Why not have another vote about the fate of the 1v1 and 2v2 ladders like we did before? We could do 16% vs 0% and number of picks on the 2v2.

+1 almosttricky

Edited 8/12/2015 00:28:05

Luck makes the games rich and complex. Its not fair, and that doesnt matter, 1v1 ladder is about beauty not who is #1. Dont sacrifice the most regal and storied ladder on the altar of equality. If you must, promote some other ladder and change its template to conform to the misnomer 'Pure skill'.

Also, If you make it SR then it takes fewer armies to capture a given bonus. you can see this in the CLOT, expansion is cheaper and any small troop advantage you can accumulate in the early turns that cant be turned into a quick win is made irrelevent because on turn 5 both players are putting down 20 armies a turn. It becomes more about having your bonuses spaced out so you can sacrifice them one at a time, than about nuanced tactics. Maybe this will change as people adapt.

+1 Piggy.

Chris made a poll in the other thread about this, and I noticed that that poll is easily cheated because you can vote for the same option multiple times. It also did not include everything that the community is asking for. Here is my new poll, the key thing is that you can vote for multiple options, so vote EVERYTHING you would be OKAY with:

http://strawpoll.me/5187606

Edited 8/12/2015 02:44:58

You are right -- NLC really was added for coin games, and I don't think it should be added to the ladders. We should just be talking about 0% SR Cyclic.

Yes but is very important avoid random pick. What if when the game start WarLight will decide if you have #1 nad #2 pick? As i know it would be fair as if you will lose #1 pick you will have 10 additional point like it is now.

Edited 8/12/2015 06:03:26

i like the idea of using 0-16 luck straight round in ladders
NLC is good as well

"""Luck makes the games rich and complex. Its not fair, and that doesnt matter, 1v1 ladder is about beauty not who is #1. Dont sacrifice the most regal and storied ladder on the altar of equality.""" - dead piggy

"""Me personally, i like the 1vs1 ladder as it is. Risk management should stay a part of a ladder imo. """ - MoD

+1 to both.


I'm not very good at strat 1v1. But I well and truly appreciate why it is a challenge. It is by far the most stimulating ladder.

I don't feel too strongly about what happens to the 2v2 ladder, though I support a luck change there and more picks, but please don't change the 1v1 ladder!

Poll regarding Move Order in the 2v2 Ladder:

http://strawpoll.me/5190820

An odd number of picks is a serious skew with getting first pick. I'd greatly prefer 4 picks per player in the 2v2 ladder, but having 2 is much better than having 3.

I'm against removing luck from the ladders. 0% wr is totally good. As deadpiggy said, it reduces complexity if it becomes all straight round, more foreseeable etc. So the traditional 1v1 ladder should really stay as is.

Also seeing that the traditional risk game is, well, about risk aswell. Sports always are about some percentage of luck that - eventually - evens out in the long run. Also poker or whatever - classified as a game of skill though still luck-dependent.

2v2 ladder, yeah, 4 picks would improve it.

Please don't make the 1v1 ladder no- luck cycle, 0% sr. I like ladder the way it is, luck is part of the game and it makes the game interesting. I usually have the worst luck on ladder, but removing luck is a bad idea.

Count me in support for no changes to the 1v1 ladder.

One thing I could possibly support would be if there were a way to make attacks versus neutrals WR but attacks versus enemies SR. I say possibly, as I haven't given it a ton of thought. We have all probably seen things like one player's 13v8 failing and their opponent's 7v5 succeeding.

As piggy said, expansion with SR is just too fast and predictable--it's not just that 3v2 attacks always succeed, it's that they always succeed with a leftover.

To be honest, with my brief stint in the ladder (So far) Luck has been a major inpact on all my games. 3v2's shouldn't always work. And that, with making it 0% luck is gonna make it not fun. So when people like Summer or Anna or Ryiro go to make those huge ladder runs that we all know that they can make, it just wont be the same thing for them and their opponents.

Is there a luck setting we are not using that we should be?

What I mean is there a combination of luck/rounding that allows for 3v2's to fail at an acceptable level (around %20 of the time) that creates that risk/reward...yet does not allow for the really lucky/quirky attacks to occur?

Is it possible to eliminate stupid luck, but still allow the 3v2 risk/reward situation?

@ Chris: 0% WR does exactly that.

And 16% SR does exactly the opposite so should never be considered. (quirky possible, but very often what you expect and 3v2 always works.)

Reminder:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DrqwLCZ3pSQPUWwAPASo64-RDylALqqYh3Cn-iLHSa4/edit#gid=0

Edited 8/13/2015 16:28:50

Based off of my polls, most people want 0% WR 3 picks and random move order. 2 picks is too little, 4 picks is too many probably, so 3 picks is right in the middle and would work pretty well.

Edited 8/13/2015 16:32:49

I think %0 WR mostly does that. But it does allow for those 1v1 and 2v2 attacks to work on rare occasions. There is probably no way to eliminate those without disrupting the other things though.

What if we left the ladder at %0 WR, but put cycle move on?

I think a change to 0% SR is inevitable. It is simple to understand, and fits in with making WL simple to play for new players.

Dosen't mean I won't the change through.

I would support a change to 0% WR, as it changes the extremes of the ladder. Not sure why it isn't used already, but I'm scared that if Fizzer is to change it he will go to 0% SR :(