The thing is, you still broke one of their bonuses, and they still have to deploy a decent number of armies to that bonus so that their abandon is big enough to keep you from taking that spot. You are still going to be ahead in income and they are still going to have to waste armies in that spot. Counter picks are still going to be just as viable of a strategy, but it's not going to be immediately win you the game if you manage to succeed with it, like it does now.

I don't think I can count on one hand the number of games you've beaten me after I've succeeded in a counter-pick strategy. It's certainly not instant defeat, you just have to be well prepared for it.

Plus, depending on the counterpick, you can still work on the bonus you started in. That gives you a 3 to 2 bonus advantage. They'll have to go break down an extra neutral 4 in some other bonus to get back on equal footing.

Yeah, what troll says is very true. that's an extra advantage to the counter-picker in that scenario.

I'd be interested in seeing a bigger, balanced Earth map too, Duke. If anyone is interested in trying to make one, I'd be happy to get you started. Let me know.

I'll give it a shot, Fizzer. how much bigger are we thinking -- about the size of standard Earth? I'd also love to create a Double Medium Earth map.

Could there not be more than one 1v1 ladder? I hated these settings and have played more games than i would like to admit to get to where i dont mind playing with them and now its going to change? I started playing this game because the normal settings are alot like another board game i enjoy and was disappointed when the ladder was set up different from that but learned to deal with it.Im getting concerned that there isnt going to be a base setting that i will be able to settle into and just enjoy playing. Would it not be fair to have one 1v1 ladder be the settings they are or normal settings and another fizzers delight 1v1 ladder.Personally i dont want to have to keep having loads of practice games going on all the time just so i can try to keep up on new settings.
I only bring the normal settings up again because i really do feel that those settings are what bring alot of the people to the game and before the ladder i would think the most common game being played? please let me now if i am wrong.If i had taken the time to read that the ladder was different settings i may not have joined, and if its going to change all the time im pretty sure i will be leaving it.

Guy -- I was actually hoping for a rotating map because playign the same one over and over becomes stale and boring. One solution would be to allow direct challenges on the ladder where you can pick the map (from a limited preprogrammed menu). you woudl still need to have at least 2 current games with the designated map to stay on the ladder, but by allowing a certain number of direct challenge games to be open at any given time (which can be declined) you can try out other 1x1 maps and if they're popular make them the the auto-map.

Also to avoid your concerns with needing to practice, I would suggest that the first map varients be the old standards: earth strategic, Original default map with 4 starting spots (earth, manual, +5, no luck) and whatever other maps people know well.

Fred - Of course counter-picking should (and would) remain a valid strategy. I'm not sure why you thought I was suggesting otherwise. I am trying to come up with ways to keep the default map on the ladder to produce results that are representative of the skill level of the players more of the time. The top 10% are beating the bottom 50% more than 80% of the time, so it's working pretty well. I was suggesting ways to make that more connsistent. A map with more territories per bonus that remains balanced would be a great start. Blockade card is another option (it could be limited to 1 per game on if it's unbalancing).

Duke i agree that having options is a good thing, thats why i suggested more than one ladder. That way you and everyone else that likes to change things up alot gets what they want and on top of that they can play or not play in another ladder that is consistant for the people who dont want to keep playing new games.Im not going to lie I would probably join both ladders but it would be nice if i dont like the one to be able to have the other that i do enjoy. I dont think it would take very long to see what is more popular and if fizzer only wants one and clearly more people are playing one than the other, problem solved.

I think the problem with starting multiple 1v1 ladders right now is that there is still a rather limited number of people who are willing to play in the ladder. Currently there are 77 people in the 1v1 ladder, and for variety's sake, I think the ladder would be better off with many more than that. If another 1v1 ladder was started right now, a few people might leave the original ladder, and the new one probably would end up with a much smaller pool of players.

However, I do love the idea of rotating maps. That is what I personally expected when I first heard about a WL ladder coming. I think it is critical that map rotation is included when an FFA ladder comes along, but I think it would greatly improve the fun of the 1v1 ladder as well.

To truly be a top 1x1 player you have to be able to do it on multiple maps and settings. Being a 1 trick Doushi (er. pony) is not enough to hold the top spot forever.

Duke again you are right but im not interested in being the best overall player at multiple maps and settings, nor am i interested in having to learn to play a new map/settings over and over. I am by no means saying that if you want that you shouldnt be able to have it, that is why i suggest more than one ladder that way everyone gets what they want and then a little extra.
Crafty i think it is very likely that most would play both and that if some choose to only play one it would be because that is what they enjoy and i dont see anything wrong with that.I also think that some of the players including myself would leave the ladder if it were to rotate bringing the numbers down just the same.
Randys idea to let us vote is a very good idea although i feel im in the minority here and still wont get what i want but fair is fair.

Randy likes to let members vote on things a lot. To quote Chruchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried."


I've always preferred Mill and focused my fear on a tyranny of the majority.

I believe a tyranny with a good tyrant, is better then any democracy ever could be.. problem is finding a good tyrant.

albiet, most definitions of tyrant are negative.. It's cause generally.. It's the bad tyrants that are most willing to do what is necessary to become tyrants.

A platonist. Were all still waiting for that philosopher king to show up.

|> Being a 1 trick Doushi (er. pony) is not enough to hold the top spot forever.

If by one trick pony you mean blessed by the Warlight Gods to get ahead of you, then yes, I agree. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about, what's my one trick? Is it being good with the womens? Being able to dance like there's no tomorrow? Or perhaps you're referring to my uncanny ability to walk out of the house half naked during an earth quake and look stunning with my morning hair? I could keep guessing which trick you're referring to as my only trick, but I think it would be easier if you just told me.

Also, out of curiosity, how much tricksy must one have to hold the top spot forever?

Maybe it's a magic trick or you were turning a trick or it's a reference to Halloween or your bag of tricks or Nixon or Trichinophobia or buildign out cars. Maybe I just like to use expressions with trick in them. I guess we'll never know.

"how much tricksy must one have to hold the top spot forever?"

More than none but less than all. BTW -- you should check the Urban dictionary on "tricksy":

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tricksy