Hello Urban Rivals players,
During the last week we discussed about how to modify the ELO ban list.
But many players pointed out that more radical changes need to be done.
This is why we want to do a brief survey with you, proposing 3 ways to modify ELO mode in the future. Based on your choice, we will work in that direction only, so your advice is crucial here.
Your task is easy: to select option A, B or C.
Of course, you are welcome to write your opinions in the comments.
Here is a small summary of the 3 propositions:
A) ELO with ‘Points’
Every card will have a point value between 1 and 25. The stronger the card is, the more points it will have.
The points will change every week thanks to an algorithm. It will take many factors into account: how much the card is played, how many times a match is won thanks to that card, and so on.
A deck will have a restriction of maximum 25 stars and maximum 100 points. No doubles, no semi-evolved cards.
This mode will permit every card to be played in competitive matches. You can decide to pick a rather bad card to be able to play stronger cards. Playing a low-point card like Ricardo, for example, could make space to play a high-point card, like Vickie Cr.
The choice of how to balance your deck will be entirely yours, with no cards banned at all.
Everything is free… at a price!
The algorithm will change the value of the top and less used cards every week, so the format will be in a state of constant evolution. Most importantly, it will be the players who will decide these changes, just by playing in this mode!
B) ELO with ‘Banned and Limited cards’
The mode will have a list (to be determined) of banned cards. This list will feature only few characters, the most powerful of the game: Jackie Cr, Graksmxxt, excetera.
In addition to this little list, a new bigger one will be added: a limited list.
Only 1 card among the cards of this second list will be able to be played in your deck. For example, if you include the first card from this list in your deck, you will not be able to add any of the other limited cards.
The players votes will remain, but the cards chosen by you won’t go in the ‘banned cards list’, but in the ‘limited cards list’ for that week.
C) ELO with ‘Banned cards only’ (what we have now)
We will keep a ban list only, more or less similar to the one we have now. Adjustments to it will be done every 3/4 months.
We may try small changes to the deck format (for example, to limit to one the number of lv 5 cards in your deck, or to modify the number of stars in the deck), but nothing too ‘drastic’ like the other two propositions.
edited by ChaosDragon88 thursday 11/02/2016, 16:14
Better question: why can't they just implement all three as different game modes? I get that noone would actively play them (as dividing a miniscule audience of a couple thousand across a bunch of rooms doesn't make each one as packed), but considering all three of these ideas sound way better than the stuff they've put in so far (arcade, ugh) it wouldn't hurt.
Post 97 ChaosDragon88
I see where your coming from now. I always wondered why the staff had stopped releasing cards feeble cards for the newer clans.
Why not make a game mode using only cards with low power (it's an example), or a certain set of cards.
the more an more I think about it A option looking better an better. at least then elo be more advanced set up then the way it is now an all way's change more an more cards will be playable an no more complain from players why this is banned an that's not.
given them one less mode to worry about as much as elo dose.
How about all 3 modes with a change pf mode to another one every 4 months? THis way in a single year players will get to enjoy all 3.
Could be done as a permanent thing, or to determine which 3 of the 3 modes players liked best. So, like a 1 year long trial.
So I voted for option "A", because I want every card to be viable. At the same time I feel that no one here has been discussing LEADERS!!!
I said it in caps so I could grab your attention. I'm not sure how I feel about Leaders in elo mode, on one hand it could lead to some absolutely dominating decks, while on the other hand if they balance these "points" correctly, it could turn out well. Curious what other people think about Leaders in conjunction with option "A".
Also, I just wanted to say that I like how they are listening to the community concerns, instead of just going full force and doing what they did with the new UR website.
After reading most of what people say, the biggest problem with A is that it allows beasts like DJ and lyse to roam free.
here is an idea though
Option D: how about we bring the point system in but still keep the perma bans and weekly bans, yes this makes deck selection harder but it also makes it more interesting and more balanced.
so yeah keep everything the same, just add a points system in
"The option A will permit us to do the same thing: For example, we can release a '5-2 no ability 2* in the riots', so that they will have a weak card, worth few points, to be played in that clan to make space for more expensive ones ; )
And there are many other things we should do with that for example, we can release extremely powerful 5* cards (meant primarily for survivor) once in a while, since we don't have to be worried about 'banning him in elo': they will just have 25/30 points"
What !?! No way ! I change my mind !!!!
I think you don't get it Chaos ... This point system is good to equilibrate cards that are between 2 categories ( too good, but not enough to be banned ) or ( not bad but not good enough to be played ). The equilibrate cards might have medium points ( on a 100 points scales, they should have 100/8 = about 12 points.
But then if you want to say for example : the best card has 25 points, all right but it will bring issues :
- first, witch card is the best ? Do you want to pick one or several ?
- But as you seem to say, they will be several cards with the maximum amount, in that case, if you put all the cards at the same level, that means they have the same stength, and this wil not be the case. ( hard to explain, but obviously, once you have a 25 points Emeth or a 25 points General Cr : it will be obvious as long as there both 25 points, the choice will be obvious, for the one who has it )
On the other hand, there should also be a bottom limit for bad cards.
This system should promote a more accurate way to make deck, allowing a large panel, but not making any mistake did in the past or in the future a good thing.
"Huh nice, now this system is making all our job we don't need to think about equilibrated cards d'oh !"
No no no : 5/2 No ability : NEVER AGAIN. I'm not saying to have only great cards, and Belly buster or Muller are good example of "bad cards". No especially good, actually not competitively playable in elo, but stil interisting to play : this kind of cards must be the one to boost with points,
BUT IN ANY WAY, YOU MUST NOT ENCOURAGE TO PLAY DEADCARDS IN DECKS
So when you find an algorithm, you have to make it in order that
- too good cards that are terrible for the game are not there.
- too bad cards are not made to enter this mode neither.
- finally making a restricted number of cards ( but at least bigger than now ) to be competitive.
Here is a little graph that explain my point of view ( sorry, in french )
Imagine that the line is all the cards staggered according to their strengh ( the omniscient value )
The first one is what Chaos want to do Allow to associate equilibrate good cards together or a really bad with a really good one : in my opinion, that's not good at all ( especially if want to realese cards you said )
The second one is a combination of this and banned cards, if you cut the head of the stongest cards, there will be no need ( or it will happen rarely ) to put globumm in your deck, but at the same time, you'll see more good cards, ( uranus for instance ) associated with "less good" but still playable cards. It will increase the possiblities without ruining the game.
The second option is what we have now : tempory bans, always the same cards, depending on the week, but during these 7 days, just be sure to encounter only the same 4-6 cards from each clan.
Option A: Making a new deck a week will get tiresome. Perhapsit would be better once every two weeks or once a month. Also, I could be wrong, but I think 25 is not enough of a penalty for cards like Jackie Cr.
Option B: I actually kinda like the concept. Each card has a marker to show if it is banned or DT penalized. Will there be another to show it is semi-elo banned?
Option C: Facing hands with 2 5* cards can get annoying, but it's easy win vs their 8* hands, so not too big of a problem. Since it's the traditional format, I've got to be biased and say I like it