I think saying that 10 out of 100 games are decided by luck is ludicrous. Maybe if you have two players of essentially equal skill that would be the case, but if you had two player of equal skill, then of course luck is going to play a larger role in the game. It will still do so in "pure skill" games, since you will have to guess what your opponent will do at some point, or you may lack intel.

If you're playing against a player who is worse than you, you will almost always have an opportunity to make up for bad luck.

In a 20 game run to try to get to #1 on the ladder, how many games do you even play against "good" players, where luck is even relevant? Probably only 10, so you're talking about luck swinging maybe 1 game. That doesn't seem like enough to justify all the luck complaints we get.

...if you had two player of equal skill, then of course luck is going to play a larger role in the game. It will still do so in "pure skill" games, since you will have to guess what your opponent will do at some point, or you may lack intel.

If you're playing against a player who is worse than you, you will almost always have an opportunity to make up for bad luck.

In a 20 game run to try to get to #1 on the ladder, how many games do you even play against "good" players, where luck is even relevant? Probably only 10, so you're talking about luck swinging maybe 1 game. That doesn't seem like enough to justify all the luck complaints we get.

I disagree with that first part. It is not luck to guess your opponents moves. You guys are confusing variables and luck here. Luck means it is outside your control. If you predict wrong (that happens in chess as well), that means your opponent outplayed you that turn. There is no luck involved in picking the wrong moves.

I also disagree on your 2nd point. If the player is significantly worse, sure. But let's say you are are playing someone maybe 200 rating points lower than you. If you get bad luck, they will beat you, even if you predict all moves correctly.

As far as the number that are decided by bad luck...I don't know. That is very hard to measure because you have wrong choices in games all the time that factor in as well. You'd have to maybe take a sample of games from the ladder with great players less likely to make bad moves and analyze the moves perhaps. Personally, I would say maybe %5 might be more accurate, but it could be %10, I don't know.

1v1 Ladder - Keep the settings, but change the map to Modified Medium Earth.
2v2 Ladder - I like the number of picks, but I'd prefer them in 0% SR.

Why do people actually care about the ranks people get with ladder runs? When someone gets rank 1 with more than 50 ladder games played or has a really impressive winstreak, we congratulate them. Otherwise we boo and hiss at them for stalling and not being a great player, then laugh when they do play around 50 ladder games and end up outside the top 10.

I think anyone making the argument about ranking in terms of what template we should use is wasting their time. So what? Does that honestly affect how much you enjoy the template or not?

Maybe my analogy is not the best, but I don't see how football/soccer is very much luck based. Outside the foul calls of a ref, how is it luck based? you might say a guy was in the right place at the right time, and that is luck based...but it is not. He chose to be there, whether it was the correct position or not (based on scheme). You might say the ball bounced unlucky off a foot, but it did not. Someone put their foot in that exact manner, and really just misjudged it. I mean unless weather is a factor, or the refs...I don't see luck there.

I will have to think about a better analogy. I guess I just don't like the reasoning for luck that it is a known risk, so it is fine.

I would disagree massively with what you just said. Although a lot of where they place themselves in the pitch, when they make runs, how they kick and header the ball etc. is practise and meant to happen, if you just take in account free kicks for instance. A free kick is when the ball is placed on the floor and you get to take your time to kick it without the other team kicking it first (although they can set up a "wall" to block it about 10 yards away). You can see that even in practise, where the ball will go (top corner or not) will change every time they go for it. It isn't like everytime they try something it happens as they meant it, so I would argue that whether or not what they go for comes off or not is luck based (let's say it will come off 50% of the time) whether or not their shots go in is luck based.

However we are getting too sidetracked, whether your analogy is good or not shouldn't take away from the discussion which is if we should change strat 1v1 settings.

+1 update auto templates to use pure skill

@Lolo - no, whether someone undeserving gets #1 does not effect my desire to play the ladder. But the opposite is true. The fact that better players don't win as often as they should (on 2v2 ladder) does deter people from playing it.

Bad luck always makes games not fun for me. I try hard not to complain about it but no doubt it sours the experience for me. Less luck = more fun IMO. So the template makes the ladder fun/not more than any ranking changes. For example, I find the random bonus ladder fun despite the rankings being a bit odd (no separation).

...if you just take in account free kicks for instance. A free kick is when the ball is placed on the floor and you get to take your time to kick it without the other team kicking it first (although they can set up a "wall" to block it about 10 yards away). You can see that even in practise, where the ball will go (top corner or not) will change every time they go for it. It isn't like everytime they try something it happens as they meant it, so I would argue that whether or not what they go for comes off or not is luck based (let's say it will come off 50% of the time) whether or not their shots go in is luck based.

But that is not luck. The fact that the ball goes a different place just means that an exact kick is basically impossible to replicate. You still have %100 control over your body striking the ball. If the ball does not go where you want, it means you did not strike it exactly as you meant to. Luck is something outside your control (a gust of wind, a bad patch in the field causing a trip). Luck does happen, but I think people use that word far too often in sports. At any rate, you are correct...this sidetrack is not needed, let's let it die.

Edited 8/11/2015 18:13:05

Also in the 2v2 there would be an advantage in getting your teammate to take a screen shot of the map and give you, so that you decide on the picks before loading the map.

That's actually not true anymore. It was true when NLC first launched, but we since fixed it. Now, in a team game with NLC, the collective speed of your team is determined by the slowest player in that team.

I am always for removing luck. But, i also am not a fan of the speed of picking factoring in.

You are right -- NLC really was added for coin games, and I don't think it should be added to the ladders. We should just be talking about 0% SR Cyclic.

directed to the prospect of adding 4 picks per player: I think this gives people too much coverage on the map. As I play the template more and more the limitation of only having 2 picks per player has been growing on me

I agree. I'd like to try and de-emphasize the picking stage, since I think the main moving-armies part of the game is more fun than picking.

I like risk management and find it a crucial aspect for high-level games, and not even just WarLight but lots of other games as well. Optimizing your moves and attacks is easy to do compared to risk vs reward and whether the pot odds are favorable enough.

I agree, I like the risk management aspect too. Deciding whether to attack a 2 with 3 or 4 adds strategy to the game and is fun. But at the same time, WarLight has been moving towards no-luck settings as a whole, and the risk management that comes from randomness might have to be a casualty of that (at least, as far as the ladders go.)

There is still risk management even in 0% SR, it's just a different kind of risk management.

If you think there should be less emphasis on picking, then making it 0% SR would not be a way to do this. It allows people to work out exactly how they'd expand from different positions, and I feel it would make the picking stage a more important part of the game.

That's actually not true anymore. It was true when NLC first launched, but we since fixed it. Now, in a team game with NLC, the collective speed of your team is determined by the slowest player in that team.

Still, sharing map with teammates gives you advantage - as you know they won't be slower than you. It's not as big advantage as earlier, but it is.

2v2 Ladder right now is about guessing your opponents picks. I think a good compromise is 3 picks per player.

I'd be fine with 3 picks. 2 is simply not enough on that size of map.

-Final Earth is 183 territories and 37 bonuses.

-Medium Earth is 131 territories and 27 bonuses (really 23, since 4 are set to 0).

So right now we have %28.5 more territories and %38 more bonuses. And none of those territories on final earth are in zero bonuses (I still counted them since they are very often important choke points).



I certainly think something needs to change on it outside the luck factor. I think you have 3 options

1) Extra pick

2) Extra wastelands (an alternative to too much ground to cover)

3) A recon card (maybe just 1 to start, no pieces after?)


I know a recon/spy/surveillance card would be new to the ladders (I have only seen on Battle Islands really used in a strategic fashion). But, it would be another option for providing some early intel since there is so much ground to cover.

Those options are the order I prefer them in, perhaps they need some testing. If anyone wants to try out those options let me know and we can play some test games.

Edited 8/11/2015 20:09:13

I think spy card is a little too much on the strategy side of things

I agree, that is why I did recon. Surv would be fine too since there are no mega bonuses, but I think Recon ads more strategy as to where you pick and when to use it.

Recon still makes it about guessing correctly/predicting your opponent based on past games.

I think it's quite silly once we start talking about reviewing your opponent's past picks as part of the core integral strategy of a template.

+1 Lolowut we need more wastelands on that template and more picks or it is never going to become a very popular ladder. The map is also imbalanced, regions like Asia need a buff, especially with less wastelands.

Not having any intel is as strategic as having it, and makes the picking stage even more important.
The 2v2 ladder template is fine. The only thing that should be changed on it is the luck settings, 0% SR would be a lot better.

Not having any intel means you have to do a lot of guesswork when you move around. You have to check areas that are a high priority threat, and may open yourself to an attack from a lower priority threat. However analyzing this wouldn't see your move as checking the area that is the highest possible threat as a wrong move. The problem with the map and having only 4 picks as a team is that no matter where you go there's almost no scenario where you can pick a safe region.

So how do you fix this?

Well you just go back and look through your opponent's games and find their tendencies and either avoid their areas or counter their areas.

How is that a core strategic value that deserves to be exemplified?

I can understand the idea of enjoying games to where you move around more, you do more things, but from a strategic perspective it's awkward.

Edited 8/11/2015 22:17:41

Any intel - luck influence from picking stages can be reduced with light fog, no?

Edited 8/11/2015 22:16:54

@Widzisz: Yes, you can, but it's sort of like the 0% SR vs 0% WR argument. We don't want to remove the risk assessment part of the game. We just want to make it so that you can assess your risks more coherently.