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
Cyber - You seem to have misunderstood my post. I posted on page 1 (post 29), saying I thought A was not in anyone's best interests (casual's, pro's, or the admins'). I do not prefer option A; however, the reality is that if they go with Option A, I want to give them helpful input so it's closer to something I can tolerate. So if Chaos is showing us an example of the point values and how they'll be displayed early, I want to help make them better now. Especially since a lot of people seem to think A will be better, despite warnings from others in this thread.
I'm playing a damage mitigation role, not an "I support option A" role.
edited by Xonia saturday 06/02/2016, 07:27
I love the idea of the points system, finally a setup to not make any of your cards worthless, and the most powerfull should be kept in check by people playing them, and best of all it will actually make the hands more balanced because as stated to fit the OP as all hell cards youd have to stock up on crap ones which is alot harder to manage than "guess i need another amazing 2* card to fit in this Reeve with Kerry".
However, honestly i think the 25* level cap should be pushed out to 28-30 with this system in place that way there is a little more flexability (the good 2-3*s will quickly become extremely high point cost i would immagine, not JUST the insanely powerfull ones due to the need to still use them just to make the deck * count fit)
And for the people in panic mode over the mere idea of option A, keep in mind, if it really is as terrible as you fear, worst thing that will happen will be a few weeks of different ELO, and it will change. Its not like these weeks scores will go on to haunt you forever keeping all future ELO matches worthless because "those damn 3 ELO tourneys that i did terrible in because everyone else playing it could come up with a deck and they all managed to smack me with Jackie and ambre" went into some permanent stat on your account. take a breath, relax, think of it as just another "theme week" because if it does all those things your afraid of, it will be gone soon afterwards.
I would think the max points should be raised to a point that to bring in a true monster, you couldnt just bring in 1 filler card, it should take you 4 crap cards with 3 middle of the road baseline cards to stick a top 5 in, in a card for card trade comparison.
That should be basic value's for cards if Option A win's
2* 2p c+2-4p u+4-6p r+6-8p cr+8-10p +Weekly Penlaty
3* 3p c+3-6p u+5-8p r+7-10p cr+9-12p +Weekly Penlaty
4* 4p c+4-8p u+6-10p r+8-12p cr+10-14p +Weekly Penlaty
5* 5p c+5-10p u+7-12p r+9-14p cr+11-16p +Weekly Penlaty
c=common u=uncommon r=rare cr=collector weekly penlaty = most used/most wins with + Weekly penlaty or somth
The current points system you've proposed is unbalanced chaos;
a current average cards should be 12.5 points, above average should be more below less
You've got cardigan, heartnett, la fleur,nathan mulligan oxana etc. all above average lol
also you rank crazy carlo as equal to marina
@Post 142 The problem with that is that cards like Jackie Cr (DJ Korr would be one of the less terrifying options methinks) could tip the balance so hard in the players favour that even with the rest of their hand consisting of rubbish like Rhody and Colin or Tamy and Brandon they could still do well, winning battles with grossly unfair hands including a single absolute monsters and throwing all battles where that card doesn't appear. It's the extreme case of the reasons why 5* powerhouses like Ongh, Leela and Sammy which initially seem balanced due to * limitations deserve bans despite this - they cause too many unfair matchups. Sure, one accepts a certain amount of unfair matchups as an inevitable result of deck building, but there are some cards which make it too unfair
I predict option A would put a lot of people off playing elo as it'll be too luck-based, not something to be encouraged
Option B could be enormous fun, allowing those often disputed "borderline" like Ongh, (or even Troompah :love cards to see some sporadic play and not in excess, there'd be no more than 1 per deck