1vs1 ladder

[Argammon]

I realized that there are well ranked players who play the same map over and over again. I guess I don't have to mention that this gives a significant advantage compared to players like me who play several different maps.
Basically if I want to beat them, I have to battle them in their hometown arena.

Now, I admit that I don't have any good solution to this. But let me throw out the following idea:

Once an 1vs1 ladder match starts there is a ?% chance that it is played on a random official 1vs1 map and not on the map that was selected.

[piranha]

We have been talking about something like this. Simply that you select that you want to play 1v1 and ladder and it will match you against another player on a random 1v1 map. If we keep increasing in number of players it could be used to make players get matched against players who are of the same rating and skill level so newbies don't get bashed by the top players. But it will require more players to make a matching system that is good. But I agree, should be random maps selected from a pool of maps. Now that we going to give more points for bigger maps it will also be possible to play maps that are bigger than 50x50 in 1v1.

[Maze]

Another weak spot would be solved with bigger pool of ladder players and matching them randomly (regardless of map being random or not): people can now in several ways boost their ranking without really "being the best in Warbarons":
- avoid joining 1vs1 created by a strong player and only join the ones with a weak player
- ( evil people please don't read) play only (or most games) against a buddy: one ladder season you agree that you win all the games, the other won your buddy wins all the games. High ranking guaranteed.

Creating a pool of people who want to play 1vs1 ladder and randomly match them (not necessarily based on their strength) would indeed solve this. Even a pool of 8 would be sufficient I would say.

[Moonknight]

We have been talking about something like this. Simply that you select that you want to play 1v1 and ladder and it will match you against another player on a random 1v1 map. If we keep increasing in number of players it could be used to make players get matched against players who are of the same rating and skill level so newbies don't get bashed by the top players. But it will require more players to make a matching system that is good. But I agree, should be random maps selected from a pool of maps. Now that we going to give more points for bigger maps it will also be possible to play maps that are bigger than 50x50 in 1v1.

I think this would be ideal...i always get stuck playing solo on 1v1's and he kicks my ass every time

[Igor]

That must be really limited pool of maps to play match 1x1 on a random map. Many of maps looks disbalanced, for my opinion.
Would be good to split this pool on two part: big maps like 150x150 and little maps like 50x50, because who plans to play big map don't wish to play small map and vice versa.

[piranha]

Yes. I think for 1on1 50x50 maps the ladder map should be more or less mirrored to qualify for the pool. As maps get bigger they don't need to be as symtric to work as ladder maps.

[LichKing]

Bigger maps that are unbalanced are much worse than small maps, because with more cities differences begin to be rather exponential. A better start on a big map means being unstoppable in mid-game, on 1v1. All the 50x50 maps are very balanced, but I don't like to play ladder 1v1 on big maps because they aren't balanced at all for 1v1. I like the idea of random map, but the choice should be limited to maps whose balance is unquestioned..

[KGB]

LichKing,

Just how *balanced* do bigger maps need to be? Certainly not mirror map balanced but reasonably balanced like Bullrun/8 Kingdom/Land-Sea-War etc should be plenty sufficient.

Right now the biggest problem on bigger maps is that Snotling took out the code that puts players at opposite ends of the map so you can end up next to each other on a huge map and that's clearly not good since one player will be trapped by another.

My problem is the 50x maps is that they are too predictable due to their balancing. A Monkey or a Robot can play them because many are perfect mirrors right now (often to the level of city production) so instead of actually playing the maps, you are just repeating the exact same thing every time. This comes back to MoonKnights comment that players get to know their 'pet' map inside and out and that's a bigger issue than a slightly non-balanced map.

The other bigger problem with 50x maps is that the game is forced to balance units down to the 50x level so that units that are perfectly fine on larger maps are whined about on 50x maps as being too good because they over power those small maps.

Ultimately for Warbarons to survive, it's going to have to make some hard decisions about:

1) Map sizes
2) Replayability

Right now I suspect the game is going to lose a lot of players once they find out that ladder play is mostly 50x maps that game play can be memorized on. There just won't be any appeal to stick around waiting for a few new 50x maps to be created that are mostly repeats of other 50x maps.

Increasing the minimum map size to 75x75 or 100x50 might help with that problem. So would opening up more strategic options (right now the game is basically a city race because so many other options have been nerfed including hero leveling so there is almost no way for a player with 10 cities to overcome someone who has 15 even though that should be possible with skillful play). DLR survived and continues to survive *because* the replayability factor was off the charts due to lots of strategic options for players to pursue. This was largely possible because only the LARGEST maps were used for ladder play thus allowing most games to reach mid/late game stages.

KGB

[LPhillips]

Piranha, I don't think an obligatory randomized map selection will help this problem much. The underlying issue is that some maps are unfit for ladder play, and forcing randomized selection is quite a sacrifice for such an incomplete solution. The maps will still come up, and players will still take advantage of them, even if it's not every game.

There should be no 50x50 ladder maps with the current game. I can readily agree with KGB on that point, and it seems obvious. In fact, it has bothered me for a long time. I played two games on the oldest of these "pet maps" against players who each used the same premeditated formula to win, not relying on any skill or strategic intellect. I swore the map off, but tried again after returning to Warbarons. The same idiotic formula is still a guaranteed victory on that map (with the help of some lucky rolls), and after a few unlucky battles I lost again.

The game mechanics simply don't permit fair 50x50 maps. If you had some truly impassible terrain for map designers, and some very careful map construction, it might be possible. But generally speaking no map should ever be approved for ladder play where formula is king over intellect and strategy.

Players, it is our duty to help Snotling and Piranha with this by providing more maps for them to select ladder maps from, just as it is their duty to eliminate maps from ladder play which encourage "griefing" and harm the progress of this project. Let's all do our part.

[Argammon]

Whether 50x50 maps are playable or not is highly debatable. I actually like to play them despite of their obvious shortcomings. The bottom line is that you should not force your will upon players.

"I hate 50x50 maps thus remove them from the game".

Just give players a choice to play what they want to play. If you think bigger maps should count more, fine. If you think units should be balanced for big but not for small maps, fine. If players like me and others like to play the small maps despite of this you have to accept that.


Btw, the pet map comment was made by me and not my Moonknight.