im not a big fan of changing the current ladder, especially after only a few weeks.

The ladder wouldn't change, the map would rotate. These changes wouldn't have to happen immediately, just keep changing the map up every month or so to keep it fresh.

I want a bigger, slower medium earth map ("new and improved medium earth - now with more territories") regardless of whether it's a ladder map. I've had a lot of those 2 turns and it's over games and they're really annoying. Especially for a ladder where a quick win by a less skilled player can haunt you forever.

You could make it 224% and still pull off Randy's possum strategy.

I agree 100% with Imp's new position (180 degree reversal). Players are getting wins on the ladder purely by a counterpick strategy that they would otherwise never get.

With only 3 starting spots, successfully blindsiding an opp's initial expansion spot will decide the game most of the time. With 4 starting spots, harder to get bonuses or fewer counterpick possibilities, the player could battle back. But here you clear your initial bonuses in 2-3 turns and if you can take one of your opp's spots it's doubly damaging (because they have to clear a neutral 4 to replace it elsewhere. That lead is only overcome very rarely and even a mediocre player will win from there nearly all the time.

An abandon/blockade would help because it would allow the picked player to at least blow up its busted bonus (but only if the percentage is high enough -- 200% would be totally insufficient).

Something needs to done or the integrity of the rankings will be skewed.

picking spots and reading the map take skill too.

that having been said.. i find since i got owned by your counter picks in our two games Duke, that I spend more time looking for counter-picks then i do for my picks i think..
so much that it's irritating when it goes awry

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1214889

notice my picks showed that i *knew* he was in India..

Counterpicks are absolutely part of the game. I've found myself agonizing over starting selections now and either passing on, or being overly cautious with, supposedly prime positions early in the game. And I've taken a position thinking I was counterpicking, and found that the other guy didn't even take the bonus I was trying to bust. If you don't plan ahead for that, you're the one who falls behind. Have fun being in a bonus with a ten point wasteland. If you want to take that kind of gamble to beat someone, and they outthink you (or had a different plan in mind from the get go), then skill has prevailed.

What the counterpick tactic really does is keep the game from being "whoever gets Mexico wins" (or whichever territory is the prime one in that game). And that's important when you have random wastelands on a smaller map, or else the guy who gets the first pick gets way too big an advantage.

If you want to eliminate luck, that's fine. But don't say we have to take a skill element out of the game because you haven't mastered the skill.

sadly, Duke is one of the best counter-pickers i've had the privledge of playing with, lol.

and personally, i try not to pick counter-picks with wastelands if possible... I'd rather them have Mexico with wastelands in W-E US and SA, then pick a counter-pick in those locations.. \*albiet your not likely to get good counter-picks in all those spots but still*

Bostonfred is definitely right that counterpicks are an essential part of the game. Adding a blockade card doesn't change that fact, it just gives more options to the player who got destroyed by one so the game isn't over purely based on starting spot selection, but that some amount of actual game play can occur as well. The person who countered and broke an initial bonus still has a huge advantage in the game, even with the blockade card, they just don't have a complete auto-win like is the case right now.

But Impaller, wouldn't that make taking a counter-pick as a strategy less viable? If the region is just going to be blockaded, why even bother? Step back further and develop... And why bother using a wrecking ball strategy? Your opponent is just going to go all Russia on you and burn their own land if you manage to break through. I think it degrades the strategic integrity of the game to have such a card in use.

The thing is, you still broke one of their bonuses, and they still have to deploy a decent number of armies to that bonus so that their abandon is big enough to keep you from taking that spot. You are still going to be ahead in income and they are still going to have to waste armies in that spot. Counter picks are still going to be just as viable of a strategy, but it's not going to be immediately win you the game if you manage to succeed with it, like it does now.

I don't think I can count on one hand the number of games you've beaten me after I've succeeded in a counter-pick strategy. It's certainly not instant defeat, you just have to be well prepared for it.

Plus, depending on the counterpick, you can still work on the bonus you started in. That gives you a 3 to 2 bonus advantage. They'll have to go break down an extra neutral 4 in some other bonus to get back on equal footing.

Yeah, what troll says is very true. that's an extra advantage to the counter-picker in that scenario.

I'd be interested in seeing a bigger, balanced Earth map too, Duke. If anyone is interested in trying to make one, I'd be happy to get you started. Let me know.

I'll give it a shot, Fizzer. how much bigger are we thinking -- about the size of standard Earth? I'd also love to create a Double Medium Earth map.

Could there not be more than one 1v1 ladder? I hated these settings and have played more games than i would like to admit to get to where i dont mind playing with them and now its going to change? I started playing this game because the normal settings are alot like another board game i enjoy and was disappointed when the ladder was set up different from that but learned to deal with it.Im getting concerned that there isnt going to be a base setting that i will be able to settle into and just enjoy playing. Would it not be fair to have one 1v1 ladder be the settings they are or normal settings and another fizzers delight 1v1 ladder.Personally i dont want to have to keep having loads of practice games going on all the time just so i can try to keep up on new settings.
I only bring the normal settings up again because i really do feel that those settings are what bring alot of the people to the game and before the ladder i would think the most common game being played? please let me now if i am wrong.If i had taken the time to read that the ladder was different settings i may not have joined, and if its going to change all the time im pretty sure i will be leaving it.

Guy -- I was actually hoping for a rotating map because playign the same one over and over becomes stale and boring. One solution would be to allow direct challenges on the ladder where you can pick the map (from a limited preprogrammed menu). you woudl still need to have at least 2 current games with the designated map to stay on the ladder, but by allowing a certain number of direct challenge games to be open at any given time (which can be declined) you can try out other 1x1 maps and if they're popular make them the the auto-map.

Also to avoid your concerns with needing to practice, I would suggest that the first map varients be the old standards: earth strategic, Original default map with 4 starting spots (earth, manual, +5, no luck) and whatever other maps people know well.

Fred - Of course counter-picking should (and would) remain a valid strategy. I'm not sure why you thought I was suggesting otherwise. I am trying to come up with ways to keep the default map on the ladder to produce results that are representative of the skill level of the players more of the time. The top 10% are beating the bottom 50% more than 80% of the time, so it's working pretty well. I was suggesting ways to make that more connsistent. A map with more territories per bonus that remains balanced would be a great start. Blockade card is another option (it could be limited to 1 per game on if it's unbalancing).

Duke i agree that having options is a good thing, thats why i suggested more than one ladder. That way you and everyone else that likes to change things up alot gets what they want and on top of that they can play or not play in another ladder that is consistant for the people who dont want to keep playing new games.Im not going to lie I would probably join both ladders but it would be nice if i dont like the one to be able to have the other that i do enjoy. I dont think it would take very long to see what is more popular and if fizzer only wants one and clearly more people are playing one than the other, problem solved.

I think the problem with starting multiple 1v1 ladders right now is that there is still a rather limited number of people who are willing to play in the ladder. Currently there are 77 people in the 1v1 ladder, and for variety's sake, I think the ladder would be better off with many more than that. If another 1v1 ladder was started right now, a few people might leave the original ladder, and the new one probably would end up with a much smaller pool of players.

However, I do love the idea of rotating maps. That is what I personally expected when I first heard about a WL ladder coming. I think it is critical that map rotation is included when an FFA ladder comes along, but I think it would greatly improve the fun of the 1v1 ladder as well.