What prevents you from voting those all from 1 account Pabse ?

ROR could be quite strategic in 2v2 with 4 picks and some cards. I have memories of such games with Metatron. On his twitch account (..) there are some sample games. But I guess its too late to suggest templates.

Thanks Randy.

please ban kids, who vote multiple times for WR :)

Quicksand seems to be a childish version of Boston :P

But if someone is able to read...

Note that only one vote is allowed per person, regardless of how many accounts you have. So be sure to only vote once, under penalty of having all of your accounts banned if you're caught.

...it will be clear to him that voting multiple times is forbidden.
Writing here that one does vote multiple times makes it only easier for Fizzer to figure out who to ban. :)

Though as I wrote, not sure how this corresponds with rules and terms of service we accepted.

One important question for Fizzer: will you follow the results no matter what they are?

Edited 4/25/2016 20:36:29

Don't know if all ladder games are with manual distribution, but, in sense of WL, there should be a percentage of games with automatic distribution - I expect about 20-40%. Why? Because, new players who joins ladder are in great disadvantage over players who are here more time, and probably didn't have a chance to try the maps themselves, and older players already know hidden flaws in game settings.

However, such games should not have less than 3 starting position in both 1v1 and 2v2 ladder games (2 for 3v3 ladders), and should not have obstacles (wastelands).

There is another thing I would like to be taken in consideration:

If possible, ladder games should have alternate settings - basic income, starting armies, number of picks, number of wastelands and size (for manual distribution games only), alternate One army must stand guard (zero for 10-20% of games), extra armies per teritory (bonus for every 4-15 territories), possible LD and Offensive and Defensive kill rate (offensive 30-60%, defensive 10% more than offensive until 85%), and alternate bonus income (+-1). Thus, everything will be random at the start, and nobody will easily outwit opponent by using old games models. Of course, such settings would need more time for preparation and playing, but that is the sacrifice one should take in consideration when join ladders.

Edited 4/26/2016 11:40:07

As seen in the current 1v1 ladder, you can't just change things and expect it to turn out well. I would not like to see auto dist and income/starting armies that allows me to get 13 income in 2 turns. You never even mentioned MA, Weighted Random, Luck %, No-Split, Attack by %, Attack/Transfer Only, etc, etc. Your list is highly incomplete, and would produce terrible outcomes most of the time.

Don't know if all ladder games are with manual distribution, but, in sense of WL, there should be a percentage of games with automatic distribution - I expect about 20-40%. Why? Because, new players who joins ladder are in great disadvantage over players who are here more time, and probably didn't have a chance to try the maps themselves, and older players already know hidden flaws in game settings.

This seems like a really bad reason to have a setting be represented in a ladder. The point of a ladder is to show who is the best, not cater to newer players who haven't tried out the templates beforehand. Automatic distribution doesn't do this very well, unless you reach an amount of picks granted that makes it very statistically likely that both players end up with somewhat equal starts. 20-40% of all games in the ladders being autodist seems completely wrong, since a big part of the skills you show when doing well in the ladders is knowing how to pick, as picking is a fundamental part of WL strategy.

^+1, auto distribution on the ladder is the worst idea ever. Even if only 5% of the games were autodist, I'd still probably leave the ladder because of it.

Wrong. Auto-dist isn't always unfair. And likewise with the WR/SR argument, it produces a lot of good games with no Intel (light fog is sometimes ok) and the luck factor always evens out.

Auto distribution on duel map is also fair.

But manual distribution is another area to compete, where a better player can gain advantage over a worse one.

While WR may even out and increase strategic value of a game, auto distrinution may even out but decrease strategic value of a game.

Correct me if I am wrong please.

Agreed Sultan

Sułtan Kosmitów WarLight Member
Level 63
Report
Auto distribution on duel map is also fair.

But manual distribution is another area to compete, where a better player can gain advantage over a worse one.

While WR may even out and increase strategic value of a game, auto distrinution may even out but decrease strategic value of a game.

Correct me if I am wrong please.

In the game of chess, half time you have white and half time black figures. If everybody agrees that white wins most the time, so the game is not fully balanced, then in this game auto-distribution is just a step forward equal chances when you start. Giving three starting locations and no wastelands may nullify starting luck (where are most desirable positions), and then everything depends of wit and skill of players. On the other hand, manual distribution always give better player (and older or skilled one) starting edge. I would rather see to be beaten in 5th turn than in very first one.

Come on hasdrubal! Maybe you play 200 1vs1 games against opponents who know how to commit orders before you make statements like

《Giving three starting locations and no wastelands may nullify starting luck》on auto distribution

Don't make warlight like chess

@Hasdrubal

Following your line of thinking Pure-Skill settings will be best - they eliminate all the luck.
Autodistribution does not eliminate it - there are always some better sets then others.

Ladder is supposed to represent this values:
1. Have fair rules for everyone, game should be decided by skill.
2. Be responsive to to even small skill difference between players.
3. Provide people with joy, make them have fun.

The point is to find solution which corresponds with all three of thouse.

A1. It is said how fairness is understood by some this days. :/
Newbies are not that good as skilled, expirienced players so they have less chances to win. - true
Same people who are short has less chances to be good basketball players,big well-built people have less chances to be a good jockey.
This is not discrimination. As long as the rules are same for everyone it is fair.

A2. This is a point so important to MoD. He thinks WR deepers the chance gap between players that is created by the skill difference.

A3. This can be seen very by everyone in some other way. But includes such important aspects like game length, map, number of templates, etc.

There are also some technical problems like rating system, matching players system etc. That is included in 1/2 again.


Ofcourse there will always be players who don't agree with this three points, for whom ladder should represent some other values or what is more common (very often majority) who don't really know what they want :)

Edited 4/29/2016 07:45:43

hasn't 1 week passed already? curious on the results.

He said atleast 1 week, so it can be 51 weeks
If fizzer wants...

It hasnt been a week yet, 1:30 today will be a week

Edited 4/30/2016 13:08:21

Still can't wait. :)

He said atleast a week, i think he wants like X votes