Please keep strategic 1v1 as it is.

I feel like, as mentioned earlier by master of desaster, risk management is an extremely important part of the template, and is one of the things which makes it so "strategic". Being able to balance the risk of 3vs2s with the safety of 4vs2s, or going for 6vs4s instead of 7vs4s is one of the things that makes it more interesting to play than 0%, even though it does give you some frustrating situations (e.g. a game last week all 4 3vs2 attacks in one of my turns failed, missed a card and all expansion) most of the times it gives you better situations imo.

I am always for removing luck. But, i also am not a fan of the speed of picking factoring in. I will live with that if it gets us less luck though for sure

Can we have no luck minus picking?

Edited 8/11/2015 03:09:36

The 1v1 ladder is perfect as it is.

The 2v2 ladder would be fine with either 0% WR or 0% SR, but it would be better with 4 picks per player.

I completely agree that no-luck cycle would be bad for the ladders.

Don't play the 1v1 ladder so I have no comment on that aspect, but I have plenty of comments for the 2v2 ladder.

I like risk management and find it a crucial aspect for high-level games, and not even just WarLight but lots of other games as well. Optimizing your moves and attacks is easy to do compared to risk vs reward and whether the pot odds are favorable enough.

It's similar to many card games such as poker. There's a randomness aspect of it, obviously, and yet it's still a game of immense skill and the best players will stand out compared to average ones. Poker is a game of complete risk management. This is true of WarLight as well, and is part of the reason the game is as fun as it is, to me at least. WarLight was inspired by RISK, which as the name implies was a boardgame entirely based around risk management.

If everything was pre-determined it just becomes a game of realizing start locations of your opponents and then you can know the exact state of the entire board. In real-time games it's harder to count income and backtrack through the turns to realize the entire board state, but for multi-day games it's easy. This makes things way to predictable and removes any sense of tension.

I'd be fine with 0% WR, since it doesn't seem plausible to oppose it, but SR completely removes risk management as a concept that players need to focus on. As Timinator said, Risk-management could also be classified as "skill"



On a side note, directed to the prospect of adding 4 picks per player: I think this gives people too much coverage on the map. As I play the template more and more the limitation of only having 2 picks per player has been growing on me, and I think that the added layer of metagaming by viewing the opponent's previous games for picking habits and the psychological layer of predicting their picks from insufficient information should also be considered an aspect of skill.

The ladder is supposed to be a persistent thing where players are constantly fighting for the next rung above them, and information gathering on the habits of your opponent is important. Having enough picks to cover the entire board diminishes this greatly and gives players not only a lot of information on the board state but also potential early-game counters to nearly any possibilities. Working from 80% knowledge requires much less skill than working from 40% knowledge; I consider this identical to risk management.

The better the players are, the more they can do with little knowledge. It's not like your opponents are in random locations on the board (I've yet to face opponents who commit with 0 picks, at least). If the prevailing trend is that most people think there's "not quite enough knowledge" or something, then 3 picks should be plenty. 4 picks is overkill, though, IMO.


TL;DR: Risk management is important. Working from little knowledge is important. 2v2 ladder is fine as is, but if change must be made, 0% WR 3picks should be more than enough change.

I've always been pro-slight luck.. because warlight is meant to simulate war, not chess.
chess is deliberate calculated moves that work exactly as expected...
war is not.. war has variables that are impossible to know the outcome of until they occur..
I felt the original strat 1v1 settings put the variables of war quite nicely into a strategic simulation.

but again, I'm sure I'm in the minority of this...
min/maxers always want to be able to min/max, and would rather not have to compensate for probabilities and indefinite variables.

+1 Mythonia

With 16% luck you need to THINK "should i attack the 30blockade with 48armies(38% chance of taking the terretory) or should i use 52armies (100% chance of taking the terretory)" --> so, luck makes the game more difficult.

i have mixed feelings about 0% WR
i understand that in ladders we can allow single games to be decided by luck. In long run luck should be equal for everybody, and (as many mentioned earlier) risk management is also a skill.
But: one game can easily be the difference between #1 and #2 - one can win because he managed to take single-picked greenland in 2 turns (~20% chance) while his opponents failed to take FTB with 80% chance. You can't name it 'risk-management',it's just luck. I can live with it. In 1v1 and 2v2 ladders you can just play more games. I would stick with 0% SR in seasonals though - just to reduce such situations.

and on the side note:

having 2 picks per player has been growing on me, and I think that the added layer of metagaming by viewing the opponent's previous games for picking habits and the psychological layer of predicting their picks from insufficient information should also be considered an aspect of skill.

Cannot disagree more. What you have written is simple description of bad template. We shouldn't be playing paper-rock-scissors game where the main point is to guess your opponent picks. Best case scenario is template where you can focus only on finding optimal picks and strategy that always win, no matter what your opponents do. I'm aware there is probably not way to create settings that always work this way, but we should get something as close as possible.

Edited 8/11/2015 06:19:36

I like the 1v1 Ladder the way it is, but would appreciate two more picks on the 2v2 ladder.

I also think that "risk management" is a valid point. This game is strategic because it has luck and we need to make decisions that best manage around it. Otherwise it's not as much of a test of your ability to make quick probabilistic calculations beyond adjusting for different predicted opponent behaviors.

Krzychu is right about the game being most worthwhile when there's actually a decidedly "better" strategy beyond just RPS. That said, RPS isn't incompatible with strategy- in fact, RPS is in itself a strategy game as long as there is Kore than one round.

Edited 8/11/2015 06:55:11

Would it really be that bad to have two equally prestigious ladders running simultaneously.. one 16% the other pure skill?
People could choose to enter one or both.
Perhaps even have a play off system for the winners of both ladders over both templates if a number one is needed

If you are gonna change it I think cyclic move order is more important than 0% SR when it comes to reducing the luck in ladders

The problem with luck, although it arguable takes more skill, is as Kryzcho said; one game can be extremely important. I'm personally not sure what I'd prefer with respect to luck.. However I do not want cyclic move, and I do not want pick speed to decide first pick. (I don't want.. what a good argument :p)


It sucks when you lose due to luck only, knowing that if it were opposite you'd win instead. I don't enjoy winning simply due to luck either (though it's better than losing!). Therefore I could stand behind a different luck level.

Biggest problem with 0% WR is that when you try to get +4/5 bonus in 2nd turn with separate pick you may fail (3,2% chance to happen). This somewhat reminds the problem with 7vs4 failing in 16% WR luck, but I think this case is way more severe, as such early bad luck is hard to turn around. I'm pretty sure I saw some games surrendered turn 2 for this reason alone, I did that few times myself I think.

0% SR on the other hand feels a bit too much. Since 2 neutrals always kill only 1 attacker, it feel like players have more armies. Whether it is good thing or not, I'm not sure.

I like WR more I think, mainly because I'm used to play it so often.

+1 and +1 to both of master of desaster's posts

Everyone here is talking about risk management. good. then explain how to win this game:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9193671

Actually no way to win after you get bad leftover + fail the 3v2. I deployed all my army there, is just bad luck. I don't think a game should be decided by luck.

Most of the game between similar skilled player are decided by luck factor.

Ladder should be able to measure skill player, not how much lucky a player can be.

If you are gonna change it I think cyclic move order is more important than 0% SR when it comes to reducing the luck in ladders

I Disagree, how many games u lose bc your stack could't reach opponent and he run for lot of turns? not so many i guess. More important is elimiante luck in picks. Too often have 1st pick is game changer. Biggest factor is, if i know my opponent probably picked faster, i will use additional time to try to find a coutenr to the strategy.
I believe, the choice between pick fast and get 1st pick, and think more (almsot 3 days as boot time) and get pick 2&3 would be well balanced.

Also, i believe, that if ladder would change to the template of medium earth coins games, lot of people would try coin games as well, as they know the template after played lot of ladder games, that may help Fizzer to get higher money. ( you are not going to play a template for real money if you don't know it, and maybe you are lazy to play it in open games). (autopromotion basically)

For those reason i believe every ladder should have 0% SR no luck cycle.

On a side note, directed to the prospect of adding 4 picks per player: I think this gives people too much coverage on the map. As I play the template more and more the limitation of only having 2 picks per player has been growing on me, and I think that the added layer of metagaming by viewing the opponent's previous games for picking habits and the psychological layer of predicting their picks from insufficient information should also be considered an aspect of skill.

I agree with what Krzychu said, basically you describe a bad template, full of rock scisser papper situation.

Best case scenario is template where you can focus only on finding optimal picks and strategy that always win, no matter what your opponents do. I'm aware there is probably not way to create settings that always work this way, but we should get something as close as possible.

i couldn't agree more, +1.

That's why i like Europe 3v3 0% SR 4x4 random warlord no luck cycle: there are no rock siccer paper situation, you know where the opponent is, and best strategy ALWAYS WIN, no random factor or lucky guess. In the actual 2v2 template, you cannot know where your opponent is, which is bad, bc since the start you have to make moves where doesn't exist the best move.

Edited 8/11/2015 11:57:48

The main problem i see in 2v2 ladder is that with 2 picks sometimes losing 1 pick means that you loose a whole control of an area. 3 or 4 picks brings to the table the idea of backups and counters. Also 0% WR should be a better choice of luck here imo. As many of you, i also think that managing risks is skill, but i don't like 16% for the simple reason that you play with 4 armies per neutral territory in distribution, and failing a 7v4 can be a pain.

i didn't say it, but i li9ke 4 picks instead 2 in 2v2 ladder as well

I went through most of that history (joined before the ladders were created), but I still like the lower luck. I loved every change in that direction up to the no-luck cycle. (Although I dislike the "speed" aspect.) I agree with (among others) Chris, Beren and Krzychu:
1v1 is fine, SR would be fine but is not needed.
2v2 would be better with 0% luck for sure, SR is optional as well.
2v2 would be better with 3, possibly 4 picks per player. (Although I understood the reasoning against it on chat.)
Seasonal is better with no-luck templates as Krzychu explains nicely.

Edited 8/11/2015 13:14:56

I have had many games where luck decided it %100 (for me or against). I've had 5/6 of my 3v2s (which I don't use a ton actually) fail. There is no way to overcome that stuff when it happens. You expect them to fail once and a while (%20 of the time), but you can't do much about losing most of them. Not to mention the really stupid things like a 1 poke taking a 1 and breaking your bonus when you did your moves perfectly. Games should not be decided like that on a ladder IMO.

Cycle move is less important. I have had a couple times where I lost first move 4-5 turns in a row, but honestly that is pretty rare. With the OP card, you can minimize that risk as well (by being strategic with the use of it).

Edited 8/11/2015 13:10:30

Fizzer - any word on a non-speed way to decide first pick? If you could do that (removing the speed aspect from "no-luck", then I would support a no-luck scenario on the ladders %100.

And for those who think no-luck means no risk, that isn't really true. There are still risks you need to make choices on all game. The difference is the risk is based on what your opponent does, not the math. You still have to decide to poke with leftovers or not and many other things.

It is a ladder, why shouldn't the better moves win? I mean would you want your favorite sports team to go out there with equipment that fails %20 of the time on average in a championship game? Take soccer, since it is global. You want laces in the players shoes that are only %80 effective? So that on %20 of scoring chances (maybe a guy on a break away), the guy's shoe comes off? Is that what you really want to see when you are measuring the best of the best?

The issue seems to be that a lot of people have an issue with luck influencing individual games, which of course it does (and moving to pure skill wouldn't completely eliminate luck anyway, due to rock paper scissors situations). However, the idea of the ladders other than the seasonal ones is to have people play a significant number of games, so that an individual game doesn't impact your rating so much. I think a better fix for the ladders would be to increase the time it takes for games to expire and ban alts on the ladders. Either that or build in rating penalties for having insufficient games played.

Discouraging "ladder runs" in favor of more sustained ladder play would be better in my opinion, though I may be biased, since I've been on the ladder more or less continuously for the past few years.