of ramdon sampling from people's opinions and from your own expirences to work out if there is some sort of meta-game in your system
As for the people in the event?
Just get volunteers from your guild who don't mind wasting a couple of hours to play in the event (give them small prizes or something for helping).
create a free poll for them and see if there is any sort of balance in the meta-game from what there is now.
as for monitoring?
It's not as if they are trying to win anything so there would be no need for cheating.