I think it'll be good if we can get a good statistical sample about the ladders, it is possible at least among members I think.

0% luck vs 16% luck in 1vs1 ladder
http://poll.pollcode.com/bqjp5

2vs2 ladder map
http://pollcode.com/pollcode.cgi

3vs3 ladder
http://poll.pollcode.com/g1diz

FFA Ladder
http://poll.pollcode.com/aoa28

Membership (vote for non-members only):
http://poll.pollcode.com/81cbk

Ladder ratings (only those who actually participated in the ladder please):
http://poll.pollcode.com/4fmwa

Sorry, one of them was a mistake in copy/paste:

2vs2 Ladder map:
http://poll.pollcode.com/nn957

voted

Also to moderators, please make this thread notable, that way we can get a better statistical sample.

Great idea szeweningen, I can't wait for the results. Do you expect these polls to affect future updates?

if you want an ffa ladder and europe ladder, feel free to create one through CLOT.

I'll be bumping the thread for a while... again moderators, make it notable.

#1: 0% luck. Games would be decided more by skill and less by luck.

#2: Don't have a preference. I'm satisfied with the present, but heavy earth could bring some interesting change. No need to consider other maps though, if we're already creating a 3v3 euro.

#3: Yes. 3v3 games will ofcourse last longer but a 3v3 is still different from 2v2. Also, please introduce some new card types that aren't used in current ladders.

#4: I have doubts about an FFA ladder - I think it will become very political, where attacks will be dictated much by who is #1 at the moment and who said what about whom in the forums. Maybe this should first be tried unofficially.

#5: Already a member.

#6: I'm not sure if everyone understands what the "first games" option means, *only* by reading the description in the poll.
I interpret the "first games" option means "all finished games that have not yet expired and whose starting date does not come after some unfinished game's starting date". If this is true, then I vote "first games".
Only downside I see here is that a very slow or malicious player can prevent one's rating from developing in the way it should.

My own preferences:

1) 0% luck, I always hated when a 7vs4 attack missed

2) I'd actually really like a non-earth map, maybe LOTR, maybe sth else, anyway definitely other map with more starts (2 is ridiculous)

3) I always supported 3vs3. Also (that was kinda implied) it should be no cards settings making it most skill.

4) I actually am not in favor, I don't like ffa's deeming them luck based since there is hardly any intel management. Gui's idea about anonymous ffa's is not that easy to implement.

5) Not for me, but it'd be a huge incentive before.

6) I explained my idea in another thread where Noobschool asked about a potential solution to gaming the system. Of course, 15 first games means 15 oldest games chronologically from created date. I'd actually support both, making it 20 first games.

Yeah. Eu 3v3 no cards with 4 random warlord with 5 armies and 5 base income. 0% weight random.

if you want a pick lottery (warlords), i'd rather play it at 75% luck.

3v3 europe no cards, why not. It'd also be something new.

New rating: Well I like the idea of making those games not count that still have unfinished games prior to their created date.
Also, making only about 20 games count for the rating makes sense, because if you have 50 games affecting the rating, then it does not make much difference for the ratings if you win or lose your 51th game.
However I would make the 20 last games count for the rating, otherwise it'll take 3 months for new finished games to have any impact.

Mannerheim, the point of making the 15 first game cutoff is to prevent people from delaying losses. Suppose I start the ladder and I already have 12 wins, but in the remaining 2 games I am losing badly. I can increase my game count from 2 to 5, play new 3 games fast and delay 2 losses. In this scenario I end up with temporary 15-0 record. Now, with my idea I can obviously also get this 15-0 record, but I will not be rated yet, untill I finish my initial first 15 games. So supposing I don't have any newer games I will get my rating with a 15-2 record. In short, it does not allow any losses to be postponed from the initial 15 games.

Yes I understand this. That's why I said I like the idea of making the games not count that still have unfininshed games prior to their creation date.

Now if I play 50 games in a row, all of them are finished and the first one will expire in 2 1/2 months. This means that for almost 3 months, my latest 30/35 games will not be considered in the ratings although they are my most recent games and probably represent my skill level much better than the first 15/20. This is why I would prefer the last 20 to the first 20 to be the rating consideration.

Congrats Relite team (written by a relite groupie) is notable. but this isn't?

By these standards if i congratulate my alt for winning a tournament on a map i made, it would be notable...

LoL...Warlight Mafia

Congrats Relite team (written by a relite groupie) is notable. but this isn't?

Groupie - Slang an ardent fan of a celebrity, esp a pop star: originally, often a girl who followed the members of a pop group on tour in order to have sexual relations with them

More conventional:
2. An enthusiastic supporter or follower

First off...I don't follow Relite members around. It's all from the comfort of my own pc.
Secondly...Relite members are not popstars or rock stars.
Thirdly....I haven't had sexual relations with any of them.
Fourth...I'm neither a supporter nor follower of them in that sense. That would imply a certain difference and/or status difference between me and the mentioned group. Seeing as I myself am also respected as a person/player in the group I wouldn't term myself as being a supporter or follower (especially with regards to the April fool's joke in which I sort of chose my own path)

So Qi.....please refrain from calling me a groupie in the future. Thanks.

groupie.

Asshole

0% luck has always and shall forever remain a bad idea for a well balanced one versus one laddder. It was a bad idea the first time someone suggested it, and that hasn't changed after all this time.

Take away the extraordinarily small luck element that exists, and all you have is a system of situations and circumstances that are now almost entirely predictable. This problem exists greatly when you have two players that know exactly what they're doing. A game can be lost or won on the luck of picks much more easily. I personally don't like that.