We made a series of interviews between the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012. These interviews persuaded us to complete a project we were thinking about for a long time: the setting up of a cards rotation system.
Right now there are 800 cards in the collection and it’s already too much for the game to run smoothly. The players who have all the cards always use the strongest of a clan and even if it makes them win matches they are frustrated not to see more variety. For their part, the beginners have to face a huge collection and they often feel quite lost.
We want to create a list that includes only characters released in the past two years (+ leaders and starter characters) and change several rooms which allow players to only use the characters in this list. We won’t impose this list in every rooms because our goal is not to stop you from playing the oldest cards, for example the DM T2 and Survivor T2 won’t change at all even if names will be different.
Let’s see what will happen in detail:
1/ Create a list of characters called «Standard» which will be updated every 6 months:
This list will contain Leaders, Starter Decks characters, all characters released within these last 2 years before the update (LD included) and characters which will be released after the update.
In practical terms it will give about ten characters allowed in each clan (with more or less the same number of characters in each level). Note that the new clans will keep all their characters. It will be taken into account in the cards releases planning. We will act as to give each clan what they need to be efficient.
2/ Creation of 3 new deck formats:
Extended Format: all characters allowed, no doubles, 40 stars max., equivalent to T2.
Standard Format: Standard characters only, 40 stars mac., no doubles.
Standard Format 25: Standard characters only, 25 stars max., no doubles, list of characters banned if it’s needed (for Leaders for example).
Note that the T1 format disappears.
3/ Finally, create or adapt battle rooms:
The Standard battle room : Standard Format with a DT every other hour.
Instead of opening a less than 26 stars (T1) room and a more than 26 stars (T2) one, you will have one single room BUT you’ll face opponents whose decks have a number of stars close to yours. This mechanism corresponds better to the reality of DTs today where every players try to find the good combination which will give the most points while winning matches with 20 to 30 stars decks. Merging the two rooms will allow you to keep this optimization spirit without the «artificial» side of the stars limitation. This flexibility combined with the Standard format will give a breath of fresh air to DTs while keeping specificity.
This room will be the ONLY DT room. There won’t be any T2, T1 or ELO Daily Tournament. We know that it’s not harmless and it was a very difficult decision to take. Some of you struggled a long time to obtain very expensive collectors which allow them to improve their results in DT and their disappointment is understandable. Nevertheless, DT’s today are clearly dominated by some decks not to say several highly efficient cards which is not healthy in a competitive game mode.
The ELO room: Standard format 25 (with potentially some bans), same rules except that there won’t be DTs in this room any more.
Use the Standard rules in the ELO mode sounds quite obvious to us. It will allow some regular changes to the mode and it will remove old characters which cause balancing problems. It should reduce the number of staff banned characters and no more characters banned by players.
About DT, we think that the ELO mode is pretty different from the DT. There is no reason to mix these two game modes. Today, ELO players have the opportunity to win free credits without playing in DT. Tomorrow they’ll have to choose between Dt and ELO which is already the case for players playing in other modes (Survivor or DM).
3 Deathmatch rooms:
Extended DM: Extended format, current DM rules.
Standard DM: Standard format, current DM rules.
Standard DM 25: Standard format 25, current DM rules.
The Extended DM will be equivalent to the current DM T2, only the name will change.
The Standard DM will allow players with big decks but with characters in the Standard list. The DM T1 will disappear and we’ll add a Standard 25 room. We noticed that the rare players in DM T1 were more ELO players than DT T1 players. We hope that the Standard DM 25 will be more used than the current DM T1 room. If it’s not the case, we will think about it. If there are DM T1 players here who are reading this message and don’t want this change to Standard DM 25, don’t hesitate to let us know.
3 Survivor rooms.
Extended Survivor: Extended format.
Standard Survivor: Standard format.
Standard Survivor 25: Standard format 25.
Same idea as Deathmatch.
And the rooms which won’t change:
Fight Club: the deck you want.
Warehouse no pillz: Training NoPill
@ wasteroftime: I'm one of the people 100% opposed to the change, and you can look at my records to see that I'm not one of the people you were implying with that comment. For reference, I hate playing ELO, and I agree that the format needs to change, but this is *not* the change it needs.
The thing is, the changes that this message implied were more far-reaching than what was stated. The people who are against it, especially in my guild, are people who are investors, non-credit buyers, expert deck builders, or people who just prefer to play in T1 rooms.
But this is the thing that made me comment here: " a format that allows all cards to be playable, which will exist is not enough." I can play a deck of 16* in Fights T1 and do all right in a tournament. I can play a deck of 10 cards for 26* in Fights T2 and also do all right in a tournament. However, both of those types of playing are deliberately challenging myself to do well against decks that will be substantially better than mine, because there is a high reward for doing so (several thousand clints). However, is there ANY reason to use a card like Hula in the Extended Room (or worse, against x8 Kolos Fight Club garbage)? It's just foolishly limiting when every other card is going to be a 4* or 5*. And beyond that, there's no reward for playing in those rooms--it's just wasting time.
First, I brought up ELO changes cause you brought up ELO as an example of how great change is despite people opposing it. Is it a better mode now than before? Well, that depends on your playstyle and personal preference. But is it more popular? Well, UR's own numbers from ELO history show that in the week before the format change the prize pool (and the size of the prizepool depends on number of games played, thus popularity) was 3781721 and the week of 31st Jan 2011 after the change the prize pool was 3011522 clintz. And last week, the prize pool was 3017753 clintz. After a year, ELO still hasn't fully recovered. So I'd hardly think its a great example of success to be boasting about.
Second, there were several factors that caused a drop, like bans and such which I did bring up. But to outright say
"Lets not confuse causation with correlation a drop in elo gameplay can be due to any number of reasons.... the previous changes might be one of them. to suggest that one leads to the other is a logical fallacy"
and that the format changes MIGHT have caused a drop (and thus implying that they also might NOT have caused a drop) is just false. The four weeks prior to the change, the prize pools were 3781721, 3888795, 4213820 and 3996266. Or 3970150.5 in average. Four weeks after the change, the prize pools were 3011522, 2813802, 2949006 and 2949582. Or 2930978 clintz in average. Or 2930978/3970150.5 = 73.8%. That is the number of games played in the weeks after the change compared to the weeks before was only 74%. Or are you going to say that 25% just suddenly decided to stop playing ELO right around the time of the changes? How much of the drop was caused by the format change can be debated. But that they were a factor for the drop? That 1 in 4 just stopped? No, I'm fairly sure that logic would back my association.
Third, your so called example isn't too great. Look, if I had said that before change was 3.8 mil, after change was 3 mil and now was 1 mil. Sure throw a massive change in there since there's nothing to lose and maybe we get more players. But it is 3 mil last week. Not grown more then pre-change. But certainly higher than it has been where there were weeks of about 2.5 mil. And the trend has been on the up. Is it really a good idea to risk stalling a fragile recovery with something like this?
Fourth, the changes were just to ELO mode. If you didn't like it, well, you could quit or play any of the other modes. That is, everything except ELO and ELO survivor. But standard effects ALL modes. If you don't like it, quit or play extended 40 or what? Fightclub? Lostwarehouse? Not great variety or options. And wasn't one of the reasons to bring standard in was to cut down on new players getting curbstomped by veterans? So how is possibly pushing vets with large collections of "OPed" cards into fightclub help?
ELO is just one side of this issue. The bottom line is that most modes become more limited or less rewarding in some way.
This change would actually be less detrimental to me than it would be to most players I know. I'm not complaining because I'm worried about "my" game, I'm worried about what this will do to other players and this game in general.
I tend to stick to ELO, and my favorite clan to use in ELO is Vortex (usually in a half-deck with almost any other clan.) One of the things that keeps Vortex in check right now? SoA clans. Cards like Oflgn, Dregn, and Cyb Lhia will create huge problems in the game without the threat of running into SoA clans. So, by removing a bunch of old cards indiscriminately, UR would just be shifting power to a newer clan that gets to keep a bunch of staple cards, and making those staples even stronger.
Until Vortex loses its staples or SoA clans regain power, Standard would cause greater balance issues than it sets out to fix -- and that's just the most obvious example.
Are you guys starting to see how this entire philosophy is wrong yet? If you think that the way to fix imbalance is to take things out, but that creates more imbalance until you take even more things out, where will it stop? Are we going to complain that the game is unbalanced until every card in each star level has the same stats? I guess that would be the best way to achieve "balance," but it would reduce the entire game to a series of bluffs and dumb luck.
Oh, and since standard is meant to help newer players of all abilities and levels, how does comparing ELO scores or time played come into this? Check all you want, people's ELO scores and matches played are freely available. But how exactly does this matter?
And if you are accusing me of only being worried about myself? As my title shows, I have a large collection. I can play extended 40 without a prob. And can do standard just fine. But does this mean I can't say that I see this change as being bad for the game? Should I just shrug, look away and then wait to beat on new players while UR as a whole suffers?
what change are you talking about? ELO hasnt changed in a long time my friend
to support your argument with a few weeks of statistics doesnt make sense. especially since the changes have not happened yet. so i dont get the jan 31 2011 reference.
no change has happened... so no idea where you are getting causation from. the announcement of changes coming leading to the drop... LOL. really?
this is a worse than using the last week of weather pattern to show evidence of climate changes
Dude, the ELO format change to 15 life. And you are the one who brought it up in post 727.
"go dig up every thread on any change to the elo format in the past few years. i promise you it follows along the same line as this thread. promise"
Final post on this topic for me:
we ALL have insufficient information. Those who are saying this is 100% bad is as loopy as those who are saying this is 100% good. The reality is we simply do not know. We have ideas... but without the game actually going through the changes we simply are not certain. People can cherry pick statistics all they want but it will prove nothing except that we are good at having ideas then finding statistics to back it up after the fact -- which is a fallacy.
There is only 1 statistic (maybe 2) that matters. The first is UR's revenue. The 2nd is arguably player activity. The first is easy, UR knows how much money they pull in on a day to day basis. The 2nd is a bit trickier, amount of games + forum activity + chat activity + market transactions + private message use are all indicators of activity.
It is the interest of UR to raise the revenue... which is likely to be a result of a raise in player activity
We DO NOT know UR's current financial situation. Is this a game that is dying that needs a change in the hopes of gaining new players? Is this a game that is pretty stagnant with the amount of players and needs a change in hopes of boosting numbers? Or is this a growing game that is doing very well and getting more popular and is implementing a risky change in the hopes of becoming more popular? NONE of us here know this. Without this information we CANNOT understand the rational for the proposed changes.
We can also look back at the big changes that UR has implemented in the past. I have been around for a couple of them, but i definitely was not around for a lot of them either.
What impact did past changes have on UR's revenue and player activity???? Again we do not know this. If the past track record shows that it has lead to a drop in both, the UR is treading on dangerous waters here. If the past changes have lead to an increase in revenue and activity, then UR is thinking this is a safe plan.... which may turn out to be the wrong decision.
we do not know. for someone to claim 100% certainty without knowing the numbers is shooting in the dark
UR needs revenue. When decisions like this can potentially impact their revenue, i guarantee there is at least 1 staff member who looked into their financial records much deeper than we care to imagine.
anyone else still want to claim certainty with incomplete information??? go right ahead.