So many people have been wanting this for a long, long time, so I proudly present - A 3v3 Europe Ladder.

Template: https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=697826

Unfortunately, I am not very good at programming, and I cannot make this official, so it is going to have a limit of 20 teams.
(May add more later)

To Join - Sign up Below:

Team Name
Player 1 (Team Captain)
Player 2
Player 3

I have not decided on Ranking System yet - BayesElo or TrueSkill?

Edited 8/22/2015 14:28:59

do you intend on making a CLOT? Im up for it but I don't necessarily have a team, I could try and come up with one.

MotD is working on a CLOT version of this, iirc.

As for the ranking system, you might want to go with TrueSkill (or barring that, Elostat) because Bayeselo would require you to recalculate the entire system at each update while you can just process things game-by-game (knowing incoming mu-sigma or Elo rating) with TrueSkill and Elostat. The Python TrueSkill library is also pretty easy to use for the basics (and if you run into issues with that, the in-progress CSL libraries contain some helper functions you might find even easier to work with- let me know if you need help there, because I can release that insignificant portion of CSL early if it helps).

TrueSkill is also hella cool and had a lot more time and effort spent on it than the other two, because Microsoft literally operated a super-cool machine learning lab to come up with the mu-sigma system and make it work. You can also use the beta values to measure how strategic a template is, so that's an added bonus.

Another advantage of TrueSkill is its team flexibility, which you can use to maintain ratings for players rather than teams. This would be helpful if you wanted to, say, apply player ratings across ladders (e.g., Mister Red gets a rating that combines his performance in all ladders you maintain) or get more accurate data for when players hop teams (e.g., Mister Red leaves behind his two teammates behind, cause his teammates don't dance, and if they don't dance, they're not friends... never mind- but you'll have a much more accurate idea of team skill and won't have to start over if a team swaps out one person). For pairing purposes, you can just set team mu to the sum of the mus and team sigma to the sum of the sigmas (heh) and rank teams using team-mu - 3 * team-sigma as per usual.


(And of course, thanks for doing this! I might participate perhaps, once knyte starts playing again.)

Edited 8/21/2015 20:06:28

I might also include other 3v3 templates with weighted occurrences.

I think it's better to wait until a CLOT version comes out. Also, not allowing teams of alts is a bad idea if you want a high level of competition. I'm in if alts are allowed.

The point of a 3v3 is teamwork; if you allowed alts, it would just end up being a 1v1 against the top players controlling all three accounts at once.

The fact that you can even choose your teams is a good reason not to use alts, so I don't see the point behind using them.

Edited 8/21/2015 23:31:14

^ I'd much rather see:

szeweningen, Gnuffone & myhand than

szeweningen, szeweningen & szeweningen
myhand, myhand & myhand
Gnuffone, Gnuffone & Gnuffone

Edited 8/21/2015 23:59:55

myh and sze dont use alts. unless puppeting gnuff counts :P. Id play with alts, i think trying to find teammates and then coordinate with them would be awful boring. also if you allow alts youll get the no of teams up.

I wonder how popular it'll be considering the big tourney that never got off the ground.

A 3v3 with alts is not the same as a 1v1. If you play a 3v3 game like you would a 1v1 game, you will get beaten by any high level 3v3 Europe player. It is complicated to explain, and you won't understand it until you become a high level 3v3 Europe player. Suffice it to say that 3v3 with alts is much more complicated than playing a 1v1, and much more engaging. If the point of a 3v3 is teamwork, then why don't the teams that work together more beat the teams that don't work together as much. 3v3 is much more about skill than teamwork.

If I did make a team without alts I have three choices:
1. Get 2/3 of Sze, Myhand, and Gnuff on my team
2. Puppet the other two players on my team
3. Don't puppet my teammates and watch as they perform at a lower level than I'd like.

#1 sucks because there will be very little competition. At max, there will be only two teams that have a legitimate shot at beating the top team. (if Sze, Myhand, Gnuff team up, only one team has a shot I think) #2 sucks because puppeting is boring and lame. #3 sucks because I hate losing games because of mistakes by teammates. None of these are good options.

With alts (even if Sze and Myhand do not use them), there will be at least 4 teams that could beat the #1 team (Gnuff x 3, JSA x 3, Piggy x 3, Sze + myhand team + WG team + maybe GG?).

Basically, alts add a higher level of play, and more teams, making the ladder more successful. What's the weakness in allowing alts?

A 3v3 ladder without alts is like a cake with no icing, or a computer without internet. It simply isn't as good.

I can't guarantee that the ladder will succeed with alts, or that it will fail without alts, but I will tell you that allowing alts greatly increases the chances of this being a successful ladder.

Edited 8/22/2015 01:14:25

Or you could try communicating well as a team. (shrug)

How about using dice ? No puppeting and only one master plan. Bonus advantage is different mentality each game and turn. Every idea is helpful. The most important is that your plan works and wins the game.

3 vs 3 with alts is fine for me. It may not be best if team strategy stays the same.

Edited 8/22/2015 02:25:33

How about random teams? I increased prerequisites.

If you are interested please comment below.

Edited 8/22/2015 02:33:47

prerequisits don't matter in eu3v3.anyone can gave low bootrate,high 1v1,2v2,3v3 winrate and still suck at EU3v3,we need alts for more competition,teamgames are still a good option for those who want to learn

I think a 3v3 alt-game is intrinsically different than a 3v3 team-game (due to the missing communication/teamwork barrier and the ability of a single strategic vision to succeed and micromanagement to occur perfectly) so, while I agree with JSA that 3v3 alt-games are a valid, unique and worthwhile format, I think it makes sense to have only one of the two formats within a single ladder.

Edited 8/22/2015 02:59:55

Lolowut, communicating well as a team means doing what the better player wants a majority of the time. To my mind, it is still puppeting, although I can understand why you think otherwise. It still makes me not want to play.

Random teams means that even less top players will participate. Rather than having to tell a good player what to do sometimes, you now have to tell your teammate what to do all the time if you want to win.

I think it comes down to whether or not you want a competitive ladder. You can have a ladder with random teams, or with fixed teams, assuming no alts. But if you want a competitive ladder, you're going to have to allow alts I think.

Alts kind of defeat the purpose of a team-game.. Don't you think?

Okay fine I agree with Ryrio and JSA, I will allow Alts now, but I will not play with my own alts.

^^ Not at all. Read JSA's post.

An example:

Have you ever played an imbalanced scenario? Say 6v1 or whatever, with one massive player and roughly equal income?

You've probably noticed, then, that the one big player seems to have an advantage. Why?

Say you've talked to your team and have agreed on your turn order: Move A, Move B, etc.

Similarly, the big player has figured out their turn order.

If turn order isn't cyclic, the distributed team is going to run into some issues because they can't guarantee Move A occurring before Move B (what if the player that's supposed to commit Move B ends up going before the player that's supposed to commit Move A?). Even if it's the same player, there's a lot more random chance/luck involved. Even in no-luck cyclic, they're still going to run into this issue in the pick stage.

And suppose that Move A and Move B need to happen on one player's end- and it's very important that they go first. Well, in a team game, that's not going to happen and that player will have to wait for their teammates to cycle through before committing Move B- which can make all the difference.

At least as far as turn order planning goes, a 3v3 alt-game introduces some complications that make it more interesting than a simple 1v1.

That said, I think that gameplay in a 3v3 alt-game is still simpler than in a 3v3 team-game because the communication barrier is real (especially if you live in different time zones and can't have a full discussion each and every turn- you never really get near the same decision-making depth that you would find in a 3v3 alt-game). Against the average 3v3 team, a team of alts is going to have a huge advantage because it has zero issues with teammate unreliability/communication gaps.

I also find JSA's argument that the best communicating teams should win if communication is important to be a bit specious. That would only be the case if communication is the primary aspect of gameplay. Skill is still dominant, but that doesn't mean that communication/team planning doesn't determine the outcome of a good portion of games.

Ultimately, a 3v3 alt team has an advantage when it comes to planning and I think it's most fair to pit a 3v3 alt team against other 3v3 alt teams because 3v3 alt-games take out the communication layer altogether and instead increase focus on the core planning/strategy layer of the game.

Edited 8/22/2015 03:41:44

3v3....Six Players....SIX DIFFERENT PLAYERS. Whats the point in playing a 3v3 game if you're controlling the entire team. Thats too much pressure, why would anyone want that.