Epicular, nice work in 1vs1 ladder

Nice work failing to realize that the 1v1 strategic auto games also revolve around this issue.

...your poll that wasn't advertised at all

I put quite some effort and advertised as much as I can, and bumped the thread periodically. Don't expect you will get similar result if you just post the poll in the thread and leave it behind.

i think that's wrong. both were 0%wr.

I'm certain I'm right on this. I was paying attention on them at that time. The 1v1 auto game had 16% luck which I didn't like. 1v1 strategic template had 16% luck removed first on early Sep. I even asked the developer why he removed 16% luck only in 1v1 strategic template, but not 2v2 too. The rest of them were changed finally in the latest update.

it is not accurate because people who don't know what is sr or wr could vote

Will you vote on something you don't understand at all? Most likely you won't. Also I included the option "I don't know/mind". You could see some people selected them. It's not that people have to force themselves to pick if they don't know or mind.

Even if someone says, "I don't really understand what WR is, but I feel I like WR more after I tried, so I voted for WR." It is their preference after all. I'm not going to discard their vote simply because I think they are not rational. Preference is nothing more than a personal thing. It hasn't to be rational. If they like it, that's it. I'm in no position to challenge their preference.

Shout out to the 4 other people who voted for "---------------------"

Of course, there will people who don't play the ladder but just think the ladder is better because fizzer said so. Yes they have a preference, but they don't what they're voting for. It is like voting for a President because of a comedy show they watch.

Edited 10/12/2015 13:28:26

there would also very likely be those that had never played the ladder because it was wr and they dont like luck factoring into their games.

I agree, Skilled. Some people may be ignorant. A community poll is never a good tool to find out the "right" answer. The majority could be wrong.

What is the "right" choice? Which setting is the best for the ladder? Different people have their own opinions. Some think the other side is wrong. They are right. The argument goes on forever.

To Fizzer, he clearly thinks SR is the "right" choice, and most likely thinks people who advocates WR are wrong. Thus he made changes based on his own judgement about what is right/good for the ladder, rather than deciding by the majority.

I don't want that. It's just a game. I would let the majority decide, or have a solution which satisfies both sides.

I thought the removing the luck was the maximum way to lessen the fun of the ladders. The straight rounding is boring too, but the cyclic move order may be worse than both...ug.

You know, if Fizzer wants to change the ladders, he can do so. It is true that the pure competitive value of a game increases as luck decreases. However, diversity of gameplay from game to game drastically decreases as luck decreases. To me, as individual games of Warlight get more similar to each other, Warlight as a whole becomes more monotonous and boring. Now, in terms of the ladder, the luck is equal for everybody. This, in my opinion, makes the competitive value reduction from the luck far less meaningful.

I think luck in the old ladders provided other benefits as well, as it was essentially the only comeback mechanic, and (along with random wastelands and pickable territories) made each game different enough that no single formula could be developed to dominate the ladder. Another thing it did, and this could be seen as a bad thing, was that luck made games have a more casual feeling. Since no one could predict a game with 100% accuracy, it meant that players relaxed a little. A single bad move did not automatically lose you the game, so people didn't have to play super intensely to have a chance of winning, at least at lower skill levels. Skill in the ladder was primarily based on reading your opponent, and your ability to read the board and react to the situation. One of the major reasons for complaint now, in my opinion, is that the basis for being "skilled" at Warlight has fundamentally changed. It's still partially based on reading your opponent and reacting to a situation, but now a major part of "skill" is purely time spent calculating.

Fizzer may well think that since the ladders are Warlight's primary source of competitive play, the small competitive value gained by removing luck may be worth it. I disagree that the benefits outweigh the costs, but it's a reasonable argument to make. However, one thing that I can find absolutely no justification for is the removal of luck from 1v1 auto games. Those games are not competitively important in any way, and I often use them to take a break from the more intense games on the ladder. It's true that auto games are more competitive now. However, if we accept that luck provides diversity in gameplay, a comeback mechanic, and a more relaxed atmosphere at the cost of competitive value, why were the non-competitive auto games changed? It seems to me that with high competitive value in the ladders, the 1v1 auto games could easily sacrifice that to provide all of the things luck provides.

On one hand, the auto games are extremely useful for players who have not yet entered the ladder to get used to the template, but with them being the same as the ladder, there is no guaranteed auto game in which you can have a fun, chill game. Far better than what happened, in my opinion, would be to have a separate "ladder practice" auto game and keep the other auto game as WR. This would allow newer players to get used to the ladder settings, but it would also provide a Warlight auto game that's less about competitive play, and more about casual, fun play. Also, with the number of people who are upset with the ladder change, it would provide a nice way for them to continue to play their beloved template.

thanks for making the poll bro :D

it is not accurate because people who don't know what is sr or wr could vote

Will you vote on something you don't understand at all? Most likely you won't. Also I included the option "I don't know/mind". You could see some people selected them. It's not that people have to force themselves to pick if they don't know or mind.

you are being too kind. there are some people who THINK they know what is going on and will vote because of that. given how many people don't read settings when they join games, i think it is safe to say a reasonable number of votes may be at best, ill informed.

please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to ding you for making that poll. Rather, I'm just saying that there are some people who will not know or understand properly what they are voting on, it is too hard to exclude those people unless the poll is limited to specific players. you will see the same thing often in chess games where moves are decided by votes. the stronger players are drowned out sometimes.

a majority vote includes the weaker players, who may not understand the same things the best players do. if you wanted the best templates for games and ladders, it would probably be better to have a majority vote of a council of stronger players. certainly players a lot better than i am :P

Edited 10/14/2015 21:40:42

you are being too kind. there are some people who THINK they know what is going on and will vote because of that. given how many people don't read settings when they join games, i think it is safe to say a reasonable number of votes may be at best, ill informed.

Case in point: Up until the controversy over 0%SR, I was not aware that the strat 1v1 template had changed at all since I joined warlight.

a majority vote includes the weaker players, who may not understand the same things the best players do. if you wanted the best templates for games and ladders, it would probably be better to have a majority vote of a council of stronger players.

I disagree on this point. There is a difference between high and low level play. At a high level, one bad order WILL lose you the game. At a low level, you can still win after 2 or 3 bad orders, simply because lower level players are worse at punishing mistakes. I think 0% SR makes failure to punish mistakes partially a non-issue, because as long as you have a calculator, you don't need to punish mistakes, the fact that your opponent made a mistake means you will almost certainly win eventually, through slow, safe play.

Edited 10/14/2015 22:41:32