Didn't see it like that :/ But only if your at the top would you play the same people?

Ace -- was that a TLDR moment? lol

and Kalash -- you can see on this thread that mostly the top 20 have replied. I'm sure when you're lower its pretty great to try and work your rank higher.

Yeah it was a bit lol

Anyway, even I'm feeling ladder fatigue and I'm down around 30th :P I've dropped to 1 game and getting your rank higher is harder said than done because you generally have your rank for a reason. I've been down here since pretty much when I started so it seems I deserve it XD

I'd be fine with maps like Europe or old earth, or whatever. As long as the map has balanced bonuses and at least a decent amount of people who have tested it, then I think that's a great idea. Also, I'm positive I can adapt to whatever map is flavor of the month, but I guess there's only one way to find out :).

It'd be interesting to try a handicapped ladder someday to make it more of a challenge for the epic godlike people on top of the ladder to play people like me that lose games professionally :) Perhaps for every 100 points of ladder ranking above the opponent, you could lose 10% rounded down of your total deployment down to a minimum of 50% of total deployment rounded up (so you'd never start out with less than 3 deployment a turn for instance).

Or maybe something simpler like forcing autopicks on the higher ranked player or at least giving the lower ranked player an automatic first pick for distro. Who knows, it would certainly spice things up for those at the top of the ladder, and would mean there wouldn't need to be the whacky matchmaking algorithm, anyone could just play anyone and have it be a reasonably fair fight.

Devilnis -- If there was a handicap i'd almost guarantee the handicapped person would lose a majority of the time. Most of the time, the person wins because they are more efficient with their armies but that a disadvantage of even 1 army per turn can be crippling. They may seem like blowouts but the amount of armies wouldn't be a good factor as it's what you do with them.

With picks, auto would also make it too hard if one gets to pick and the other just gets whatever. On giving the opponent their 1st and 2nd...the handicapped player can just adjust to that and set themselves to counter that start.

All things that I would consider to be exactly part of the point - To make it so that those who observably have the tools to succeed at it must face an uphill struggle every time so that it remains a challenge. If that means that the struggle is failed and the person who was handicapped loses, then the ranks will change and next time the handicap will be less or non-existant and the player's overwhelming skill will win out and they'll be back up in the ratings again.

Self-balancing systems never fail to balance given a long enough trial, the rankings would converge to an accurate representation of who is better than whom just the same as they do under the current ladder - It would just be a more adventurous path. Anyways, I didn't mean to say the current system is broken, just that I'd like to see something like this someday.

Handicaps can be more subtle than that too. An extra army on the first turn is a 20% boost to income with a strong potential multiplier effect.

I think a handicap should work off the bonus for territories controlled. That way it never kicks in before you have a given number of territories. You could also apply a set formula to account for the differencial in ranking with a cap. Hypothically it could start at 1 extra army per 20 territories and drop by 1 per ranking differential. So a differential of 1 spot has a negligible effect of 1 extra army for every 20 territories you control and a differential of 10 spots gets you 1 extra army for every 10 spots and a differencial of 15 or more gets you 1 extra army for every 5 territories.

Then you allow direct challenges regardless of where they are on the ladder.

Obviously the numbers would have to be tweaked a bit, but you get the idea. I'd like to be able to play somebody in the middle of the pack with a handicap.

I wouldn't find that particularly enjoyable. I find playing people of a similar skill level on even footing to be far more enjoyable than playing someone ranked much lower on uneven footing. I would probably stop playing the ladder if it changed to this.

Yeah I like Duke's system as described - I'm not really picky about what form a handicap would take, just that it was well thought-out and subjected to the scrutiny of the player base (and Fizzer ofc!) so that it's well-balanced. The main point would be to make it so that all players on the ladder are able to play all other players on the ladder and have it be guaranteed (insofar as it's possible) to be a reasonably competitive game.

Impaller, when have you played people much worse than you on an unequal footing to even discern that you like one better than the other? In your experience, what is it exactly that made you dislike a handicapped game? Anyways if it was set up properly (so that handicapped games yield less volatility in terms of ladder score,) it could be configurable whether you were matched to handicapped games even with the ladder being capable of it, so you could just opt out and continue playing the top 10 on the ladder forever :)

And also, what is the World vs. Impaller if not a handicapped game after a manner of speaking - all those minds on one side of the coin, all vigilant for a mistake, an opportunity. And what is, for instance, the "Insane Challenge" you completed in 24 turns, if not a handicapped game where 1 side (the computers) has an edge over the other? I don't mean to be confrontational, I'm just curious as to your thoughts on the subject...

And also - Damn I wish I could edit in the forums!!!

</spam>

Any of the numerous times I've played games with automatic picks, 75% or higher luck, etc...especially if those games also include random wasteland locations. One player or the other is going to be handicapped by getting worse starting picks or having terrible starting luck or a wasteland in a starting bonus. It's just not fun to me, whether or not I win or lose those games. Unless the handicap was really well done, and I'm not sure it's even possible within the confines of this game to do so, the outcome of handicap matches is going to mostly be about how much of a handicap there is and not the actual game-play itself.

I can already predict now that there are going to be a decent percentage of games that are going to basically be like this: "The handicap was too strong and I lost" or "The handicap wasn't strong enough and the game wasn't a challenge." I don't know...maybe I can work, but I'm definitely very skeptical of the viability.

Continuing playing the top 10 of the ladder forever is pretty dull, although lately I've had a lot of games against people I've never played before, which bodes well and means new players are joining and doing well. I think the solution to fixing the problem is mixing up the game style or game type, not handicapping players. New maps, rotating gameplay options (complete fog? custom starting spots? different cards?) sounds like a great way to break free from the current stagnation.

Or we could leave the number of territories fixed and apply a different multiplier to determine the bonus (same result another way). So it's always every ten territories, but it starts with a .25 multiplier and goes up by .05 per ranking differential (with rounding). So a one spot differential (.3) gets 1 bonus army/turn when he gets to 20 territories (and goes to +2 at 50), a 6 spot differential (.55) gets 1 army at 10 territories (and goes to +2 at 30), a 25 spot differential (1.55) gets 2 army at 10 territories (and goes to +3 at 20). And so on.

Something like that might work across a large ladder.

So if I played Imp on the ladder the effect would be next to nothing. 1 army/turn when I reach 20 territories isn't going to make a bit of difference on medium earth.

But if the guy ranked 50th played Imp, he'd get a 2.75 multiplier at 10 territories (+3) and at 20 territories (+6). That's a significant handicap if Imp ever allows him to get to 20 territories.

You're not being confrontational. Those are completely reasonable questions, and I welcome the debate and differing opinion.

|> And also, what is the World vs. Impaller if not a handicapped game after a manner of speaking - all those minds on one side of the coin, all vigilant for a mistake, an opportunity.

I don't consider this really a handicap. Nothing about how the game is actually played out changes, just the difficulty level of the opponent changes. Having everyone against one player isn't necessarily a disadvantage to the one player. While there are certainly a ton of great minds on one side of the field coordinating ideas, there are also going to be a lot of noise and disagreements and "wrong" moves being suggested as well that can muddy the waters.

|> And what is, for instance, the "Insane Challenge" you completed in 24 turns, if not a handicapped game where 1 side (the computers) has an edge over the other?

This is definitely a handicapped game, you are right. And I actually really enjoyed this challenge (much more than any of the other ones) and spent enough time playing it to beat it in what was then definitively the best time (and may still be, I don't know). The difference is, this is the same game being played over and over again against an unchanging AI opponent. It's a challenge against yourself, to see if you can jump higher than the bar, not a challenge against another player to see if you're capable of winning under certain handicaps. I don't think it's really the same thing.

I also don't like the idea of a handicap. I want to know that if I beat somebody, I beat them because I played better that game (or fine, maybe some luck was also involved). Or if I lost it was because they played better than me.

Then play people ranked below you. Duh.

All good points, Impaller - I think it'd be fun but obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinions on it, and there is no right or wrong. Probably rotation of maps and settings like you talked about would tempt me back to the 1v1 ladder as well. Maybe there could be a THIRD ladder that would be open to all players whether members or not and that would be handicapped, and the top 5 on the ladder at any given time get all the benefits of membership other than the ability to join the other ladders. THAT would be a hoppin' ladder, I bet!