312 votes. Next update will hopefully come soon. When you release it, give the actual so called "strategic 1vs1" template a tweak so it can be considered as strategic.

My suggestion: WR and Medium Earth as map. That is actually strategic

any day now

just keep bumping

Ayyye 332

I really think Fizzer is just letting it all go to hell. Yeah, he added a 3v3 ladder. But at the same time made the 1v1 ladder damn near unplayable. You don't even have to be that good now at the 1v1 ladder to even be decently ranked.



Regardless, keep the thread alive!

Look at me, I can criticize a developer-owner when I have no idea what he's looking at and the game hasn't broke upon any update released to the game, but I want things MY way and that's not how things are happening. - Every Fizzer-hater ever.

No, we hate Fizzer because he won't friend us on Facebook.

guys i just realized something!!!!!

Fizzer NEVER said to this that it's NOT on his current roadmap!!!!!

that are great news! i bet he will switch the template on the next update as Christmas gift! :) our suffering will end soon.

341 votes now btw.

i appreciate your optimism

i also find it very funny

341 votes that could be used to improve warlight :(

totally agree. Wasted points

@Peixoto

341 votes that could be used to improve warlight :(

@Quicksand

totally agree. Wasted points

- No, Totally useful! Think what harm those 341 votes could do somewhere else! Its always good to post decoys to draw masses away from serious topics, knowing they will never succeed!

- Always happy to see 90% of players talk about strategy without knowing a fact about it. I hope you understand this as sort of sarcasm. Let the alt Fest begin - thats how democracy really works. Same model works for some Map-mapers as well. My vote costs 10 coins for a point! Looking for buyers?

Fizzer promised to set up a poll about the 1vs1 ladder template if an uservoice gets enough votes. So not at all useless.

Tranquex you can say 90% of the players don't know what strategy is. I can agree but that's obviosly on both sides. Not even players with over 10k games know sometimes the difference between straight round or weighted round. Sad but fact.

Not even players with over 10k games know sometimes the difference between straight round or weighted round. Sad but fact.

The implication of weighted random is an enormous amount of luck when small attacks are involved and almost no luck when big attacks are involved.
- Small attack: 3* 0.6 = 1.8 so 80% chance to kill 2 and 20% to kill 1
- Big attack: 101 * 0.6 = 60.6 so 60% chance to kill 61 and 40% chance to kill 60.

Since expansion happens with small attacks while attacking the opponent involves usually more armies this also means basically following stuff:
- Weighted random is luck for expansion and not luck for fighting
- Weighted random is luck affecting mainly the first couple of turns (When you try to grab income).
- Since weighted random makes expansion less viable it promotes an early aggressive play while the new luck settings promote grabbing income first.

I do agree that the new 1v1 template feels a bit one dimensional with a focus on big bonuses or something like 12 income in two turns. However I believe there are smarter ways to fix this than adding this terrible luck factor which affects the first couple of turns when you really can't use any bad luck. Perhaps something like changing the default kill rates, maybe with 2 neutrals killing 2 attackers.

I never intend to belittle!
Yes, its sad - and this is the core issue with the game, that more than half of the most active players (especially in Forum) belong to among "Third-class-players". SR/WR is one issue, Luck another issue and so we can go on with the list and end up analyzing different setting correlation effects. But the whole thread, among the rest before this one and probably the future ones who claim to state something about "strategy" is just always lacking the real content. And the worst is, I do not see someone really making much sense in it, like at all?

So many, even the high-end 1v1 ranked players or resigned old-timers have coined and fabricated a meaning to their belief in some sort of strategy. What is strategy? - in real world it is not a matter of debate! One may argue over how he performs his strategy, but not what is!

I like that Warlight game up with Pure-Strategy setting - but this among other clutter has not clarified it at all - but rather fixed the belief in some-sort of "Strategy" that is ultimate. And I also know my writing won´t change not even a S*** in here. I am not going to open the Pandora´s Box here either, but before someone states something to be "more strategic" then they should really read a little about strategy in first place, especially related to Theoretical thinking in strategic field, Game Theory and Game analysis.

Just to point out the never opened discussion (at least I haven´t seen): How come Fog is more strategic than No-Fog, or is it? As far as I have seen in this Thread and other related to Ladder templates are full of personal preferences and nothing to do with real arguments!

For the statistic makers:

It would be an interesting statistic to see something like win rates in the old 1v1 ladder when the luck difference exxceeded a certain reasonable threshold during the first 3 turns.

i like your idea norman
however,we can't have offensive and defensive killrates very far from each other
how about making a template where offensive killrate is such that if i attack neutrals with x armies chances of failed attacks are 100% and if i attack with x+1 armies,chances of failed attacks are 0%
is this possible?if so,how much is neutrals value and what are the killrates we can use?

what if we keep the neutrals 2,but change offensive killrates to 66.67% and defensive killrates to 75%?
that way,3v2 will not fail in WR,but 2 neutrals get additional 10% chance of killing your leftovers

^ That would strongly shift the bias away from single picking a 4 and completing it on the 2nd turn. I like options, so I'd be a bit upset if a better compromise wasn't found.

Ollie is in the top 10. Enough said.

Bring back the actual strategic template to prevent more noobs from doing well on the ladder!