i'm setting up a 3vs3 Europe with fixed teams ladder.
Need the template id and the id's of the folks in teams of 3 willing to participate. Also need to know how many games at a time your team is willing to play.
Members only since you guys probably don't want a template with 75% luck.
No, the point of making a good template does not mean to eliminate every variable, but eliminate variables we cannot control, like high luck setting. 75% luck is even worse in cities with all the early close combat and possible elimination. 0% luck is basically the same as 16% luck except you avoid nasty situations when you get negative net income when you shouldn't or you are liminated from a certain spot despite deploying enough. Don't mistake creativity for playing with high variation.
Although I am not sure if we make ladder we want classic random warlords, I think Gui's recent idea with making cities combined with warlords may prove to be more fun and balanced at the same time, so if anything you can make the poll about that, 0% luck is the obvious choice. I guess warlords is easier to choose since more people are familiar with it.
why is your choice the obvious choice? i truly prefer random teammates 75% luck.
1. more fun
2. more varied games and results
3. no dull, boring super teams
4. more participation = more community chatter
5. more people to play and chat with
6. more skills needed to adjust to the luck settings, different opposing teams, different teammates
7. individual ranking = a better indicator of actual skill (since certain players can join a super team and be carried by better players and appear to be just as good)
maybe you want to enter into a reliable monogamous relationship with gnuff. i'd rather play the field and have different types of games with any playertthat meets the prereqs.
ok. i'll wait for the random teammates ladder to change and maybe join the sze/gnuff fixed teams, fixed rank, non-inclusive ladder later.
one reason why teams quit the 2v2 ladder: once the ratings become more or less fixed only 0-3 teams can vie for first. a fixed team ladder will involve a little bit of that. i think the 2v2 ladder would have more players if it were a random team ladder.
Gui, what is fun about losing your stack of six against an attack of seven? Both sides are going to feel that the game is cheapened whenever one of those outliers changes the game. If you remove the outliers that potentially ruin games, you're back to a lower luck%. I'm having trouble finding an outlier that benefits the game, especially if the ladder is meant to be competitive.
I guess it could be a handicap on teams who actually plan how many troops to put down, but that's anti-competative (pushing the better players closer to the mean). In addition, it's just as likely that the good player would gain from positive luck as the bad player, sometimes causing an otherwise close game to become a steamroll. That doesn't seem like a positive either.
Care to articulate what benefit a high luck percent has? Randomness? Hilarious hijinks?
sze: i listed why 75% would be more enjoyable, more or less in order of importance to me. do you want maximum participation and fun or maximum possibility that your team will always be ranked 1 or 2? 75% random teammates ensures the former, 0% monogamous teams the latter.
