The new ELO system is still in beta test. We are improving it to make it more efficient :
cards tendencies are now hidden.
The votes are now closed on Sunday 20:00 (GMT+1)
Votes allocation has changed too :
1050 -1099 = 1 vote
1100 -1149 = 2 vote
1150- 1199 = 3 vote
1200- 1249 = 4 vote
1250- 1299 = 5 vote
1300- 1349 = 6 vote
1350- 1399 = 7 vote
1400- 1449 = 8 vote
1450 -1499 = 9 vote
1500+ = 10 vote
Well no matter what you do in elo, there will be people for and against. At first I didn't like the way that every week sentinel had between 1-3 cards banned yet other clans where seeming to get through often with no bans like pussycats. But I've learned to diversify my decks, and it has made me enjoy ELO more because now you have many of the people using a variety of decks rather than the 2 deck cycle ppl had before. And I think it's better not to know the votes till after its called, otherwise you get ppl voting based on what they see rather than the cards the either want banned or saved.
I am now feeling the tendency: Not those "broken cards" are getting banned, but those have more damage (like kolos and hawk). The pros side is we will have a game with less gamble style, the cons is we may be driving into a wrong direction, as those broken cards are just keeping on ruling the game under the camouflage of "low damage".
This tendency could also have been sensed by the market price, like the incredible efficient lehane (2 stars, 8/2) can not beat the fat guy Petra (4 stars, 7/5).
I admit the whole idea of adjusting the balance by player themselves is brilliant, but now I am a little depressed as it appears to be toughing some more solid limits. Most players rate damage over efficiency or strategy. If this is not to be changed (which is very unlikely to my feeling), we will just keep on seeing the five starers being the victims of the peoples' will.
Anyway, who says we must have an ideal ELO world? At least its better than it was, right?