Uservoice: https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/13427658-idea-for-rt-ladder-poll


I was thinking of a cool way of handling the RT Ladder polls, so that templates change from time to time, new good ones can be added in the future and new players will be able to vote too.

• Each template can be rated on a scale from 1 to 10
  
• Only players who actually play the RT Ladder should vote: my suggestion is only let players with RT Ladder rating >1500 vote
  
• Players can vote and change their votes anytime
  
• Allow players with rating >1800 or >1900 to submit new templates that can be voted on
  
• The first N (let's say 10) templates at any moment are the ones that can pop up on the RT Ladder

Upsides:

- Every future player playing on the RT Ladder will be able to vote
- Templates can rotate often, making the RT Ladder more dynamic and fun
- New good templates can be voted in without having to bother Fizzer for new polls every so often
- Bad templates can be easily voted out and replaced with better ones the community likes more


Downsides:

I don't see any



Drop some votes in if you agree or make a comment if you have other ideas!

Edited 4/14/2016 18:29:25

I love this idea!

Only ranked players could vote or both unranked and ranked could vote?

Edited 4/14/2016 18:29:50

I gave it 3 votes :)

Why not have a box come up after the game (like it does already), but have an option to rate the template you just played (like you can currently rate the map). Then people could keep rating the template after each time playing it.

For downside, you shouldnt be able to vote with your Alts otherwise it alters the feeling of the community (not everybody has atls).

And templates should be updated at specific dates (example every 2 months ?) as I doubt Fizzer will check daily when a template is out of the selection for the benefit of another one everyday.

That being said, I tried RT ladder and gave up. The level is way too high, not knowing any template surely doesn't help, and the most players I have ever seen is 5 maybe. I think RT ladders should be created via "auto games" like the 1v1 strat ME autogame. So players would play it without even noticing and there would be more players. Ofc there's a problem of not matching the level, unless autogames are made visible only when filled by a player of similar level. I mean you get the idea hopefully. Right now, as it is, RT ladder is not for me and when i say that, i mean for I suppose for most WL players. I could be mistaking but I guess it far less used than the 1v1 ladder.

Edit : lol I just realised the vote was for uservoice only at the moment^.

Edited 4/14/2016 21:14:05

Some people are just not skilled enough to reach a 1500+ rating but do like to play the ladder. Should they not have the right to vote? I would rather say something like at least finished 20 games or currently ranked.

edit: actually i really like the idea of Chris where you can rate a template after a played game. And then like every first day of the month the 2 lowest rated templates get swapped

Edited 4/14/2016 21:28:33

This post smells of elitism! Burn it with fire!

Seriously, just because I'm not as good as y'all doesn't mean that I don't care about the templates as much.

My other old suggestion would be a veto system similar to starcraft 2. For example in exchange for 1 random template out of 10, we could have 20 templates and each player gets 3-5 vetoes for templates he does not like (that'd also solve most whining problems). Also it's not a problem for the pairing system since between 2 players both of them couldn't ever veto the whole template pool (as far as I recall that was Fizzer's fear).

@Chris: Why not have a box come up after the game (like it does already), but have an option to rate the template you just played (like you can currently rate the map). Then people could keep rating the template after each time playing it.

The problem with this seems clear:
1. Every player has the same template saved with different IDs, so it's basically impossible to make it consistent for how warlight is coded
2. That could be cool, but not for deciding which templates should be played on the Ladder since any player can vote on any template, and we don't want diplo templates on the Ladder i suppose
3. If you can only vote the templates that are already on the RT Ladder, then you can only vote templates OUT of the ladder, you can't vote any template IN.

@Mike: And templates should be updated at specific dates (example every 2 months ?) as I doubt Fizzer will check daily when a template is out of the selection for the benefit of another one everyday.

Fizzer doesn't have to check anything if it's all automated

@Ollie: Some people are just not skilled enough to reach a 1500+ rating but do like to play the ladder. Should they not have the right to vote? I would rather say something like at least finished 20 games or currently ranked.

Yeah I said 1500+ because it takes roughly 10-15 games on average to get there, 20 games finished are a good parameter too!

Maybe rather than a set rating, have it be a max standard dev. You need a standard dev below 150 to get ranked. Maybe a standard dev below 80 allows you to vote.

Edited 4/15/2016 00:52:52

sounds good :) but alts can be a huge problem in causing the vote however :P
and I agree with beren's idea about standard dev

That being said, I tried RT ladder and gave up. The level is way too high, not knowing any template surely doesn't help, and the most players I have ever seen is 5 maybe. I think RT ladders should be created via "auto games" like the 1v1 strat ME autogame. So players would play it without even noticing and there would be more players. Ofc there's a problem of not matching the level, unless autogames are made visible only when filled by a player of similar level. I mean you get the idea hopefully. Right now, as it is, RT ladder is not for me and when i say that, i mean for I suppose for most WL players. I could be mistaking but I guess it far less used than the 1v1 ladder.

It's a shame players think this, you shouldn't have to be prepared on templates to give them a play. If you lose, then you lose but at least you learn something from it on a different template rather than strat ME/MME.

@seph - i only meant RT templates to rank. No others matter

So if you play a game on RT ladder, you have the option to rank the template after

Edited 4/15/2016 00:19:47

I suggest Fizzer don't use the first past the post voting system. Or else we can have a template with 20% of the vote winning even though 80% of ppl didn't wanted it, like a diplo backed up by a troll clan for example.


I suggest we use a ranking system called the alternative vote for the rt-ladder in order to avoid the spliting of votes from the rt-ladder community.


This video explains how it works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&list=SPC1C0D3F2BA472F62


I'm confident this will make the templates be really agreed upon by a maximum ammount of players and that it will prevent any troll template from having a serious chance of winning.

Edited 4/15/2016 07:07:51

diplo players shouldn't vote for a ladder they never played and never will play, to begin with

@TG I'm lazy, is that CGP Grey?

@Buns well I did that, I did learn stuff and discovered settings too. My time on WL has its limit so I focus it on what I really like. But RT ladder could be something I really like if I was matched on games with players of my level so I would actually have a chance to win. Right now I alresdyknow there s no point to try to win as I will always face a top 10 player. RT ladder needs more players and a kevel matching like 1v1 ladder to give me interest. If its just to discover settings I can just create games using them.

For the poll, I think you should start posting the templates you like to make fizzer s life easier and can set up a vote knowing which templates to include. This has been done several time but fizzer may not have the time to go through all the related threads.

Edit : oops I ve realised templates were already being suggested as per Fizzer request.

Edited 4/18/2016 13:41:19