Phobia is played as SR in CL. EA&O is played with SR in rt-ladder. I know some do prefer WR, but in general it is a very bad idea to have such changes in the template, as not all will notify them. I would prefer to remove these templates and add in new ones.

Don't like this reasoning. By this logic, you would never get 0%SR MME as 0%WR ME was the default 1v1 ladder template for a long time. Also, some settings don't play well in knockout competitions(which is why the CL panel made those decisions). In a continuous setting like MDL, these settings should be encouraged.
MDL has such a wide range of templates that you have to refresh yourself on settings at the start of every game.

Template improvements should be encouraged regardless of how widespread a template is. Whether these changes are an improvement, is a different discussion.

i don't like the concept of template tweaking, players take time to get used to those specific settings, and by the time they recognize the map for those settings you have made it different, this makes people keep having to double check settings or make mistakes.

then templates get removed without any proper reason, which is even worse. if you want reasons to remove templates please remove the ones that are most veto'ed, not based on a jury of 6 who are fighting the WR/SR politics.

i still have no fucking clue how phobia or hannibal at the gates settings are because they keep changing!

the settings is listed in the text, so it will require very little effort to check them. i very often check since i cant remember all those temps(as i suspect many do). also its not like there its changing all of the time, it happens very rarely.

i just disagree with you about the last part, if it was by popular vote(vetoes) all the special settings would be gone, and we would just end up with 20 times 3x4 SR 0%.

Edited 7/10/2017 17:14:08

i don't like the concept of template tweaking, players take time to get used to those specific settings, and by the time they recognize the map for those settings you have made it different, this makes people keep having to double check settings or make mistakes.

If there is a weak/bad template which doesn't play well, it should be changed. I understand that players take time to practice templates, but it should be straightforward to carry over concepts. Given that there are 42+ templates on the ladder, I would assume that you check settings on every game.

then templates get removed without any proper reason, which is even worse. if you want reasons to remove templates please remove the ones that are most veto'ed, not based on a jury of 6 who are fighting the WR/SR politics.

Read the document linked. Everyone has given detailed reasons on each template and then arrived at a consensus. There isn't any SR/WR politics at play here. Removing templates by vetoes is absurd. The ladder would quickly lose all niche templates like MA, no split etc. This model of template revisions has already been used successfully in CL, and I think the panel did a great job without bias.

Phobia is actually a rare case since i remember both the SR and WR version (same settings except that one) to be pretty popular so you just gotta check it every game you play on that template to know which of the 2 you are actually playing.
This is 1 of the templates i would personally like to have the rounding mode actually in the game name so we at least can see it directly as which version of the template we are playing.
Possibly just have both of them on the ladder and if someone doesn't like WR just let them veto it so they know if they get the template it's SR version.

recommended template:
Great Lakes Basin, Limited Full Distr.

8 start territories x 3 armies, 4 base income
all neutrals are 2 armies
No cards
random move order, 0%SR

You're given 16 territories at the picking stage. Starting in 8 territories, you have full intel on where your opponent is.

As I wrote in a previous post, we don't seem to have a template of this sort.

example game:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=12944953

Edited 7/11/2017 07:26:24

^I 2nd that (bias alert)

I also have another lim full dist...
Template: https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=772829
Example game: https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=13764522

They don't have to be mine, but I really like the unique play style of LFD. My 2nd one above is also Local Deployments, but it doesn't require railroading armies all over.

At any rate, would be nice to have some underused elements. Do you use local deployments at all on MDL?


Sorry I did not respond to this thread before now. I went out of town for a while, was only mobile...and was not checking the forums hardly at all. I totally missed this thread.

Anyway, I applaud this effort, and I would have helped, but I honestly would not have been a great asset as I have not played MDL in a while (there were too many templates for me to learn, so I dropped off). I will definitely join it again at some point soon though.


Also, I like tweaking templates, so long as the change is noted in the description (so people notice it).

Edited 7/11/2017 22:39:56

Do you use local deployments at all on MDL?

Yes. http://md-ladder.cloudapp.net/template?templateId=989162

Wow, there is auto distribution on here (Greece)? I just got totally f'd on auto picks in my game. Why auto dist? I am not sure I can even win my game based on the picks.

He has first turn bonus, I have no bonus I can even get in two turns as he has counters on all of them. Plus he has a 5 bonus that is safe as well.

Sorry, I am in shock that people actually want a possible lotto game on this ladder:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=13796525

Edited 7/12/2017 04:15:54

Most games are even after distribution. This is one of the most balanced auto-dist templates on WL imo.

Regarding the game you linked, I'd like to play on that board(invite me if you like!). I'll take your starts and you take your opponent's. I'm not claiming I'm going to win, but I think it would be an interesting game :p

Fun fact - I've played such games against people making similar claims(from the so called weaker position). My record so far is 5-1 :p

I guess I CAN get a bonus, but only if he does not guess right. Still seems really bad to have auto dist on here. Auto dist should only be used with more map coverage IMO.

I bet you were not playing another elite person. Regardless, I will have to veto this one.

Edited 7/12/2017 04:30:56

I bet my succession wars template I posted would be fine auto distribution.

I bet you were not playing another elite person.

I don't know the exact definition of elite, but my opponents obviously knew how to play well(or why would I mention it :p)

I bet my succession wars template I posted would be fine auto distribution.

Try it. Create a tournament and see how it is received. I'm all for new and exciting templates. We have enough of the 3x4 0% SR stuff already.

I bet my succession wars template I posted would be fine auto distribution.

I'm trying that now. Multi-day game. Will post the link if it turns out something significant :)

ooh he got a 2 bonus, that is definitely lost, there is nothing like those small bonuses on LD :)

Edited 7/12/2017 11:00:57

Sorry, I am in shock that people actually want a possible lotto game on this ladder:

if this template is very heavily luck based it should shown in the games played list motd posted, as there is 40 games finished. if you look at the list i would say that what is remarkable is the consistency of how strong players beat weaker ones.

Personally I'd love to join eventually (when I'm finishing some tourneys and ladder) but the number of WR is too much for me. Not only I have no pleasure playing those, but I feel it makes the game a bit lotto : whoever gets to complete his early bonus by luck has a massive advantage.

The fact I joined WL after Fizzer started favouring SR to WR surely doesn't help compare to old schools players, but my point is, Fizzer did that for a reason : because luck is anti strategic. Ideally if veto would force me to only 5 exotic templates where I could have only 1 WR which I would just surr turn 0, I would be more willing to join. Now I say "I", but who cares what I feel, by that I mean I assume other players may feel the same as me.

To some extent, random move order could also be mentionned for the same reason : a losing player managing to survive 1st order for a few turns in a row while catching the gap on income, and/or building every turn a higher stack to kill, can revert the outcome of a game totally. And not by skills, as the winning player had taken advantage so far, but by luck, as the losing one may survive and then manage to revert the situation.

Edited 7/12/2017 11:29:20

A main and important change, in my opinion, would be to remove the luck from the templates, else it would be more luck than skill required

You can't disagree with Chris that he is pretty badly disadvantaged with those starts. He can either go for the green 5 bonus or the red 4 bonus, but that's hoping Baer doesn't predict which one.

Reminds me of this game showed in the awp template thread, https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=13485912 rak is pretty much done for straight away.

Though most templates have crappy luck, doesn't matter whether its auto or manual. To me auto greece is just worth a use of a veto.

That one is worse than mine. At least i have some chance.