can we not have 16% SR?
i like 0% SR myself but this way we'll have luck and at the same time 3v2 won't fail

also in 16% SR we have the ability to calculate over wider range of armies wheras in 0% WR we only have to manage a difference of +1/-1 army in any particular attack,and deploy accordingly

Has anyone made a chart of the percentages of common attacks in the different settings? Would be nice to see probabilities for everything on %16 WR, %16 SR, 0% WR...

1v1
2v2
3v2
4v2
4v3
5v3
6v4
7v4
8v5

I would think that would be enough.

i dont actually like the map and the 2 picks are certainly 2 low, i just rejoined the ladder and thought about quitting as soon as i noticed the settings

edit: looking at my score i should have

Edited 8/6/2015 14:19:23

i tried finding any such graph plotter on google but couldn't
the one in word 2007 is not of any use either

Has anyone made a chart of the percentages of common attacks in the different settings? Would be nice to see probabilities for everything on %16 WR, %16 SR, 0% WR...

here:

https://goo.gl/2rFHxl

Edited 8/7/2015 12:09:46

The template isn't bad. If you don't have any intel on your oponnent, just pick in the places with the best expansion and taking a look at your oponnent's past games doesn't hurt really, you'll find out most people have a couple of spots where they like to start, and you can setup a counter for those.

I don't think the template being bad is 100% relevant.

People voted for X, because they had expectations for X.

Fizzer put in X, but did not implement it the way people wanted.

Now people don't really want to play X because they want it to meet the expectations they had. Regardless of whether or not this template is good doesn't affect on how it could be better or meet the expectations of the people who voted for it.

I guarantee you a change in the template to suit the way everyone wanted it to be would result in more people playing 2v2 ladder. Take me for example, I've played 2v2 ladder consistently and constantly on the old template. I voted for the change to the new map, because it's a better map and the template having 4 picks makes it really fun. Fizzer released it with 2 picks. I haven't played 2v2 ladder since.

I like having some luck but I think settings where there are some common attacks that are successful in the 90-99% range is a problem.

It's reasonable to plan around your 3v2 attacks failing 20% of the time in 0% WR, but strategizing over your 2% chance of a 7v4 failing in 16% WR is untenable.

Sometimes I've wondered if it would be nice if you could do something like 0% WR for attacks against neutrals but 0% SR for attacks against enemies.

Has anyone made a chart of the percentages of common attacks in the different settings? Would be nice to see probabilities for everything on %16 WR, %16 SR, 0% WR...

here:

https://goo.gl/2rFHxl

The exact numbers:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DrqwLCZ3pSQPUWwAPASo64-RDylALqqYh3Cn-iLHSa4/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks guys.

MW, getting an "Unable to access document" issue and can't tell whether it's on my end. Is the sheet visible to anyone with the link?

It should be visible to anyone with link, yes. I can access it from another account without being logged in and I've seen other people ("anonymous squirrel" and the likes) accessing it yesterday.

Well, in that case I would much rather see %16 SR on ladders than %0 WR. It eliminates the obscure ones. I had thought that %0 WR did that already, but I guess not (it looks like really it effects 5v3 and 5v4 attacks and that is it, for the more common ones).

I would prefer %0 SR myself. But if we are going to allow 3v2s to fail as I know most probably want (including Fizzer), why not do %16 SR and get rid of the BS luck?

The biggest difference though would be the 6v4 attacks (at over %80). That would change expanding a lot.

Edited 8/10/2015 15:48:18

as strategie value 16% is pretty bad though, especially for 1s micro management. only 83,33% of time 1 kill 1 in 1vX that is the essence of SR imho.
0% SR should be standard in any competition... as you usually don't want luck influence competition.

Math Wolf, why can we not copy the values out? I'd like to save it for reference later since we know everything gets buried on here.

Can we also get a sheet that has leftover amounts likely? That would be sick.

Edited 8/10/2015 15:53:36

Regarding the poll, here are the results so far:

%16 WR, 2 picks 8 18%
%16 WR, 3 picks	6 13%
%16 WR, 4 picks	0 0%
%0 WR, 2 picks	1 2%
%0 WR, 3 picks	6 13%
%0 WR, 4 picks	24 53%

Catagories:
9 of 45 want 2 picks
12 of 45 want 3 picks
24 of 25 want 4 picks

14 of 45 want %16 WR
31 of 45 want %0 WR

Edited 8/10/2015 16:02:40

JSA and I recently made a template that would do better for 2v2 ladder than the current one - Greece 2v2. It is 0%SR, 4 picks each, 3 starting armies, 6 income. This is to make the bonuses of 1 less valueable, because it gives Turkey region a major buff.

Anyway, I doubt the 2v2 ladder template will be changed to anything like Guiroma, China, etc, but at the very least we should get 2 more picks on Final Earth, and 0% WR (I prefer 0% SR though).

I am pretty sure Fizzer wants the 2v2 ladder to be Earth based. I doubt we'd see Guiroma, China, etc. I am actually worried he won't make a europe 3v3 ladder because he would stray from that model of it always being the entire globe.

If you have a good template on Greece, maybe he'd consider it for a seasonal ladder though?

I suppose it being fully earth based is a bad idea. Maybe the template can change on the ladder every month but the rankings stay the same? I can tell you for sure that the 2v2 ladder teams will surpass 100 if it is China 2v2.