Impaller, when have you played people much worse than you on an unequal footing to even discern that you like one better than the other? In your experience, what is it exactly that made you dislike a handicapped game? Anyways if it was set up properly (so that handicapped games yield less volatility in terms of ladder score,) it could be configurable whether you were matched to handicapped games even with the ladder being capable of it, so you could just opt out and continue playing the top 10 on the ladder forever :)

And also, what is the World vs. Impaller if not a handicapped game after a manner of speaking - all those minds on one side of the coin, all vigilant for a mistake, an opportunity. And what is, for instance, the "Insane Challenge" you completed in 24 turns, if not a handicapped game where 1 side (the computers) has an edge over the other? I don't mean to be confrontational, I'm just curious as to your thoughts on the subject...

And also - Damn I wish I could edit in the forums!!!

</spam>

Any of the numerous times I've played games with automatic picks, 75% or higher luck, etc...especially if those games also include random wasteland locations. One player or the other is going to be handicapped by getting worse starting picks or having terrible starting luck or a wasteland in a starting bonus. It's just not fun to me, whether or not I win or lose those games. Unless the handicap was really well done, and I'm not sure it's even possible within the confines of this game to do so, the outcome of handicap matches is going to mostly be about how much of a handicap there is and not the actual game-play itself.

I can already predict now that there are going to be a decent percentage of games that are going to basically be like this: "The handicap was too strong and I lost" or "The handicap wasn't strong enough and the game wasn't a challenge." I don't know...maybe I can work, but I'm definitely very skeptical of the viability.

Continuing playing the top 10 of the ladder forever is pretty dull, although lately I've had a lot of games against people I've never played before, which bodes well and means new players are joining and doing well. I think the solution to fixing the problem is mixing up the game style or game type, not handicapping players. New maps, rotating gameplay options (complete fog? custom starting spots? different cards?) sounds like a great way to break free from the current stagnation.

Or we could leave the number of territories fixed and apply a different multiplier to determine the bonus (same result another way). So it's always every ten territories, but it starts with a .25 multiplier and goes up by .05 per ranking differential (with rounding). So a one spot differential (.3) gets 1 bonus army/turn when he gets to 20 territories (and goes to +2 at 50), a 6 spot differential (.55) gets 1 army at 10 territories (and goes to +2 at 30), a 25 spot differential (1.55) gets 2 army at 10 territories (and goes to +3 at 20). And so on.

Something like that might work across a large ladder.

So if I played Imp on the ladder the effect would be next to nothing. 1 army/turn when I reach 20 territories isn't going to make a bit of difference on medium earth.

But if the guy ranked 50th played Imp, he'd get a 2.75 multiplier at 10 territories (+3) and at 20 territories (+6). That's a significant handicap if Imp ever allows him to get to 20 territories.

You're not being confrontational. Those are completely reasonable questions, and I welcome the debate and differing opinion.

|> And also, what is the World vs. Impaller if not a handicapped game after a manner of speaking - all those minds on one side of the coin, all vigilant for a mistake, an opportunity.

I don't consider this really a handicap. Nothing about how the game is actually played out changes, just the difficulty level of the opponent changes. Having everyone against one player isn't necessarily a disadvantage to the one player. While there are certainly a ton of great minds on one side of the field coordinating ideas, there are also going to be a lot of noise and disagreements and "wrong" moves being suggested as well that can muddy the waters.

|> And what is, for instance, the "Insane Challenge" you completed in 24 turns, if not a handicapped game where 1 side (the computers) has an edge over the other?

This is definitely a handicapped game, you are right. And I actually really enjoyed this challenge (much more than any of the other ones) and spent enough time playing it to beat it in what was then definitively the best time (and may still be, I don't know). The difference is, this is the same game being played over and over again against an unchanging AI opponent. It's a challenge against yourself, to see if you can jump higher than the bar, not a challenge against another player to see if you're capable of winning under certain handicaps. I don't think it's really the same thing.

I also don't like the idea of a handicap. I want to know that if I beat somebody, I beat them because I played better that game (or fine, maybe some luck was also involved). Or if I lost it was because they played better than me.

Then play people ranked below you. Duh.

All good points, Impaller - I think it'd be fun but obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinions on it, and there is no right or wrong. Probably rotation of maps and settings like you talked about would tempt me back to the 1v1 ladder as well. Maybe there could be a THIRD ladder that would be open to all players whether members or not and that would be handicapped, and the top 5 on the ladder at any given time get all the benefits of membership other than the ability to join the other ladders. THAT would be a hoppin' ladder, I bet!

Just a detail about TI vs. many people : it should be definitely at TI's advantage (no offense to "the world"). OK it's flashy to say "actual n°1 vs. The World", though it means, well, 'fairly' good player vs. mere mean tendancies (which may be just dull and inefficient) lacking sharpness of calculus. That's how this works, buddies : the odds should be massively in TI's favor, I hope it's clear for everyone ^^

I don't actually agree with that. I think it really comes down to how coordinated "the world" is. It's not mean tendencies versus one player, because that doesn't take into account the persuasiveness of other players convincing people to follow their move. If the top 3-5 players in the world are able to articulate their positions well and coordinate with each other and convince other players to follow their move choices, then I think the world has an advantage. If it's chaos, then I definitely have one. As far as the actual game has progressed thus far, it unfortunately hasn't been a particularly exciting one, as a few failed attacks on turn 1 set me back a lot.

You would be right about mean tendencies if it was just a simple vote with no communication, and that may very well be the case, as I have not seen any of the threads. But I am assuming there is at least some amount of discussion going on, which certainly changes things. You can't use pure mathematics in a situation like this.

Well considering that the whole thing was an exercise to challenge Impaller, it's being done wrong then. Shoulda had like, Duke or someone on one side, and then Impaller on the other but all of his moves get voted on by a committee muahahaha THAT'S RIGHT, IMPALLER - **HELL**

I disagree with the handicap as well. I wouldn't feel like I actually pulled off a win against a good opponent because he had a disadvantage. It would feel like a tainted win to me. Knowing that there is a chance for anyone to beat anyone at any given time is enough for me to play someone better because we're on the same playing field.

I think this thread has gotten a little off topic on what I originally wanted. I wanted a revamp of the Ladder in a new way with Points and a Season. Who else thinks thats a good idea? If you're unsure what i'm talking about...go back a couple pages

I weighed in on that first. I also like the handicap option. Whether or not it's for the ladder, I think it would be a cool feature to have on WL.

Let's hold up a bit. This is Gaspumper's thread about ladder fatigue. Discussion of Ruthless' idea and the handicap are certainly both on topic.

I honestly think the ladder could be more exciting for all if the maps I mentioned earlier were implemented with the same settings as strategic 1v1. Also, I like the idea of have a formal challenge option. I like that idea a lotttttttt

I like games that go by semi quickly. If I could send challenges to players I know that would enjoy the same, that would be great. A little weary of getting games against people that like to take 1-3 day breaks in between each turn. But! I can deal with it if I can make a formal challenge here and there to break up the boredom ^_^

As a handicap, why not just having split attack/defense ratios ? Like, to be clear on the method, 60/70% for a player, 65/75% for the other ? That may be a soft way to do it, especially because experience would tell how much to increment between each level of play to be fair without any distortion of the matchup or usual development with picks and incomes.

You would get pretty heavy distortion making the handicap applicable to every attack every round (even if you excluded neutrals). I wanted any effect to be delayed to avoid the multiplier problem and have it be negligible for players close in rank, but still meaningful if further apart in rank.

My turn.

I like lots of Rutheless's ideas (the seasons in particular) and do sit in the majority (it at least appears to be) - more "radical" camp - that thinks the ladder would benefit from a shake up. This is somewhat ironic as any twist would jeopardize the exact science that people whining about the Elo system seemed to demand. It is my contention, however, that switching up the maps would be a truer test of skill and add to the excitement as things would be fresher. I am also very keen on the challenge idea.

I would also say that I am very liberal when it comes to ideas. Why I've trumpeted the FFA ladder so much is because my favorite part of Warlight is seeing a situation and having to adapt my game accordingly. At this stage in the ladder my game is basically on auto-pilot... For this reason, I would welcome any tweaks. Starting the game with a diplomacy card, say for two or three turns, for example, would allow players to start in and ensure the capture of larger bonuses. This simple tweak would open up the game to more strategies. Although I wouldn't want this permanently, to try it for a small term (season) it would be fun.

Maybe for people who want to try different maps, fuller distribution, handicapping etc, maybe this could be exclusive to the open challenge that people seem to want. For example, I could create a custom template and challenge Ruthless to a 1v1 ladder match. Should he accept it would count for ladder points yet the game map and style would be of our choosing. If possible perhaps the points won or lost would only effect the the challenge. In addition, to protect cheating, nobody could be challenge more then once in a given season (currently a 3-month block).

Anyway I'm just nodding my approval for what's already been said and throwing in my own two cents. I will say though that the ladder has gotten more competitive lately and I do still enjoy it.... I just think it can always be better.