+1 Gnuffone. I personally voted to change both 1v1 and 2v2 ladders, but 3 picks each in 2v2 gives a lot of pick luck.

3v3 Ladder still needs Attack-Only.

RT Ladder still has 2 bad for RT templates. Fizzer can like LD all he wants, I don't see Fizzer playing the ladders.

That is true ofcourse. I asked several times if Fizzer will follow the results no matter what they are...didn't get an answer ofcourse.

3v3
If you give options like leave the current map/change it(to which) it is clear no map can beat the one used atm.

1v1
SR was safe from the beggining but to be safe Fizzer added third option so that WR has even less votes (if someone doesn't care he doesn't have to vote there - simple)

2v2
Here the situation looks the best though I don't remember Fizzer asking what options to put in the poll, hence conplainments about why 3 not 4.

RT
Needless to say it is a joke. You would like to play something else but if this settings already exist, we must use them somewhere...
I thought Fizzer was against complicated settings unfamiliar to newbies.
Seems I was wrong again

EDIT: And the most important thing on RT, changing the number of templates, didn't even deserve his comment as far as I can see.

It is just sad.

Edited 5/8/2016 22:45:03

I bet commanders are still there so that people have more incentive to become members.

To be quite frank, this IS Fizzer's creation, he can largely do with it what he will regardless of everyone else's opinions. Its fine (though maybe not wise) to disagree with the playerbase over what changes are needed. However, this kind of game in particular will attract more intelligent people. Someone will probably find reasonable basis to claim that the players are intentionally being manipulated to "agree" with what the creator actually wants. Even if it is not actually true, if most circumstantial evidence points to such,then the players have no reason to have faith in the creator. If done again, most intelligent, informed players will probably ignore future attempts to "connect" with the player base.

Another issue of manipulation is the very bad CLOT framework. Here are things that Fizzer needs to do ladder-wise:

1. Allow players to run their own CLOT for 10-20 or 30$ a month, allow cost to be split between players.

10$ package can support up to 10 players and up to 5 templates.
20$ package can support up to 25 players
and up to 10 templates.
30$ package can support up to 50 players and up to 25 templates.

All CLOTs would use the same rating system as the RT ladder, and you can chose between RT (3 min 8 banked) and MD (3 days)

CLOTs are advertised on a separate page. Everything else is the same as the ladders.

2. A second 1v1 Ladder, using the Strat ME 0%WR settings.

3. Add atleast 10 new templates to the RT Ladder, keep the commanders and LD (just 1 each) so the chances are lower. The whole point of the RT ladder is to have a lot of templates (and to be RT), so we should have atleast 20.

4. Change all (1v1, 2v2, 3v3) of the ladders from having games expire after 3(or is it 5?) months, to having games expire after it is their 51th non-expired game. This would OBLITERATE stalling. When implemented, every player with more than 50 games would have all their games expire, but no other games would.

3,4 - make sense :)
EDIT: I am not saying the other two does not. I just have mixed feelings about thouse.

Edited 5/8/2016 23:49:00

ofc 3 makes sense to you ur addicted to real time ladder sultan!

Edited 5/9/2016 00:02:08

On the topic of Fizzef Stalin:

I'm quite happy with the result of this. Yes, it won't please everyone, that's how voting is. I would have preferred 4 picks in the 2v2 ladder but if you add in too many options per setting then it becomes too complicated, what if 30% of people voted each for 3 and 4 picks, and 40% of people voted for 2 picks?

As for RT ladder, I don't think keeping LD is that big a deal. The whole point of this ladder is a variety of templates with different settings. Although, I would prefer there to also be a MD ladder with multiple templates, and then move LD to that ladder, since it can occasionally get annoying to play LD in RT (but from experience, it's not as bad as people are making it sound). I don't care one way or another if commander templates are included.

I am also not sure if the number of templates should increase or not, that might be a good subject for another poll. The problem with increasing the number of templates is that it will become much harder to play enough games on each one to get good enough to even attempt to compete.

@Python, nobody asked for 3 picks. About 70% of the community wanted 4 picks, so it would be even more bias than it was for 3 picks.

-Thx for the poll!
-Pls no multiatack pls
-if u need LD then on a small map but better without LD ;D
- i think Riso of Rome could have competed with Europe in a fair vote

Could we maybe combine the commander setting with the ld setting?
That way we could add another template instead and the chances of getting a bad template would be decreased by 50%.

hahaha I don't think they're bad, they are decent, they have some strategic sense!

not saying i disagree with you but mod you don't even play!

-edit- sorry mod was just trolling you :P

Edited 5/10/2016 03:16:02

not saying i disagree with you but mod you don't even play!

Seems like he does now lol...



And I like the idea. The template would be at least interesting...

Edited 5/10/2016 00:44:11

not saying i disagree with you but mod you don't even play!



Seems like he does now lol...

He means MoD doesn't play with two accounts which is against Fizzer's rules.

+1 Sułtan's France LD changes. Actually, there's a good chance those updates will be used (RT ladder).

I just played a game with these settings and it was a blast. The old Turkey LD games were typically fun but sometimes you'd get a 2 hour game if you had a scenario of East vs West separated by a choke point.

A similar scenario seems far less likely with this France LD template. Give it a try.
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11091092

Edited 5/10/2016 01:35:38

Player12345 that template was not ready yet at the moment it got nominated by sultan. He posted about that earlier. But i doubt fizzer will look at it at this point

gnuffone: i saw no contribution from you when fizzer was asking for what was to be polled. you get what you give.

mod, sultan: perhaps you shouldn't be showcasing an improvement on a template with a game that ends in 2 turns?

Another issue of manipulation is the very bad CLOT framework. Here are things that Fizzer needs to do ladder-wise:

1. Allow players to run their own CLOT for 10-20 or 30$ a month, allow cost to be split between players.

10$ package can support up to 10 players and up to 5 templates.
20$ package can support up to 25 players
and up to 10 templates.
30$ package can support up to 50 players and up to 25 templates.

All CLOTs would use the same rating system as the RT ladder, and you can chose between RT (3 min 8 banked) and MD (3 days)

CLOTs are advertised on a separate page. Everything else is the same as the ladders.

2. A second 1v1 Ladder, using the Strat ME 0%WR settings.

3. Add atleast 10 new templates to the RT Ladder, keep the commanders and LD (just 1 each) so the chances are lower. The whole point of the RT ladder is to have a lot of templates (and to be RT), so we should have atleast 20.

4. Change all (1v1, 2v2, 3v3) of the ladders from having games expire after 3(or is it 5?) months, to having games expire after it is their 51th non-expired game. This would OBLITERATE stalling. When implemented, every player with more than 50 games would have all their games expire, but no other games would.

all of these ideas are stupid.

1) if people can't be bothered hosting their own CLOT, they wouldn't be willing to pay fizzer to host it either. and it's a bitch technically to support hosting without security issues. the only real issue is advertisement of the CLOTs on warlight, which muli script is doing right and Fizzer should be walking that way to allow more players to see it.

2) People cry that Strat ME should be 16% WR not 0% WR. So you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Regardless: having 2 ladders on similar settings is counter productive because it dilutes the active players between them, making both of them have crappy competition.

3) i agree increasing number of templates would be better (12 or 15 would be ideal imho), but there is no need to jump into an absurd number of templates which will scare any new players from joining. rotating new templates in and out every few months is a lot better.

4) your reasoning that players will be discouraged from stalling if their games expire after a certain number instead of a date has no merit. it would only get people playing less ladder games, which would make it even worse.

an idea i would like to see implemented that would improve ladder activity is realtime tournaments that use templates from the RT ladder counting for the realtime ladder ranking.

Edited 5/10/2016 11:09:08

an idea i would like to see implemented that would improve ladder activity is realtime tournaments that use templates from the RT ladder counting for the realtime ladder ranking.

Ps do you mean small real-time tournament like autogame? can be a good idea in my opinion