I think that both weighted random as well as straight rounding settings are competitively equally viable settings, provided of course low luck values are used. On one hand, you have the calculated risk taking games with weighted random, forcing strategies such as Sze described. On the other, there's the merciless no-luck settings which have an emphasis on micro skills and careful analysis. It's highly interesting to see that such a small change in the settings can provide a totally different gameplay experience, and I enjoy alternating between them.
That said, I think Gui's idea of selecting a couple of balanced 1v1 templates in order to create a Ladder map rotation would be a good idea as quite evidently the Strategic 1v1 template is hardly the ultimate quantifier of skill level anymore. After all, the different luck settings completely change around the metagame. Moreover, it would make the Ladder a lot less stale and tedious as many players seem to find it. And a more fun to play Ladder would definitely attract more players and increase its competitiveness as a result.
[中国阳朔]Chaos posted:
Anyone tried with 3 on the neutrals and more income or starting armies?
Three on neutrals is actually quite the brilliant setting and I've had a lot of fun playing around with that one. Both random round or straight round settings work well, but with random round you'd definitely need to go with 0% luck, as that's the only setting that allows 100% success rate on 5v3*. The straight round version with 3 on neutrals is most notably used in the 7v7 games in the Nations Cup, with great success (it's become kind of a personal favourite to me). The key in taking down 3 on neutrals with straight round lies in the fact that you can take it with 1v3 + 3v2. It takes the same losses as 5v3, but needs one army less to overtake. As a result, one needs to plan their micro out even more than the same settings with 2 on neutrals, as you'd need to factor in hitting neutrals with 1's from adjacent territories and such. For team games, this means that players can help their teammates create bonusses faster than they could on their own if they have adjacent lands to the bonus they want to complete.
As far as random round settings go with these neutrals, it would play out largely the same as with 2 on neutrals, but acquiring cards would be tougher as safe takeovers are expensive to make when under enemy pressure. I'm not sure, but logic would therefore suggest it rewards offensive play more due to this if the reinforcement card is in play. The player with the initiative would have more opportunities to make safe takeovers, thus getting reinforcements faster, which can then be used to press the advantage even further. Theorizing the matter even further, getting back in the game when you're behind would be more difficult than with two on neutrals, as you cannot start employing more risky tactics to turn the game around. With standard neutrals, you could switch to 3v2 and try to use luck to make up for your disadvantage, but since 4v3 only has 40% chance of succeeding, this tactic would generally not pay off.
---
*Compare: season III, I believe, was on East Asia & Oceania with 3 on neutrals and 16% luck. With those settings, 5v3 had only 94% chance of success, which resulted in some players being highly screwed over thanks to one of these attacks failing in the early game. If such a failure resulted in a turn delay in making the first bonus, it was basically a guaranteed defeat. It was one of the reasons why people started questioning the luck settings, eventually leading to the implementation of straight round.
