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
On a more serious note:
Speaking purely as a player, option A appeals to me the most. That's because I'm very into deck building and deck "ownership." I think that one of the coolest things you can do in a game like this is to be the first to create an excellent deck, and to leave your mark on the meta by doing so. Option A opens up a world of deck-building possibilities.
I don't see "top-loaded" decks winning by the graces of one card. That's because you have a 50/50 chance of drawing any card, so relying on just one high win rate card for consistent ELO results isn't possible. This approach will result in decks that use some strong cards, but also puzzle out interesting combinations of low-cost cards that can still feel solid. It will also result in decks that forsake the strongest cards for a much more balanced approach, and rely on always being able to draw a fairly good hand. The contrast between those two deck types should be interesting, to say the least.
A few points worth clarifying, based on my current understanding of the system:
1) You can play with a deck that adds up to less than 100 points. In some cases, you could end up with 96-99 points and still have exactly the deck you want... So making an ELO deck with this system isn't quite as complicated as it initially appears.
2) The algorithm will auto-adjust not only frequently used cards, but ones with an exceptionally high win rate, as well. In other words, even if only 2% of ELO players are using a card, but decks with that card reach an average 75% win rate, you better believe that the point value of that card is going to keep going up until the deck is forced to use more low point cards.
Whether this is the most effective way that we can change ELO remains to be seen. However, I'm in favor of at least running some trials for any option that results in robust deckbuilding, and shakes up the meta game a bit.
@ghelas. The problem with option A is not that decks with Jackie Cr, Uranus, etc. will top, it's just that facing those cards will get very annoying. It's essentially as annoying as facing a 16* hand while you have a 10* hand. The main difference is that you may be able to outsmart your opponent with your low stars, whereas with cards like Jackie Cr roaming around, your opponent can play sloppily and still ruin your win streak. That's why I think the maximum should at least be 30 points. Still, I would love to give each option a test run to see which is more enjoyable. I think players will be more likely to agree on one option if we experience their differences first. Any chance this could happen?
I like the system. I just don't like the amounts they have been putting down for pts...
Imagine facing Jackie Cr, Zatman, and Dorian. Assuming they are all worth 20 pts or 21 given the examples of Saki and Impera Sloane.
Sure their deck might be a little wobbly since they would have used up 60 pts already, but you can still have room for bunch of 3-10 pt cards.
You could probably slap on a bunch of pussycats cards like Clover for the other half.
Then ELO would be a monster to face.
It's already hard enough in DT, given some people play with negative pt cards just to troll or test their deck out rather than actually go for a high position in the top 20 or even 10.
@Cyber: I've built a few decks using the system and tested them on the dev servers. The system made the deck-building process more enjoyable for me, personally. I'm not out to invalidate your concerns; I think you and a few other players (including Pilot-) have brought up some good points that would need to be addressed in order for this system to succeed. However, I think it's worth putting this system to a big live test to see what develops. This would give us a chance to see if it can be refined into something great, or if we need to look at some other options for making ELO more interesting.
@Hideki: Testing every option could be a good idea. But I think you don't have to worry too much about the dominant cards ruining your streak. A player who is including a strong card has to include at least one weak one to compensate, and has equal chances of drawing either one, and might draw both. Statistically speaking, strong cards won't provide an automatic advantage with this system.
@neo_08ms: I don't think we'll have to imagine that... With the Uppers deck you're proposing, let's say that you're more or less correct, and it takes up about 60 points. There are 5 slots that still need to be filled, with 40 points remaining. This means that the remaining cards will have an average of 8 points each, meaning that they will all be low-impact and borderline unplayable. With this deck, the chances of drawing 2 good cards and 2 bad cards is much lower than drawing 3 bad cards and 1 good one. Anyone who tries a deck like this would see very very quickly that it's not sustainable.
One more interesting thing to consider... The ELO scoring system itself would remain the same. That means that the closer you are to the top of our scoreboard, the more you will see stable decks that can achieve great win streaks. After you reach a certain level of play, you're going to be very unlikely to match against someone who only wins games when they have a good draw, but loses them when they have a bad draw.
edited by ghelas monday 08/02/2016, 05:25
A format that increases luck as a factor is not something that should be encouraged in competitive play in my opinion
the reason many elo banned cards were banned to begin with is due to the high risk high reward -- high on luck types of games they led to.
i think elo should really move more towards what the idea of standard originally was.
a competitive format that allows a lot of old cards is not something that is good for the new and future players that this game needs
a format that allows for the old powerhouses to be useable has been requested in the past.... something like survivor t1
Chart and grahics tentatively made for option A?
umm does this mean this is something kinda already decided and the community input will be considered and plan moth balled only if there is a strong opposition to plan A?
im guessing plan A goes ahead then