<< Back to Ladder Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 30 of 32   1  2  Next >>   
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 01:34:29

Guy Mannington 
Level 40
Report
Am I the only one who thinks the settings for this sort of thing should be the standard base settings(maybe a luck change), and allow players to pick there own starting positions. I would think that is the most common game setting being played, and how most people are learning.I have now only played 4 games with these settings and dont really think 4 out of over 400 games is a very good representation of overall play.Im not to worried about my rank because I am sure its not too high either way but I would like to know where I rank in the base settings
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 02:04:07

Dragons 
Level 56
Report
You do pick your starting position in Ladder games. Luck is 18%. Would you increase or decrease it?

AFAIK, the settings are picked because they are more strategic (manual selection, random warlord starting positions & random wastelands to ruin the typical 'best' starting spots, and low luck).

You can certainly learn, but much is learned through watching the history, especially in games where you've been beat.
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 16:21:03

Guy Mannington 
Level 40
Report
I am fine with the luck and the picking of your starting positions, just not a fan of the map and the wastelands.I dont need to watch the history i know how to play just fine, its just these are not the normal setting in my opinion, but if i am the only one that minds its obiously not that big a deal. I do have a question about the ranking though, if you surrender right when you know you have lost are you going to get less points than if you stick around to the end?
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 16:36:35


crafty35a 
Level 3
Report
To answer your last question -- no, a loss is a loss.
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 19:25:49


Duke 
Level 5
Report
I greatly prefer the full-size world map to the mid-size map.
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 19:40:04


Troll 
Level 14
Report
There are plenty of us that prefer the "normal" Earth map to the medium-sized one, but Fizzer feels that Medium Earth is much more balanced towards a 1v1 scenario, which is why he chose to use it (I tried my best to convince him otherwise and failed). Before the start of the ladder I had played on Medium Earth once, and it was by accident. I've taken the last couple days to try and familiarize myself with it so I can take the plunge into the ladder mayhem.
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 20:48:19


Duke 
Level 5
Report
Fizz made it and Fizz likes it. It's good for some things, but I greatly prefer the old strategic settings or the classic 4 starting spots default map, zero luck, only +5 card.
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 21:15:07

Guy Mannington 
Level 40
Report
I like Dukes style
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 21:16:41

Guy Mannington 
Level 40
Report
i dont mind there being luck because the original game did involve dice. 10-50% seems good to me
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 21:51:47

Fizzer 
Level 58

Warzone Creator
Report
The problem I have with the original Earth map in 1v1 is that most of the space goes unused. For example, Antarctica / East Russia / South America all end up being worthless bonuses that rarely get captured.

Now, having worthless bonuses is not a problem by itself. Having area that's only used as pass-through to get to other areas is fine, but on the Earth map these areas are always the same places. These kind of areas are also created by the wastelands, and having them random means they'll be different areas in every game. I find it a lot more enjoyable when these areas shift around from game to game as it keeps the game more dynamic and ensures that you can't just use the same strategy over and over.

The other problem this creates is that there's significantly fewer viable starting locations in Earth. What this means is that once you factor out starting locations that you started in, ones that you know your opponent got, ones that have wastelands, and ones that are undesirable due to poor expansion (South America, Antarctica, etc.) there are very few spots where your opponents remaining territories might be.

I find that most of the time in Earth, one player has an 80%+ confidence in where their opponent is immediately after picks. I find games much more enjoyable when there's still some mystery left, and Medium Earth is better in this regard just because there are more viable starting locations.

If anyone can suggest ways to fix this issue with Earth, or if they can point out why they don't like Medium Earth so it can be improved, I'm all ears.
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 22:17:38

Guy Mannington 
Level 40
Report
Im sure you are right in the game play, my complaint is that i have played basic settings for years now and pretty much only those settings thinking its a good base indicator because everyone plays those settings for sure. these setting i dont think alot of people have ever played so just jumping into a ranking system with obscure settings is a little weird to me, and to be honest i dont much like the settings so i dont want to play 50 games practicing it so im not terrible with them.
I disagree with the whole picks aspect of it too, if you just look at the history as soon as you get your starting spots and look at where the wastelands are again you can pretty much for sure tell where the other guy is with these setting., With basic settings i generally have a good idea but i have seen a few strategies out there that work pretty good, not to mention the secondary picks strategy in basic settings.Its your game to do as you wish with and im sure you understand it better than me so i dont doubt your reasoning, i just wish it was different.
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 22:27:26


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
not entirely on subject, I'd like to point out the ladder settings are the same as the first two auto game settings, which are accessble to everyone..
ladder game settings: 2/22/2011 23:29:53

The Impaller 
Level 9
Report
In regular earth I rarely get picks 1-3 and I generally know where my opponent is. In Medium earth, I get picks 1-3 almost 50% of the time and have no clue where my opponent is. I can generally guess one or two spots, but rarely do I know all 3.

I think Medium Earth is fine. It's a balanced map. If we had played 300 games on Medium Earth instead of normal earth we may feel differently about it. I know I'm a much better player on the normal earth map with strategic settings then I am on Medium Earth, and I tend to prefer Earth games due to this familiarity and practice, so I too, like pretty much everyone else feels more comfortable on the Earth map.

With that being said, I like that the ladder is on Medium Earth, even though it isn't my strongest map. It's a learning experience, a chance to try and attempt to excel at something new and gives newer players a better fighting chance.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 03:43:03


chas 
Level 43
Report
I like Medium Earth much better for the reasons Randy stated. It's much more balanced and interesting for the variety it poses. Since I plan to play a lot of ladder games this is much superior to Earth IMO.

I surely need to get to know the map better though. I'm making a lot of mistakes and I'll pretend to just blame them on my lack of Medium Earth familiarity... :)
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 19:30:48

Guy Mannington 
Level 40
Report
Ok i have a question and a complaint. first the question, Fizzer could you make a template for these ladder settings so i can practice these settings so I can get to a point where im not losing to people i have no business losing to? That brings me to my complaint, by making these settings the base for the ladder you have pretty much changed the base game setting that everyone is wanting to play. All the players i want to play with are only interested in playing these settings now and i cant help feel i just gave $30 to have the game changed to something i dont enjoy.Im more than happy to give the $30 for over 2 years of goodtimes, i am just disappointed that it seems Im no longer going to enjoy playing and that one of the things i was looking forward to the most isnt what i thought it would be.

I am not pissed off about losing to bad players or calling anyone bad. i am disappointed that I am losing every single game with these settings, and before i would consider myself a decent player not just at my exact settings but most of the games i was invited to.I wouldnt choose to play these settings and never have played them and now its the ranking system for warlight?

I cant remember who said it evens out the new and old players, whats the point of being an old player if when there finally is a rating system the game is changed on you so you are worse than players you would usually beat every game on the old settings. "Oh you love playing hockey? come play with us." you get there....BAM! tennis! lol

Im not saying do something about it. i am just letting you know that someone who has really enjoyed the game for a long time now doesnt so much anymore.May i suggest you do a poll or something, this game has become popular as a pretty close replication of another game and the changes you have made here has changed the base game play alot.Its like going to play "other game" with the crazy relatives that just makes there own rules. I may be the only one who feels this way.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 19:42:42


crafty35a 
Level 3
Report
"Fizzer could you make a template for these ladder settings"

There is one, it's called "Strategic 1v1."
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 20:02:25

Guy Mannington 
Level 40
Report
Thank you for that i will look a little harder
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 21:59:19

The Impaller 
Level 9
Report
To go with what crafty said, this setup that Fizzer is using has been the "Strategic 1v1" template setup for a while now. A lot of players have experience playing with it already by joining, creating, or playing in tournaments that use the strategic 1v1 setup.

I can see your perspective--if you aren't familiar with a lot of games played on the Strategic 1v1 map it may seem like he just came out of nowhere with these settings--but I was almost positive he would use these settings for the ladder once he eventually was able to get it started, purely because of the precedent.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 22:04:51


Duke 
Level 5
Report
I guess I like repetitive games with standard starting spots on a map I know :)

As you can guess from the chokepoints map I made, I'm not that big a fan of the mystery starting spots. I'd be fine with a map where starting spots are fixed and you win or lose based on gameplay (e.g. no fog, limited starting spot options, etc). Hence, the midsize map is a solution in search of a problem for me.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 22:10:41

bostonfred 
Level 7
Report
big fan of medium earth and the ladder concept in general. great idea.

duke, i like your idea of standardized starting spots, kind of like chess, but there is a finite number of ways for good players to exercise a skill advantage against each other in warlight, and country selection is one of them. a balanced map is a good place for people to use that skill advantage. i can definitely see why you'd prefer earth if you've played more games on it, though. i hate the earth map for the same reason.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 22:13:47


Ace Windu 
Level 56
Report
"I'd be fine with a map where starting spots are fixed and you win or lose based on gameplay"

But then you are limiting the term gameplay. I think gameplay should include your ability to pick starting postions and your ability to use your limited knowledge to gain an advantage.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 22:14:46


Ace Windu 
Level 56
Report
oops i kinda repeated bostons post a bit :P
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 22:19:16

Blue Precision 
Level 32
Report
If I may chime in with some scattered thoughts:

first of all Guy I feel your pain. Medium earth takes me completely out of my comfort zone. Even with low luck percentages, the real luck comes with trying to "guess" where you opponent is. Having only 3 picks and 11ish viable options leaves both players in the same predicament. My problem is this: rarely in a war are the opponents completely blind about one another.

I agree with Fizzer on the point that experienced players playing each other got rather predictable. I was good at it but mainly because I was able to device a sure-fire strategy straight away on whether it was more prudent to expand or rush in the crucial opening turns, based on my picks and knowing there 3 picks.

If I had to choose I would choose to leave it the way it is. Although frustrating because I too feel as though I am re-learning the optimal way to play, this has also saved 1 vs 1 from getting stale, and an exciting challenge since Impaller and others who seem to have grasped the map better than I have proven sufficiently to me that it is still more about strategy then it being a coin flip.

Lastly, a suggestion since I think a balance between complete guess-work and predictability may be a nice compromise. I think something easily implemented was if say 3 or 4 countries (randomly) were barred from starting in. This could either mean that it 3 of the Wastelands could automatically be the warlord. Then perhaps an additional wasteland could be added.

I think this would make devising a strategy prior to distribution more important while there would still be enough probable selections that you shouldn't know exactly where your opponent is.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 22:30:52


Elucidar 
Level 33
Report
Medium Earth seems to be working well for a balanced game. I was winning a game against Impaller at one point on Medium Earth, so it must give some benefit to the people who don't play as much.

Note: Impaller impaled me and I lost that game.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 23:12:40


Duke 
Level 5
Report
I like the ladder. I like WL. I like Fizz. I even like 1x1 on medium earth. I just like other 1x1 variations more. I liked large earth, 4 start spots, zero luck, manual picks and +5 cards best for a long time too. Then I got to like strategic 1x1 large earth as well (although with less than 18% luck). I'm sure I'll get to like medium earth more too. It just doesn't lend itself to my style of play as much as other settings.

I think the change to 16% default luck should be made everywhere though. 18% yields apx. 4% odds of a 4x2 or 2x1 failing, which is pivital at the start of a 1x1 game. 16% luck fixes that problem.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 23:21:19

Fizzer 
Level 58

Warzone Creator
Report
> I think the change to 16% default luck should be made everywhere though. 18% yields apx. 4% odds of a 4x2 or 2x1 failing, which is pivital at the start of a 1x1 game. 16% luck fixes that problem.

Funny you mention that - I just realized that myself and changed it to 16% about an hour ago. For some reason I was under the impression that 18% made it guaranteed, but that was incorrect.

Although it's not 4% odds of failing, it's more like 0.09% of failing a 4v2. The change to 16% luck will make it 0%. This will go live in the next release, 1.00.3.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 23:29:22

Blue Precision 
Level 32
Report
Agreed. Failing a 2 vs 1 is harsh, especially in the opening 3 turns. Thanks for budging the 2% Fizzer.
ladder game settings: 2/23/2011 23:38:34


Duke 
Level 5
Report
I saw the change as was noting my heartfelt approval. Imp and I have been privately complaining about 18% luck forever.

2.4*.18 = .432, yielding a range of results from 1.968 to 2.832. The range is .864 and the portion of the range that could result in a 1 is .032. That's 3.7%. BUT, that's only the odds of there being a chance at a 1 result because you would then multiply the 3.7% by the odds of the remainder calculation or 3.2% -- for a cumulative odds result of .1184%. I obviously stopped at the odds of there being a remainder roll at all.

Considering those odds are just a bit better than 1 in a 1000, I'm surprised at how many times I've seen the result -- it happenned to me once today.
ladder game settings: 2/24/2011 03:32:53

The Impaller 
Level 9
Report
I agree with Boston and Ace about pick selection being a huge and important part of game play. As that one small earth tournament that some of us played in taught us...sometimes games with limited options can become basically "solved" and come down to random dice rolls to determine the outcome.

And thank you so much for making the change to 16% luck. Every time a 4x2 or 2x1 attack fails, a kitten dies/angel falls out of heaven/small child gets his Ice Cream Cone stolen/etc.

@Elucidar. Yes, that was a frustrating game for me. Basically was purely a battle of who could expand better and you had the advantage in income by the time we met. If it wasn't for my last ditch effort to punch into India succeeding I believe you would have steamrolled me. Was a close one for sure.
ladder game settings: 2/24/2011 06:53:41


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
I don't think i have seen a 4v2 fail in the ladder yet.. and not often out of it.. it may have, but i generally account it to that being a high luck game *which sometimes it is*
Posts 1 - 30 of 32   1  2  Next >>