Is there any way to leave the ladder? As it is, straight weighted 0% luck kills all the fun. Whoever has the most leftover win...whoever has the biggest income in the first 3 turns almost win. There is no variable, there is nothing. This way it looks more like chess or omaha.
the games are dull. most games have at least one player taking 4 to 6 minutes per turn to:
- pick: if you don't take a lot of time to pick you will overlook something and bc it's 0% straight, if your opponent isaalmost as good as you that little thing you overlook will be enoughto lose.
- check history: the map is small, there are lots of wastelands and 10 picks each, so you look at history to count what the enemy probably has
- now that you know what the enemy probably has, you spend a minute or two each turn you see less than 100% deployment to (a) figure out what the enemy might have done, (b) rethink your best options for growth and busting, (c) reconsider if the enemy has what you think he has
- now that you've thought about geostrategy again, what will you do this turn? it's 0% round so now you have to check the calculator if you want to block with just enough and check it again to see how many armies you need to overcome theeenemy's defense (based on your ongoing calculations of his income and whereabouts). if you don't do these calculations on every significant attack and defense and the enemy does, it could be game over for you. 0% round is either perfect or just short. this takes another 1-2 minutes per turn.
- click in your orders.
every turn is 3 to 6 minutes! in realtime with 75% or 16% luck my turns rarely need that much time ON THE SAME MAP! i've played this map a lot. the 0% round takes all the fun out of the game and replaces it with an over-reliance on the calculator and history. why? bc you have to play everything perfectly. when we know 3v2s will miss sometimes it makes us reluctant to try hitting 4 of them on one turn. if we know they can miss, we won't try taking two 2 bonuses on the first turn and block the enemy with 6 vs 9, hoping that it all works out for the best. if game theory is about risk management, 0% round is about being anal-retentive.
i don't enjoy games on small maps that take more time and work per turn than games on big maps. you want a bonus? hit it 4v2! why the fuck is that a bad thing? why is 3v2 working all the time a good thing? less risk is good? letting a player who is losing to hit 3-5 3v2s to grab a big bonus is good? making a lot of 3v2 attacks so you have more extras to delay your orders without making WISE attacksto EARN those extras is best?
fuck 0% round. i'm not an anal-retentive mathematician or engineer who wants to impose perfection on an imperfect world. korea has exactly 5 million soldiers. if america shoots exactly 6 million bullets, exactly 2.5 million soldiers will be struck down. the world doesn't work according to perfect mathematical equations.
you are wrong and i don't agree.
on straight round 0%, i know that 3v2 5v3 6v4 8v5 10v6 11v7 13v8 15v9 etc. Always work, so NO need to check calculators.
i take 1 min for turn in this map, no need to think, just play.
Instead on 16% weighted, i CAN'T remember and know all combination, i remember ONLY 3v2 80% 4v3 around 30% and 4v2 give you 60% 2 leftovers and 40% 1 lefotvers, so ALL turn i have to check calculators for see how many % i have to take bonus and if is a risk or isn't. if i have like 60% to take a bonus, i will risk it, but if is a forecast of next 2 turn (for a big bonus like Greenland) i have to spent a lot of time like 3/4/5 min.
I like the map and setting, I dont know if with 16% weighted random it would be equally interesting, but the way it is a good setting.
@Qi
What you describe in your first paragraph is pretty much the same you have to do in every game against a good player on every map. bravo !! i would like to know thow that differs here.
Of course its not a pure mathematics game. The challenge comes from figuring out what your opponent will do. The 0% straight round just makes it more reliable and the strategical element of sacrifise for expansion more probable.
I have a theory of my own .
Dislike of the map and settings is related to expectations-performance on the greece ladder.
I have my own theory. Your proactive defensive position is because greek blood flew in your venes.
Also i have another theory, somebody else is playing gnuffone because his english is too good to be true.
Now..
@gnuffone : not everybody is addicted enough to learn "all the combinations", so excuse me if i don't know if 26 will beat 18 or 42 will win over 27. The fact that YOU move in one minute (it's also known that you move 3 players in less than 5) doesn't make that a rule. It's more common to meet someone who overpass the time than one that move in one minute.
@myhand : if this ladder is so axed on "control-every-variable-of-the-game" why not implement the cyclic turns? At least, if i have to lose a game because one have more leftovers eliminating the possibility to break a territory by delaying, give me the possibility to know when i'll get first move and when not.
if you want perfect calculator games, gnuff, why not have cyclical orders? why not ask for light fog or no fog? then risk management will be limited to just the way you want. take your perfection all the way!
dodo commander: yeah, that is a problem. only occurs when someone creates one, then waits and no one comes and he leaves. and i think if no one joins it will get deleted automatically after a while. but in the mean time folks wanting to play have to wait in the dark. gameapi has no way to inform me of this (if the game is still beeing advertised or not, would be nice to have, have to ask fizzer), but i guess i could also add custom dates and check the time difference and delete the game if it's taking too long. have other things to take care of first though. but thanks for the feedback.
i can't make it 75% with OpenSeats, it's a GameAPI restriction. i told you this on chat the other day Gui. And without open seats folks would need to go to the site, there is much less visibility.
at 75% only members would be able to join? that is odd.
(i didn't understand what type of visibility you were referring to before. but having a CLOT at 75% for non-members to play too would the most enjoyable i think. if it didnt have an open seat game to be created, i'd just make my own -- requiring that the host clicks start before the game starts -- and advertise my search for an opponent)
another possibility: why not make the 1v1 autogame a real-time CLOT in a very basic way: let players keep track of their wins/losses, and allow non-members to play, just as they are allowed to create and play the autogame already?
i'm actually thinking Fizzer will soon realize the high value or realtime ladders and make a proper official version of it. lot of gaming sites have this realtime ladder thing where they pair together whoever is online with closest rank to go at it and it has been mentioned a few times before. realtime ladders with CLOT feels abit silly since it uses so many calls to the API and has to reinvent so much of the site (users being online looking for open games). but well, that's my personal hope and expectation.
true. without clots being on wl's main site (the visibility i thought you were referring to, ps), they will never reach their full potential in terms of participation rates.
just think of the 1v1 ladder:
- if you create a game from scratch, one of the first maps you see is ME
- built-in auto games: 1v1 and 2v2 me
- realtime game with open seats: 1v1 me
- first thing most see on the dashboard: 1v1 ladder
- additional me visibility: 2v2 ladder, most seasonal ladders & ladder stats on profiles
people who would never care to play 1v1 or 2v2 me end up playing it. many people learn to prefer it due in large part to its visibility. yet neither template is absolutely the best for 1v1s or 2v2s.
if visibility can make people prefer to play an ok template (1v1 me) and a below average template (2v2 me), i'm sure it could do more for better templates.
