I'm against removing luck from the ladders. 0% wr is totally good. As deadpiggy said, it reduces complexity if it becomes all straight round, more foreseeable etc. So the traditional 1v1 ladder should really stay as is.

Also seeing that the traditional risk game is, well, about risk aswell. Sports always are about some percentage of luck that - eventually - evens out in the long run. Also poker or whatever - classified as a game of skill though still luck-dependent.

2v2 ladder, yeah, 4 picks would improve it.

Please don't make the 1v1 ladder no- luck cycle, 0% sr. I like ladder the way it is, luck is part of the game and it makes the game interesting. I usually have the worst luck on ladder, but removing luck is a bad idea.

Count me in support for no changes to the 1v1 ladder.

One thing I could possibly support would be if there were a way to make attacks versus neutrals WR but attacks versus enemies SR. I say possibly, as I haven't given it a ton of thought. We have all probably seen things like one player's 13v8 failing and their opponent's 7v5 succeeding.

As piggy said, expansion with SR is just too fast and predictable--it's not just that 3v2 attacks always succeed, it's that they always succeed with a leftover.

To be honest, with my brief stint in the ladder (So far) Luck has been a major inpact on all my games. 3v2's shouldn't always work. And that, with making it 0% luck is gonna make it not fun. So when people like Summer or Anna or Ryiro go to make those huge ladder runs that we all know that they can make, it just wont be the same thing for them and their opponents.

Is there a luck setting we are not using that we should be?

What I mean is there a combination of luck/rounding that allows for 3v2's to fail at an acceptable level (around %20 of the time) that creates that risk/reward...yet does not allow for the really lucky/quirky attacks to occur?

Is it possible to eliminate stupid luck, but still allow the 3v2 risk/reward situation?

@ Chris: 0% WR does exactly that.

And 16% SR does exactly the opposite so should never be considered. (quirky possible, but very often what you expect and 3v2 always works.)

Reminder:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DrqwLCZ3pSQPUWwAPASo64-RDylALqqYh3Cn-iLHSa4/edit#gid=0

Edited 8/13/2015 16:28:50

Based off of my polls, most people want 0% WR 3 picks and random move order. 2 picks is too little, 4 picks is too many probably, so 3 picks is right in the middle and would work pretty well.

Edited 8/13/2015 16:32:49

I think %0 WR mostly does that. But it does allow for those 1v1 and 2v2 attacks to work on rare occasions. There is probably no way to eliminate those without disrupting the other things though.

What if we left the ladder at %0 WR, but put cycle move on?

I think a change to 0% SR is inevitable. It is simple to understand, and fits in with making WL simple to play for new players.

Dosen't mean I won't the change through.

I would support a change to 0% WR, as it changes the extremes of the ladder. Not sure why it isn't used already, but I'm scared that if Fizzer is to change it he will go to 0% SR :(

1v1 ladder is currently 0% WR.

hedja was talking about 2v2 ladder

Yeah, 2v2 should be %0 WR also, and at least add another pick.

Leave the 1v1 ladder the way it is.

Edited 8/13/2015 19:07:36

Can't speak for the 2v2 ladder; never played that on the new settings, unfortunately.

But...
I'm another one of those in favour of keeping the current 1v1 ladder.
I find that 0% SR is kinda boring actually.
To me, Warlight is part Risk management, part anticipation, and next teamwork and diplomacy, depending on settings. Mastering all those aspects is where the best players distinguish themselves.
Risk management has always been in important part of the game. Not much of that remains on 0% SR.

I understand the need for it in coin games - legality of gambling and so on. And I suppose it has its charm. I find 0% SR works quite well on large map, where quick expansion is a must. But in the 1v1 ladder, it would make games too predictable.


Warlight is a game of near infinite variety and there's something here for everybody. It's why I keep coming back.

There is no need to make all settings the same. What works for coin games won't necessarily work on the ladder.

0% straight round makes things like this happen:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9245384


It makes picking way less interesting.

I do not think any picks on that map compete with that triple pick. The only way to win was to predict the triple pick and steal part of it.

ok, I totally bored the luck factor in this game...

@everybody who want the risk management
go and play poker! :P

Why cannot be the Warlight a nice skill game like the chess?

Fizzer made the NLC, it is almost perfect, but the picking phase.

What about if we use the white/black positions from the chess?

The player who play on the white side simple get the first pick, and the black side get the 2th-3th etc.
I think it is much better than present one based on the speed.
Can be very interesting when you have to find a good counter with black. And prevent it with white, etc.
Can be complex, and no any luck just skill.

And the pairing system can manage you play as many white games as black ones.

0% straight round makes things like this happen:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9245384


It makes picking way less interesting.

I do not think any picks on that map compete with that triple pick. The only way to win was to predict the triple pick and steal part of it.

That is not true though. Suppose he had picked something like SEA, CA, quad Africa? He would have had direct counter and that changes the game big time. Furthermore, N Af and S Af could have both been used in the triple. you could have ended up with each of you getting 2 picks in Africa quite easily.

To say the triple is the only option is dumb though. Even if I were to agree with that, why does that make the game less dynamic? As I said, you could have split that. Either way, I don't see how it makes the game less strategic. Taking away 3v2 fails doesn't mean there is less complexity. You replace risk management with more leftover management. it is just a different kind of strategy (for better or worse is each person't opinion).

Edited 8/20/2015 16:21:09

Dr Walter - Fizzer already said he won't use no luck picking. The only options he is debating here are

1) O% WR vs %0 SR

2) Random move order vs Cyclical Move order (not no luck cycle)

Picking order would not be changed no matter what.

Are games with 3 neutrals longer ? The map is large and expansion is slow. 3 neutrals will give more value to bonuses. Positional advantage will be more important. Just need to make sure a bonus in two turns is possible for 2-bonus. More base or initial can be added.


I want luck to stay the same way.


Edit : It is a very dumb idea. I like how Oceania plays out with 3 neutrals. Less expansion or macro and more about general strategy.

Edited 8/20/2015 16:45:03