To continue with my "pessimism", the forums aren't worth putting effort into. As evidence, I put forth that absolutely no effort has been made towards them whatsoever thus far. And I don't blame Randy for that at all.

One thing that really bothers me (and I have no idea how simple it is)...

RR's with random tiebreaker (three way split that head to head can't sort out). Suppose you are in a 20 team RR and 3 teams finish first. But you get 3rd place from a random tiebreaker. Sucks, IMO. I wish the system just allowed you to have three 1st place teams in that scenario.

We still cannot ignore the lack of a 1vs1 Europe ladder..

Europe maps ARE the most popular maps on Warlight - no question. Within the top 8 maps on Warlight, 6 of them are Europe. And the top 3 are all Europe maps.

They have too many territories you say?
Not Troll's Europe nor Imperium Romanum with 206 and 106 territories respectively compared to medium earth's 131.

If Trolls Europe has too many territories still - how many of these territories are actually used in a manual pick 1v1 strategic game?
A lot of the big bonus's such as Germany,Greece, Italy and Romania ect. can be excluded from most games leaving a healthy 1v1 Strategic territory count of around 130.
I also believe Troll's Europe might be even more 'strategic' than medium earth - and everyone likes a change since the current ladder has been running for a couple of years.
BUT it is not like the current 1v1 Medium Earth would stop, that's not what I'm saying should happen - why can't both ladders run?

It also gives an alternative to the paying members who don't like medium earth.

Both of these maps are top maps voted by warlight players and it makes sense to have a ladder including the continent of the majority of warlight players too- europe.

It will make the ladders even more interesting and give more incentive to become a member. Why is there a 1v1 ladder on Medium Earth when it is only the 23rd map best map? And no ladder for any europe map? There is a demand for this. How many non-members would become a member to play in the Europe 1v1 ladder?

CLOT is too external and only available for creating ladders by those select few who can code a ladder well, and there is not enough players if one was decently made. If a ladder was made on warlight on a europe map, not only would it be more satisfying (Being on the dashboard) but would gain a lot of players. I know of many members and non-members alike who want to test there skills on a Europe map in a ladder. (This could be because the current medium earth map maybe has stagnated)

I am not trying to attack Warlight, I think Warlight is awesome but I don't understand why there isn't a Europe ladder on either Troll's Europe or Kayn's when it would be both beneficial to the user base and yourself, Fizzer?
Does it cost you, Fizzer considerably more to have another ladder?
I truly think it would be one of the biggest and best contributions to warlight including this in the 2.0 update or afterwards is a perfect time to do it. There should be some sort of survey to see if players would want an additional ladder on Europe. I also bet it would keep 'retiring' players still interested - such as what Gui was talking about earlier.
Warlight needs this Fizzer! :)

Major Risk, Medium Earth is in my opinion, the best 1v1 map I have played on. Europe is best as a 3v3 map. I think the ladder warlight needs the most right now is the 3v3 Europe ladder. But some other good ones would be: Europe 2v2, Imperium Romanum 1v1, East Asia & Oceania 1v1, Phobia 1v1. There are many good 1v1 maps, and while Europe is decent for 1v1, it is not one of the best. But it is one of the best for 2v2 and is definitely the best at 3v3.

Eu 1v1 is bad. Much better 3v3 ;)

3v3 Trolls Europe would be a better addition yes, or Imperium Romanum 1v1.
Warlight is totally lacking a 3v3 Ladder, but either would add so much to the ladders..

If Fizzer would add 3v3 eu , 1v1 imperum romanum, 2v2 Eu or another good map, i would join all 3 and i think a lot of player will do the same.

Continue to ignore ace windu, his dog died and then his cat ran out to see what happened and got killed too.

Gui, have I gained the power of online invisibility or have you learned online hypnosis?

Anyway, I'm confident Fizzer will add another ladder or two in the update. He has no reason not to as far as I can see.

Maybe he hasn't added a ladder in a long time so that he has a surefire winner to stick into the big update? Not inconceivable.

Ace, I think you might be right on that. 1.0 was a huge update. That was where membership was added and the ladders were made. I hope 2.0 is close to that big, I think adding a couple ladders plus the leveling system plus a league or clan system would be very nice.

Ace, I hypnotized your dog. I'm not sure about the cat.

Wouldn't farmers jump on this as a chance to make themselves look like less of a noob. We've seen before that they have no problem doing it for the win-rate. A level system could be a stimulant for increased farming. I also agree with everyone who's already said this, Better players should start a higher level. Not just because of there a extensive winnings and experience prior to 2.0 but set incentives for other players to "try and be as good as those guys".

As soon as the update is released, many people (like me) will create loads of real time ranked games to try and get ahead :D

thought you have to win that game :D

Better players should start a higher level

The question is - How to distinguish better players from the weaker ones, when even 90%+ win ratio is meaningless

Ofc winration doesn't count. they could give point for ladder result.

Also is there going to be a consequence for losing a game? Or only a positive consequence for winning a game, I don't have an answer maybe you guys might. Plus I wouldn't call that farming in the least. The farmer(s) I'm speaking of who we all know of, have buffed their stats before and could buff there levels at 2,0.

Points/levels is not a measure of skill. It is a fun little way for players to win stickers, treats, badges, and cookies as an incentive to play more games. It's like adding sugar or spice to your food to make you want to eat more. It also gives nonmembers a chance to unlock member features (another fun incentive to keep playing). It will determine your skill level in the same way single-player stats do. So arguing or even caring about this is unnecessary. It is like arguing over how much sugar your brother gets to add to his meal when you are equally able to eat your own meal.

THE DOLPHIN doth cherish his stickers/treats/badges/cupcakes. THE DOLPHIN is most interested in this update.

Fizzer You wrote

I put a great deal of thought into this, in fact. I was very close to making a section on it in the blog post.

In the end, I feel the right decision is to start everyone at level 1*. Some people have been playing since 2008, and if the points were given out for every game played there would be tons of people who basically started out already done leveling.

The fun is really in the journey, not the destination. Think about the last RPG you played -- did you have more fun after you were max level, or while you were leveling up?

I played more than 2000 games in here and this makes me feel robbed. Actually I was on holidays for last days, came up and all those levels did apear, starting me with level 5, which make it the lowest in many games. It's unfair in my opinion, that it count only last 30 days. Just robbed and unfair in my opinion.

I don't care if You like in RPGs to go from 0. For me it's like cancelling all the time and effort I spent here. I don't like it.