We'd like to discuss the ELO system with you.
Over time, this particular game mode has undergone several changes that have largely proved to be successful. So this is where we are currently at:
- We’ve reached the point where there are almost 1,000 cards available in the format and in which "optimized" decks exist by mixing up clans. It would seem that "historic" cards (ones that are several years’ old) have an unchallenged place in decks that work well in ELO and, as a result, are greatly limiting the emergence of new deck types.
- The format has dramatically improved with the arrival of new clans and particularly new cards which mean that decks can be significantly improved (it is now possible to produce a proficient deck from each clan). By this, we’re not referring to stomp decks used to race to the top of the rankings, but rather to decks that work well in the ELO mode.
- More effective cards per clan also means greater possibilities of monoclan domination.
Our current aim is to give the ELO mode room to expand and evolve by adding a criterion to staff bans.
So this is what we propose to breathe new life into the ELO mode:
The age of cards will become an important factor in what we decide to ban from the ELO mode. The older a card is, the more it runs the risk of being banned. This will enable us to dislodge certain cards that have become fixtures in ELO decks and, in doing so, make way for new cards to emerge.
We will select between 0 and 4 cards per clan (at each wave of bans) which we can ban based on this criterion.
For example, let’s take a look at an All Stars deck that is currently very effective in ELO. Marina (2007), Jessie (2008 ) and Randy (2008 ) very often have a place in their star category. If we ban Marina and Randy, Nathan might find his place or would at least have the chance of doing so. In the same way, the presence of Uranus partly prevents the creation of a new reducer for the Sakrohm clan because of his dominance. Several cards may not seem worth considering because of their direct competition within the clan. However, we believe they could provide interesting alternatives (I'm thinking here of Leviatonn VS Klawz or Stalfhaust).
This new criterion of play would allow us to better manage the game's evolution. We would fix dates for new bans every X months, of course taking the time to first discuss this with the community, as we did with the last wave of bans.
Banned "historic" cards would then be definitively expelled from the ELO mode.
In short this new system would allow us to:
- Refresh the ELO mode on a regular basis by providing genuine renewal to the metagame.
- Give new character cards a chance to make their mark on the game mode.
- Allow new deck types to emerge by combining the various clans without having to play/challenge certain unavoidable cards (by getting rid of “historic” cards, players would have more scope for creativity).
- Reduce the power of monoclans in the game mode.
Initially, each clan would not be affected in the same way but over time a real change in the mode’s playstyle could emerge.
Ultimately we feel these suggested changes will provide ELO devotees with yet more scope for discovery and enjoyment.
These are our proposals. We very much look forward to hearing any comments or suggestions you may have on them.
edited by Espectroscuro monday 23/09/2013, 16:32
@Darko and deepend, Wow, that's actually pretty solid... The only flaw that I could see is how those ELO values would be determined. Based on player vote? Use? Staff picks? Either way, it could easily be resolved, but highly open to debate or conflict.
Still though, Darko is the James Madison of Urban Rivals. I strongly suggest staff use this ideoligy in ELO.
Obviously in my first post there was a bit of sarcasm. But really, I don't like this idea.
And continuing on from UM_Screx's post about how the ELO values are determined, what if it changes slightly every week? That way once someone finds an extremely solid deck they'll have to change, and they won't be way ahead of everyone. Obviously some huge value would be kinda dumb, but... yeah.
Also, there could be a two ELO modes, low ELO and high ELO.
Or a newbie ELO and high ELO, where newbie ELO is levels 1-14, then maybe an intermediate as levels 15-39, then advanced which could be 40+ and the ELO values change from low to high as you move on. I.E. say a value of 1000 in newbie, 1200 in Intermediate and 1500 in the Advanced mode.
Giving cards another rating besides the stars seems highly redundant if you think about it for a few minutes. Isn't that what the stars are for in the first place (at least in theory).
In my opinion, just don't permenantly ban anything and raise the number of player based band per week.
Players drive the game anyways, so permenantly banning a lot of older cards is just going to drive older players, or even more importantly, the players who actually spend real world cash which funds the game away.
The idea of adding a value other than stars is actually very interesting. Stars don't just determine what goes into your deck, they go above and beyond that and a mistake with stars can be terrifying. Jackie Cr would be a broken 5*, but at 4* it also means that you can have a SoA nuke in your deck for 4* and that your 8/6 SoA attack manip person also beats other 5 stars and 4* at equal pills. Stars also determing the stat range a card can get so the easiest way to make a broken card is to give it too few stars, and the easies way to make it unplayable is to give it too many.
Heck, depending on what * a clan's SoA, SoB, CoB or DR has makes or breaks cards and clans - there's really good cards I'd love to play but can't because fitting it and the clan staple (usually standard cards these days) is impossible. Giving cards another value that simply determins the point value outcome of matches outside of classic and duel would open up a world of design space. You could teoreticaly give each clan a SoA for each * category (not necessarily the best idea out there but still).
>The only flaw that I could see is how those ELO values would be determined. Based on player vote? Use? Staff picks? Either way, it could easily be resolved, but highly open to debate or conflict.
Obiviously current ELO banned cards would have very high cost; 500+ points with pre-determined minimum cost - for obivious reasons. This could be pre-determined minimum cost. You could have only one of these cards at deck.
Then it could be simply matter of barter - if many people pick some card and use it in ELO in 1100+ score games then its price gets up next week, if few pick card then it price gets down because it has become too expensive. This would create "automatically adjusting metagame". Something like 50% of cards could be out of this system simply because they are too weak and casual to be "followed". Also ELO value could get bias to rise or fall by card price (more expensive cards get higher ELO-cost easier) or how many people own the card overall (less owned card = higher cost easier) and how many top players choose it (pro cards = higher cost).
Somewhere between those things there could be balance where all cards are available to ELO and there would be several approaces to ELO and metagame would work.
This thing is not related to "Star worth" because this thing measures directly how much potential card has - be it 2* or 5*. Stars are just generalization of overall card power, but not its true play value.
Desmondo - true, but why not add clan based bias to elo scores too? 3 most used clans would get +15% additional price to their ELO cost, reflecting the clan bonus. You could use those clans and have their bonus, but you'd had very hard putting even few good cards from that clan to your deck because that clan cards cost somewhat more. You'd have great clan bonus but you'd have to pick mostly mediocre cards to have it.
Maybe you could buy more elo cost by accepting cards like Bob Joby and Sunnygoat on your deck, having negative point value so if you accept like 4 absurdly weak cards in your deck you'd have 2 total beasts.
Also this would allow using leaders in ELO (Ambre? Enjoy your 750 cost).
If UR wants to promote newer cards then all new cards could have initially lower ELO price so it is beneficial to use them. By time the price creeps up if card is good, but it would have time to adjust it's position in ELO scene.