1vs1 ladder

[hungrytales]

I don't believe there is really a solution to this 'problem'.

Basically it all boils down to a question of trading fun for a position in the ladder. I see it as perfectly valid question and think each player should answer it individually. Nobody's gonna tell me playing the same boring map all over again IS fun . Therefore people who choose to do this obviously sacrifice their fun for an advantage in winning. I guess they're of the stock who value winning over fun. Now, there are out there others who genuinely value fun over winning (and they won't complain) and there are always those who want to eat their cake and have it.

Now, are we going to square the circle here by trying and alleviating woes of the latter? :>

[KGB]

I don't believe there is really a solution to this 'problem'.

I agree completely. Hence why I said Warbarons is going to have to make some hard decisions going forward about things.

I disagree with LPhillips that players should not be allowed to play 50x50 ladder maps. If 2 players want to do so they should be able to. I merely said I wasn't playing any because the game play on all of them is purely linear due to their size.

On the other hand, it's often hard to get a 100x or 150x ladder game because players are rank mongering on the small maps where they get tons of points fast. In another thread I suggested 150x maps should get 5x the points of a 50x50 map and a 100x100 get 2.5x the points and further that any game ending in <20 turns gets rewarded half points instead of full. Hopefully that would encourage more ladder games on 100x and 150x maps.

To be honest though, I am surprised ladder games allow players to 'choose a specific map'. I would have thought all you could chose was map size (50x, 100x, 150x) and the game would then assign one of the ladder maps of that size at game time. So you would never know which ladder map you were getting and thus avoid having to challenge a higher ranked player on his pet map.

Going back to some of my points again:

1) Map Size: The different between a 50x50 and 150x150 is a 10-1 ratio. If the game increases minimum map size to 75x75 (allowing increases by 25 instead of 50) the ratio between largest and smallest map moves to a more manageable 4-1 ratio.

2) Unit Balancing: The game will need to decide exactly what size maps (50x50 or 100x100 or 150x150) units are going to be balanced for. For other sizes of maps the units will then become slightly under or over powered. Right now the result of every change has been to balance units for 50x maps. The result is that many units are woefully inadequate on the largest sized maps (Dwarves and Pikemen are laughable on 150x maps while Wizards are greatly feared on 50x but nothing special on 150x). I don't care what map standard the game picks, just as long as it picks one, and states it clearly for all balance efforts so we can all work from the same point of view. That way players will understand when they are making or playing maps of other sizes that certain units are going to be out of balance.

KGB

[kenc80]

I thought the whole point of small maps was to churn out quick games. No one is saying you have to play someone somewhere specific. I like KGBs idea of making big FFA map wins perhaps more valued than small 1v1 map wins.

However, to play devils advocate I used to play counter-strike a lot. I loved the map Dust and played it most of the time because I liked the map, it was balanced, fun and fast. I was definitely better at it than at other maps. In CS usually you map rotated every 10 games or so but still, if you wanted you could only play at that map. Does that make me a B*tch because I liked Dust the most?

Different strokes for different folks. If someone loves hammer mountain so be it. If you want a challenge, play him there. I dont have a problem with a quick, fun, 8 turn 50x50 ladder game. Of course, he's going to be high on the ladder. He's probably playing more than you. I think we're overthinking this.

BTW Piranha, I still wish ladder games had 3.5 day turns. Then you could safely get through a weekend away and not miss a turn. I know I know everyone disagrees and Im not trying to hijack thread but am just throwing it back out there.

[Chazar]

In 3 out of my first 4 ladder games, I got obliterated in less than 12 turns by exactly the same strong player again and again (playing anonymously). Albeit I somehow won the other ladder game, that experience was rather discouraging, and since I have no idea how to avoid playing that exact same guy immediately again for fourth time in a row, I just switched to FFA. So I, for one, would return to 1vs1 if there is a match making system!

My point is, a match making system may encourage more players to participate in the ladder, and the absence of it may discourage people - so its one of those "chicken-or-the-egg"-problems.

[Moonknight]

Maybe it doesn't have to be one or the other? We could keep the current system plus have a "Random Pool" in which you enter into and get matched up by your ladder score on a random map.

That way everyone is happy

Oh, and I think this option could be available for FFA and Team Ladder Games as well, albeit, the rank matching might not be as tight (as in, if there are only two Teams in the pool at the end of the day, those two teams would be matched regardless of rank).

[hungrytales]

Or maybe the thing we need is some extra incentive for players to try and win playing on various maps? Like an additional ladder maybe (based on a new stat which would take into account how many different maps contributed to the winning score)? Such a sub-ladder could introduce a new dimension to winning.

[bengute]

Or you could put in diminishing returns, if they win more than 1 ladder games in a row on the same map, their score could lessen with each win.

[LPhillips]

The idea of randomized map selection is a huge turnoff to me. Pardon my aversion, but consider the fact that some maps simply don't entice some players.

KGB's solution of properly scaled rewards is a big step in the right direction. However, more than the map size needs to be considered. A map's size is not always reflective of travel distances and city count. It would be better if the # of turns executed in the game increased the multiplier up to the maximum, so for a 150x150 game: 5 turns would be 1/10x multiplier, 10 turns would be 2/10x multiplier, etc.
Obviously it needs testing, number crunching, and tweaking. The example is the barest of concept outlines.

I would prefer if we could set some simple guidelines for what is required of a map for ladder play, and exclude maps that don't reflect the best of Warbarons from the ladder pool. People can play all they please on completely linear, grab-this-city-first-and-win games that include about as much strategy as a game of tic-tac-toe, but they shouldn't get any ladder points for it. (If you don't know, tic-tac-toe is a basic game which comes to a draw unless one or the other person is a moron.) Those games are for fun, not rank or prestige. That is why I suggested that we, the players, aggressively increase the map pool so that there are more options about what to approve or exclude for ladder play.

My earlier statement about 50x50 maps may seem arbitrary, but KGB has been more specific in pointing out the crux of the problem: The game's structure lends itself to balancing toward a singular ideal, either large or small maps. The only alternate solution I see is two or more standard unit sets, "Large Map, Small Map" which could be equivalent to splitting the game in half.

Finally, don't get all bent out of shape over the exclusion of certain maps or map types from ladder play. It's either that, or make the reward for cheap victories ineffectual, as KGB has suggested. Players should never climb to the top by grinding in a strategy game. Two completely opposite arguments have been proposed: that they do it because they enjoy it, or that they deserve it because they give up their fun to accomplish it. Both are completely irrelevant. The ladder is intended as a ranking of community activity and gameplay aptitude. Grinding out "Victories" with a linear formula, generally by anonymously posting the same map repeatedly to draw quick victories out of newbies, effectually demonstrates neither.

[Igor]

Tactic on a small map is not the same from one game to another. This much depend on the start units and gold. 2 giants, orc and 1000 gold suppose other tactic than archon, 2 scouts and 200 gold.
But I count true that result on a small map more depend on dice than result on big map. And both are interesting to play, small and big.

[Argammon]

Very well said Igor!