Why should lower star cards have the advantage in Elo mode in a tie situation? I can understand giving them a leg up in Type 2 play, but there's no reason for type 1/Elo to do so.
Limiting the star count of your deck to 25 is enough, giving low star cards an auto-win in a tie situation just makes it hard to use 4 and 5 star cards.
This is an extra reason why Elo is dominated by 3 star cards. I feel so unsafe using a 4 or 5 star card in Elo knowing that in a tie I have a 50% chance to lose vs another 4/5 star and a 100% chance to lose vs anything else.
Also you cant say 2 stars should be slightly handicapped over 4 and 5 stars in the instance of a tie.
if the higher star card would win maybe 2 times (because of tie, and you won the last two battles. (note you have 4 2 stars)
its quite obvious who would win, majority of the time a 5 star card with have atleast double if not more damage than a 2 star.
So I guess it helps to even out damage aswell
The extreme examples were meant to emphasize the problem to make it obvious for simple minded folks.
About bluffing - my point was that if I bluff with my 8 damage card I'll need to win the next three rounds with the little 2 star cards which will be nearly impossible. In most cases you don't want to throw away your heavy hitter.
To the guy who personally insulted my Elo scores (he couldn't logically disprove my argument so he went for that instead) - yep I never used to play Elo, but in 50 games I seem to get 10+ ties which determine who wins. When I incorporated more 4 and 5 star characters that was really killing my chances. You can expect my Elo to improve in the coming weeks, as I hope yours will too.
Anyway, most of you missed it completely so I don't feel like clarifying more - this is my last post so you can just let the thread die /sigh
@Soundtrack-HW, Sure, I've won my share of games by ties just like anyone else, but I can still disagree with the method with which ties are handled.
Winning those games through tied attack scores hasn't altered my life or anything, neither has losing. A few exp and clintz, some elo points...no big deal. I would rather have a better system in place than the occasional win and loss by the current system.
If you see a 2* with 7 power (with no manips), you just don't put a 6 power 5* out for 42 attack (with no manips), you only get ties if you walk into it. Also matching power for power is generally bad for the higher star count.
I don't see how losing ties being lost by 1 attack (similar in the sense that you just lost a round by a small margin), are you going to argue that 5* should win with a "small gap" in attack as well?
So are you suggesting, that a 15* hand should have an even larger advantage over a 12* hand lets say? If you play your 4/5* cards right, you shouldn't be running into ties with 2* cards. 4/5* cards aren't meant to just be thrown out, they are typically the cards that can dish out the damage and a majority of pills should be played on them. There are several exceptions to this, and it is really situational when you put a majority of your pills on 4/5* cards.
Except there is already an advantage in drawing 2* characters- they increase your chance of playing 2nd and choosing the best matchup for 3 out of 4 rounds. Whereas drawing 5* characters decrease your chance of playing 2nd.
There are only 8 5* characters that are above curve in ELO (Dalhia, Baldovino, Naginata, Wardom, Oflgn, Ditha, Dorian and Ghumbo), and only 7 more worth playing (Serena, Bodenpower, Askai, Glenn, Avola, Hikiyousan and Ongh) and the characters after the top 15 drop into unplayable very rapidly. Comparatively there are about 25 2* characters worth playing in ELO and about 35 "playable." The majority of clans have at least 1 above curve 2* character, whereas not every clan has an above curve or even playable 5* character.
Eliminating * in ties would not decrease the playability of the top 25 2* characters dramatically, but would increase the viability of 10-15 5* characters as they would not auto-lose ties to a similar 4* character. For the past year's releases 4* characters have gotten stronger and 5* characters have gotten weaker. Overpowered 5* characters are also the #1 target for permabanned. * in ties make a lot more sense if 5* are on the power level of Shakra, Shann, Kolos, Hawk and Caelus, but bans have reduced 5*s to the most "balanced" group in power level. Under the current system, playing multiple overpowered 4* characters is a lot better than playing 5* characters that lose ties to them.
The thing is that a broken 2* can be easily countered, but a broken 5* is a lot harder. Shakra is almost uncounterable, Kolos turns the game into coin-flip very quickly, Caelus dominated ELO. Even Copper can warp the metagame at times.
The current crop of 2* isn't exactly "broken". It trades the amount of damage for ease of getting the hit in, e.g. Puff hits easily, but not worth much, Bonnie LD hits easily because it is not desirable to beat her, but the rewards is a mere 2 damage.
Whereas the 5* trades ease of hitting for hitting harder. Ditha is a big swing, but only 7 power and no help, Oflgn is the same (with a safety net).
Playing second is not always an advantage, mostly with Courage abilities involved. Case in point: Ambre mirror-match in T2 is much better starting then going second, where the match ends in 3 rounds and you get 2 use of courage. The same would apply in ELO with courage heavy hands.
All the arguments I have seen for change is that it is inherently unfair that 5* lose to 2* on ties, but the way I see it is that rules are rules. There is no arguments that say one way is better than other, esp after all these times where cards are balanced using the current rules. The only fairness argument is if some players constantly get an advantage (e.g. MOD wins ties, or higher player level wins tie, or 5* get a 1.25x bonus to attack.), and the current rule isn't unfair.