After the (chaotic) release of the Standard mode and the first feedbacks, we have taken decisions on several things we want to let your know. We think you will be satisfied with the future improvements we will add first.
• Improvement of the quickbattle system in DTs.
We already made corrections, it seems that the small decks vs big decks problem is far less met. We will keep on working on it until the partition T1/T2 is not a problem any more.
• Penalties on some characters in DTs.
The first 2 points penalties per character are already operational and you can find the list here: http://www.urban-rivals.com/help/?category=9-0
Except for Leader, for the moment there are no penalized Standard characters. It may change, we give ourselves time to analyse DTs.
• DTs divided in two.
Finally we won’t alternate DT’s. We will let you have two DTs at the same time, 1 Standard, 1 Extended. With two different rankings.
• Length of a DT shorten but increase of its frequency.
DTs length will decrease from 1 hour to 45 minutes with a 15 minutes break between each tournament and then you can play again. It means there will be 24 Standard DTs and 24 Extended DTs per day.
To prevent abuses, a limitation of 8 DT credits per day and player will be added (you will receive all other rewards if you play more than 8 DTs).
• Survivor Standard and Deathmatch Standard rooms.
They will be open soon, we are working on an update of the flash game.
Questions you may want to ask:
• The number of CR remain at 5. It might change in the future.
• A PM will be sent to you each evening if you made a top 150 during the day so as to inform you if you have won a collector (or not).
• The timer will be reduced from 60 to 50 seconds again.
Personally I'd just like them to clarify the rules of the format better like the penalty on ELO banned cards and put out a easier to find list in english so that people that don't know the penalty can just click one link and see it instead of going to the getting started info and going through all the links to find which one had the penalty list
I think however badly some of the people here have phrased their points, they have the right general idea.
My biggest concern with UR is that it seems to be run by people who feel that players need to be goaded and forced into making the "right" decisions. As someone who does a bit of game design professionally, I just don't think that is effective. Players who have many equally rewarding choices are always going to have more fun, and therefore stick around longer and spend more money. It doesn't do any good to alienate your customers by making something they find unpleasant feel mandatory.
On a somewhat related topic, many of us have noticed that the free credit videos disappeared right around the time that Standard was introduced. I'm not saying that this was necessarily a move to get people to shell out money so that they can succeed in a new game mode, but if it was... An earnest plea and maybe a small discount would have probably worked better. If there was a 20% discount on credits and a message that UR could use the extra player support, I would have been there in a heartbeat. As it is now, I'm just wondering if I should be feeling a little resentful or not.
i really really love how "force" has been used or interpreted as some sort of negative thing
ummm we are "forced", coerced, guided, manipulated, or use whatever word you like/dislike here in EVERY single format in this game
You want to play ELO and get rewards.... guess what, you need to follow the rules of ELO and choose cards and deck builds that are competitive if you want to do well. ELO gets you Crs (maybe) and clintz!!
You want to play Survivor.. ya you gonna lose pillz and you better make decks that can deal with this if you want to get far.
Survivor gets you credits!
You wanted to DT in the old system.... guess what, if you wanted to do very well... you again had to accept that there are a limited deck styles you will use in order to succeed. When DT were random... you had to build decks that could handle the randomness of the hour
DT was a clintz farm!
amazing how this illusion of choice is all of a sudden important
you want to play Standard.... so i get a limited card pool and i could play for prizes.... but running an Extended DT deck will actually net me more prizes.... ummm why the heck would i play this beyond just being curious???? Now this is the BIG flaw in the design. Give us reason to play the format and it will be attractive to us
So make standard like the other format... give us a reason to subject ourselves to the format (force, coerce, whatever) by dangling rewards in front of our noses
Now let me address the other concern people have raised about variety. Yes it needs to addressed, but with an immature meta this needs time... people need to play and play and play and play before the balance is sorted out.
Yeah but the variety sucks... or is broken.. or is boring.. or whatever other complaint. Lets see here... how many people have joined events with wacky, crazy, outright ridiculous, poorly thought out, amazing, and just kinda boring deck formats??? Several of us im sure. Yet a lot of us will play these events.... WHY???? because it is offering us some prizes we want.... and so we willingly allow the format to put limits in our card/deck selection
take the events run by Admin... for example I hate this deck events... .those are absolutely repetitive, ridiculous, and sometimes luck-driven formats... But the community is absolutely falling over themselves to try and join the event. They fork out the clintz and pray to their deities to be accepted into it... then they message every single person possible to try and get their matches in. WHY?????????? Prizes!!! Motivation!!! A reason to play the format.
Standards biggest challenge at this moment is that. Sort that out first... the rest will follow.
It's comical watching the same incredibly flawed arguments emerge over and over again. We saw the same thing with the initial proposition for Standard, and it's not any more correct now...
Pro-Standard player: Standard is going to work because _____________ is already in the game to some extent!
Anti-Standard player: Yes, but too much of _______________ is obviously going to ruin the game. The current cards and rules were not created with so much ____________ in mind. Furthermore, players don't want that much ____________, and the backlash will create division and resentment within the player base, possibly damaging UR financially, as well.
Pro-Standard player: I'm choosing to ignore all of the points that you have made. Perhaps if I restate my argument in a bigger block of text, you will see how right I am!!!
Choice is not a binary thing. It's a spectrum.
Having no choice is bad. Having lots of choice is good. But interestingly enough, having too much choice can also be bad. Pointing out any particular scenario where choice is either good or bad does *not* automatically make it relevant to the situation we're discussing. ELO, for instance, is balanced and enjoyable. That's because the rules allow players enough freedom to experiment, but not enough freedom to break the format. Good players are able to achieve high ELO rating running unconventional decks like mono FPC or Junta, not to mention countless dual-clan decks.
Ghelas... another example of someone one the same side but has a need to split hairs
You play ELO and abide by the format rules or you dont. everything else becomes your perception of how much choice you had in the matter. high amount of perceived choice.... generally a good thing.
Let me reduce this down to a single YES or NO questions. No semantics. No splitting hairs. No nitpicking. No trying to be smarter than the other guy. A very basic set of yes or no questions.
If ELO had the exact same format as it stands are the moment.... and REMOVED rewards except for the BP and the clintz you get for each match.... would the amount of players playing it drop???????
lets have another simple question to follow that one up with.
Now given that ELO is somewhat balanced and provides some freedom... would this low reward ELO format be perceived as somewhat broken by the EN UR community??? (as in would we get post after post of people wanting it to change in some way)
Another yes or no question
Would the problem of reward be considered a bigger problem than the meta of the low reward ELO?
Right lets carry on
Is the current Standard meta perceived to be broken by the EN UR community?
Is the reward system of the current Standard broken?
Now given the answers you gave to the ELO questions above
The next question then is.... Is the Standard meta a bigger problem than the current reward system in Standard??
Now this becomes a matter of opinion... but i think at this point we have established that a low reward ELO leads to a reduction in players. We havent established that a high reward format with limited meta leads to lower players... in fact some wacky events prove the opposite.
yet somehow this is still a pro standard and anti standard discussion???? really???
Waster, you're still fixated on your points and ignoring mine, and your logic is still wrong. You ask questions and provide arguments in a way that is actually out of context. Here's a good example:
"If ELO had the exact same format as it stands are the moment.... and REMOVED rewards except for the BP and the clintz you get for each match.... would the amount of players playing it drop???????"
The answer is an obvious "yes." But what does it tell us? ONLY that less incentives mean less players. This applies to every mode.
But ask yourself this: If ELO and Standard both had no rewards at all, if people were playing purely for the joy of achievement... After the novelty of Standard wore off, would more players be playing ELO (where things are more or less balanced) or Standard (where your win/lose odds largely depend on whether you draw a Leader or Caelus)?
(to be continued)
"Now this becomes a matter of opinion... but i think at this point we have established that a low reward ELO leads to a reduction in players. We havent established that a high reward format with limited meta leads to lower players... in fact some wacky events prove the opposite.
yet somehow this is still a pro standard and anti standard discussion???? really???"
Again, incorrect logic. We haven't established that a low reward ELO leads to a reduction of players. Correlation does not imply causation. Please look this phrase up, or you will be unable to construct a logical argument.
I personally think this is what's responsible for the drop in ELO play: many players see that Standard can easily be exploited for a chance at a good prize, with much less work than ELO. Therefore their priorities have temporarily shifted to exploiting Standard. If everyone in Standard was using Hugo/Montana, as they will be in a couple of weeks, it won't be worthwhile for an ELO player to try to win their CRs there, and they will return to ELO.
And last, but not least: The reason this is a pro-Standard vs anti-Standard discussion is that Standard is an inherently broken mode. It's better than before, but many of the card selections there are arbitrary. That needs to change if Standard is to become more than a novelty or the equivalent of some player's "wacky event."
Quite frankly, if UR's creators wanted to run a wacky event, they could have easily done so using the event system.
"We haven't established that a low reward ELO leads to a reduction of players. Correlation does not imply causation."
Well, i'd speak for myself. Before, if i was late for the tournament (so no chances of getting into the top 150), i usually played it in the ELO mode(which is too slow for any decent result in DT), to get the average +4 ELO points per battle (pre-1200 ELO) and get my 1 Credit (worth ~480 clintz) and 50 Clintz of reward. My main goal was that 1 credit, but extra ELO score was a cherry on top of the cake.
Now in the same situation I always opt for Extended/Standard. I might try playing some ELO in the Sunday (so that my score doesn't go down due to ELO inactivity) to get the 1050 ELO reward, but that's all the ELO play i'm going to do.