I like the veto idea. Starcraft 2 allows you to veto a couple maps in team ladders and I like that. The matchup system would just pick from the templates not vetoed by either player.

Nice contribution, szew. Thanks.

It also gives Fizzer a nice snapshot of what templates might need work. If a majority of people are vetoing a couple templates, you know people are not happy with them overall. Then you can replace them in a future update if it continues to trend that way.

It is always nice as a developer to have that built in feedback mechanism.

The problem is not just the templates, its also with the rating system too and how winning against a very low rated opponent loses you points. If there could be restrictions on who you are paired up with (since im assuming it is more work to change the algorithm which distributes the points), would help games where winning still loses you points which isn't what a competitive ladder should be.

For templates i would prefer around 15 where the least favourite 5 are replaced.

The templates overall i do not think are too bad at the moment. Just turkey LD sometimes is really not suited to real time. With EA and O can produce some good games, but maybe 0% WR would be better.

Luck on EA&O is horrible. You miss a 5v3 attack early, game over

@buns

Again, I think it's a problem of a deserted ladder. If there are not more than 4-5 people at any one point, you will be forced to play some random low rated players, since it pairs from the bottom up. If rt ladder becomes very popular and there are 20+ people at all times (which is not unreasonable considering how many open games there are at any time) the pairing will be better. The rating system is by far the best one on the site, it is the lack of players and pairing system that you might be dissapointed with.

Edited 10/26/2015 20:40:38

@szeweningen what makes a rating system good? I agree with you completely, it all goes back to a lack of good templates.

@MotD I looked back at the game and realized I was a terrible player 1.5 years ago. That game went beyond my usual skill drop from playing RT. I believe at that time my strategy in strat 1v1 was "Pick Scandinavia or Central America." Even worse, that game was LD, a feature I had never seen before, and my "cumulative luck" was over 3 points below his. Perfect storm of awful player and awful situation that let Beren crush me.

the pre-veto idea is pretty nice, giving the player option to avoid the templates they hate playing, and the devs a clear idea on what templates are less popular and needing to be replaced on next rotation.

Edited 10/27/2015 01:26:57

Do RT games still give less points?

Yes but on the realtime ladder games give more points than multiday games

I'm still waiting for master of desaster to answer those questions:

What about you? You want to keep it at more or less 10 templates?

...

The ladder is meant to be a match of skills. I think every template in the real-time ladder should be 0% luck.
Which real-time ladder template do you think is good for 16% luck?

...

You can even add 10 more. Move the entry level even higher and find the true master. But what's the point when there are too few people to join in reality?

thanks MOD. So they still give less points than a MD ladder game? If so, why?

i'd prefer 20 or more templates. voted by some good Players with a very good understanding of warlight and his maps.

i think 16% wr isn't that bad on 2 neutrals. mostly 0%wr is better but i hate the trend of removing every luck on warlight. it's unnecessary.

no Need to answer the last one. i explained my opinion on this before.

to Chris: i think ladders give all the same amount of Points.

I was a noob on all the templates, but it only took me a couple of months to be good/average on ALL of them

That is the issue. It took you a couple of months. This actually explains why the current participation rate is so low.

I remember someone opened a thread asking if they should join a RT ladder. Finally they joined but felt so overwhelmed. They quit immediately.

Its just a question of pratice, so don't complain about the "huge number" of Rt templates because if you are, you are not a good player.

Well I know a good player who hates multi-attack a lot, but they are good at 1v1 strategic. Does it make them a bad player?

I can force myself to master every aspect of the game (be an ultimate true master!), but it can get tedious and no fun. After all it's just a game. I'm not doing hard work. Why should I force myself to do that?

Edited 10/27/2015 20:39:20

why are you even considering to join ladders if you want to win only? the Goal is competition. not just getting good at one template and farm wins.

The biggest problem for 1v1 ladder is lack of activity and lack of new players.

Exactly!

Personally I'd think that in order to make rt ladder alive, changes in terms of restrictions are needed, my suggestion would be to allow any player with a confirmed e-mail address to play regardless of level and even encourage new players in some way to try their luck on rt ladder as one of their first exxperiences.

+1

introduce a veto system and give 2-3 vetoes for every player

I think it would be even better if we give players full control on what templates they want to play in RT ladders.

If you want to focus on one or a selected few, no problem! RT ladder is for you.
If you are like MoD and want to play many templates randomly, no problem! RT ladder is for you.

Let players choose. The participation rate will increase immediately.

Edited 10/27/2015 20:35:55

why are you even considering to join ladders if you want to win only? the Goal is competition. not just getting good at one template and farm wins.

Ask why some players dropped immediately after they lost a few games in the seasonal ladders. You will get the answer. Some don't mind losing. They will keep playing till the end. Some do. They want to win. They quit if they see there is (seemingly) no chance for them to be on the top.

The current RT ladder is not starter-friendly.

Edited 10/27/2015 20:39:54

normally i offer a discussion via pm at this Point if i feel like explaining someone how something works. but i feel there is no reason to discuss this with you. you're writing walls of text on a Topic you have no idea about. your comparisons are bad and so are many of your ideas. i won't try to explain you anything anymore.

MoD I assume your point against inquisitor is that players choosing what templates to play makes any rating system inherently unbalanced or at the very least inaccurate for showing real skill? If this isn't why you think inquisitor's ideas are bad, I have no clue what you think.