https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10700776

A game from the template posted earlier
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=780139

2v2 Seasonal ladder anytime soon?

1. https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10573076
2. RDR Risky Income
3. Both

Two other things to put on the poll:

1. Attack only, transfer only, attack by % on the 3v3 ladder (I believe transfer only is already there)

2. Bring back 0%WR on the 1v1 ladder, unless you put it on RT Ladder. Since I doubt you will do either, here's my argument:

- The new template is too easy to expand on.

- People pick the same things, repetitive games.

- If you get your 6th pick (126), you've most likely won the game.

- The enthuasiasm on the new template is much lower, top players don't play it anymore.

- The new ladder is perfect for runs, the template gets boring after 20 or so games.

- The original warlight game was meant to simulate war, not chess.

- In the old ladder, you have to adjust to everything, micromanagement is much much harder.

Here's proof that the community likes WR better:

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/103738-time-remove-luck-strategic-templates?Offset=0

Edited 4/16/2016 11:38:48

Two other things to put on the poll:

1. Attack only, transfer only, attack by % on the 3v3 ladder (I believe transfer only is already there)

2. Bring back 0%WR on the 1v1 ladder, unless you put it on RT Ladder. Since I doubt you will do either, here's my argument:

- The new template is too easy to expand on.

- People pick the same things, repetitive games.

- If you get your 6th pick (126), you've most likely won the game.

- The enthuasiasm on the new template is much lower, top players don't play it anymore.

- The new ladder is perfect for runs, the template gets boring after 20 or so games.

- The original warlight game was meant to simulate war, not chess.

- In the old ladder, you have to adjust to everything, micromanagement is much much harder.

1. Yeah it should be. In my opinion fizzer has the wrong idea about not including strategic features because it is not noob friendly. To play the ladder you need a very high level, by then surely they know how to play with most features.

2.

- Its easier to expand on SR than WR (thats obvious to everyone), but there are games where you just can't afford to expand.

- People picked similar things in ME WR, though its true people tried crazier picks in it which could actually work, like triple west china.

- If you got 1 2 6 on ME WR you also likely win the game.

- Enthuasism is lower? Yeah sure list me some top players who specifically don't play the ladder anymore because of the changes, not because they were growing tired of warlight. I doubt you can get past 10.

- Another bad point, perfect for runs? The ladder system makes it perfect for runs, not the template.

- Meh point.

- Fair point, it was more taking into account attacks failing instead of calculating that you will have enough income and armies to take a bonus in a turn or two ahead.


It's not being changed back to WR, I don't see why you guys still try. And just to state it, I like both variants of the ladder. Only thing I think is much worse in my opinion is east US in MME.

Post-Melt Antarctica
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10467150
I'm suggesting it for the realtime ladder, but I wouldn't mind it being a seasonal template either.

@buns:

1. MoD
2. Myself
3. Timinator
4. MotD
5. Jefferspin (I already feel bad about calling him a top player)
6. AG (This one hurts more)
7. Miyagi
8. Gui
9. GreenTea (Idk this one for sure, but he hasn't joined ladder since it turned SR)
10. Sephiroth (alright this one hurt the most to call a top player)

It's not a valid point for another reason: Ladders aren't just for top players, they're for everyone. This ladder is easier to learn, therefore is easier for everyone. Just because 10+ top players would withhold themselves from competing doesn't mean the change is bad.

^ Piggy?
Gnuff?
Beelz?

It's not a valid point for another reason: Ladders aren't just for top players, they're for everyone. This ladder is easier to learn, therefore is easier for everyone. Just because 10+ top players would withhold themselves from competing doesn't mean the change is bad.

Fair enough I suppose. I said that because I just don't have the motivation anymore to play.

Personally I prefer the new 1v1 ladder settings. I think MME is better than ME since there are more viable picks, East US would never have gotten chosen on the old ladder. The 0% SR also makes the +5 bonuses much more viable options, so there are fewer games with only 6 halfway-decent picks. Also there are no longer situations in which you can have a coin flip determine who wins, for instance if you need to issue 3 attacks of 3 to take a bonus and still have enough armies left to defend another bonus, if your attacks succeed you win, otherwise you lose.

I also agree the 2v2 ladder should have 4 picks.

For the seasonal ladder, I think it would be very interesting to combine commanders with heavy fog. I don't know exactly how such a template would work, it certainly wouldn't be purely strategic, but I think it would be a lot of fun. To me, the 1v1, 2v2, and RT ladders are mostly about strategy, while the seasonal ladder should be used more for rather exotic templates that might not otherwise be played.

Edited 4/17/2016 01:38:59

^ Piggy?
Gnuff?
Beelz?

All 3 are invalid. Piggy quit long before SR Ladder was a thing. If you're about to link me to a post in which Piggy rants about the SR Ladder, that's Gui using Piggy's account.

Gnuffles has been retired as well, long before SR Ladder

Same with Beelz.

In regards to comparing the 2: WR Ladder was better for the map type. In a situation that is fluid (IE: doesn't depend on any one style such as brawls, expansion, etc.), WR tends to be better since you're forced to balance risk management. SR makes more sense on bigger maps due to the fact you're incentivized to explore the map (That is, move in a way to scout information), and in brawls you can actually count how to fight appropriately (although brawl-specific templates will usually incorporate small reinforcements, +armies per territory or something in order to help create different ways to fight)

ME itself is a map that doesn't fit a style, but is too small to encourage scouting for information, so WR just makes more sense.

MME has some problems such as East US and East Russia imo, which become a bit more noticeable in SR since it's not even a risk to go for them in some scenarios.

Overall, ME WR is good, MME SR is alright.

@buns:

1. MoD
2. Myself
3. Timinator
4. MotD
5. Jefferspin (I already feel bad about calling him a top player)
6. AG (This one hurts more)
7. Miyagi
8. Gui
9. GreenTea (Idk this one for sure, but he hasn't joined ladder since it turned SR)
10. Sephiroth (alright this one hurt the most to call a top player)

It's not a valid point for another reason: Ladders aren't just for top players, they're for everyone. This ladder is easier to learn, therefore is easier for everyone. Just because 10+ top players would withhold themselves from competing doesn't mean the change is bad.
Official ladder

Jefferspin plays the new version of the ladder, he is ranked at this time.

Gui played it until getting booted? I remember peix not being able to get first for while since gui joined back. Gui also seems pretty inactive at times, so he probably wouldn't be playing the ladder if it was ME WR.

But my point was about mainly these kind of players, just how people say the ladder has lost many highly ranked players in the switch over, when actually it is not as bad as people make out. It is the same thing of players making runs, holding first for a day or two dropping in rating and then quitting.

I agree with your last point though, as long as the ladder has settings which have some depth to differentiate play between players with different levels of skill.

Edited 4/17/2016 12:03:02

In the end, i think we can agree, that replacing the old template with the new one, cost us a lot of dept on that ladder. It's easier to learn and play.

Also (sadly) that modification didn't really pay off on coin games. If newbies play a coin template, then it's small earth not MME. When someone is playing a MME coin game, it's still the same players as before that update, cause MME is already too hard for the newbies (i don't want to say it would be good if the new 1vs1 ladder template was small earth ;)).

Edited 4/17/2016 12:31:09

1. A link to a FINISHED GAME using the settings:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=7190215
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=7712221

2. A name of the template:
Warring States China (https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=526674)

3. Whether you'd like to see it in the real-time ladder, seasonal ladder, or both:
I like to see it in both.

'Warring States China' is different from 'Ancient China' suggested by Sułtan Kosmitów (map version 2.1 instead of 2.2, having more interesting bonuses).

Edited 4/17/2016 12:46:52

I agree with Python's Koala:

To me, the 1v1, 2v2, and RT ladders are mostly about strategy, while the seasonal ladder should be used more for rather exotic templates that might not otherwise be played.

i dont care about new templates, just change that ugly china template

Here's a solution for you HHH

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/147629-china-league-season

Maybe a poll regarding number of RTL templates? 10 templates are ok by me, but, for example, with 15 there is more room for proposals from this thread.

Benjamin628, i am tired of your stupid posts. Please start to learn from your mistakes, kid :(

Not sure if :( or :/

@Buns

But my point was about mainly these kind of players, just how people say the ladder has lost many highly ranked players in the switch over, when actually it is not as bad as people make out. It is the same thing of players making runs, holding first for a day or two dropping in rating and then quitting.

I agree with this point completely. It's not like the ladder has really changed much since it was converted to 0% SR (although I personally find the new template dry), in the terms that you have put forth. The biggest difference in terms of the ladder in general - not the settings - are the top players. I don't want to sound arrogant here or anything, but 7 out of the top 20 players would be in the top 20 of the old ladder. What this suggests is that a different skill set is required for the new ladder than the new ladder (obviously). The concept of "risk management" that was prominent in the old ladder versus the more certain, albeit more tedious, method of "bean-counting" (for lack of a better word) utilized in the new ladder is the main difference between the two ladders. For me, I believe learning to count and discern possible outcomes accurately is a much easier skill to master than figuring out how much to depend on luck. That is my biggest gripe with the new ladder - how it has traded some of its complexity just to shift to a "No-Luck" standard. The new ladder has almost lazily taken the settings from the old ladder and expected it to be the most strategical template for 0% SR. As Lolowut/"Kenny" said, MME is not a suitable map for 0% SR. There isn't really much room for complexity when you're just counting on such a small map. That being said, a No-Luck 1v1 Ladder would be great - but the settings right now are far from being the most strategic template for No-Luck settings.


What I would love to see is two different 1v1 ladders - WR and SR. I'm not sure how much effort that would require (if any at all), but I see no negative consequences that emerge from having two separate ladders. If Fizzer could consider this, I'm sure that would make a lot of people happy.