Though most templates have crappy luck, doesn't matter whether its auto or manual. To me auto greece is just worth a use of a veto.

Like you said, every template can have boards where the game is decided by luck(OP first pick etc). I judge templates by how balanced they are over the course of many games. That's the beauty of a continuous ladder. Every game is not a must win and over a period of time, your luck will balance out. I would obviously not like such templates on competitions like CL where every game is a must-win, but it definitely belongs on MDL.

A main and important change, in my opinion, would be to remove the luck from the templates, else it would be more luck than skill required

Managing risk is a skill as well. If it wasn't, how do you explain the top players consistently performing well?
Seems like you're suggesting everything be 0%SR NLC, and that is something which will never happen. One of my main motivations for creating MDL was sheer frustration with the current ladders on WL. I understand that every template will not be to everyone's liking, but that is why you have vetoes.

I never liked the argument of "over time things will balance out". That is silly statistics talk. I have never liked Random Move order, even IF over 1,000 games I get a 50-50 split on first move. Timing is EVERYTHING. Averaging out means jack squat if they always get first move when it really counts and I get first move when it really doesn't matter.


It probably all does work out, but I still don't like it. I want the person who played better to win every time. Managing risk IS a skill, getting auto picked does not fall in that category though. How can I manage that risk? I have zero control over it. In %0 WR, you still have some control...they are not comparable.

What I am saying is that I am OK with some luck. Auto dist is %100 luck (at least on picks).

Be that as it may, I will try and win it either way. But I suspect if I were playing vs you, I would not have the same chance I do right now.

You can't disagree with Chris that he is pretty badly disadvantaged with those starts. He can either go for the green 5 bonus or the red 4 bonus, but that's hoping Baer doesn't predict which one.

i dont disagree but then the ftb does not count for anything since you cant do a counter if you take it.

but who cares what I feel, by that I mean I assume other players may feel the same as me.

i fell the opposite of you and would not play the mdl if it did follow your ideal, as many others also, so if what you say is true(which it very well might be) then your argument have no wheight other then that you would like it the other way

I want the person who played better to win every time.

then you need to play a perfect information game like chess, and not play WL

Edited 7/12/2017 17:25:44

That last statement makes no sense. If someone plays better on a no luck template, they will win %100 of the time.

You don't need perfect in WL, you just need BETTER to win without luck. Almost always, better will beat small amounts of luck as well. My only concern is larger amounts of luck, which is what Auto Dist is.

That being said, I am OK with it being on here, because there is a veto option. It IS a diff way of playing, so people have the option of avoiding it.

In my original post, I did not know about the veto option.

Edited 7/12/2017 17:33:08

I never liked the argument of "over time things will balance out". That is silly statistics talk. I have never liked Random Move order, even IF over 1,000 games I get a 50-50 split on first move. Timing is EVERYTHING. Averaging out means jack squat if they always get first move when it really counts and I get first move when it really doesn't matter.

If you're making a run of 20 games, then yeah you're probably going to get screwed over. But MDL was always harsh on anyone who wanted inflated ratings with silly runs ;) Play 100 games on MDL and tell me it didn't average out. Look at any player with enough games, and you will see it.

There is no such thing as a perfect template where the "person who played better wins every time". Name one such template, and I'm sure someone will find you a game which had nothing to do with the winner playing better.

EDIT: Didn't see your latest post. I think we're sort of in agreement then. We're just debating what level of randomness is acceptable, which is a more reasonable discussion.

Edited 7/12/2017 17:37:14

Of course. amount of luck is merely a preference. I'm all good. BTW, I have that game won, he isn't surrendering though :(

That last statement makes no sense. If someone plays better on a no luck template, they will win %100 of the time

this is evidently false. very bad players can beat very good ones in WL, one of the major reasons is due to fog, since you could just luck out and be a place which is a perfect counter by pure luck. also even with no fog this can happen as there is many starting positions, even though the skill gap in general would be a bit closer here i think. i have played quite a lot of chess(a perfect information game, that is almost equal from the start) in the past and i know how often a very good player gets beaten here by a player very much worse then him. it never happens. this is simply because there is no such thing as a no luck template in wl

Edited 7/12/2017 18:02:20

If you are countered by a pick, that is NOT luck. I am not talking about skill of the player. I am talking about who played better IN THAT GAME. If you get countered picked and lose because of it on a no luck template...you got outplayed.

No luck means picks based on time. You still have control there over 1st pick vs 2-3, etc. Now on 1v1 ladder let's say...there is still SOME luck because you don't know if you will get first pick or not. But it is almost no luck, and you can mitigate that risk of pick order with your picks.

I never said bad players can't beat better ones. In that case, they happen to have outplayed the better player. Show me where a player on a no luck template played better than their opponent and still lost.

Edited 7/12/2017 18:14:36

if that player that wins have no idea that his picks were to be a counter but picked them out in the blue, then you would say that the player outplayed the other one in that case, it was not lucky that he picked there? hmm ok, i think we just are fundamentally in disagreement about what is luck and skill. so you can play better and have no skill then the best player ever on wl even if he concentrates and you dont know what your doing? you just happens to be at the right spot at the right time, that is not luck?

also i will not find a a game were a a player played better then the opponent and lost, since your definition of playing better is simply winning, so it is a given that no such game exists

Edited 7/12/2017 18:43:17

If you are countered by a pick, that is NOT luck. I am not talking about skill of the player. I am talking about who played better IN THAT GAME. If you get countered picked and lose because of it on a no luck template...you got outplayed.

Not every counter is because you get outplayed. A counter can be due to luck as well. You could even have blind counters(a certain Italian springs to mind). I completely disagree that counters are purely skill based.

No luck means picks based on time. You still have control there over 1st pick vs 2-3, etc. Now on 1v1 ladder let's say...there is still SOME luck because you don't know if you will get first pick or not. But it is almost no luck, and you can mitigate that risk of pick order with your picks.

I never said bad players can't beat better ones. In that case, they happen to have outplayed the better player. Show me where a player on a no luck template played better than their opponent and still lost.

Ok. Let's take an example on your 1v1 ladder template. This is your board -
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11684817. I claim that this is a bullshit game( No offense to Edge. He did his research, so well done to him).

That 3,4,5 pick combo can so easily backfire on him and cost him the game on picks(Imagine if Buns had just picked ER or WC or picked ER/WC as 3/4 and they split it). It didn't because his opponent decided to do something which ensured it doesn't happen(this is pure chance/luck/call it what you want). There is a lot of thought put into picks by Buns, but all of that was undone by Edge going all or nothing on picks. This is not "outplaying Buns" in my book. Should we ban this holy template as well now? ;)

Edited 7/12/2017 18:45:49

But both players have control over their picks. How is that not a case of someone outplaying the other person (because they outpicked them)?

My point is that both players are in complete control of everything in that game (outside who gets first pick, which was no factor in that game). So I am lost as to what external uncontrolled factor caused that game to result differently? If those two players made the same moves/picks in 100 games on the same board, it would have gone the same way. If there was random move order or %0 WR, it could go differently, and thus luck being a factor. But in this game, it could not have played out any differently, unless the players themselves made different CHOICES.

You can say Buns is the better player (I am not making the argument, just saying it is valid), and got beat on a fluky counter (you could say smart too). But how can you say Buns outplayed his opponent and got unlucky? They were in complete control of that outcome.

Also, sorry for derailing. I wish I could move these posts to the strategic forum as it has nothing to do with MDL.

Edited 7/12/2017 18:51:31

Ancient Greece II LD is the best LD template out there. At least you know right away that there is the possibility of a pick lottery, unlike the other LD templates currently/formerly used on the RTL.

but i think what your talking about is interesting, that significantly more skilled players can lose to significantly worse ones in a scenario where there is no luck involved. normally this is not the case, i cant sometimes make a better chair then a carpenter or be better at math then a math professor. the chair will always be way worse and the math professor will always be right when he says that im wrong in what im saying about math(if i were saying anything :) ). this is because i'm not very good at either math nor woodworking and there is no luck involved in theise activitys. on the other hand something like poker were there is luck involved you can very easily win over a much better player, for obvious reasons. now what your talking about is a no luck scenario were significant skill difference sometimes does not "work". i have a very hard time comprehending what this kind of skill is, as it seems to me very different from what is normally understood by skill

Edited 7/12/2017 22:11:41

My point is that both players are in complete control of everything in that game[...]So I am lost as to what external uncontrolled factor caused that game to result differently? If those two players made the same moves/picks in 100 games on the same board, it would have gone the same way[...] But in this game, it could not have played out any differently, unless the players themselves made different CHOICES.[...] They were in complete control of that outcome. .

so the game battelship is a no luck game?

Edited 7/12/2017 20:19:10

You are equating a wide open board with probably hundreds of thousands of starting combinations with zero intel to a game that has a couple dozen starting options that overlap with your opponent?

I get what you are trying to do. The players have complete control in battleship, but come on. Apples to oranges.

In a game that measures skill like WL, and in a no luck template, it is fair to say the winner played better.

Edited 7/12/2017 20:37:49

@Chris

What would this game be to you?

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=13782946

It is normal cycle rather than nlc if that matters.

That is a great example of what I said. There is some luck in that you don't have control over who gets first pick. The amount of luck from the first pick depends on how impactful having it is. Depends on every distribution (and of course requires the same picks like your example).

Not sure what we are arguing about really. This started out by me saying I don't like Auto Dist because you have less of an expectation that the person who plays better will actually win. Now it seems to be an argument of IS there luck in WL?

im trying to say that your definition of luck means that battelship is a no luck game, i do agree that it an absurd claim, but that was my point, that your definiton is encompassing battelship, this is to show case that prehaps there is a problem whit it.

it was the same reason why i did post about what skill is normally understood as( to some degree at least)

Edited 7/19/2017 21:26:40

I don't really understand why auto-distribution is so wonderful... The idea that you get random picks that can easily give a opponent a advantage/disadvantage is something I don't find appealing or really that interesting. Good simulation for practicing when you have the lead or need to make a comeback but I don't know if the MDL ladder is the correct place. However diversifying game settings into the ladder is very important but for me Auto-distribution isn't the most fairest setting on a ladder.

^My argument to support that would be WHY (instead of looking at the why not)? What does auto dist ADD to that template. Other settings (Multi Attack, Commanders, LD, etc) all add a new set of rules that are all fair to each player. What does auto dist add? The only pro is that it takes less time (no picking time). That is it. So if you do some RT fun game, why not? But in a ladder, what is the benefit?

I suppose there was some satisfaction to 'dig out of a hole' aspect in my game. But is that really a great way to play on a ladder? What makes it 'better' than manual dist? You can argue that %0 WR is better or worse than %0 SR. Those arguments will never end. I don't see how auto dist can ever be better though, unless you just want to save a bunch of time in a RT team game.

Would the template (taken in a vacuum and ignoring what other templates you have on the MDL) be better WITH or WITHOUT auto dist? Are we justifying using auto dist simply because it is different?

Edited 7/12/2017 22:07:29