Well, that'll be a longer one, so brace yourselves. I'm sure to it'll be worth it as I will try to make my analysis as comprehensive as possible so it'll be possible for every interested person to see why the features of the current 1v1 ladder are far from ideal. This discussion has been around for a while, with Qi being its most prominent speaker (at least the most prolific); only lately the issue has been brought up in this thread:
https://www.warlight.net/Forum/147250-official-ladder-polls-suggest-templates

Excuse my english, I'm not a native speaker, so some expression may sound weird (hopefully not incomprehensible!) You can skip to the ANALYSIS-part (2nd posting) by the way if you are firm with the subject and trust me enough anyhow. : D

----------------------------------------------

For all the un-introduced a glossary up-front (it's rather detailed, so if you know what this is all about, just skip it):

0% - means 0% luck is enhanced. With a certain, fixed amount of armies you will take a territory for real, be it SR or WR. But there is a noticeable difference between those two.

With SR (Straight Round), you only need a certain amount of armies to take a territory with a certain amount of armies at all times. You can't take it with less, and there's (most of the time) no use of taking it with more.

With WR (Weighted Random), you have to take chances - most of the time, there are two choices (1 to take 100%, another one with less); sometimes three (as in 2/3/4v2 attacks) Just a short example:
On SR, you have no chance of taking territories with 2 armies on them with 2 attacking armies (AA), but with 3 AA you do take them. On WR, you take territories with 2 armies in any case with 4 AA. With 3 armies, though, you take it in 80% of all cases. Plus, specifically when attacking territories with 2 armies on 0% WR, you have a 13% chance of taking them.

There is another implication with SR and WR, which is the restarmies. With SR, your attack has ALWAYS the same result. A 3v2 will always leave you with 2 armies on the captured territory; a 13v10 will always kill the same, preset amount of defenders (8) and attackers (7), etc. etc.
So you can be in control at all times. Can get dull, no question about it as game outcomes can be quickly set in stone. You just calculate a few turns ahead and know what you have to do.

ME and MME. Medium Earth had 7 territories for East US and East Russia. Modified Medium Earth increased their value by reducing the territory amount to 6. Picking options increase considerably, intel(ligent) play decreases. You just go ahead and get your bonus stuff and then scout everywhere and find the opponent. Counterpicking is more risky and fails more often, its use decreases.

Cyclic order. Another thing on the new 1v1 ladder. The move order is always clear. You have 1st order the one turn, your opponent the other one. Planning gets really easy and someone with lower income can't hold an isolated stack effectively any more. It gets caught eventually. Dull!

---------------------------------------------

About myself

I wanted to bring my ethos up to this task so you don't just hear some random player ranting about this ladder. I have been playing Warlight since late 2011, my first account, now retired, being RaZx (https://www.warlight.net/Profile?p=977452590). In RaZx's profile you can see to your right that shiny little trophy that shows you I've won on the "old" 1v1 ladder, back in the days when it was still ME WR. Recently I managed to replicate this feat with this very account here, this time on the "new" MME SR template. So you can say I know a bit about both templates.
Furthermore I won Season XVI. That was MME 16% WR with the additional rule of No-Split, which means you couldn't move your stack in more direction than one per turn. Then, this very recent Season XXXIII (MME, 0% SR with Commanders), I finished 3rd. So I feel like I can say that I am one of the best players on ME or MME currently around. [Make no mistake, on basically every other 1v1 template I am nowhere as good. Am and have never been invested enough to really dig in there. So just one of the best on Medium Earth, good? : D]

But enough on the bragging front already. I simply wanted to state that I am no, how do you say that?, hillbilly, but have come to know what I am talking about. So Let's get to it. To help illustrate my points I will mostly use games from my very own recent 1v1 run. That might come across as pretty conceited and self-glorifying, and yeah, that is a valid point. But, more importantly, I am just to lazy to watch and get into too many other player's games.

-----------------------------------------------

I will post one major reason for the weakness of the current 1v1 ladder every day (it's much to go through plus I want to keep the talk going meanwhile). In the first posting I will write about the Expansion Problem.

Edited 4/18/2016 18:34:40

ANALYSIS (the important stuff)

Okay, let's do this for real now. I won't give too many examples, but after all my aim is just supposed to list all the weaknesses of the 1v1 ladder template, not go into thorough detail about every single of them. This is also a work in progress, so I might include more games into my postings later on. Stay tuned!

1. Expansion is too easy

Qi (latest account: https://www.warlight.net/Profile?p=2053324816) criticized this one the most. And this is a problem throughout games and influences a lot of (former strategic) things. On the "old" 1v1 ladder, without enemy encounter, 8 income after 2 turns was okay, 9 was realistic (but not 100% guaranteed with an isolated pick), 10 was possible with a nice double pick, but far from guaranteed, and 11 income was a high-risk enterprise with under 50% chance to happen. Oh and yeah, there were FTB (first-turn-bonusses) allowing you to get 8 income after one turn, but they were not guaranteed (20% chance to fail). So you had to think hard to know which way to choose, already in picking stage, but then also possibly adjust it after every single turn as your restarmies varied. For example: a 3v2 could either fail, or work with 1 or with 2 armies on the captured territory. So you had to possibly think something up every turn in expansion phase already.
That is rarely the case now, as you just know what happens. You attack with the 2s with 3 armies, you get 2 armies on the captured territory and can use your leftovers effectively and quickly to expand further; after your starting territories without many problems into others, as there is no risk of not taking things and so losing ground in mano-a-mano-fights with the opponent you encountered.
Which you do more quickly than before, because, you know, the army inflation. You need less to accomplish the same stuff than you needed before, and you always know how much exactly you do need.

Army inflation starts quickly, as now 10 income after 2 turns is the new standard minimum (with no intel) and 11 or even 12 income are also easily possible.
Just watch this: https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10940063
Even a better picking can fail quickly (though I also made the wrong guesses) if you come up short against heavy early expanding.

14 income after turn 3 though you encountered an opponent? Yeah, let's do this!:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10881126

And you can even win with countered triple picks nowadays, just keep expanding:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10937186

I can add more examples if I weren't so lazy right now. Direct fighting decreases in importance, expanding increases. You can be lost after picks, but if you have (positional) expansion advantages, you can hold up the opponent long enough, even lose good income on the way to that - but still come out victorious. That is dull.

Watch this. You see expansion expert INSIDE again, against top player Buns157: https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10934693

INSIDE almost grabs the win again although being extremely out-picked. Greenland is killed and Caucasus is worthless, too. But as expansion into territories that are not your picked ones is made so easy by 0% SR, he just keeps on expanding. He tried that stunt on me, too:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10926824

Breaking a blockade easily and not giving a shit about stuff of him breaking. He overdid it in this game, though, and I knew from watching some of his recent games, that he was a heavy-expander, so I was prepared and could secure the win. Still, expansion is key and keeping that in mind in the picking-stage already is vital for you to win on 1v1 SR.
Where with WR (and just ME!) you had a variety of variables to account for (varying rest-armies, possibility of failing 3v2s, higher possibility of counters due to fewer good bonuses than with MME - just to name the most prominent factors) your game decisions were influenced not only on the picking stage, but also every single turn (haha, also remember the times when it could be hard to get enough card pieces for your 1st or 2nd reinforcement card? no big deal any more!).

So, just this one (expansion) factor already reduces the complexity and intrigue of the 1v1 ladder template vastly.

Other reasons will follow …

Edited 4/18/2016 18:37:44

tl;dr

but I probably agree with every single word you wrote

Edited 4/18/2016 18:27:45

Medium Earth had 8 territories for East US and East Russia. Modified Medium Earth increased their value by reducing the territory amount to 7.

Wrong. They had 7 territories and decreased into 6.

great post

Medium Earth had 8 territories for East US and East Russia. Modified Medium Earth increased their value by reducing the territory amount to 7.


Wrong. They had 7 territories and decreased into 6.

Yes, of course I corrected that. SR made me devoid of ever counting correctly in my life again! : D

Edited 4/18/2016 18:36:40

https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/9945369-bring-the-old-1vs1-ladder-back

I just saw fizzer officially declined our request! Run my fellow true warlighters. We're doomed to the new-1vs1-ladder-lovers medicority

Nice read, seph just has mouth dribbling ADHD.

I don't mind the new ladder, I think people got it wrong when I said it is not that bad. MME SR is a decent template, but like you said has not got the depth of the previous one and the main 1v1 template of warlight should be something with alot of depth so you can not get bored of it easily. I would happily see the map changed from MME to ME just because east US is a pain (East russia less so due to it being alot easier to break).

Though I do admit I hate losing on luck in games which matter alot, when none of my 3 attacks work, but they expand happily with 3's. Yet I also dislike how fast you can expand on some templates with SR. A solution to this would be that 3 attacks always work, but the defending neutrals kill either 1 or 2 of the attacking 3 armies, stops counting ahead 2 turns and single pick 5 bonuses being near OP.

I'm probably wrong, I thought of the idea as I was typing.

Edited 4/18/2016 19:35:13

I find the worst strategic templates are luck based though - just look at the new Ranked Skywars on Hypixel, the chests are weighted so you know from the off who's won, or you can get a kit and wreck everyone because you can play the odds, and then there's the set pieces, like Late Mid Entry, although MME/ME 0% WR only applies to the first point, if you get a good 3 turns of expansion at the start, you've already won, and most of the new ladder games take 20 minutes, not dull and not long.

Yeah, I have no illusions about re-doing all of the changes, but maybe some of them so that is that. Maybe a hybrid of SR and WR is possible, the rest-army variation Buns speaks of sounds fun for example; Qi also mentioned lower starting armies (3 instead of 4) to discourage massive early expansion and also had the idea of other killing rates to shake some things of, but didn't come up with a good solution there, as far as I can recall.

So yeah, we can propose some stuff to make the ladder better even with SR (although I really, really love WR. Screw the luck! It evens out in the long run, screw it. Make the ladder with True Skill ranking, discourage runs even more and then one or two unlucky games won't be of much of an importance. Plus, come on, it is fun to see people cry about bad luck! Really! Look at Boston! Hahaha. It's fun!).

I will make a list of improvement ideas in the very end, I think, first I want to list all the problematic stuff so that the urge to change something shows more obviously.

Plus I am still angry that the ladder got changed just like that back then! So I want to have my revenge by attacking the current ladder as hard as I can! : D

P.S.: @ tomjh: by dull, I mean, strategically dull and not something necessarily duration-based. Especially in high-end games when (no offense) both opponents know about the template well.

Edited 4/18/2016 19:42:43

I prefer %0 SR, as I hate being subject to luck.

I also don't like MME with SR. Agree there

Though I do understand the legitimate beef with expansion. To that, my solution is %75 defensive kill rate. It results in losing that leftover on 3v2s.

I also hate random move order, only because it is absent of any history (always a coin flip). I have had games where my opponent gets 5 turns in a row, and even 2+ times can decide the game. This is not a feature yet, but should be and should be used on the ladders IMO:
https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/5986185-weighted-move-order


So, IMO the 1v1 ladder should be:
1) ME
2) %0 SR
3) %75 def kill rate
4) Weighted Move Order

I would like to see a tournament with the first 3 settings (the 4th does not exist right now).

I just saw fizzer officially declined our request! Run my fellow true warlighters. We're doomed to the new-1vs1-ladder-lovers medicority

Fizzer closed issue at Uservoice?! This must be a miracle.

Edited 4/18/2016 19:00:13

yeah but https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10965867

People get overly bent out of shape about luck in single games. There's a reason you don't get ranked after 1 game. Over a sample of 20 games, luck tends to even out. And if people play on the ladder for even longer stretches of time rather than the minimum to get ranked, luck becomes even less of a factor in your rating.

Make the ladder Bayesian Elo

It already is. I think you wanted to say TrueSkill (like the RT Ladder), which would reward people who keep playing on the ladder and would make it impossible to make runs of 20 games, stalling the ones in which you're losing, and grab #1 for a few hours just to get the trophy and break right after. That would also ensure that a random loss against someone doesn't drag your rating down until that game expires!

+1 Beren. To all luck-haters, let me give you a bet (arbitrary):

I flip a perfect, unbiased coin.

If it lands heads, you get 11$.

If it lands tails, you give me 10$.

What would you do if you have:

A) 10$ with you, 1 bet allowed.
B) 100$ with you, 10 bets allowed.

I'm not a ladder player, but I'm just really glad to see such well-developed discussion happening on the Warlight forums. Thanks! A very interesting read.

While I ultimately enjoy playing WR more than SR, remember that no one is objectively better than the other. I enjoy playing WR more than SR; I don't think it's better.

There are pros and cons to each but ultimately it's an opinion, about: how many dimensions do you think a game should have, what dimensions should they be (for example, should luck be involved?), how fast should people expand (because this varies from template to template), etc.

I'll not haver on, but remember this is all an opinion.

I really like the idea of weighted move order if it is to replace the 50/50 move order. I ve seen worse than 5 in a row and it's just ridiculous sometimes.


On the subject, what I like in the current 1v1 ladder, it gives more options for initial picking. Consequence of that is lower skilled players have a higher chance to win. So the ladder is open to a higher range of players. And this is what we want. Skilled players will still win anyway thanks to their extra skills.

With less picking choice, it's 100% about skills and the overskilled player will always win. Push the reasonning to the extreme : imagine a map with just the bonus SEA (4 or 5 lands) and 1 pick each. The lower skilled player may go all in on the other one, while the other will only hold. He has a stack advatange so he will win. With more picking options, lower player can find himself in a nice situation that he may not even expect in first place and create a surprise win. I prefer that. The skilled player will have more things to think about during his picking phase.

I ve played this map on WR only once (against you V earlier today^^) i think so my mind is not relevant, it is more a point of view.

An issue with ladders is that its much easier to get #1 from runs than playing a lot of games over a long time. 1 reason is people who go on runs put more effort into their games as they know it will be a bigger portion of their rating, but more than that, if you take 10 players of equal skill, and 5 of them play 1000 games, and 5 of them play 20, then rank them, you can almost guarantee that the top rank will be a guy who played 20, because their rank will deviate a lot more from their true rank (the bottom rank too, but these players will likely then give up and leave the ladder so make no difference). So saying luck evens out the longer you play is not a good reason, because the advantage for the high ranks are already bent towards players who have played less games, and so it will only exaggerate this effect.

Edited 4/18/2016 22:25:14