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!

The argument is basically that a non-member can't practice commander games as easily as members and this gives an unfair advantage to members. I'm not overly inclined to agree. You can get into commander games easily enough, and you don't need to practice on that exact map - just learn and understand commanders.

Ultimately, when it comes to the match itself, it comes down to how well you play and whether or not you've paid doesn't affect that. That's what's important, and that's been retained.

Your argument could also be made to say that players who've been around for years have an unfair advantage over noobs. It's not unfair, it just is what it is.

That said, it might be worthwhile to add a single-player mode with commanders to allow people to practice that way

And if you can't beat the autopilot, you have no business being on the ladder. I think it's a fair basic requirement that you can beat the AI before you should expect to get anywhere on the ladder

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.

1st of all the whole point of the rt ladder is it is a large variety of templates so is more of a measure at being good at a number of different types of playstyle rather than just strat me.

2nd, blackjack doesn't have skill in it, there are a set of rules depending on what your card and what the dealer's up card is which tell you exactly what strategy to go for to make the most money (or lose the least). Unless you are talking about card counting which you could argue is more skill based but follows a similar sort of thing, stick to the basic rules you can learn online and you will win more than someone going off what they feel like (on average).

Just learn the templates from actually playing the ladder, I don't get people who don't play the ladder because they don't know the templates/maps. Though a single player set level with commanders would also work, especially when it seems like something fizzer would happily implement.

But yeah the whole reason I have played the rt ladder for so long and so much is just because of the variety while under more pressure since it is real time. As much as I dislike commanders, if there is a decent template with them then stick it on the ladder.

Autopilot should still be taken off the ladders, the level of play at the bottom of the rt ladder is pretty low. Players rated around 900 on it probably would lose to autopilot most the time.

i dont get the problem with the commanders. i think they are just as stragetic as the normal settings and because of that a good thing to add as a template. why would you get very random games?

Edited 4/22/2016 10:10:58

Mister t you payed the last season. Do you feel like games with commanders on that template aren't pretty random, except you count everything (not possible on rt)? I feel like i should never have won that many games with the shitty picks+play i did last season

If you look trough seasonal games you see ridiculous stuff. Maybe fun, but not suitable for a ladder imo, cause with one guess the disadvantaged player wins

Edited 4/22/2016 11:04:23

well i do see your point that you have a slightly higher chance of coming back when you are slightly behind with these settings.

but look at window cleaner's season. he ended 6th. he lost 5 games exactly against the 5 people who ended the season above him and won against 15 who all ended below him. If there was a big random factor you would expect him to have lost against some people who ended lower and won against some people who ended higher.
i see this same pattern for all other people i checked.

if you have the feeling you should never have won that many games with your shitty play plus picks but because of the randomness of the commander you won some of those games anyway you can probably show one of your games to prove this.

in an ideal world somebody would do some factor analyse of all games if there is a bigger random factor with the commander settings compared to normal settings so we have prove. unfortunatly im a simple postmen so i dont have the skills to do this.

oh and as last de randomness is way bigger in your beloved strat wr settings.

I will show you some games when i come home