Is it time to remove luck from the strategic templates? I'm talking specifically about the "Strategic 1v1" and the "Strategic 2v2" templates.

Today, WarLight games default to being no-luck (pure skill) games. However, we still have these two old "strategic" templates that use luck-based settings.

First, how did we get here? A history lesson!

When WarLight was new, the luck modifier didn't even exist (so all games were essentially the same as 100% luck).

When the luck modifier was added, it defaulted to 75%, and everyone cheered. The 75% luck smoothed out the extremes and stopped insane things from rarely happening, like 100 armies failing to capture a territory defended by 5.

Then the strategic templates were added. Since we were all used to 75% luck at the time, the strategic templates using 16% made a lot of sense. 16% was chosen since it's the highest luck where 4 armies will always take a territory defended by 2. 75% was considered normal whereas 16% was considered strategic.

Later, the default luck modifier level was changed from 75% to 0%, but the strategic templates were not changed. This caused us to end up in a world where the "strategic" templates have more luck than the default!

To newcomers who didn't progress through the steps with us, it seems crazy and out of place that a strategic template would involve more randomness than the default. I hear this complaint from new players all the time.

I think it is time to bring these two templates up to date with the rest of the site and make them pure skill. However, doing this would change the auto games and ladders, so I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the subject.

Of course, everyone will still be able to play with the current settings for as long as they'd like, no matter what we change here. I will make a copy of the current templates and make them available for use.

sounds great, but a question, are you going to change the ladder templates to straight-round as well as 0% luck?

Me personally, i like the 1vs1 ladder as it is. Risk management should stay a part of a ladder imo. In the 2vs2 ladder i would change the rouding mode to straight round or at least set the luck factor to 0%.

Please don't make the ladders the so called "pure skill" settings. I would really dislike that cause in fact it requires less skill to play a template like this.

Edited 8/10/2015 22:11:39

Anna when he said default as Pure Skill, that is what he meant, because Pure Skill is straight-round
I assume he means he will be adding that as well, i also support these changes but it will of course change strategy up a bit as far as defense and offense goes

Edited 8/10/2015 22:12:20

+1000000

i personally would prefer the 1v1 ladder stay as it is. strat 1v1 straight-round is something i'm not very strong at :D

I think the 1v1 ladder should stay 0% WR.

If you are going to change anything on the 2v2 ladder, give us 4 picks.

+1benjamin. 4 picks would be even more important than a change of the luck factor

As ChrisCMU said in the other thread about this, I don't think Fizzer is going to change the 2v2 ladder to something like China 2v2, but I don't like 2v2 on Final Earth in general.

Also, whatever you do, don't make either ladder No Luck Cyclic. Most players on ladders take it very seriously and like to think things through. NLC is perfect for real time coin games, but not for Multi-Day ladder games.

Yeah I think keep the 1v1 ladder as is

I second the plea of not making the it No luck cyclic move order. That who can pick first get an advantage gives a disadvantage to people playing ladder games from their phones or who have a slow internetconnection.
Also in the 2v2 there would be an advantage in getting your teammate to take a screen shot of the map and give you, so that you decide on the picks before loading the map. I don't think there should be advantages given on the basis of going though hoops like that.

So in sum; I think it would be sweet with 0% SR, but would prefer that it didn't come with No Luck Cyclic.

if it was up to me i'd have everything 0% SR.

Make 2v2 4picks and 0% WR aswell, that's all we need.

Risk-management could also be classified as "skill"

I agree with Bjarke. If it were just changed to 0% SR, I would find that better. However, I prefer the 1v1 ladder to stay as it is. The 2v2 ladder requires more change, and a good first step would be to change it to 0% SR.

I'd personally like to see more 0% WR in rt ladder and seasonal templates

I prefer the 0% WR for the 1v1 ladder. It makes the ladder much more strategic.

+1 Timinator. I want to see Fizzer's reply to this.

I don't play the ladders so often, you could even say never. But lately I was considering trying them again. While pure-skill seems perfect for RT games; I have a huge problem with the pure-skill system applied to Multi day games. This is not logic, a nonsense IMHO, it's a Multi-day game!!! Why would you have to be fast, especially in team games? But in 1vs1 as well. The picking stage is so important, that ruins the game. But wait, I'm sorry, I think I'm off topic and fighting a yesterday's war.

" Please don't make the ladders the so called "pure skill" settings. I would really dislike that cause in fact it requires less skill to play a template like this. "

+1

" Risk-management could also be classified as "skill" "

+1


I'm maybe not in phase with the trends, but whatever, trying to eliminate any luck factor is a bit of a witch hunt. If you generalize pure-skill to the whole WL "offer". I would bet that soon or later, we will come back to something close to what we know today.

0% WR or SR could be needed though. I guess the random move order should be the only "luck" factor admitted. it has a certain charm.

" Also in the 2v2 there would be an advantage in getting your teammate to take a screen shot of the map and give you, so that you decide on the picks before loading the map. I don't think there should be advantages given on the basis of going though hoops like that. "

Forgot to give +2 to this one...

Please no "no luck cycle." I like to take the time to think my picks through. As far as the 16% luck, I am leaning to keeping it, but I don't have a strong opinion.

Edited 8/11/2015 00:34:37