i would really appreciate more than 5 games on the ladder!

YASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Thanks so much fizzer!

Edited 8/25/2014 21:04:53

3v3 Eu ladder !

Some possible maps for rt ladder:
•Phobia
•Huruey's Castle
•Poland (seasonal)
•Macedonia
•Treasure map
•Volcano Island
•One of Qi's Middle East maps
•Red Dead Redemption (lol)
•HatG II (lol)
•Belarus (lol)
•Renaissance Italy (I can always redo, if need be)

Edited 8/25/2014 21:26:33

1v1 ladder: Change the map to Modified Medium Earth, or keep it on Medium Earth.
1v1 ladder: Change the move order to cyclic, or keep it on random.
1v1 ladder: Increase the number of games required to achieve a rank, or keep it at 15.
1v1/2v2 ladder: Require players complete X consecutive games to achieve a rank, or keep it as it is where they just need to finish X games total.
1v1/2v2 ladder: Switch to TrueSkill or keep using bayeselo.
1v1 ladder: Reduce matchmaking range or keep it at 30%.
1v1 ladder: Change luck modifier to 0% weighted random, 0% straight round, or keep it at 16% weighted random.
1v1 ladder: Increase the blockade multiplier to 500% like the 2v2 ladder, or keep it at 351%
1v1/2v2 ladder: Increase the time it takes for games to expire, or keep it as it is.
2v2 ladder: Change the map to Modified Medium Earth, Heavy Earth, Final Earth, or keep it on Medium Earth
2v2 ladder: Reduce the multiplier on the blockade card, or keep it at 500%
Real-time ladder: What templates you think should be removed
I would love to see light fog gone
Real-time ladder: What templates you think should be added
any decent one agree with apollo
Real-time ladder: Should the total number of templates stay at 10, be reduced, or increased.
Seasonal ladder: What features are you okay with seeing used occasionally: Randomized bonuses, local deployments, no-split, auto-distribution, free-for-all games, random teams, multi-attack.
I don't like all the settings and features but I believe all settings could and should be used and not everyone should play every seasonal ladder
I would avoid maps of more than 250 territories for 1v1 templates just my preference
Real-time ladder: Show number of players online, but not who. very important

other stuff

1v1 seems successful would not mess about it much what is holding it back is players actions not the mechanism
2v2 the template is not very interesting MME would help a little
but best is to use another map with at least 3 picks per player will be more interesting
seasonal i think current rating system is not suited for so many players see ottoman's run
http://warlight.net/LadderGames?ID=4013&LadderTeamID=5002
real time ladder 5 min auto boot for me is a problem any possibility on banking boot times?


edit

yes on 3v3 europe ladder if that is on the table

Edited 8/25/2014 21:46:38

3v3 EU Laddwr would be awesome and on tht not have Szeurope for the 2v2 would be almost as good.

3v3 Europe would be awesome :)

3v3 Europe ladder

Also Ineffable: If you want a 3-pick map, then Final Earth/Heavy Earth should be your vote, not MME.

I want a 3-pick template, so Final/Heavy earth for me. Honestly both are around the same amount of bonuses, I would probably prefer Final Earth with 1s turned off.

3v3 Europe Ladder please!! I'd also like it to be random teams every time but I can see why some wouldn't like that.

3v3 Europe!!! By popular demand!

is there a poll yet?

Not yet Miyagi.

Real time ladder: Please make a popup, when a game is created, so that people don't get booted.

Wow, thanks Fizzer. Really excited to see what comes out of this! :D

Hi Fizzer, and I echo the thanks to engage with the WL community in the changes. The changes I would like to see that are not listed above are:
I) in the 1v1 ladder, new players rise too quickly, only to fall down the rankings. But decent existing players can win lots more games than they lose, but not rise because of the constant influx of new players. I don't pretend to understand how the bayesian system works, but it would seem to me that new players should mostly be playing other new players and low ranked players, before coming in at no. 50.
2) I think there should be a countdown timer to boot players who do not join games. 3 days is enough time to join a game.

Pretty neutral on the other changes - thanks for a great game.

i think at this opint Fizzer could open the official polls.

Some of your options may need a little more explaining some people may not know the difference between 'true skill' and 'bayeselo' for example.

The bayesElo is common call ELO raing. Is the rating system we use in 1v1 2v2 and seasonal ladder ATM.
Is dynamic, each time one of player you played before change rating, influence your rating as well.
Is based in 2 thing: win rate and average rating of opponent you played.
In trueskillmeant (that we use in realtime ladder) is static (count only the true skill meant at the moment you played your opponent).
Is based by 2 thing: true skill meant that measure your skill, and varation, that you need to have <145 for get a rank. The forumla is TrueSkill - 3*Varation.

I can safety say, the second is much better.

for me, it hardly depends on how much you see the ladder as something, that ranks people, or as something you play to get good matchups. if you just want to get good matchups, ELO might be better. you don't need to concentrate very good on every game, because after a certain time, losses expire and you can start a serious run on the ladders.
if you want to play competitive and only then, whenyou"re super concentrated, trueskill is better, because it's harder to be gamed (on the 1vs1 ladder maybe impossible).

for newbies on the ladder, who want to see an improvement faster, ELO is better. of course old games are less weighted on trueskill, but they still take you down.

i completely agree.
But ladder are for play competetive, aren't it? :)
However Longhouse and POtato showed in trueskill meant too you can improve a lot your rating. they started with a low rating (1400) and they have 1950 and 2020 now.
I think trueskill meant would solve almost all problem:
-stall became useless. A single game Worth around 7/10 points after you played a good number of games.
-if you play just few games for get a rank (variation <145) you will never get a good rating bc forumla is trueskill - 3 * variation, so is a incentive for play more.
-more player will join ladder, bc if games non-expire, became pointless w8 some months before rejoin ;)

Exactly - the ladder would be more continuous, not based on runs but on constant skill. More like Chess and less like a ladder tbh, but still more enjoyable.

Edited 8/26/2014 12:30:39

I (of course) agree that TS is better.

I do want to counter the recurring myth that old games still "take you down".

The "games don't expire" on TrueSkill argument is not really correct. Games do expire immediately actually. The moment your new rating is calculated, the influence of this game has been taken into account and it will never be reused afterwards.
At that moment, your rating will be decreased, but once you win your next game, TS will increase your rating again.

If you play enough games that contradict the loss, TS will correct itself and you will get the same (actually, a very similar) rating as you would have when that loss never happened. Thus, if you play quick, your losses "expire" faster than they would with BayesElo.
(Fun fact: losing against a bad player may actually penalise your variance more than your mean if you consistently win against good players. And reducing the variance again can be done easily by, you can guess it, playing more.)

If you want to interpret "expiring" as "having no influence at all on your current rating", playing enough games in TS will achieve the same thing anyway. How much exactly depends on the parameters and how close to 0 you want the influence to be. Exactly 0 means "<0.001" for TrueSkill, which could take 100+ games, however "<1" (which is what will make a difference in practice), may be achieved pretty quickly. If I ever find some time, I plan to do some simulations on this to give an idea about the exact numbers. Of course, this depends on many factors, basically the ratings of all your opponents.


Additionally: the technical gradual decline of the influence of an older game on the current rating of TS is much more logical than the hard-cut of 100% - 0% influence of a game in BayesElo. This is known to give weird results such as when tennis players play the final of a Grand Slam and still lose points (and ranks) because they won it the previous year. It is illogical (and to me a little frustrating) that the largest changes in the ladder occur not because of recent great wins, but because of expiring old bad losses.

Edited 8/26/2014 13:10:50