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
A with C.
I don't want to see banned characters get unbanned. T1 is already enough.
Unless you intend to make the banned characters worth like 80 pts by themselves straight off the bat with the weakest cards worth like 5 pts each.
+107 - basically I like and would want that Option D as well.
Can we PLEASE do a daily tournament survey? First suggestion a "hardcore" dt mode all cards legal. Second suggestion more weight given to winning the fight instead of rounds. Leave the round system as is but raise the starting point tally maybe so winning counts at least 2:1
The idea of option A sounds fascinating if done right. I think for option A the star limit should go up a little, but in response there are heavier point limitations. This could start to introduce a lot of unique and original decks and forces players to re-think strategies every week. My only problem with it is that it would be computer run and would therefore have a high amount of flaws, but I guess you always run that risk when you shy away from human-controlled methods.
I thought about it a bit and after a first idea that A was the way I went for B.
The main reason for this is that A won't change the ELO's main problem, the luck factor. Suppose we give cards this point value, then it'll take a long time to make the deck, many cards will be "unused" because their points do not fit best to reach 100 and I'll still be able to face a jackie Cr at 1300 ELO (example). Now we can face some strong 5 stars against a lucky opponent, with A we will be able to face every horror a devious mind can bring in a deck withing the 100 points. It will be even worse than now.
On the other side we got B, that is nothing special, but at least does not allow my opponent to have Uranus and Grakmxxt in the same deck (A would), does not allow to have Ratanah and Tuck in the same deck and so on. It would still be a Ban system, but it would actually "limit luck" a bit, and ELO's main weakness it's just this.
Many times you do not loose because your opponent is better, but because you had the 3 3 2 2 hand and he had the 5 4 4 3 hand, and there is nothing much you can do if the opponent can win with 1 card out of 3. Now, we can't work on "the hand you draw", but we can limit the cards allowed in the deck.
So, I'm for B, B for B!
Rush: I just made those 2 examples to Pilot to show that the point A will permit us to release either 'uber' cards, either 'equilibrated cards', either 'very weak' ones : )
That doesn't mean we will for sure release other 'globumms' in the game xD
Or, what if we keep the current system, but with one twist: the top 3 or 5 or whatever cards which receive player bans (aka the highest number of votes) receive ban immunity for the next week? (For example, if this week the highest number of votes go to Fiddler, Lowki and idk Curlix, these 3 CAN NOT be banned the next week)
Another idea might be to also penalise cards in elo, similar to the tournament. Instead of weekly bans, we could have weekly penalisations. 3 categories or so: 10 elo/5elo/whatever elo, to be decided by the staff. Then, players may vote for the cards as usual, only that they'll have the option to pick which category of penalisation that card should go in. Of course, these penalistations would only apply if you actually won the fight. (For example Pilzken could be penalised with 5 elo - if you win with Pilzken, instead of getting 15 elo, you only get 10 and so on)