Hey guys,

I'm not trying to start an argument for which is better. If you came here to argue your side, please take it to the appropriate thread.

I'm just hoping someone can explain why a lot of the community has such a problem with 0%SR on the ladders, as that seems to me to be the most skill-based setting. I assumed everyone would be happy with Fizzer taking luck out of the ladders, but it seems like a lot of people aren't happy. I tried reading through the other threads, but I didn't see anything that gave me a straight answer.

Have a great hump day everyone!

QB

It basically comes down to the fact that risk management is a skill that many of us enjoy having to use on the ladder. And having a degree of uncertainty as to how best to expand or as to what your opponent has done makes the game richer.

It makes the games boring, a lot of games will now feel very similar due to always having exactly the same thing happen without any luck. It also makes it hugely about mathematical counting to work out exactly where your opponent is and using maths to decide exactly how to expand and exactly how many leftovers you will have. Finally it removes the element of strategy that is risk-management which a lot of players enjoy.

Edited 9/30/2015 13:20:40

Queef, it is because it has always been such that when you compare skill you use the same settings, strategic 1v1. With a change to 0%SR expanding is no longer a risk. Picking larger bonuses to start (for example double picking aus or Greenland or going for a FTB or 2, 3 bonuses in 2 turns) always had a risk when going for it. Going for a 3 income FTB was 80%, a 4 income FTB (triple picked) was roughly 65% chance of working. I could work out the likliehood of the others but there's no need. They aren't 100%.
With 0%SR you know 100% for certain when you will be able to take bonuses. So there is much less risk between trying to expand with 3vs2 or wasting armies with 4vs2. A decrease in the strategy of expansion means that the game is less strategic overall.

We aren't saying that you should ban the settings of strategic 1v1 with 0%SR, even the clan league has that as a setting for the 1v1. It is the fact that it has been forced onto us because the change happened onto the most sacred of ladders, the 1v1.

All these points and I'd like to also point out that having no information on where your opponent is isn't a big deal anymore. If I spend less in order to scout the possible places for my opponent then it's not a big deal if I end up in the wrong place. Eating neutrals isn't going to really lose you the game. It makes sense on a big map such as Final Earth for 2v2, because you don't want to be punished for having limited information due to the distance you could be from your opponent at any given time. Medium Earth is much different though because a small misstep on the original settings meant you could be punished by your opponent. So basically it forced you to get SOME information out of your picks and think a bit more deeply about them.

the only advantage of the new settings is that they allow people to develop better bots to play here, if thats what anyoen is looking for

I like the new settings.

I have been doing a lot better since the change.