Tired of playing the same damn 1 v 1 map?

Vote here: http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/2327105-random-map-1-v-1-ladder

My idea:

1. Create a Random Map 1 v 1 Ladder (and keep the current one).

2. Use 10-20 good maps and settings. For example:

1: Current 1 v 1 Ladder's Map/Settings
2: Europe Map/No Cards/12 Starting Spots
3: 1 v 1 Ladder Map, No Cards
4: Other suitable maps/settings for good, competitive, fair 1 v 1 duels

3. How it would work: Everything would be the same as the current 1 v 1 Ladder except one thing -- each game the map/settings would be randomly (ie, automatically) selected from among the 10-20 predetermined maps/settings.

My reasoning:

1. Fairness: Some players are better in games with cards, others without cards. Players have map preferences & advantages. Random maps/settings would create a more equal playing field.
2. Better Measure of Overall 1 v 1 Ability: I can't remember the last time somebody beat me in a pure (no outside help, equal bonuses) 1 on 1 within a 3 v 3 game. But people who would have no chance against me in such a battle can beat me on the 1 v 1 ladder settings. This makes me believe that the luck (of positioning, pick order, move order, cards, etc.) makes for an imperfect 1 v 1 battle. Chance, happenstance, luck, map/settings advantages should not be so influential. Random maps/settings would help: one's overall ladder rating would be a clearer indication of the player's true 1 v 1 abilities, since the maps and settings would be different for each game. Maybe Player A dominates the current ladder settings. Player B dominates map #2. Player C dominates map #3. Etc. Playing 10-20 maps/settings would be a better measure of who is the best overall 1 v 1 player.

not want to be rude but why u compare games 3v3 (and yours 1v1 in those games) to 1v1 games? they are completely different, if u want something w/o cards to get "better measure of overall 1v1 ability" u should make europe 1v1 games or so


anyway i'm against that idea, why? the answer is so simple - 10-20 maps are definitely too much, it will be not about the skill but about how many games every of us can play and LEARN those maps, every map has its own strategies and its not about 10 games spending to learn them, u will need much more time

think everything is clear as my English isnt at good level

If everyone learns together, it is fair. Nobody has a head start.

Why compare 1 v 1 in a 3 v 3 game: war is war no matter the conditions.

Best overall #1 player: an analogy. Rafal Nadal almost never lost on clay (French Open) for about five years. But it took him some time to be as skillful on grass (Wimbledon) and other surfaces. When he was unable to win on grass, he was ranked #2 overall. Once he started winning other Grand Slams other than the French Open, he became #1. If all tennis matches were only held on clay from 2005 to 2010, Nadal would've been ranked #1 the entire time. But the ground's surface and weather (comparable to settings/map in warlight) are both slightly different for each tennis tournament. They are key variables each player must deal with. In warlight, the 1 v 1 Ladder is always the same 'surface' (settings/map). Master one map's settings, and you do well. If you are better at other settings/maps (which require different strategies/approaches), it doesn't matter in terms of your rank/rating because the only thing that determines rank/rating is the 1 v 1 Ladder games. For tennis, a player's ability to succeed on multiple different surfaces determines overall rank. If warlight did something like that, it'd be more interesting.

A 1 v 1 Random Map Ladder would be a step in the right direction, I think, in rating a player's overall 1 v 1 ability. And it would be more enjoyable than the current ladder, which feels mechanical at times for lack of variety. Maybe players like retro would stick with the current 1 v 1 Ladder. While players like me would never rejoin the current 1 v 1 Ladder and instead play the Random Map 1 v 1 Ladder.

The big picture (to me): Pogo.com uses more or less the same rating system as warlight for dozens of its games. But each game you play (for monthly subscribers and non-subscribers alike) affects your rating. The only time warlight players are rated is for the two ladder settings. If a player played 1000 total games and each game affected his ratings (ratings for 1 v 1, 2 v 2, 3 v 3, and every other game we have statistics for or simply 1 overall rating), that player's overall skill level would be very clear. Instead, warlight only rates two types of games, the two ladders. And the only other statistic available (winning %) is highly subjective: lots of players care more about their stats than anything else and have winning percentages that don't reflect their actual skill level.

I would be for this addition of an auto-game, although the pool of maps should be somewhat reduced and cautiously composed, because some lack diversity, even if they have a good aspect and if their author definitely deserve credit for these.
I talked about Europe already, but I would say so about the Africa, Asia, Big US, Poland maps which are all very popular : these are open space, blood-bath-type maps with so many pieces that considerations about keypoints to take and hold, rushes to borders or bonus defenses come after rushing and stack-first, boring sweeping styles. A game needs a struggle for assets to be interesting, and not so many lands that the move order can't even be taken into full consideration except that you need a million dummy moves to delay your moves.
Maybe it's a matter of taste, but fun as well as analyze require some kind of heterogeneity on the map. Wastelands add density as well, but that's another story.

Maps I'd like:

1. Auto 1 v 1
2. Auto 1 v 1, no cards, more starting spots (5-9)
3. The Old Auto 1 v 1 (5 per starting spot)
4. Europe, cards, warlords
5. Europe, no cards, cities/full, more starting spots (8-12)
6. Roman Empire, warlords, airlifts only
7. Roman Empire, warlords, no cards
8. East Asia & Oceania, warlords, cards
9. Small Earth, with cards to mimick a Risk game of sorts
10. Others?

I t would be cool if it was its own separate ladder, but it should definetly not replace the one we have now