2v2 Ladder right now is about guessing your opponents picks. I think a good compromise is 3 picks per player.

I'd be fine with 3 picks. 2 is simply not enough on that size of map.

-Final Earth is 183 territories and 37 bonuses.

-Medium Earth is 131 territories and 27 bonuses (really 23, since 4 are set to 0).

So right now we have %28.5 more territories and %38 more bonuses. And none of those territories on final earth are in zero bonuses (I still counted them since they are very often important choke points).



I certainly think something needs to change on it outside the luck factor. I think you have 3 options

1) Extra pick

2) Extra wastelands (an alternative to too much ground to cover)

3) A recon card (maybe just 1 to start, no pieces after?)


I know a recon/spy/surveillance card would be new to the ladders (I have only seen on Battle Islands really used in a strategic fashion). But, it would be another option for providing some early intel since there is so much ground to cover.

Those options are the order I prefer them in, perhaps they need some testing. If anyone wants to try out those options let me know and we can play some test games.

Edited 8/11/2015 20:09:13

I think spy card is a little too much on the strategy side of things

I agree, that is why I did recon. Surv would be fine too since there are no mega bonuses, but I think Recon ads more strategy as to where you pick and when to use it.

Recon still makes it about guessing correctly/predicting your opponent based on past games.

I think it's quite silly once we start talking about reviewing your opponent's past picks as part of the core integral strategy of a template.

+1 Lolowut we need more wastelands on that template and more picks or it is never going to become a very popular ladder. The map is also imbalanced, regions like Asia need a buff, especially with less wastelands.

Not having any intel is as strategic as having it, and makes the picking stage even more important.
The 2v2 ladder template is fine. The only thing that should be changed on it is the luck settings, 0% SR would be a lot better.

Not having any intel means you have to do a lot of guesswork when you move around. You have to check areas that are a high priority threat, and may open yourself to an attack from a lower priority threat. However analyzing this wouldn't see your move as checking the area that is the highest possible threat as a wrong move. The problem with the map and having only 4 picks as a team is that no matter where you go there's almost no scenario where you can pick a safe region.

So how do you fix this?

Well you just go back and look through your opponent's games and find their tendencies and either avoid their areas or counter their areas.

How is that a core strategic value that deserves to be exemplified?

I can understand the idea of enjoying games to where you move around more, you do more things, but from a strategic perspective it's awkward.

Edited 8/11/2015 22:17:41

Any intel - luck influence from picking stages can be reduced with light fog, no?

Edited 8/11/2015 22:16:54

@Widzisz: Yes, you can, but it's sort of like the 0% SR vs 0% WR argument. We don't want to remove the risk assessment part of the game. We just want to make it so that you can assess your risks more coherently.

Why not have another vote about the fate of the 1v1 and 2v2 ladders like we did before? We could do 16% vs 0% and number of picks on the 2v2.

+1 almosttricky

Edited 8/12/2015 00:28:05

Luck makes the games rich and complex. Its not fair, and that doesnt matter, 1v1 ladder is about beauty not who is #1. Dont sacrifice the most regal and storied ladder on the altar of equality. If you must, promote some other ladder and change its template to conform to the misnomer 'Pure skill'.

Also, If you make it SR then it takes fewer armies to capture a given bonus. you can see this in the CLOT, expansion is cheaper and any small troop advantage you can accumulate in the early turns that cant be turned into a quick win is made irrelevent because on turn 5 both players are putting down 20 armies a turn. It becomes more about having your bonuses spaced out so you can sacrifice them one at a time, than about nuanced tactics. Maybe this will change as people adapt.

+1 Piggy.

Chris made a poll in the other thread about this, and I noticed that that poll is easily cheated because you can vote for the same option multiple times. It also did not include everything that the community is asking for. Here is my new poll, the key thing is that you can vote for multiple options, so vote EVERYTHING you would be OKAY with:

http://strawpoll.me/5187606

Edited 8/12/2015 02:44:58

You are right -- NLC really was added for coin games, and I don't think it should be added to the ladders. We should just be talking about 0% SR Cyclic.

Yes but is very important avoid random pick. What if when the game start WarLight will decide if you have #1 nad #2 pick? As i know it would be fair as if you will lose #1 pick you will have 10 additional point like it is now.

Edited 8/12/2015 06:03:26

i like the idea of using 0-16 luck straight round in ladders
NLC is good as well

"""Luck makes the games rich and complex. Its not fair, and that doesnt matter, 1v1 ladder is about beauty not who is #1. Dont sacrifice the most regal and storied ladder on the altar of equality.""" - dead piggy

"""Me personally, i like the 1vs1 ladder as it is. Risk management should stay a part of a ladder imo. """ - MoD

+1 to both.


I'm not very good at strat 1v1. But I well and truly appreciate why it is a challenge. It is by far the most stimulating ladder.

I don't feel too strongly about what happens to the 2v2 ladder, though I support a luck change there and more picks, but please don't change the 1v1 ladder!

Poll regarding Move Order in the 2v2 Ladder:

http://strawpoll.me/5190820

An odd number of picks is a serious skew with getting first pick. I'd greatly prefer 4 picks per player in the 2v2 ladder, but having 2 is much better than having 3.