I agree with those points. The template does allow for much more luck than the previous one and that is obvious. It does allow worse teams to upset better teams and I do think there should be a change. 0% and more picks would be great.

Maybe if enough of us spammed Fizzer with private messages, he'd do something about it.

@ChrisCMU

Sure the template is luck based, and that is something that requires a different skill set then what is normally used among "elite" players. More casuals players often like to have higher luck settings, and as such they may very well be more skilled on luck templates.

As a chess player I certently find the value of a balanced game were there is no "luck". However that is not why I play WL, I play it because it has luck.

Is the success of a ladder depending on how good the players are or how many players that play in the ladder? One would think that would be number of players, no? So yes, if changing the 1v1 ladder to 75% luck increased number of players, that would that would be a good change.

EDIT: forgot to respond to this;

Really tbest? The template has nothing to do with who plays a ladder? Then why do people drop every season when they dont like it?

Assuming you mean "elite" players when you say "who plays a ladder"

My point was, If you want to complain about a template don't drag in weather that or that player chooses to play it. If the template has few number of unique players it is a failure and if that number is high it is a success. (in terms of a Ladder) Instead of saying that you believe changing x will lead to the "elite" players returning to the ladder the goal should be to increase the number of players. Therefore you would be better of arguing that changing x leads to more players.

Minior note: "Really tbest?" is the perfect way to sound arrogant. 1. You don't bother writing my nick properly. 2. Starting of with "Really" is not needed simply, @TBest would satisfied. (It sounds like you didn't even consider my arguments/ found them to far out to be serious)

Edited 4/3/2015 19:53:08

@TBest
This game was built on the backbones of "elite" players. If there is a ladder and NO competition, whats the point?

Ladder should be gauges for skill..... and skill involves NO LUCK.... so if you want to correctly be able to define someone as elite or noob then you need a better template. And just for clarification: Everyone is a noob unless proven otherwise.....

Just how it is.

This game was built on the backbones of "elite" players.

May very well be true, but I don't think this is the case today. (Although they probably play more coin games etc. Either way I don't see how that is relevant for the 2v2 ladder.)

If there is a ladder and NO competition, whats the point?

If you want a super competitive environment go to 1v1 ladder or/and play coin games, but I don't see that as the point. The point of playing games is too have fun. (Now what an individual finds as fun is different from person to person ofc, but the 2v2 ladder certently seems to be fun. Based on the number of ranked teams.)

" and skill involves NO LUCK"
Fundamentally disagree with this. (poker for instance is certainly a skill game, and so is a game with 75% luck)

Edited 4/4/2015 18:52:26

Why should the 1v1 ladder be competative and 2v2 not? Shouldn't all ladders be competative, that is the point of a ladder. I am not saying there should be no luck, even though I prefer it (as I have said before I get why people like 3v2s to fail at times). But it should not be as lucked based as it is. And yes, it takes some skill to account for that luck, I get that. I am not discounting everyone doing well On the template. I just dont see how you can think the system cannot be improved.

More people playing it does not make it better. How many people played lotto games when points first came out? That did not mean those games were suddenly better.

Edited 4/6/2015 05:52:38

The 2v2 ladder is certainly skill based. (Team #1 is currently about 300 points ahead of #2, this I would claim is a sign of skill.) Although team #1 is far ahead, the rest of the ladder are close in rating. (How else would you measure "competitiveness"?) Yes, I am sure that the whole community of WL would like more "elite" players to play in it (2v2 lad.), but I don't think this is due to a poor template.

I never said that I " think the system cannot be improved." What I do say is that the 2v2 ladder is currently not in need of "fixing". (ref. thread title.) And there is no need to adjust the luck in it. Generally one would want a ladder template to change very rarely, and only a major reason should initiate such a change.

"More people playing it does not make it better. How many people played lotto games when points first came out? That did not mean those games were suddenly better. "

I was obviously talking in the context of a ladder. More players makes a ladder more attractive, as the higher positions becomes more desired.

EDIT: Seems 2nd poster in this thread just changed opinion; https://www.warlight.net/Forum/84497-looking-2v2-ladder-partner

EDIT 2: He didn't, as he posted below.

Edited 4/7/2015 00:53:20

The 2v2 ladder is certainly skill based. (Team #1 is currently about 300 points ahead of #2, this I would claim is a sign of skill.) Although team #1 is far ahead, the rest of the ladder are close in rating. (How else would you measure "competitiveness"?) Yes, I am sure that the whole community of WL would like more "elite" players to play in it (2v2 lad.), but I don't think this is due to a poor template.

The ratings have nothing to do with it. The #5 team on the ladder (they were #3 at one time) has not picked the correct number of picks in ANY game:

https://www.warlight.net/LadderTeam?LadderTeamID=8051

How on earth can you say the ladder accurately measures skill when that happens? I count at least a dozen teams ranked below them that I would expect to win %95 of their games against this team on the old ladder template.

EDIT: Seems 2nd poster in this thread just changed opinion; https://www.warlight.net/Forum/84497-looking-2v2-ladder-partner

What does playing the ladder have to do with anything? I am also playing the ladder with Tenshi, and I know another half dozen great players that are on the ladder despite knowing it needs more picks. It helps to know exactly how it needs to be changed if you play a lot on it.

Here are other posts on the subject:

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/56638-2v2-ladder-settings

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/71957-weak-2v2-ladder

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/55494-upcomin-ladder-change

I doubt you can find a single person in there that said they wanted 2 starts on Final Earth.

TBest:

Chris is bringing up a discussion in order to try make the 2v2 ladder template more enjoyable and more competitive - in response you call him arrogant and polemicize with bullshit arguments.

And for your information, even if I want to play on the 2v2 ladder, I still think that the map is too big for 2 starting spots/player and 16%WR is lame

@ChrisCMU
#5 Team picked enough spots in this game https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8403121 first and only one I checked. (Since they don't overlap 5 is enough, this was the last game they finished)

"How on earth can you say the ladder accurately measures skill when that happens? I count at least a dozen teams ranked below them that I would expect to win %95 of their games against this team on the old ladder template."

First I pointed out that team#1 have 300 points to 2nd place. Don't see how this could happen if there was high luck involved. Therefore the rating shows skill (accuracy can always be debated). Secondly you compere a skilled team on the old 2v2 template to the current one. Has it occurred to you that different players may be skilled at different things/templates?

The 2nd thread you linked too:
"I actually liked the template more, I think me and Kryschu did better off even. If had not been leaving soon, we'd be sitting in 3rd by now. Due to the other teams leaving typically." Apollo

@Sephiroth
I never called him arrogant. I responded to ChirsCMU asking Lolowut why he found him arrogant. (I wrote "You appear arrogant because..." <-- that was and is an intended difference)
Which of my arguments are BS?

Edited 4/7/2015 01:24:54

5 picks is NOT enough even without overlap. If they got first pick, the person with 5 picks could have gotten his 1st choice and 6th (if the other team overlapped 4 picks). So NO, they did not pick the right amount there.

300 points between rankings means nothing. It only means that team beat higher rated teams and deserve to be where they are. That does not mean the #5 team deserves to be where they are.

Yes, Apollo said he liked it better, but he was also high on the ladder. I would expect those high on there to be biased. So you found 1 person out of dozens that said they liked it better.

Just admit that you like the more luck based template because it is in fact more luck based.

"5 picks is NOT enough even without overlap. If they got first pick, the person with 5 picks could have gotten his 1st choice and 6th (if the other team overlapped 4 picks). So NO, they did not pick the right amount there."

Proves that I don't play the 2v2 ladder and don't always think before posting. You are right they don't pick enough. (and most games for them have 4 picks.) Kind of Namib playing I suppose. #trustFizzer

"300 points between rankings means nothing. It only means that team beat higher rated teams and deserve to be where they are. That does not mean the #5 team deserves to be where they are."

Well if you assume you are right about "elite" not playing I guess they do deserve #5.


"Yes, Apollo said he liked it better, but he was also high on the ladder. I would expect those high on there to be biased. So you found 1 person out of dozens that said they liked it better. "

I guess you are biased if you are low on the ladder too. (bad settings). And if you are not ranked (not worth playing.) etc. Yes he is biased, but thinking that anyone is not biased is just stupid. We are all biased.

As for the linked thread. 1st thread seems to be before anyone had really played the new template. 2nd is about "elite" not playing/being ranked, were several plausible reasons were offered. The 3rd thread is about the poll and RT ladder.

"Just admit that you like the more luck based template because it is in fact more luck based."
I like some luck in my games, because it takes more skill! There is ofc a limit to how much luck should be involved. I posted about it here https://www.warlight.net/Forum/80427-defend-setting-someone-hates?Offset=40

Edited 4/7/2015 02:01:05

the "more luck requires more skill" is a good example of a bs argument

It is anything but a bs argument. That discussion is as old as WL (well at least older then my account). There are many players on both sides of the argument. Use the forum search function if you wish to see them.

Edit: From my side the belief is "General rule when you take options out you are lowering the skill level."


"What youre looking for is a game like rock/paper/scissors where your actions dictate the outcome. That doesnt mean the game requires much skill.

General rule when you take options out you are lowering the skill level.

Taking out the fog lowers the skill level
Taking out cards lowers the skill level
Taking the option to attack with 3v2 or 4v2 out lowers the skill level
Making the map smaller lowers the skill level, that is part of the reason why team games require more skill. The other reason is 3 teams with 3 starting points requires more skill than 1 team with 9 starting points.
Taking out attack/transfer only and attack by % lowers the skill level.
Taking out cyclic lowers the skill level, because with cyclic you have to plan for the turn order and use your cards appropriately.

So thats a starting point to creating a template that requires the most skill.

If you want to create a template that requires the least luck. Id go with custom setting where you start next to your opponent in each bonus. Now the game is 100% reliant on predicting your opponent, it becomes a game of rock/paper/scissors. "

Source for ^ https://www.warlight.net/Forum/72010-balanced-map-1v1-skill?Offset=20

Also here is a deeper explanation of "luck", that shows its complexity. https://www.warlight.net/Forum/5473-epth-explanation-luck-works

Edited 4/7/2015 03:10:56

I've read that discussion already, but think of it this way:

Ideally, in a generic game where no luck is involved, the best player/team will win 100% of his games, the 2nd best will win vs everyone except the 1st, etc.

On the other hand, in a generic game where only luck is involved (like rock paper scissors), everyone will have the same exact chances to win.

So, everytime you add a luck component to a game, you are making everyone's chances of winning go towards 50%, penalizing the best players and favoring the worst.


Now, speaking of Warlight, there is no way to eliminate luck - picks themselves require a bit of luck because you can't tell beforehand what your opponent is going to pick, and predicting your opponent's moves (for example in a scenario where you're double bordering him or vice versa) becomes a rock paper scissors for the same reason.
Random move order. Luck modifier, Random weighting, having less starting spots are all elements that add more luck to the game - sometimes they make you win games you didn't deserve to win, sometimes they make you lose games you didn't deserve to lose.


In conclusion, "more luck requires more skill" in not an open debate, it is just a false statement - regarding the 3v2 vs 4v2 variety, I like it myself, but I think it should be implemented without adding other luck elements

Edited 4/7/2015 03:51:36

Correct. Less luck means skill wins more often. I happen to prefer %0 SR, but %0 WR is fine too. I like the luck of random move order but would prefer a weighted random order (new setting I put on uservoice a while back). Anyway, you can debate preferences all day, but Sephiroth is correct about less luck.

Tbest, you are wrong to correlate my ladder performance to my preference. I placed 5th at my highest on previous ladder. I bet Tenshi and I can beat that with this setting. Either way it will not change what I prefer. I have always advocated for the elimination of obscure attacks on all games, tournaments and ladders.

""I like some luck in my games, because it takes more skill! There is ofc a limit to how much luck should be involved. I posted about it here

General rule when you take options out you are lowering the skill level.""

I think this statement is bang on! I completely agree that more choices require higher level of skill. However, with that being said, there needs to be a right balance, else we end up with a situation like Sepiroth points out where a significantly weaker player ends up beating a top player.

I consider the 1v1 ladder to have the perfect balanace. The map size plays a big part in this as well in my opinion. Intel is crucial too.




""Ideally, in a generic game where no luck is involved, the best player/team will win 100% of his games, the 2nd best will win vs everyone except the 1st, etc.""

Not true in any game/sport. else there would be no point in playing ;). Even the best players on Warlight will never claim that they can win every game.




""Less luck means skill wins more often""
While this is generally true, there comes a point where it gets a bit dull with SR. That's where playing 0% WR is awesome!

Risk vs Reward is also a good measure of skill. I understand it is frustrating when games are decided on bad 3v2 fails early in a game. But I think if someone does not just try to play the minimum amount of games to stay ranked, and instead plays fair and a normal amount of games, it should even out. That is the definition of probability after all ;)

Chris and Sephiroth bring up very good argument, and i agree with them.

This template is very luck dependant, mostly because 2 pick with such big map.
Basically, there isn't a best way to pick, there are Always scenario rock/sciss/papaer that in my opinino are very bad.
Usually in template that require more skill, there is 1 way to pick, the best picks, with no way to find better pick than that, even if you know what i am picking in advance.
In this template, if you know what opponnet is going to pick, you can easily outpick him.

Today i will avoid to speak about 16% WR..

Improvement for make this template very skilled: 4 start, 0% SR, cycle moves.

+1 Master of the Dead
I am also sympathetic, although not supportive, of TBest's position.

From my modest experience with the current 2v2 ladder template I think it needs to have a bit less luck and more layers of strategy advanced/elite players could use to their benefit. So in short my proposals are:

Starting picks: 2 => 3
Wastelands: 5 => 7
Luck: 16% => 0%
Rounding: Weighted Random
Move order: Random => Cyclic (open to debate)
Boots: Booted player turns to AI, Player can take back from AI 1 time, AIs surrender (open to debate)

Increasing picks up to 3 would give more strategic possibilities (like counters which are almost impossible currently) and increase reach, while still maintaining the feeling of openness and not cluttering the map with picks everywhere (as it would happen with 4 picks).

Wastelands would reduce the scope of picks and actions by a bit. It would also give more randomness and make some interesting strategic possibilities.

Both decent increases in picks and wastelands would work very well in synergy (without the need to drastically increase picks to 4) and make this template similar to the 1v1 ladder one.

Luck should be lowered to 0%, while rounding should stay at WR. That is the current setup in the 1v1 ladder and it maintains a balanced ratio of Risk vs Reward. What could be introduced is cyclic move orders, as it would be an extra layer of strategy for advanced/elite players.

I also think boot settings could be changed a bit, making players turn to AI after boot with a one time chance to come back. This would probably be beneficial to some low/moderate skill or casual players and encourage them to join the ladder more. And who doesn't like to try to win a 2v2 with an AI on your side?

I think all these propositions are quite moderate and balanced and would please both competitive and more casual players.

Also @ChrisCMU - there are many reason why players from the so called "elite" clans are not in the ladder, and problems with the current template are only one part of them.

Edited 4/7/2015 13:17:48