I guess I CAN get a bonus, but only if he does not guess right. Still seems really bad to have auto dist on here. Auto dist should only be used with more map coverage IMO.

I bet you were not playing another elite person. Regardless, I will have to veto this one.

Edited 7/12/2017 04:30:56

I bet my succession wars template I posted would be fine auto distribution.

I bet you were not playing another elite person.

I don't know the exact definition of elite, but my opponents obviously knew how to play well(or why would I mention it :p)

I bet my succession wars template I posted would be fine auto distribution.

Try it. Create a tournament and see how it is received. I'm all for new and exciting templates. We have enough of the 3x4 0% SR stuff already.

I bet my succession wars template I posted would be fine auto distribution.

I'm trying that now. Multi-day game. Will post the link if it turns out something significant :)

ooh he got a 2 bonus, that is definitely lost, there is nothing like those small bonuses on LD :)

Edited 7/12/2017 11:00:57

Sorry, I am in shock that people actually want a possible lotto game on this ladder:

if this template is very heavily luck based it should shown in the games played list motd posted, as there is 40 games finished. if you look at the list i would say that what is remarkable is the consistency of how strong players beat weaker ones.

Personally I'd love to join eventually (when I'm finishing some tourneys and ladder) but the number of WR is too much for me. Not only I have no pleasure playing those, but I feel it makes the game a bit lotto : whoever gets to complete his early bonus by luck has a massive advantage.

The fact I joined WL after Fizzer started favouring SR to WR surely doesn't help compare to old schools players, but my point is, Fizzer did that for a reason : because luck is anti strategic. Ideally if veto would force me to only 5 exotic templates where I could have only 1 WR which I would just surr turn 0, I would be more willing to join. Now I say "I", but who cares what I feel, by that I mean I assume other players may feel the same as me.

To some extent, random move order could also be mentionned for the same reason : a losing player managing to survive 1st order for a few turns in a row while catching the gap on income, and/or building every turn a higher stack to kill, can revert the outcome of a game totally. And not by skills, as the winning player had taken advantage so far, but by luck, as the losing one may survive and then manage to revert the situation.

Edited 7/12/2017 11:29:20

A main and important change, in my opinion, would be to remove the luck from the templates, else it would be more luck than skill required

You can't disagree with Chris that he is pretty badly disadvantaged with those starts. He can either go for the green 5 bonus or the red 4 bonus, but that's hoping Baer doesn't predict which one.

Reminds me of this game showed in the awp template thread, https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=13485912 rak is pretty much done for straight away.

Though most templates have crappy luck, doesn't matter whether its auto or manual. To me auto greece is just worth a use of a veto.

That one is worse than mine. At least i have some chance.

Though most templates have crappy luck, doesn't matter whether its auto or manual. To me auto greece is just worth a use of a veto.

Like you said, every template can have boards where the game is decided by luck(OP first pick etc). I judge templates by how balanced they are over the course of many games. That's the beauty of a continuous ladder. Every game is not a must win and over a period of time, your luck will balance out. I would obviously not like such templates on competitions like CL where every game is a must-win, but it definitely belongs on MDL.

A main and important change, in my opinion, would be to remove the luck from the templates, else it would be more luck than skill required

Managing risk is a skill as well. If it wasn't, how do you explain the top players consistently performing well?
Seems like you're suggesting everything be 0%SR NLC, and that is something which will never happen. One of my main motivations for creating MDL was sheer frustration with the current ladders on WL. I understand that every template will not be to everyone's liking, but that is why you have vetoes.

I never liked the argument of "over time things will balance out". That is silly statistics talk. I have never liked Random Move order, even IF over 1,000 games I get a 50-50 split on first move. Timing is EVERYTHING. Averaging out means jack squat if they always get first move when it really counts and I get first move when it really doesn't matter.


It probably all does work out, but I still don't like it. I want the person who played better to win every time. Managing risk IS a skill, getting auto picked does not fall in that category though. How can I manage that risk? I have zero control over it. In %0 WR, you still have some control...they are not comparable.

What I am saying is that I am OK with some luck. Auto dist is %100 luck (at least on picks).

Be that as it may, I will try and win it either way. But I suspect if I were playing vs you, I would not have the same chance I do right now.

You can't disagree with Chris that he is pretty badly disadvantaged with those starts. He can either go for the green 5 bonus or the red 4 bonus, but that's hoping Baer doesn't predict which one.

i dont disagree but then the ftb does not count for anything since you cant do a counter if you take it.

but who cares what I feel, by that I mean I assume other players may feel the same as me.

i fell the opposite of you and would not play the mdl if it did follow your ideal, as many others also, so if what you say is true(which it very well might be) then your argument have no wheight other then that you would like it the other way

I want the person who played better to win every time.

then you need to play a perfect information game like chess, and not play WL

Edited 7/12/2017 17:25:44

That last statement makes no sense. If someone plays better on a no luck template, they will win %100 of the time.

You don't need perfect in WL, you just need BETTER to win without luck. Almost always, better will beat small amounts of luck as well. My only concern is larger amounts of luck, which is what Auto Dist is.

That being said, I am OK with it being on here, because there is a veto option. It IS a diff way of playing, so people have the option of avoiding it.

In my original post, I did not know about the veto option.

Edited 7/12/2017 17:33:08

I never liked the argument of "over time things will balance out". That is silly statistics talk. I have never liked Random Move order, even IF over 1,000 games I get a 50-50 split on first move. Timing is EVERYTHING. Averaging out means jack squat if they always get first move when it really counts and I get first move when it really doesn't matter.

If you're making a run of 20 games, then yeah you're probably going to get screwed over. But MDL was always harsh on anyone who wanted inflated ratings with silly runs ;) Play 100 games on MDL and tell me it didn't average out. Look at any player with enough games, and you will see it.

There is no such thing as a perfect template where the "person who played better wins every time". Name one such template, and I'm sure someone will find you a game which had nothing to do with the winner playing better.

EDIT: Didn't see your latest post. I think we're sort of in agreement then. We're just debating what level of randomness is acceptable, which is a more reasonable discussion.

Edited 7/12/2017 17:37:14

Of course. amount of luck is merely a preference. I'm all good. BTW, I have that game won, he isn't surrendering though :(

That last statement makes no sense. If someone plays better on a no luck template, they will win %100 of the time

this is evidently false. very bad players can beat very good ones in WL, one of the major reasons is due to fog, since you could just luck out and be a place which is a perfect counter by pure luck. also even with no fog this can happen as there is many starting positions, even though the skill gap in general would be a bit closer here i think. i have played quite a lot of chess(a perfect information game, that is almost equal from the start) in the past and i know how often a very good player gets beaten here by a player very much worse then him. it never happens. this is simply because there is no such thing as a no luck template in wl

Edited 7/12/2017 18:02:20

If you are countered by a pick, that is NOT luck. I am not talking about skill of the player. I am talking about who played better IN THAT GAME. If you get countered picked and lose because of it on a no luck template...you got outplayed.

No luck means picks based on time. You still have control there over 1st pick vs 2-3, etc. Now on 1v1 ladder let's say...there is still SOME luck because you don't know if you will get first pick or not. But it is almost no luck, and you can mitigate that risk of pick order with your picks.

I never said bad players can't beat better ones. In that case, they happen to have outplayed the better player. Show me where a player on a no luck template played better than their opponent and still lost.

Edited 7/12/2017 18:14:36

if that player that wins have no idea that his picks were to be a counter but picked them out in the blue, then you would say that the player outplayed the other one in that case, it was not lucky that he picked there? hmm ok, i think we just are fundamentally in disagreement about what is luck and skill. so you can play better and have no skill then the best player ever on wl even if he concentrates and you dont know what your doing? you just happens to be at the right spot at the right time, that is not luck?

also i will not find a a game were a a player played better then the opponent and lost, since your definition of playing better is simply winning, so it is a given that no such game exists

Edited 7/12/2017 18:43:17

If you are countered by a pick, that is NOT luck. I am not talking about skill of the player. I am talking about who played better IN THAT GAME. If you get countered picked and lose because of it on a no luck template...you got outplayed.

Not every counter is because you get outplayed. A counter can be due to luck as well. You could even have blind counters(a certain Italian springs to mind). I completely disagree that counters are purely skill based.

No luck means picks based on time. You still have control there over 1st pick vs 2-3, etc. Now on 1v1 ladder let's say...there is still SOME luck because you don't know if you will get first pick or not. But it is almost no luck, and you can mitigate that risk of pick order with your picks.

I never said bad players can't beat better ones. In that case, they happen to have outplayed the better player. Show me where a player on a no luck template played better than their opponent and still lost.

Ok. Let's take an example on your 1v1 ladder template. This is your board -
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11684817. I claim that this is a bullshit game( No offense to Edge. He did his research, so well done to him).

That 3,4,5 pick combo can so easily backfire on him and cost him the game on picks(Imagine if Buns had just picked ER or WC or picked ER/WC as 3/4 and they split it). It didn't because his opponent decided to do something which ensured it doesn't happen(this is pure chance/luck/call it what you want). There is a lot of thought put into picks by Buns, but all of that was undone by Edge going all or nothing on picks. This is not "outplaying Buns" in my book. Should we ban this holy template as well now? ;)

Edited 7/12/2017 18:45:49