As long as they are not added to a RT template on the ladder, not sure it is an issue IMO.

Chris they are on a RT ladder. Thats the problem

Playing with 2 accounts on the ladder is not allowed.

duh,

youd take the main out. why make an alt to train with if you were just gonna keep playing with the main anyway XD

It is already on RT? I thought that was not going to happen until after Fizzer did the RT ladder polls.

Shows you how often I am on RT ladder.


Do we have auto games for it? If so, then I think it is fair to have it on RT ladder. I think there should be auto games for every non-seasonal ladder BTW.

Edited 4/20/2016 18:38:57

^ Along with AI update Fizzer also exchanged Season IV with Season XXIII and removed WR from EA&O on the RT ladder.

Edited 4/20/2016 18:50:37

Can you use them in single player?

try finding a sparring partner who is a member and is willing to make games with commanders with you?

^ Seems like a decent option. You don't need a membership to play with commanders, you just need a friend with one :)

hint hint *wink* *wink* gib sum frendz

yeah they don't have to play themselves. I created a ton of practice games for my clan mates when they announced it for seasonal. But I do agree it shouldn't be on the ladder if some people are not able to practice it

There should be some constraints set on ladder templates rather than just pursuing variety. If you're going to rank people based on results across all templates (without having any weighting policy, either), then they should be fairly consistent. It's like having a ladder where you rank people based on their proficiency in card games in general- but someone's poker skill doesn't necessarily reflect their blackjack skill, and the two should be measured separately.

IMHO, MA, LD, Commanders, and a few other settings should be kept off the RT ladder since the skills that help you do well with those settings aren't the same skills that would help you conquer a template like Strat 1v1.

Then again, you have a 1-5 record against me.

I think this is a reasonable benefit to offer members - after all, there ought to be some value for paying up real money when other people don't do it. I think "no advantage" is purely supposed to mean that you can't buy extra starting armies, or increase your kill ratio etc as a paid member above a non-paid member. I don't think this principle has been violated with the commander issue. Otherwise, you could say having access to extra maps that non-members have to wait for is also an "advantage".

There should be some constraints set on ladder templates rather than just pursuing variety. If you're going to rank people based on results across all templates (without having any weighting policy, either), then they should be fairly consistent. It's like having a ladder where you rank people based on their proficiency in card games in general- but someone's poker skill doesn't necessarily reflect their blackjack skill, and the two should be measured separately.

IMHO, MA, LD, Commanders, and a few other settings should be kept off the RT ladder since the skills that help you do well with those settings aren't the same skills that would help you conquer a template like Strat 1v1.

I disagree. I think the theme of the RT ladder is finding the most flexible player who can preform well at a wide variety of situations while under time pressure. There are other ladders designed for specialists, the RT is designed for generalists.

As stated the membership issue isn't much of a disadvantage and can easily be overcome by friending members, the issue here is for what percentage of the ladder population is autopilot a pay to win option, and does it matter if it only affects 1-10% at the bottom?

Lets suppose two real life friends have just started Warlight. Person A is bad, but better than person B. B buys the membership and proceeds to beat A using autopilot much to his amusement. Does A have a valid complaint that it is unfair? Once this has happened one time, how can A ever know when he plays B if he's playing the bot or the player?

In person A's position I think a fair proportion would simply quit.

I disagree. I think the theme of the RT ladder is finding the most flexible player who can preform well at a wide variety of situations while under time pressure. There are other ladders designed for specialists, the RT is designed for generalists

The statement, that different settings should be kept away from the rt ladder, was weak, i agree.

However boring long games (LD), very random games (commanders) and games that are too luck based (light fog ME with wr) aren't suitable settings for a competitive realtime ladder imo.

Edited 4/22/2016 07:10:36

I think this is a reasonable benefit to offer members - after all, there ought to be some value for paying up real money when other people don't do it. I think "no advantage" is purely supposed to mean that you can't buy extra starting armies, or increase your kill ratio etc as a paid member above a non-paid member. I don't think this principle has been violated with the commander issue. Otherwise, you could say having access to extra maps that non-members have to wait for is also an "advantage".

I don't think members should have advantages over non-members at the game... It's not fun nor fair to lose bc someone spent money. That's bad for non members and members alike, doing this would shrink our community, that's a non-desirable thing.

I agree that the rt ladder should have diversitym but some templates are just weird/bad. There's plenty more templates that could replace them. For a start we could reduce the ammount of earth maps on that ladder, we already have it on both the 1v1 and 2v2 ladder.

double post

Edited 4/22/2016 16:57:29

If one gets beat by the current autopilot, he really should work on his gameplay. Afaik autopilot can't even use information from the history of the game...

I've tested autopilot quite a bit, and after the inital 2-3 turns, its orders often suck hard.

If one gets beat by the current autopilot, he really should work on his gameplay. Afaik autopilot can't even use information from the history of the game...

Why? The purpose of the game for some may be to become the best player they can, but probably for the majority it is to have fun.

What is wrong with just looking at a map and making the first move that comes to mind and seeing what happens? Yes they could study the map, the history, their opponents history, they could read guides on forums they could study game histories of top players. But what if that isn't what they find fun about the game? Some people don't want to have to work in order to have fun, they just want to play.

I'm not convinced it is a valid arguament to say just because someone doesn't invest the time into the game to improve, that they don't deserve a level playing field.

Yeah, sounds like what an elitist would say.

BURN HIM!