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
From you but then it grows up gets better an then makes you feel good at how they turned out. granted if you do it right.
with out holding it down an making it do thing's it should not do. witch is harder then it sounds.
so try it out. see how it holds up I bet if the player help UR staff when the option comes out with the numbers they need for the algorithm it come in better then before an just go up from there an no more complaint an crying on witch cards to ban anymore.
they ban them self from over usage. its the most simple way an has more comment sense then the other 2 options were we keep crying an complaining on witch cards to ban an unban.
@ghelas and then people switch to another unused dr next week and another less regularly used relatively high level power card
it's a lose lose situation
also you forgot to include leaders
ambre instantly makes a bunch of low powered cards high powered
so you change raise her pt rate up; i switch to eyrik, you raise his pt rate up; i switch right back to ambre, ie. it's no good.
@WP, personally i think ghelas came up with the idea himself and that's why he wants to see it happen so badly...
"What's nice about this system is that it gives cards values not based on their star level, or any other arbitrary variable. It gives cards value based on their actual effectiveness in ELO."
WRONG. The only effectiveness is point efficiency of the cards. And not how effective it is in ELO. Those cards are bounded by the "so called" points, making it irrelevant to its actual competitiveness and effectiveness in ELO. This is a very bad system that is still being pushed out aggressively by the staff.
Your example on Dan is a flawed one. Increasing his points just because he is "point efficient" to fit in cards like Vickie Cr, etc. WHAT IF I just want to fit him with other far less OP cards? Would it do justice by doing that? OF COURSE NOT. FLAWED system.
"Over time, this will make the deck building process much more fair and balanced, while giving players a lot of freedom and opportunities for creativity. Over time, this will make the deck building process much more fair and balanced, while giving players a lot of freedom and opportunities for creativity."
WRONG. More fair? No. More random? Maybe. Balanced? DEFINITELY NOT. If creativity means using sub-par cards to play in this competitive mode, I say that the developers are becoming more foolish. Some clans won't see much play in bi decks because of this "balancing issues" and it would become more obvious as compared to the current ELO.
Summary: The current ELO is way better than Option A.
"@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."
UR is just wasting time, effort, and money experimenting this poor game concept. The concept lies in the allocation of points and the balancing of points of all cards is IMPOSSIBLE. Want to know why? You try to "allow the freedom" of every OP cards in every clans and end up not achieving the goals being set up initially. Same logic as trying to please everyone and in the end, pleasing no one. And if you say this would make it newbie friendly, I see that this would put them on a further end of the spectrum. They will be so turn off by this game mode that they will not touch it due to the sheer complexity and randomness of the deck building until the dust has settled and a main meta deck is being used. We would see lots of mirror point-efficient decks that has NOTHING to do with the OPness of the cards in relation to ELO.
@neo_08ms: I think you've largely been focusing on potential flaws and overlooking a lot of good points and easy solutions to potential problems. Try to look at it again with an unbiased view.
What you're saying is that the system could have some potential exploits. That's true of literally any system. The big questions are, would these exploits be easy to detect? Would there be simple ways of addressing them?
In our case, the system detects any OP or exploitable combination automatically. Cards that are too strong in this context will present with an unusually high win rate, and start automatically becoming "nerfed" by the system through the process of becoming more high-value, and thus more difficult to include in the deck. But if that ever fails, we always have the option of tweaking the values manually.
Are players circumventing a value increase on a strong card by alternating it with another one from week to week, as you proposed? Okay, we'll still see their high win rates on the weeks where they're active, and adjust point values accordingly. To borrow your example with Eyrik and Ambre, we could for instance assign 50 points to them. Is there some small chance that a great deck could be built with a 50 point Ambre? Maybe... But then, the inclusion of Ambre forces a very interesting exercise in deck-building. Instead of being an OP card that often wins matches simply by being present on the field, Ambre becomes an unorthodox choice that encourages players to discover brand-new strategies (because obviously, your low-value cards still have to give you a fighting chance in the 50% of the games where you don't draw Ambre.)
By the way, just to be clear: I didn't come up with the system. I just see it as one of many possible good solutions to some of the problems which ELO currently has. This is a good thread in which everyone is free to try to offer their own alternatives, as well.
edited by ghelas tuesday 09/02/2016, 02:09
@Cyber: First, a little disclaimer...
I'm interested in promoting only two things on these forums: "UR rocks" and "the admins are eager to take your input and incorporate it into the game." For the rest, I'm just sharing information with the players, as well as sharing the ideas that players have with members of the UR dev team. So when I discuss Option A, I'm just trying to share some information based on my experience with similar systems, suggesting why I believe it could be effective.
I think your biggest objection to this system is that it would be impossible to accurately quantify how good any given card is in ELO. What I think you may not realize is that the system does this automatically... We could have a very robust script running to evaluate the win/loss rate for any particular card, let's say, in the top 500 ELO players in the game over the course of this week. In theory, a very well-balanced card should have a win rate that's close to 50% in a game like this. A card that's strong or particularly useful strategically will have a bit more, perhaps more along the lines of around 55%. When cards start surpassing that number, we're concerned about them.
A script like this is a very precise and automatic way for us to tell whether a card is too efficient in ELO, or not efficient enough. It would be impossible to fool, because it takes the averages of all situations into accounts, as well as allowing us to examine fringe cases by focusing on some particular extreme part of ELO rankings among players. We could instantly see the difference between how all ELO players on average would use Dan, compared to how the top 500 players would use him, or the top 100 players... We could see the same for any card. Looking at the highest scoring ELO players would enable us to examine how good the card is performing at peak efficiency with some of the best combinations players have discovered for it so far.
Try to look at it from this point of view: we would be giving every card a new and important variable. Unlike the current variables, which remain the same every week, this one would be dynamic, and would express how successful the card can be in ELO. That's all.
It would result in new approaches to game balance in ELO and an entirely new meta. But at the end of the day, it's just another piece of information for players to work with. It would be a new and entertaining piece of the deck-building puzzle. Some cards that were previously worthless could become quite good in this context, and many strong cards could become "point inefficient." And, of course, every great ELO player would have a chance to build a new and innovative deck that was completely impossible before.
If option A is voted for, I'm dreading seeing all those decks with Jackie Cr, Zatman, 5 other Uppers and Graks splashed roaming elo. Clearly, a 25 pt limit for any card will not be enough, and either some bans are still necessary or B > A
I agree we will probably need some bans ( Ambre Jackie Cr Copper Cr Caelus DJ Korr Cr Kalindra Cr Vickie Cr Sigma Graksmxxt Noctezuma etc... ). Mostly great 5* and cards with immoderate powers.
But except that. If we do some "problematic" bans. Is ELO with point that bad ?
Assuming Jackie Cr and Graksmxxt are with any doubt two of the the best cards. They will have 25 points each.
Zatman will have something like 20 points.
You have with 3 cards :
- 11 stars
- 70 points
You need to add : 30 points and 14 stars for 5 cards
It's an average score of 6 points per card. With your 3 strong card you'll need to play : Collin Elliott Rhody Janine Zlatar !! Is it that powerfull ? I think it's as efficient as playing a deck with three 5* and five 2*.
Of course it's not really great to face Graks Jackie and Zatman. But we have the same issue currently facing Rekved Fischer and Selma for example.