I just started and encounter 62-64 level players in the first 5 games and 1 level 60 player while I'm level 57, is there a reason for this or play only 60+ players in this ladder. I've to say I learn a lot, but I noticed it comes down to those settings which introduces the luck factor.
Meh, you probably shouldn't care too much about level. It does not count for that much, only that you have played a lot of games.
have to go down to 2 games at once
I don't know about the seasonal ladder, but that is no longer an option in the 1v1 ladder, smallest amount of games is 3, which only makes the boot time problem even worse
I appreciate VERAVARI's efforts to bring up Fizzer's points from the last AMA in order to debate here. I apologize if it's derailing the thread a bit, but the creator of it brought it up himself, and I think some additional things can be said about it in response to VERAVARI/Fizzer
Fizzer wants quick thinking and let players small mistakes to make the games more dynamic. He doesn't want try-hards who thinks for hours before making a move (ironically he also wants to make ladders the ultimate strategic competition in WZ)
Yup, sure is ironic. You can either have one or the other. If Fizzer wants to make the 1v1 ladder the staple of strategic success, then he should model it after the MTL, which is designed to be the-1v1-ladder-but-better in many ways, by good players, for good players, and which is currently closest to the peak of competitive success in the game. As with the old 1v1 ladder, the current ladder still has MTL as an alternative for players who are actually interested in rising to the top. I would understand if Fizzer aimed to make the 1v1 ladder more of a participation-based competition just as Clan Wars (which many top players seem to not take too seriously for that reason), but you can either focus on making it more strategic or more activity based, and it seems that the ladder is going in the latter direction, which in turn makes it less welcoming to strategic players broadly speaking (of course, some people won't be affected because they can play fast and/or like the shorter boot time)
He wants people to dedicate themselves on ladders. If you don't have the time to play ladders consistently, you can stop playing it until you have the consistent time & determination. Your rank will not depreciate over time so you can stop when you don't have time, and resume when you have time again.
That, much like the boot time (I would think), only lowers the ladder player pool, since many people cannot or don't want to play it consistently, or can commit to a lower amount of games, or can only guarantee consistency if the boot time is higher etc. Points to direction of activity at the expense of strategy
I agree with 1) and 2) as reasons for why I think boot time should be increased, apart from the idea that I have mentioned myself, which could be best summarized as - if the 1v1 ladder is to be the peak of strategic achievement, it should cater to its target audience, that is, people who want to be highly competitive (which has shown recently on forums that the vast majority of it dislikes the boot time changes)
3) is a new point and I don't really agree, simply because I think players who are good are always in an advantageous position in comparison to worse players and I think it's a stretch to say that the boot time makes it even harder for worse players
But yeah, Graaf, I suggest you try out the Multi-Template Ladder, it's community-run and has lots of different maps and no shorter boot time: http://md-ladder.cloudapp.net/