I like the ladder a lot. I agree the ratings seem a little funny.

The stating rating could be about 100-200 lower to rectify this.

I'm using a 3rd party library for the TrueSkill algorithm.
The ratings do seem messed up. I will see what I can do.


I'm not sure I want to switch the template to Multi-attack though. I know a lot of folks who really don't like it so much.

I think template-wise, the only likely change is that it could change from 0% SR to 0% WR to match the 1v1 ladder. However, that will only happen if there appears to be support for it. 0% WR is my personal preference, but we'll go with the will of the people :)

0% SR because there's more skill, and you know exactly how many armies you need to capture a territory / defend from attacker (based on income predictions).

I'm waiting for it to pair me with new opponents. I like this ladder!

I like 0% SR because I'm better at it. It's not entirely clear to me that it's more skill though - just different things to consider. If you ever lose the game because your 3 armies failed to take a neutral, either it was a very close game or you had no business using 3 armies for that territory.

Also, the ladder is a lot of fun - thanks for setting it up!

i'm 100% sure that playing with a bit of luck requires more skill. the term ''skill game'' for no luck cyclic is wrong used.

^^^ whats all the no-luck rage? IMO. 16% luck is more strategic than 0% luck. With no luck factors there would be an optimal starting position.

Any chance we could get a couple enhancements?:

1) Win-Loss record on player page (you can see all games, but not how many they have won or lost)
2) Some logic on matchups to prevent rematches. I have now played 3 of my 10 games against the same person. I am sure it just matches up available people with no formula right now.

i currently have my 17th and 18th game ongoing but in total within those 18 games i had 11 different opponents, okay i'm playing only 2 games at a time but nearly every time i get the same opponents after finishing another game

I have played smiley leg 5+ times out of my last 8 games...

We do have some logic to prevent rematches( players who've played each other in the last 3 days cannot get a match-up). It also randomly looks for players eligible for a game within [r-10,r+10] ranks, where r = your rank.

We'll make the following changes:
- increase the limit to 10 days instead of 3.
- increase rank range to [r-20, r+20].

Apologize for the same match-ups. That can't be much fun.


I'm currently traveling(work-related) and will get to The Win-Loss record on player page soon.
I also need to revamp the rating system soon.

Thanks man!

70 Players on the ladder and 45 of them have 1900+ ratings. I don't know if it would fix with more players, but the 2v2 Ladder doesn't have this problem and it has around 70 ranked teams.

(I gave links to this CLOT and its forum page in "Active CLOTs"
[ https://www.warlight.net/Forum/96149-active-clots ])

Edited 6/21/2015 00:47:06

I thought the 2v2 ladder system still used Bayeselo. Coulon did release third-party software you could use to make Bayeselo calculations here: http://remi.coulom.free.fr/Bayesian-Elo/

I can't find good libraries for it, though, but if someone could point me to a place where I can find the theory/formulas/algorithms, I can whip up a library in Python, Java, C, or C++ pretty quickly.

What is going on with this CLOT?

I got a loss in a game that I did not even get to pick in (and did not get booted):

http://multi-day-ladder.appspot.com/player/playerId=5681777339269120&&lotId=5629499534213120

If I click that game (top of my list), it says it does not exist. Please fix this as I did not lose that game (it just got removed from my game list).

FYI, it also removed me from the CLOT (I had to re-join).

Edited 6/30/2015 17:20:26

I just heard if you do not join game in 3 days it will delete and count as a loss? Why is this? If this is required in a CLOT, then you should put that in the game description AND list that on the CLOT page (it has an about section, game creation section). It does not state that rule anywhere on the page or game.