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.

I really like the premise of Ruth's post on the 1st page altho for an overhaul of that magnitude, I think a lot of serious thought would need to go into the specifics/details to make it really take off properly.

I also find myself in full agreement to virtually everything Impaller has posted on this thread. I truly believe that the purpose of this Ladder is to see 1 person's ability versus another 1 person's ability in a fair, even match and may the best player win the majority of the time. I still find the ranking system really cool and I thoroughly enjoy the fluctuations (as small as they may sometimes be) and the effort it takes to maintain your position on the Ladder. Even tho I've lowered my game count and am definitely feeling the Ladder fatigue to some extent, I still really enjoy the process. I would definitely be interested in something to spice it up such as a map shuffling or Ruth's idea of expiring and renewing Ladder rankings with trophies awarded per period but as I stated above, it would need to be really well thought out to be effective.

Wow ok I started writing my post before I read BP's and I really like a lot of what he said as well. That might be an idea with the challenges to get the map flavor rotated, but I still wouldn't write off the prospect of random map assignments going down in regular Ladder play.

I liked the dip card idea as well, intriguing...

Yeah I enjoy the ladder right now as it is, but I also think it would be cool to have different seasons, or flavors. Monthly or weekly planned changes would be a great benefit to the ladder in my opinion.


On the other hand I disagree with the prospect of having a handicap. If I defeated someone ranked high because of a handicap, I would not feel accomplished or good because it would be a dry victory. This I think would take away much of the ladders fun, because the thing I like most about it is when I win against someone higher then me.

I'm not a big fan of handicaps in the current 1v1 ladder, as any win with a handicap doesn't really feel like a true win.

I do like the idea of adding a seasonal 1v1 ladder alongside the current 1v1 ladder. The current one can remain to serve as the ultimate test of who is best at the strategic 1v1 settings, and those settings can continue to strive to be the ultimate 1v1 experience.

The seasonal 1v1 ladder can have new settings every season. It can experiment with new maps, distributions, cards, etc. A season can last maybe one or two months, and at the end of the season the scores are locked in place and archived, then reset for the next season.

Since it's easy to sit out seasons, the normal 1v1 ladder would be more like a marathon where the seasonal 1v1 ladder can be more like a sprint. This means it can afford to do things the main 1v1 ladder couldn't, like have lower boot times or more games going on simultaneously. It could also use a different rating system.

That being said, it'll have to wait until the yet-to-be-announced feature I'm currently working on is done. If you like this, I suggest voting on [Ladder Seasons](https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/1521999-ladder-seasons-?ref=title) - it's currently not well supported at all.

Fizzer, I like that idea a lot! Would you run them as completely separate entities or would you have 1 game played impact the rankings on **both** Ladders with the only difference being the reset of one Ladder and the continued compilation of the other?

PS - I voted the crap out of your [Ladder Seasons](https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/1521999-ladder-seasons-?ref=title) link. Love the idea Troll!

I fully support the idea of seasonal ladders, just don't make em too short, 3-4 months should be ok. playing on different maps will add fun to the game

The ladder seasons might need to be based on a total # of games, not time. That said, I like the idea a lot, especially if we used a different map or starting scenario in each season.