Will 3v3 Europe Ladder comes into reality soon?

If yes, anyone would like to team up with me?

I'm looking for top level Euro map pros who can guide me to play. Pls kindly let me know :)

Judging by the member survey results, it will not come out very soon, if at all. It's the fact that you need three times as many people to run a 3v3 ladder as you would a 1v1 ladder. Even if it's more popular, it probably isn't THAT much more popular.

Judging by the Europe game count in the lobby it seems it is...

i think what hes saying is, even if europe 3v3 is slightly more popular than the strategic 1v1, youre only going to have 40-50 teams. judging by the low number of teams on the 2v2 ladder, it will likely be far less than that.

Consider...

The standard ladder has 119 active members currently
The team ladder (2 v 2) has 40 active members currently
The seasonal ladder has 107 active members currently

Take the average and you get 90 players (a very optimistic number) and there are only 30 teams. Hardly seems worthwhile.

well Mr. Sharpe, lets consider this...

there are probably quite a few active members on the 1v1 ladder who would much prefer a 3v3 europe over the 2v2 world (as you can see by the low number of people playing 2v2 world). i base this idea off people i play with, as well as the fact that you never see 2v2 world games in the open game menu. You do however, see many 3v3 euro games.

to be honest, the only 2v2 world games i ever see is the auto.

and back to your estimate of teams at 30 (i agree, may even be slightly lower), but would that not still be quite competitive? Being in the top 10 would be no easy accomplishment.

the one flaw i see would be vacations, i obviously know little about the ladders, but i'm going to assume that players on vacations would really slow down the ladder because there are 6 people in each game

and @ duke. a 3v3 euro ladder would be much better with 30 teams than 100 teams.

the reason i say this is because if (for example) im on the 10th best team, i want more frequent games against the top ten. if you were on the bottum like 20-30, i could see why you would want more teams to compete. but lets be honest even if your 20-30 and at the bottum, you will get better because the more frequent matchup against better opponents.

i think the fact that the 2v2 world autogame is there makes people less likely to create similar games. i dont see many 1v1s on the medium world (except the autos) either.

and it might be better for 90 players, but having hundreds of people wanting to play in a ladder makes it more of a priority for fizzer.

you cant go on vacation mode if youre in the ladder.

oh, and there are more than 40 people on the 2v2, but some havent been ranked yet. it changes quite often.

Some things would be better with 30 teams instead of 100, but many other things would not. Most importantly, Fizzer is less likely to put effort into something for so few people, compared to something he can work on for more people.

There's also the concern that it's entirely possible to be unable to get into any games for days or weeks at a time, waiting for other games to finish.

there are four types of wl players: (1) medium earth solo artists (almost always play alone), (2) europe teamsters (almost always play europe team games), (3) bi-mapuals (tend to play either 1v1s on medium earth or team games in europe), and (4) gamers (play on a wide variety of maps. the first three groups are the most common type of players. currently, becoming a member is only appealing to two types of wl players.

if there weren't challenges to win a membership, i never would have bought a membership unless a europe ladder existed. and i know about 10 non-members who are waiting for a europe ladder before they buy a membership.

if one of the purposes of wl is to grow the member community and thereby make a little money, not having a europe 3v3 ladder is a mistake. if wl doesn't have such goals and instead has other purposes, then who cares what happens because it is impossible to predict what a business is trying to do if it is not trying to expand and make money.

also, with respect to the member poll a while back:

- it is only 2/3 to 3/4 of the issue
- 1/3 to 1/4 of 3v3 europe ladder players would be PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY NOT MEMBERS BC THEY'VE NEVER FELT THE CURRENT LADDERS ARE INCENTIVE ENOUGH TO BUY A MEMBERSHIP.

my impression is that the fizzer of oz is behind the curtain pulling the levers but does not have much of an idea of what non-members want most. low membership levels on any ladder are bc there aren't enough members to begin with. the first question should be to ask: aside from bi-monthly discounts of $10 on lifetime membership, what else do people want? i think a europe 3v3 ladder is one thing. maybe a real-time ladder is another thing. who knows. but without asking the non-members or being more involved in the non-member circles of players, i doubt a sudden epiphany will allow fizzer to make what the non-members want most to help his business.

there are two ways to know more:
- do a non-member poll (as a pop up like the annoying ads AND as a forum poll) to see what changes to warlight non-members would want before they would consider buying a membership. have a question about the 3v3 europe ladder.
- play more real-time games with people and just talk to them.

Sigh, I really really look forward for a Europe Map 3v3 ladder :(((((((((((

Would be nice having anything other than earth on the ladder.

"there are four types of wl players: (1) medium earth solo artists (almost always play alone), (2) europe teamsters (almost always play europe team games), (3) bi-mapuals (tend to play either 1v1s on medium earth or team games in europe), and (4) gamers (play on a wide variety of maps. the first three groups are the most common type of players. currently, becoming a member is only appealing to two types of wl players."

I most certaintly hope your estimation is incorrect..
personally I find players that fall under 1-2-3 to be quite boring...

It's like playing basketball and just doing constant free throws and ignoring the rest of the game.. or like playing baseball and hitting homeruns but refusing to run the bases...
why bother playing a game if you're going to limit yourself to such trivial games? Imho ofc'..

Ofc' I speak as a complete anti-meta gamer.. I find that ladders are just a reward for being a meta-gamer, and that is, as I think I made clear earlier, boring

i agree perrin, which is why the ladders are a bit of a disappointment.

- 1v1 ladder: medium earth solo artists love it.
- 2v2 ladder: if you are a medium earth solo artist, this is basically the only team game that you can play and still get by on your 1v1 medium earth skills (ie, memorize patterns, situational strategies, picking strategies, etc.) without having to know too much about team strategy, since the games are largely played out as a two team FFA rather than a more cooperative team game. this is the closest the ladders come to please 'europe teamsters' (player type #2).
- season i, medium earth: medium earth players' wish come true (in the sense that they don't have to learn any new strategies, but merely have to adjust their 1v1 ladder strategies to account for the change in fog)

'bi-mapuals' (player type #3) become bored with the ladders: only one map.

'gamers' (player type #4) dislike the ladders for many reasons:

- two 1v1s and a 2v2: lack of variety
- medium earth, medium earth, medium earth: it's a fine map, not the best, but the only game in town
- settings: same card settings in the 1v1s; similar card settings in the 2v2 (lack of variety)

Most people don't fall under 1, 2, and 3 or more people would play the ladder and buy memberships. As it is, few care or get tired of it quickly. If their were a wider range of maps/templates then more would play the ladder. Fizzer thinks things should be kept nice and simple though as far as the ladder is concerned, which is very boring and why people don't buy memberships to compete in. m Earth has never been a map I enjoy, but sadly I am one of those meta-gamers Perrin speaks of so I play the ladders :/ So hard giving 100% on such a boring and played out template.

the primary problem with making a ladder change too drastically is the measurement of skill..
since the ladder is meant to be a measurement of skill, it has to stay constant, and relatively balanced on either side...

personally I think that any half-way decent map could be used for a seasonal ladder and could show that players relative skill level for that map/settings..

If the rating system ever did come into effect, \*there's a uservoice I think to rate maps* then Fizzer could possibly make a seasonal ladder that each season would choose a random map at rating X+, with perhaps some administrative exceptions, and then we would have variety and a more active ladder.. albeit it's activity would ebb and tide depending on how many members like the map..

A skilled player should be able to adapt to random games at random maps with random settings. The ladder is repetitive, while it should be crazy and exciting. It doesn't test ones skill, it tests ones ability to stay awake.

By Gui's cathegory's I should be put around #3 since I do well on Europe and try my best on strat. 1vs1. What I've been able to observe the past few months playing with the best Europe players is that a high level Europe 3vs3 game is much more competetive than strat. 1vs1. In our [20] 3vs3 tournament my team's team-chat would fill a book easily. With random warlords distribution planning in first 2-3 turns required a lot of effort from each of the players, and the best part is it payed off. There was hardly any luck involved. While we can see top 2000+ players sometimes lose to 1700+, 1800+, I really couldn't see that on the 3vs3 ladder. By my estimate right now the europe 3vs3 (with manual distribution of course) is the most well-balanced, competetive and popular map. Though I can't speak for others, but if 3vs3 ladder is introduced the first thing i'm going to do is play a challenge with someone.

For a closing argument I'd like to say I must disagree with Dazed's last post. Although skilled player will definitely adapt to any map, not every setting is good for estimating their skills. For example everyone knows that auto-distribution is horrible at that. And applying your logic to chess, the chess tournaments should be played with random pieces on the board due to lack of diversity. I must say that random warlords distribution in both strat. 1vs1 and 3vs3 provides a lot of diversity in high-level games, as chess does.