@buns:

1. MoD
2. Myself
3. Timinator
4. MotD
5. Jefferspin (I already feel bad about calling him a top player)
6. AG (This one hurts more)
7. Miyagi
8. Gui
9. GreenTea (Idk this one for sure, but he hasn't joined ladder since it turned SR)
10. Sephiroth (alright this one hurt the most to call a top player)

It's not a valid point for another reason: Ladders aren't just for top players, they're for everyone. This ladder is easier to learn, therefore is easier for everyone. Just because 10+ top players would withhold themselves from competing doesn't mean the change is bad.
Official ladder

Jefferspin plays the new version of the ladder, he is ranked at this time.

Gui played it until getting booted? I remember peix not being able to get first for while since gui joined back. Gui also seems pretty inactive at times, so he probably wouldn't be playing the ladder if it was ME WR.

But my point was about mainly these kind of players, just how people say the ladder has lost many highly ranked players in the switch over, when actually it is not as bad as people make out. It is the same thing of players making runs, holding first for a day or two dropping in rating and then quitting.

I agree with your last point though, as long as the ladder has settings which have some depth to differentiate play between players with different levels of skill.

Edited 4/17/2016 12:03:02

In the end, i think we can agree, that replacing the old template with the new one, cost us a lot of dept on that ladder. It's easier to learn and play.

Also (sadly) that modification didn't really pay off on coin games. If newbies play a coin template, then it's small earth not MME. When someone is playing a MME coin game, it's still the same players as before that update, cause MME is already too hard for the newbies (i don't want to say it would be good if the new 1vs1 ladder template was small earth ;)).

Edited 4/17/2016 12:31:09

1. A link to a FINISHED GAME using the settings:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=7190215
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=7712221

2. A name of the template:
Warring States China (https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=526674)

3. Whether you'd like to see it in the real-time ladder, seasonal ladder, or both:
I like to see it in both.

'Warring States China' is different from 'Ancient China' suggested by Sułtan Kosmitów (map version 2.1 instead of 2.2, having more interesting bonuses).

Edited 4/17/2016 12:46:52

I agree with Python's Koala:

To me, the 1v1, 2v2, and RT ladders are mostly about strategy, while the seasonal ladder should be used more for rather exotic templates that might not otherwise be played.

i dont care about new templates, just change that ugly china template

Here's a solution for you HHH

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/147629-china-league-season

Maybe a poll regarding number of RTL templates? 10 templates are ok by me, but, for example, with 15 there is more room for proposals from this thread.

Benjamin628, i am tired of your stupid posts. Please start to learn from your mistakes, kid :(

Not sure if :( or :/

@Buns

But my point was about mainly these kind of players, just how people say the ladder has lost many highly ranked players in the switch over, when actually it is not as bad as people make out. It is the same thing of players making runs, holding first for a day or two dropping in rating and then quitting.

I agree with this point completely. It's not like the ladder has really changed much since it was converted to 0% SR (although I personally find the new template dry), in the terms that you have put forth. The biggest difference in terms of the ladder in general - not the settings - are the top players. I don't want to sound arrogant here or anything, but 7 out of the top 20 players would be in the top 20 of the old ladder. What this suggests is that a different skill set is required for the new ladder than the new ladder (obviously). The concept of "risk management" that was prominent in the old ladder versus the more certain, albeit more tedious, method of "bean-counting" (for lack of a better word) utilized in the new ladder is the main difference between the two ladders. For me, I believe learning to count and discern possible outcomes accurately is a much easier skill to master than figuring out how much to depend on luck. That is my biggest gripe with the new ladder - how it has traded some of its complexity just to shift to a "No-Luck" standard. The new ladder has almost lazily taken the settings from the old ladder and expected it to be the most strategical template for 0% SR. As Lolowut/"Kenny" said, MME is not a suitable map for 0% SR. There isn't really much room for complexity when you're just counting on such a small map. That being said, a No-Luck 1v1 Ladder would be great - but the settings right now are far from being the most strategic template for No-Luck settings.


What I would love to see is two different 1v1 ladders - WR and SR. I'm not sure how much effort that would require (if any at all), but I see no negative consequences that emerge from having two separate ladders. If Fizzer could consider this, I'm sure that would make a lot of people happy.

I'm personally not a fan of Medium Earth/Modified Medium Earth as I believe there are too many rock-paper-scissors type situations that can decide the game. That said, I personally would be pro-WR.

The SR template needs to be modified since the 5 income bonuses are very OP on the new template. I'd like to see something like 3 starting armies per territory as an experiment. The WR template took a long time to "perfect". The SR template has not been changed since its creation, and it is not right to assume that what works best for WR is what works best for SR, especially when including the map change.

Even if SR MME were "perfected", I would still prefer WR. Why? Because I don't have the desire to spend time counting and discovering where the opponent may be. In multiday templates where SR is used, it often becomes a game of who spends more time figuring out exactly what the opponent did each turn from the beginning of the game. I believe with WR, it is more challenging (and sometimes impossible) to figure out exactly what the opponent did each turn, and requires more skill. I find I can play at the "top level" in WR with little effort, but to play at the top level in SR is more time-consuming without adding any extra needed skill (possibly decreasing it).

I think the top level of warlight needs to shift more towards realtime. A great deal of players can perform at the top level on most templates if played multiday (and if they have the motivation to count). Far fewer can play realtime well where they must learn what to prioritize in their counting.

O.o that opinion switched quite a bit. Well said JSA!

Edit: laggy double post

Edited 4/18/2016 22:05:55

Local Deployments Glenrowan. This plays faster than Turkey due to the smaller map and extra armies per territory.
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10964084

I am open to make tweaks to it and welcome testers.

Edit: This is for the real time ladder.

Edited 4/19/2016 22:24:50

Was Guiroma always on SR?

Guiroma is traditionally on 16% SR

I don't like that map jz :( there really little variety in it

@Jz try it on a bigger map, like turkey <3

Well, we could keep using Turkey and try the extra armies per territory to try and speed it up.

There's probably a 60 territory map that would work, but I probably won't get to finding it before the deadline.

Edited 4/20/2016 03:32:29

Check out that France LD template I posted. How do you like that one?