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
@0AL Rush: Perfect explanation.
A deck with multiple cards that are currently ELO banned simply would not be sustainable, because it would require a large quantity of extremely weak cards to compensate. While running one ELO banned card could be possible in some cases, it would require some creativity and a costly trade-off elsewhere in your deck. A deck like this would have no inherent advantage over a well-rounded deck where most cards have an average point value.
The expectation that we would see decks with Big 5 or other OP cards dominating ELO is, well, simply inaccurate.
Try making a strong deck using the given points for AS and/or Raptors.
You'll see how easy it is to exceed the 100pt limit if your only choosing based on the star counts. Trade-offs will need to be made and chances are decks will overall get weaker because star count+point system will make it impossible to use the best cards if the only limit was the star count.
Yes, clearly Option A would work well with very limited # of bans, but the fact that people are pulling out the most outrageous scenarios to debunk an entire card collection is entertaining and funny.
If UR figures out the algorithm just as well as they figured out the new website, we're screwed. If they TEST and work through everything prior to a full release, then we could see a lot more infused into ELO.
Are people scared that they won't score as high as they currently do because their deck-making skills aren't as good as this mode requires?
Fair concern: point system will be flawed
Fair concern: broken cards will possibly break ELO, a once proud gametype
Comical concern: deck-building is boring and takes too long
Comical concern: I will find a lesser card to make up the difference
Comical concern: this leads to more luck and less skill
Fair concerns are valid. Again, if they test it then they will no longer be a concern.
Those other concerns? Too funny to see an entirely new idea get trashed over one-sided viewpoints.
Deck-building is boring and takes too long: you're playing a CCG/TCG....that's the foundation of the game!
I will find a lesser card: No you won't. Not if the point system is done correctly. Not to mention, you go ahead and run that risk. Is drawing Vicky CR worth the risk of drawing 4 crappy cards (%s will show you that's your likely outcome)?
More luck/less skill: How? Copying presets is removed. Requires deck building skill (not copying skills)
I agree with you on all.
algorithm takes time to make better even if they put it out it will take a couple months to tweak it to run better an better. till its good to go.
as the new web site took time to tweak as well but its getting better an better.
the way elo is now feels like stacking the deck for 1-4 clans only. witch is crap.
They can run a trial room right alongside the main ELO room and see which is more popular or use that room to start shaping the points. No need to remove the current ELO while the points system is getting tested out. Doing that will cause too much of a rift.
If players don't want A because they are skeptical UR will do it correctly then I can't blame you, that's a valid concern. However, if your reasons for not wanting to do this centers around the fact that it's different or "they can't do it because this very-specific scenario will then be broken!", then we need to move past that. Repetitive decks/presets/matches will not entice new players into this game.
I finding many players are closed off to any of the idea unless it benefits them. they like I need it this way so my clan is strongest only. so I all ways win.
well that's how it seems any way.
the way it is now mostly banns that players do don't Bann for right reason 96% of the time. most don't like option a cause they will have no control over stacked there deck to there advantage. at least with the option a that wont ever happen an it scares them mostly. of course the point system will be a bit wonky at first but it will get better.
unless player like complain an crying on which cards to Bann 24/7 witch gives me such a headache an the hole you need 1400 points or your not right crap. option A kills 6 birds one stone.
I do get leader problem should stay banned cause they would brake many clans no mater what the system dose or is.
an so many wine about 50/50 cards its so dumb before the permanent banned list player just handle them just fine then came the crying its so hard to win all the time with these cards out. jeez
at least option A takes all control an says you played this card to much its now banned for a while. lets see if you can do better with the other cards an clans.
Prove your really good. other then use the same deck over an over an over an over an over god it dose get old seeing only clan on top for 5-6 years.
The leader problem is quite a complex problem. There are certain leaders that combo well with certain clans like the Hugo+Montana which lead to the 1st leader being ELO banned but at the mean time that was a long time ago and the game has moved quite a bit with SoB clans being prevalent, Raptors negating all forms of atk manipulation and a generally higher power than before. I think its okay to have Leaders in the New ELO BUT they should have a clear counter like with Ambre countering Ashigaru.
Out of all the leaders I'm most concerned with Ambre. The advantage she present is clear can easily snowball out of control. She also doesn't have a lot of direct counters since cancel power modifier cards aren't as common as they should be at the moment. Maybe test her in the first few weeks and then either ban her or make her points prohibitively high if needed.
Hello guys, sorry if it took me so long, but it slipped to my mind…
This is an example of a ‘banned list’ for the B proposition.
lamar cr, beeboy, shann cr, spyke, kalindra cr, mechakolos, draheera, noctezuma, askai, sylth cr, dj korr cr, general cr, ambre, eklore, hugo, morphun, lyse teria cr, vickie cr, ghumbo, kolos, alec cr, marco cr, brody, kiki cr, graksmxxt + graksmxxt rb, sigma cr, copper cr, tanaereva cr, jackie cr
Some other cards could added here (like the other non mentioned leaders for example), few could be removed, this list is just a starting idea, so that you can get some clues about it.
We will discuss all together the list in every forum, if the option B will eventually win.
The ‘limited list’ will feature all the other characters currently in our actual permaban list : )
PS: for the A propositions, the leader will have their own points, and most of them are quite high