I feel like I should be insulted but actually I don't give a fuck. I agree that SR and maybe 3-4 picks would be better but I have no issue with the map in general. There is still very much strategic value in this template but like anything new, it takes time to get used to it. I needed QB to help out since I hated this template initially. Adjustments can be made and Ill leave it at that.

I did not say anything about you guys being #1. I looked at people I dont know and saw total noobs in top 10

Poor execution Chris. XD. You came off as pretty damn arrogant. 4 picks and 0% WR/0% SR and it's a really fun template. Played it a lot and love it. I used to always be playing 2v2 ladder, but I won't play this template as it sits.

Why am I arrogant? I never said I was elite, far from it. And I never said nobody good was playing it either (I said almost nobody from the clan league A group is even ranked). But there are not many really good players on there compared to how it used to be.

Edited 4/3/2015 17:50:19

You appear arrogant because you allow yourself to decides who are good players (and who are not). This gives the impression of you thinking you are always right (e.g arrogant). You would have been better of focusing all your arguments on the template and not on who is (or isn't) playing it.

Come on, there are junk teams above good teams, and there is no way that would occur on such a regular basis with a truly strategic template.

If there are "junk teams" above a good team the "junk team" is not junk.

I did not say anything about you guys being #1. I looked at people I dont know and saw total noobs in top 10

Do you expect to know every good players on WL? Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't know how to play.

But there are not many really good players on there compared to how it used to be.

It would be very hard to prove that this is a result of the template. Also the players ther now may very well be really good. And again, how good a template is don't depend on who is playing it.

I recommenced you read Pulsey's comment again. Also as Mathwolf said, you appear biased in this discussion. To conclude, next time you make a comment on a template make sure all parts of your statement is about the template and NOT about any players/teams.


P.S

Have you looked at the teams on there? There are zero players from [20], WG, WM, GG, apex on any ranked team. 1 player from Masters. Nobody wants to play that ladder.

If you had dropped this statement from your first post the discussion could have been on-topic. Instead we are now discussing arrogance and players. The template is simply not the focus anymore. If you want to make it right, Try to make a new thread, with the same title and same first post, except for the last part that I quoted. I would expect to see a completely different discussion then.

Edited 4/3/2015 18:29:59

I do agree on the team that Chris mentioned though. They pick like 4 spots every game and most of their top wins are off of boots so the rating is skewed.

the template is luck based and you all know it. when we voted for that new map for the 2vs2 ladder, we (or at least I) expected fizzer to adjust the template. the actual solution is like a slap in the face for everyone who voted back then.

It is not the "bad" teams fault that they win through. Yes he may be completely right about both the teams and the template. But again the point of this thread was not to discuss teams/players but a template. And when ChrisCMU brings in who is and isn't playing the ladder the points about the template becomes secondary.

How good a template is have nothing to do with who plays it. This is why I believe he should make a new thread with the same topic, but keep the players out.

+1 mod

Really tbest? The template has nothing to do with who plays a ladder? Then why do people drop every season when they dont like it?

Try changing the 1v1 ladder to %75 luck and see how the interest changes. You will probably have more participants (noobs will have a better chance of upsets and thus play more), but it will be very luck based and rankings will be erratic.

I dont see how you can say interest is not impacted by the template.

Edited 4/3/2015 19:03:21

I agree with those points. The template does allow for much more luck than the previous one and that is obvious. It does allow worse teams to upset better teams and I do think there should be a change. 0% and more picks would be great.

Maybe if enough of us spammed Fizzer with private messages, he'd do something about it.

@ChrisCMU

Sure the template is luck based, and that is something that requires a different skill set then what is normally used among "elite" players. More casuals players often like to have higher luck settings, and as such they may very well be more skilled on luck templates.

As a chess player I certently find the value of a balanced game were there is no "luck". However that is not why I play WL, I play it because it has luck.

Is the success of a ladder depending on how good the players are or how many players that play in the ladder? One would think that would be number of players, no? So yes, if changing the 1v1 ladder to 75% luck increased number of players, that would that would be a good change.

EDIT: forgot to respond to this;

Really tbest? The template has nothing to do with who plays a ladder? Then why do people drop every season when they dont like it?

Assuming you mean "elite" players when you say "who plays a ladder"

My point was, If you want to complain about a template don't drag in weather that or that player chooses to play it. If the template has few number of unique players it is a failure and if that number is high it is a success. (in terms of a Ladder) Instead of saying that you believe changing x will lead to the "elite" players returning to the ladder the goal should be to increase the number of players. Therefore you would be better of arguing that changing x leads to more players.

Minior note: "Really tbest?" is the perfect way to sound arrogant. 1. You don't bother writing my nick properly. 2. Starting of with "Really" is not needed simply, @TBest would satisfied. (It sounds like you didn't even consider my arguments/ found them to far out to be serious)

Edited 4/3/2015 19:53:08

@TBest
This game was built on the backbones of "elite" players. If there is a ladder and NO competition, whats the point?

Ladder should be gauges for skill..... and skill involves NO LUCK.... so if you want to correctly be able to define someone as elite or noob then you need a better template. And just for clarification: Everyone is a noob unless proven otherwise.....

Just how it is.

This game was built on the backbones of "elite" players.

May very well be true, but I don't think this is the case today. (Although they probably play more coin games etc. Either way I don't see how that is relevant for the 2v2 ladder.)

If there is a ladder and NO competition, whats the point?

If you want a super competitive environment go to 1v1 ladder or/and play coin games, but I don't see that as the point. The point of playing games is too have fun. (Now what an individual finds as fun is different from person to person ofc, but the 2v2 ladder certently seems to be fun. Based on the number of ranked teams.)

" and skill involves NO LUCK"
Fundamentally disagree with this. (poker for instance is certainly a skill game, and so is a game with 75% luck)

Edited 4/4/2015 18:52:26

Why should the 1v1 ladder be competative and 2v2 not? Shouldn't all ladders be competative, that is the point of a ladder. I am not saying there should be no luck, even though I prefer it (as I have said before I get why people like 3v2s to fail at times). But it should not be as lucked based as it is. And yes, it takes some skill to account for that luck, I get that. I am not discounting everyone doing well On the template. I just dont see how you can think the system cannot be improved.

More people playing it does not make it better. How many people played lotto games when points first came out? That did not mean those games were suddenly better.

Edited 4/6/2015 05:52:38

The 2v2 ladder is certainly skill based. (Team #1 is currently about 300 points ahead of #2, this I would claim is a sign of skill.) Although team #1 is far ahead, the rest of the ladder are close in rating. (How else would you measure "competitiveness"?) Yes, I am sure that the whole community of WL would like more "elite" players to play in it (2v2 lad.), but I don't think this is due to a poor template.

I never said that I " think the system cannot be improved." What I do say is that the 2v2 ladder is currently not in need of "fixing". (ref. thread title.) And there is no need to adjust the luck in it. Generally one would want a ladder template to change very rarely, and only a major reason should initiate such a change.

"More people playing it does not make it better. How many people played lotto games when points first came out? That did not mean those games were suddenly better. "

I was obviously talking in the context of a ladder. More players makes a ladder more attractive, as the higher positions becomes more desired.

EDIT: Seems 2nd poster in this thread just changed opinion; https://www.warlight.net/Forum/84497-looking-2v2-ladder-partner

EDIT 2: He didn't, as he posted below.

Edited 4/7/2015 00:53:20

The 2v2 ladder is certainly skill based. (Team #1 is currently about 300 points ahead of #2, this I would claim is a sign of skill.) Although team #1 is far ahead, the rest of the ladder are close in rating. (How else would you measure "competitiveness"?) Yes, I am sure that the whole community of WL would like more "elite" players to play in it (2v2 lad.), but I don't think this is due to a poor template.

The ratings have nothing to do with it. The #5 team on the ladder (they were #3 at one time) has not picked the correct number of picks in ANY game:

https://www.warlight.net/LadderTeam?LadderTeamID=8051

How on earth can you say the ladder accurately measures skill when that happens? I count at least a dozen teams ranked below them that I would expect to win %95 of their games against this team on the old ladder template.

EDIT: Seems 2nd poster in this thread just changed opinion; https://www.warlight.net/Forum/84497-looking-2v2-ladder-partner

What does playing the ladder have to do with anything? I am also playing the ladder with Tenshi, and I know another half dozen great players that are on the ladder despite knowing it needs more picks. It helps to know exactly how it needs to be changed if you play a lot on it.

Here are other posts on the subject:

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/56638-2v2-ladder-settings

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/71957-weak-2v2-ladder

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/55494-upcomin-ladder-change

I doubt you can find a single person in there that said they wanted 2 starts on Final Earth.

TBest:

Chris is bringing up a discussion in order to try make the 2v2 ladder template more enjoyable and more competitive - in response you call him arrogant and polemicize with bullshit arguments.

And for your information, even if I want to play on the 2v2 ladder, I still think that the map is too big for 2 starting spots/player and 16%WR is lame