I suggest we change the template to this:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=749611

Thoughts?

If the whole community can push for the change I think it can work out. The current map sucks.

Care to elaborate on the reason why it sucks?

no 3v3 to double earth

I feel the map itself isn't strategic enough, every game looks the same. The previous map was the same as the 1v1 map and even though it was a bit more cramped I felt it was still better strategically. The number of picks is a problem, a lot of it depends so much on the luck of a pick.

Lol@ 3v3 to double earth. I like the 3v3 europe but I also feel that it doesn't have much variety in games although I consider it more strategic than the 2v2

The map is strategic, but you're right on looking the same, there aren't enough wastelands, which results in similar maps. The number of picks really isn't a problem. I have no problems covering the whole map with 4 picks. And luck on picks? That can only hurt you badly if you lose your 1st pick, which is extremly rare.

Final Earth 2v2 < Guiroma 2v2 for the same reason that RoR 3v3 < Europe 3v3.

1. FE 2v2 doesn't have enough picks
2. FE 2v2 doesn't have enough wastelands.
3. FE 2v2 has extreme bias towards big bonuses, your team get get 18 income in two turns :/

Although Im not a fan of guiroma personally, it is more strategic than FE

China map sucks...

China map is awesome

The 2v2 ladder needs more wastelands. I think almost everything wrong with it could be fixed by adding another 5-6 wastelands.

Edited 11/28/2015 15:12:30

The number of picks really isn't a problem. I have no problems covering the whole map with 4 picks.
With 0% luck straight rounds covering the good parts seems easier to me than with luck involved.


And luck on picks? That can only hurt you badly if you lose your 1st pick, which is extremly rare.
I don't see that being true. With only 2 picks you usually have to expand into your first bonus without having intel if you get countered. For me the worst case scenario isn't me losing my first pick but a sound opponent losing his second pick.

Edited 11/28/2015 15:13:43

We already had a petition to go from 2 picks to 3 or 4. Fizzer rejected it in the live stream saying he liked that you have no intel (did not seem to care that it lacks strategic value and has too much luck).

What you can see is most top players not bothering with that ladder.

ok, thanks for the response Chris.

[blank]

Edited 11/28/2015 15:58:12

I totally agree with changing the template - as Chris pointed out on the previous topic, the leaderboard kinda speaks for itself about the quality of the template.

And imo just changing the starting spots from 2 to 3-4 wouldn't still be enough. I think the map in itself is bad for strategic games because it's too big and due to all bonuses having the same territory-income ratio, rewarding those who expand brainlessly over those who try to get intel and figure out what the opponent's doing.

uhm... whut? The incomme-territoriy ratios certainly aren't the same. The map was designed by the current 1v1 ladder number 1 for strategic value. With the number 1 team being 16-0 and the number 2 team being 14-0 this also hints the strategic value of the template with lesser teams not being able to pull a victory against the big guys.

^ Gui, I am pretty sure, doesn't like this template. The map can be good, but not with these settings.

Edited 11/28/2015 20:06:13

agree with sephiroth. The map itself is ok I think but it could be a more strategic map.