I prefer %0 SR, as I hate being subject to luck.

I also don't like MME with SR. Agree there

Though I do understand the legitimate beef with expansion. To that, my solution is %75 defensive kill rate. It results in losing that leftover on 3v2s.

I also hate random move order, only because it is absent of any history (always a coin flip). I have had games where my opponent gets 5 turns in a row, and even 2+ times can decide the game. This is not a feature yet, but should be and should be used on the ladders IMO:
https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/5986185-weighted-move-order


So, IMO the 1v1 ladder should be:
1) ME
2) %0 SR
3) %75 def kill rate
4) Weighted Move Order

I would like to see a tournament with the first 3 settings (the 4th does not exist right now).

I just saw fizzer officially declined our request! Run my fellow true warlighters. We're doomed to the new-1vs1-ladder-lovers medicority

Fizzer closed issue at Uservoice?! This must be a miracle.

Edited 4/18/2016 19:00:13

yeah but https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10965867

People get overly bent out of shape about luck in single games. There's a reason you don't get ranked after 1 game. Over a sample of 20 games, luck tends to even out. And if people play on the ladder for even longer stretches of time rather than the minimum to get ranked, luck becomes even less of a factor in your rating.

Make the ladder Bayesian Elo

It already is. I think you wanted to say TrueSkill (like the RT Ladder), which would reward people who keep playing on the ladder and would make it impossible to make runs of 20 games, stalling the ones in which you're losing, and grab #1 for a few hours just to get the trophy and break right after. That would also ensure that a random loss against someone doesn't drag your rating down until that game expires!

+1 Beren. To all luck-haters, let me give you a bet (arbitrary):

I flip a perfect, unbiased coin.

If it lands heads, you get 11$.

If it lands tails, you give me 10$.

What would you do if you have:

A) 10$ with you, 1 bet allowed.
B) 100$ with you, 10 bets allowed.

I'm not a ladder player, but I'm just really glad to see such well-developed discussion happening on the Warlight forums. Thanks! A very interesting read.

While I ultimately enjoy playing WR more than SR, remember that no one is objectively better than the other. I enjoy playing WR more than SR; I don't think it's better.

There are pros and cons to each but ultimately it's an opinion, about: how many dimensions do you think a game should have, what dimensions should they be (for example, should luck be involved?), how fast should people expand (because this varies from template to template), etc.

I'll not haver on, but remember this is all an opinion.

I really like the idea of weighted move order if it is to replace the 50/50 move order. I ve seen worse than 5 in a row and it's just ridiculous sometimes.


On the subject, what I like in the current 1v1 ladder, it gives more options for initial picking. Consequence of that is lower skilled players have a higher chance to win. So the ladder is open to a higher range of players. And this is what we want. Skilled players will still win anyway thanks to their extra skills.

With less picking choice, it's 100% about skills and the overskilled player will always win. Push the reasonning to the extreme : imagine a map with just the bonus SEA (4 or 5 lands) and 1 pick each. The lower skilled player may go all in on the other one, while the other will only hold. He has a stack advatange so he will win. With more picking options, lower player can find himself in a nice situation that he may not even expect in first place and create a surprise win. I prefer that. The skilled player will have more things to think about during his picking phase.

I ve played this map on WR only once (against you V earlier today^^) i think so my mind is not relevant, it is more a point of view.

An issue with ladders is that its much easier to get #1 from runs than playing a lot of games over a long time. 1 reason is people who go on runs put more effort into their games as they know it will be a bigger portion of their rating, but more than that, if you take 10 players of equal skill, and 5 of them play 1000 games, and 5 of them play 20, then rank them, you can almost guarantee that the top rank will be a guy who played 20, because their rank will deviate a lot more from their true rank (the bottom rank too, but these players will likely then give up and leave the ladder so make no difference). So saying luck evens out the longer you play is not a good reason, because the advantage for the high ranks are already bent towards players who have played less games, and so it will only exaggerate this effect.

Edited 4/18/2016 22:25:14

With less picking choice, it's 100% about skills

The problem with this is??

BTW, here is my comparison on %75 vs %70 defensive kill rates:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1icPKCuIyWCWqDTGs0TQgbVRVlaHDSVfFtRlH51tbnIk/edit#gid=0

Lol Min. Well we need to give a chance to everybody otherwise before even starting the game we know who wins.

Hades thats very interesting. How many games in a row do you need to win to top the ladder do we know ? And has Fizzer realised that ? Because its clearly an issue that plays against the ladder popularity and needs to be fixed.

this discussion is pretty interesting for a newb like me :3

just wanted to say that posts like Verzehrer could hardly be considered lazy, if you are providing a lot of quality information, quite arguably without compensation. :p

*returns to lurking*

^A very good discussion indeed.

Also to all those that claim runs are easy, just get 20 victory and stall your losses well here is a surprise to you. 20 wins don't give you 1st anymore. Yup, the size of the ladder fixes the problem, and it should be more and more corrected as the ladder continues to grows. Oh, right proof. I currently have 16-0 in the ladder, and assuming* I win 4 more, my rating is still going to be below 2000. Now you could argue that I would simply have to make a successful run of 25 wins (presumably not so challenging since you're facing presumably weaker players), but as mentioned in an earlier post, more games will statistically bring you closer to your true skill/rating.
https://www.warlight.net/LadderTeam?LadderTeamID=3523

That being said, it is still possible to do a run of 20, if the first opponents have high enough rating, but that would be less unlikely as more players join the ladder.

Finally, I would like to mention that I support TrueSkill more than the current rating system :)

Peace out.


I won't, unless I stall. Which I am not about :(

Edited 4/19/2016 01:23:49

Small Earth 1v1 should obviously be the ladder template.

While there are some games that are won on luck more than on skill, that's just the nature of the ladder. The true question is whether to gamble on luck or not. You can win or lose that way - it's a matter of deciding what to risk and what to ensure you get. Of course, you have to rely on luck in some instances, but that's just the way that WR works.

Plus there are a ton of terrible games on the SR ladder as well that, in some cases, are even more luck based: https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10281663

Fizzer says that players like their "randomness". That's pure bullshit, have Fizzer and Mercer play a custom scenario where whoever gets their first pick wins, and they will probably put NLC in the ladder... Lol

For top players competing for first place, i dont see how they can be happy with WR. Because once they reach the 1st place or are close to make it, they can lose 1 game on luck anytime (they didn't make their 3v2 while opponent did and happenned to be fatal in that game). Then I don't know what happens, if the loser has to make a new run of 20 games or a few wins can make it back to the top but either way, you get the point.

For new players discovering ladders, 1v1 is the most accessible as its only one map that they can learn. But if they also have to learn a settings which does take time to understand unless you read about it, they may give up quickly. Clearly not the way to promote ladders like Fizzer aims and I'm afraid that's a deal breaker for him. But since he suggested it in the poll then maybe Fizzer is happy to please top players over a larger number of potential participants in the ladder.

For me, this template should be in seasonal or RT ladder and keep 1v1 ladder as it is to ensure ladders get more popularity (take me for example and I consider representing the average new comer on ladder here. I'm new in ladders, gave up RT quickly, try my chance in 1v1, when I feel comfortable I'll try another ladder ; wouldn't happen with WR).

Edit : also on another subject, I think the interesting part of RT ladder is its number of templates. But as long as it will be RT it will lack popularity. I think in MD there would be more participants. Because right now when you join you have a higher chance to play a top player over a player of your level. In MD it would be matched automatically to your level.

So to conclude, RT ladder should be MD, include WR MME, be called 1v1 exotic ladder (for its unusual templates) and aimed for top players maybe. 1v1 ladder should stay as it is, be renamed 1v1 sample ladder, and aimed for new comers on ladders. That way everybody would be happy and even lower players would have a chance to top the "tier B" ladder and hopefully all would try the "big" and more popular one afterwards.

Edited 4/25/2016 14:39:32

@Mike

In the RT ladder you should be thankful to play high rated players, you lose nothing and have so much to gain. Recently whenever I have played most my matches have been against people rated far below me and its gave me next to nothing.

And keep it real time, there needs to be a real time ladder since some people find it the best way to play warlight.
I'm

One last thing, I think we should all nag verzehrer to play another ladder. Then we can have another good forum thread ;)