Now you took that work from him with an unnofficial poll, that turned official now

Well I don't think he will treat this poll as official. The timeline of those incidents is:

Fizzer pushed the changes on ladders
Many players were in rage
I created a poll
Fizzer's live chat started
You asked if making a uservoice could make him reconsider the decision and change back
He said possible
You created a uservoice

So my poll happened well before your incident. Not that I want to take work from him. I have no crystal ball and couldn't predict what would happen in future at the time I created a poll.

Fizzer made a decision and after that, he promised that he would set up a poll if the uservoice would be big enough.

Really? Well maybe I'm wrong. I didn't hear Fizzer made such a promise in his last live chat.
If my memory serves, you asked at that time if you made a uservoice and there were enough votes, would he reconsider his decision and changed back.
He said you could make a uservoice. It is possible but it is not a decision to be taken lightly.

Fizzer, could you clarify it?

Right now the uservoice received more than 200 votes in a short time. It is big enough.
If he did make such a promise, he should make an official poll.
There is one good reason why he shouldn't just take my poll.
My poll didn't get a sticky, so the result is clearly biased towards those who visit forums often.

I think it is time for you to ask him to honor his promise now.

i did like one weeks ago. he won't react on the uservoice i think. at least he didn't react till now and it got over 200 votes for a while already

the results are sticky now and it has the effect that fizzer can just Claim that we had our poll he promised due to the uservoice.

Well I have a feeling you are bashing me because I made a poll on this. Funny enough. I hear complaints from both sides about the result XD. No side is completely satisfied with it.

Anyway I think it is generally good to collect the community opinions, and we should do more. I'm in no way to control how one will use the result. It is their own business. I don't think it is something I should care about before I make a poll.

Let's face it. Fizzer is the developer and he has the final say. It just appears I made a poll, and you think he may use it as an excuse, but really, if you think he is biased and don't want to change, he could always find an excuse anyway.

The result is not accurate. You can vote multiple times. It should be discarded.

If you have read my reply in another thread, you know I prefer WR. But personally I'm not going to discard the result completely because the result does not seem to be what I expect. It is not a true poll if you want to ensure the result is in one's favor before you make a poll.

As I mentioned before that poll has an anti-cheat system in place. You may say it is not accurate in the sense that the poll is not 100% cheat-proof, but well what Internet poll can? Uservoice is cheatable too. Will you discard all uservoice's results too because of this? Of course not.

Let's face it. There is no such thing as 100% accurate result. Even if Fizzer makes an official one, it makes no difference. It is still cheatable. This poll is not perfect, but I think it still roughly achieves what we want, that is to know roughly about what the community prefers (SR or WR). It is not 100% accurate. That's for sure but it does not bother me too much. No result can anyway. We are living in the world of imperfect information.

And I explained previously why I think the number of fraudulent votes should be low.

Of course if someone is able to do a better poll to get a more complete picture, go for it. I encourage them to do. But it is the best piece of information we have right now.


The sample size is low

Well we get 187 voters. I couldn't say the sample size is low considered that we have about 300 players only in the most popular ladder.

i'm not trying to bash you at all. your did nothing wrong. i just highly disagree with making the results sticky and make it look like that was "what the community wants". Every time pretending to do only what the community asked for is just hypocrisy.
if fizzer just said: I want the 1vs1 ladder to be sr, it would be ok. i still would hate his decision but the real problems i got are the following Points:

1.he made a thread asking us what we want. he made the Change based on this thread (he's saying), but the big mayority wanted it to stay as it was on that thread.

2.he is completely ignoring the user voice. conclusion what he said on his stram: i could create an uservoice, if it gets enough Support he would create a poll and if it's heavily weighted towards changing back he would do it.

3.He didn't give a shit about your poll, till the results came out. he (or a mod), saw them and realized that the results fitted perfectly in what fizzer wants us to believe. the community is splitted by 50/50 on the 1vs1 ladder changes. Problem solved. He got his "proof" that he did the right Thing.

Promoting coin games doesn't necessarily require to remove wr from the ladder. he seems not to understand that. changing the autogames to no luck cycle would have the same effect. you did no mistake Inquisitor. But i'm just saying that this thread would've never become sticky if 90% of the votes were in favour of the old ladder.

Fizzer finally has a glimmer of proof that the community is in his favor

I'm actually surprised a few WR lovers are so disappointed at the result, as if they lost completely. Not really. For those who prefer WR, I don't see why you should view the result so negatively.

Take a look at the result of 1v1 ladder again. I think it is the ladder which most players are concerned about.

Facts:
WR won in 1v1 ladder.
WR won by a 6% margin. (53% - 47%)
It is 187 voters, and we have about 300 players only in the most popular ladder. (more than 50%!!)
The sampling size is not small. It is representative.

If the developer agrees to let the community decide, he should change back to WR based on this poll. The majority voted for WR. Why should SR stay when WR won? It does not make any sense.

So tell me why you view this result so negatively.

Edited 10/11/2015 15:17:00

I think inquisitor nailed it. 187 votes is around the sample size one can expect of a good unofficial poll. (compere it to Map of the Week, and you see how good it actually is.) This is the strongest indicator to the success of the poll.

But it was easy to 'troll' the poll through. I voted twice using my alt (aka a different browser.) But if the poll was properly trolled I would expect way more votes. As of now we can simply assume each side trolled the same amount xD.

Inquisitor i told you in my post above:
i could create an uservoice, if it gets enough Support he would create a poll and if it's heavily weighted towards changing back he would do it.

having a majority is by far not enough.
also i highly doubt there voted 187 Players on your poll that wasn't advertised at all. your poll is just not expressive

EDIT: again, don't take it personally. it's not your fault that the results are like this. i just can't believe there was all fair at the voting. that "anti-cheat System" is a joke.

Edited 10/11/2015 15:54:04

he made a thread asking us what we want. he made the Change based on this thread (he's saying), but the big mayority wanted it to stay as it was on that thread.

In fact he didn't really ask for any opinion before he pushed the changes to SR, cyclic and MME map.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/103738-time-remove-luck-strategic-templates

Read carefully. At that time he simply said he wanted to remove the luck from two old "strategic" templates, and asked for community opinions. He focused solely on the luck modifier, not anything else (rounding method, move order, map change).

1v1 ladder was 0% luck long time ago, but 1v1 strategic template was still 16% luck.
2v2 ladder and 2v2 strategic template were 16% luck.
Most agreed to set the luck modifier to 0%. It is indeed a welcome change.

But players were smart and smelled "the danger" I guess XD. It turned out players discussed much more about SR/WR and move order, than the luck modifier. Unfortunately no one could predict the developer pushed MME, so no one talked about ME/MME.

I would say he made the changes based on his own vision - what he feels better for the development of his own game, rather than community opinions. I can't say this approach is absolutely wrong. It is his game after all. He could do whatever he wants. I would respect that, but it would be better if he cares more about user thoughts. They are your customers. You will get more business and money if you keep your customers happy.

Clearly there is a strong demand for a 1v1 WR ladder too. There must be a way to satisfy their needs. I don't see how it is good business sense to simply ignore them.

Edited 10/11/2015 16:20:23

1v1 ladder was 0% luck long time ago, but 1v1 strategic template was still 16% luck.

i think that's wrong. both were 0%wr.

I would say he made the changes based on his own vision - what he feels better for the development of his own game, rather than community opinions

he is doing it for pushing more Players into coin games obviously. it's not the best for the game. except you say the more Money fizzer has the better for warlight. The Thing that changes the template completely isn't MME or cycle move order. i could live with both of it. But sr makes the big Change.

Epicular, nice work in 1vs1 ladder

Nice work failing to realize that the 1v1 strategic auto games also revolve around this issue.

...your poll that wasn't advertised at all

I put quite some effort and advertised as much as I can, and bumped the thread periodically. Don't expect you will get similar result if you just post the poll in the thread and leave it behind.

i think that's wrong. both were 0%wr.

I'm certain I'm right on this. I was paying attention on them at that time. The 1v1 auto game had 16% luck which I didn't like. 1v1 strategic template had 16% luck removed first on early Sep. I even asked the developer why he removed 16% luck only in 1v1 strategic template, but not 2v2 too. The rest of them were changed finally in the latest update.

it is not accurate because people who don't know what is sr or wr could vote

Will you vote on something you don't understand at all? Most likely you won't. Also I included the option "I don't know/mind". You could see some people selected them. It's not that people have to force themselves to pick if they don't know or mind.

Even if someone says, "I don't really understand what WR is, but I feel I like WR more after I tried, so I voted for WR." It is their preference after all. I'm not going to discard their vote simply because I think they are not rational. Preference is nothing more than a personal thing. It hasn't to be rational. If they like it, that's it. I'm in no position to challenge their preference.

Shout out to the 4 other people who voted for "---------------------"

Of course, there will people who don't play the ladder but just think the ladder is better because fizzer said so. Yes they have a preference, but they don't what they're voting for. It is like voting for a President because of a comedy show they watch.

Edited 10/12/2015 13:28:26

there would also very likely be those that had never played the ladder because it was wr and they dont like luck factoring into their games.

I agree, Skilled. Some people may be ignorant. A community poll is never a good tool to find out the "right" answer. The majority could be wrong.

What is the "right" choice? Which setting is the best for the ladder? Different people have their own opinions. Some think the other side is wrong. They are right. The argument goes on forever.

To Fizzer, he clearly thinks SR is the "right" choice, and most likely thinks people who advocates WR are wrong. Thus he made changes based on his own judgement about what is right/good for the ladder, rather than deciding by the majority.

I don't want that. It's just a game. I would let the majority decide, or have a solution which satisfies both sides.

I thought the removing the luck was the maximum way to lessen the fun of the ladders. The straight rounding is boring too, but the cyclic move order may be worse than both...ug.

You know, if Fizzer wants to change the ladders, he can do so. It is true that the pure competitive value of a game increases as luck decreases. However, diversity of gameplay from game to game drastically decreases as luck decreases. To me, as individual games of Warlight get more similar to each other, Warlight as a whole becomes more monotonous and boring. Now, in terms of the ladder, the luck is equal for everybody. This, in my opinion, makes the competitive value reduction from the luck far less meaningful.

I think luck in the old ladders provided other benefits as well, as it was essentially the only comeback mechanic, and (along with random wastelands and pickable territories) made each game different enough that no single formula could be developed to dominate the ladder. Another thing it did, and this could be seen as a bad thing, was that luck made games have a more casual feeling. Since no one could predict a game with 100% accuracy, it meant that players relaxed a little. A single bad move did not automatically lose you the game, so people didn't have to play super intensely to have a chance of winning, at least at lower skill levels. Skill in the ladder was primarily based on reading your opponent, and your ability to read the board and react to the situation. One of the major reasons for complaint now, in my opinion, is that the basis for being "skilled" at Warlight has fundamentally changed. It's still partially based on reading your opponent and reacting to a situation, but now a major part of "skill" is purely time spent calculating.

Fizzer may well think that since the ladders are Warlight's primary source of competitive play, the small competitive value gained by removing luck may be worth it. I disagree that the benefits outweigh the costs, but it's a reasonable argument to make. However, one thing that I can find absolutely no justification for is the removal of luck from 1v1 auto games. Those games are not competitively important in any way, and I often use them to take a break from the more intense games on the ladder. It's true that auto games are more competitive now. However, if we accept that luck provides diversity in gameplay, a comeback mechanic, and a more relaxed atmosphere at the cost of competitive value, why were the non-competitive auto games changed? It seems to me that with high competitive value in the ladders, the 1v1 auto games could easily sacrifice that to provide all of the things luck provides.

On one hand, the auto games are extremely useful for players who have not yet entered the ladder to get used to the template, but with them being the same as the ladder, there is no guaranteed auto game in which you can have a fun, chill game. Far better than what happened, in my opinion, would be to have a separate "ladder practice" auto game and keep the other auto game as WR. This would allow newer players to get used to the ladder settings, but it would also provide a Warlight auto game that's less about competitive play, and more about casual, fun play. Also, with the number of people who are upset with the ladder change, it would provide a nice way for them to continue to play their beloved template.

thanks for making the poll bro :D

it is not accurate because people who don't know what is sr or wr could vote

Will you vote on something you don't understand at all? Most likely you won't. Also I included the option "I don't know/mind". You could see some people selected them. It's not that people have to force themselves to pick if they don't know or mind.

you are being too kind. there are some people who THINK they know what is going on and will vote because of that. given how many people don't read settings when they join games, i think it is safe to say a reasonable number of votes may be at best, ill informed.

please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to ding you for making that poll. Rather, I'm just saying that there are some people who will not know or understand properly what they are voting on, it is too hard to exclude those people unless the poll is limited to specific players. you will see the same thing often in chess games where moves are decided by votes. the stronger players are drowned out sometimes.

a majority vote includes the weaker players, who may not understand the same things the best players do. if you wanted the best templates for games and ladders, it would probably be better to have a majority vote of a council of stronger players. certainly players a lot better than i am :P

Edited 10/14/2015 21:40:42