I'm interested, sounds great!

Count me in as well!

Same there, nice idea

What is the minimum number of games a participant can play at one time?

I am interested (as long as I can reduce the game count below 5), but I guarantee I will not be in the top 24 players applying for this position.

Ha! 7.9% boot rate :D

I'm interested and interested in playing!

the only problem is if you get paired with people that are horrible skill-wise and/or that you have blacklisted.

I have some ideas around fixing that. But I don't want to say too much until I figure out how feasible they are. For now, you'll have to be prepared to play against anyone in your skill range.

an other obstacle I see is the boot problems. Even on regular team ladders where you always have the same partner, reliability can be an issue. I am wondering how big of a problem could be boots when you are paired with a lot of players that can all potentially be unreliable for boots.

I'm not too concerned with boots. If a team mate boots, you do not get a loss and have no negative impact on your rating. However, if you were in a winning position, it is annoying. Everyone gets only 1 chance. The second boot results in a ban, and should act as a deterrent.

Only remark I have is quite technical: the quadratic mean is heavily dependent on the choice of the 0 and therefore not translation-independent. A 0 rating in ELO is somewhat arbitrarily though, so I'm not sure if the quadratic mean would necessarily work so well here.

I'll sync with you to figure out alternatives.

What is the minimum number of games a participant can play at one time?

2 games.

I am interested (as long as I can reduce the game count below 5), but I guarantee I will not be in the top 24 players applying for this position.

That's fine. We'll have a queue and everyone can eventually join as long as they are reliable and meet the pre-reqs.


p.s - I also need 5-6 testers. You will basically play some dummy 2v2 games and help me test functionality. If you can help out with that, PM me your profile id or post on this thread.

First qualifier - https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer/Tournament?ID=22579

if you'd have me my boot rate is high but I can avoid boots if I need to

I'll pick the top 24 players who are interested.

How do you plan to determine these top 24 players?

MDL, 1v1 ladder, 2v2 ladder, 3v3 ladder or based on your experience?

Edited 3/15/2017 00:03:52

Not interested because I propably won't make the 24 :p

How do you plan to determine these top 24 players?

MDL, 1v1 ladder, 2v2 ladder, 3v3 ladder or based on your experience?

It'll be a combination of these. My intent isn't to make an elitist ladder. Having reliable players who stick around is important to retain everyone who joins the ladder. If people keep booting or aren't motivated enough it will turn others off. I'd also like to have continuity on the ladder(= more motivated players), which is why there are more restrictions around leaving/vacations than you see on MDL. All of this is based on my learning from the previous team CLOT I did.

Edited 3/15/2017 00:05:02

i like the concept of team ladder with rotating partners and templates but i'm against the elitist eligibility criteria of being for 24 players at a time. so i'm not participating out of principle.

i believe a player should be able to join and leave whenever they want.

i can agree with the auto-removal on boot, and perm ban on recurrent boots.

but i can't agree with waiting on a list for weeks/months until a spot opens up for you to actually get games whenever you first register and/or return to warlight after holidays.

Edited 3/15/2017 00:36:05

How likely is it that someone will be booted in only 1 of their 2 to 5 games (or wherever the upper threshold is set) that they have going concurrently? I detest boots, but is 2 the right number for the permaban? 1 bad 3 day weekend or temporary computer problems and there's your permaban (with extra boots beyond 2 in all likelihood) for an otherwise reliable player...

Perhaps starting with the "top 24" participants is an ill-choice of words... perhaps you should collect as many "reliable" players that you know and choose from them randomly (and then add to the number accordingly)?

Edited 3/15/2017 01:01:42

but i'm against the elitist eligibility criteria of being for 24 players at a time. so i'm not participating out of principle.

Like I said, my intent isn't to impose an elitist eligibility criteria. It is to ensure reliability. I just made the assumption that top players are more reliable.

i believe a player should be able to join and leave whenever they want.

I want to avoid players signing up for 1-2 games and then leaving. My previous team CLOT had this problem as well and it just died off. Continuity is important, and I'd rather have a smaller group of serious players than a large pool of players who keep leaving and aren't committed teammates.

but i can't agree with waiting on a list for weeks/months until a spot opens up for you to actually get games whenever you first register and/or return to warlight after holidays.

I don't really expect a waiting period of months. If that happens, I'll revisit it. Ideally, I want every player who will be a good teammate(regardless of skill level) on this ladder.

How likely is it that someone will be booted in only 1 of their 2 to 5 games (or wherever the upper threshold is set) that they have going concurrently? I detest boots, but is 2 the right number for the permaban? 1 bad 3 day weekend or temporary computer problems and there's your permaban (with extra boots beyond 2 in all likelihood) for an otherwise reliable player...

Ah. I hadn't thought of this. Thanks for bringing it up. This feature is not built into the system and I was planning on enforcing this manually. We can just restate it to "If you boot on two separate occasions, then that's a ban. So a bunch of boots over a bad weekend amounts to '1 occasion'"

Perhaps starting with the "top 24" participants is an ill-choice of words... perhaps you should collect as many "reliable" players that you know and choose from them randomly (and then add to the number accordingly)?

Yeah. I was mainly going for reliability and making the incorrect assumption that the top players will be reliable. I like your approach better and we can use that. Ironically you had the 24th post ;)

I like the rewording of the ban policy. I withdraw this concern :-)

And for what its worth, I also wouldn't be opposed to a "1 and done" boot-ban policy either, but it would need to be clearly stated as such.

I would like to play

sign me up, b0ss. im a professional team player

the only problem is if you get paired with people that are horrible skill-wise and/or that you have blacklisted.

as long as we keep matching people up with only teammates of around almost the same rating area, overtime the luck balances out (whether you're getting a good or crap teammate)

the trick then is to know how to deal with bad teammates (team carrying is a real skill that actually comes into play in competitive leagues)

Edited 3/15/2017 03:32:11

To partially solve the "away on the weekend" problem maybe use 1d10h with 1d banked time? An average 2v2 game is at least 5 turns long, so 1d bank will average to only 3-4 extra hours per turn. I know most ladders don't have any banks, but 1d10h calls for one!

Also maybe add an ability to (privately) blacklist up to N players similar to how md-ladder allows blacklisting templates?