1vs1 ladder

[LPhillips]

That's a good point. There can still be small maps that are good strategy maps.

The problem is with the maps that some players choose to post dozens of times in a row to eke out victories by employing the same tried-and-true tactic repeatedly: race to one city at a chokepoint and you've won.

That's not strategy, and it's not much of a game. Those wins should not gain the player many (or any) ladder points. I'd suggest excluding certain maps, but it might be more fair to scale the points awarded by the number of turns needed to win. That solution comes with its own drawbacks, so it's not my first choice.

Even more important is the issue of separating out newbies from the ladder.
How many players do you think have been turned off to the game after playing one of those matches, on a map with 10 cities, with a player who is basically trolling for ladder points? If that's the first game you join upon entering Warbarons, it will probably be the last one you ever play here.

[TheVic]

Yes, RESETTING the ladder stats is a problem, ranking systems becomes better over time, resetting ranking destroys this. In most system employing ranking (for example Chess, Go, Shogi) it is usually the BETTER player that don't want to meet the newbies, to everyone's advantage. If a high ranking player only get 1 point towards newbies, there would be no incentive's to play them, and I would also suggest that there should be always a "newbie game" active that players with "positive ranking" can not join.

[Igor]

Sometimes game on little map is like coin flip
Every one can lose his advantage 70/30 or 60/40, but interesting though

[Argammon]

It depends on the map. Depending on the starting units, of course, there seems to be a big first mover advantage on desert showdown. It is often possible to rush the opponent on that map.

In contrast, it is not so easy to rush someone on Ice Showdown. There, it is possible to safely expand for a few turns without the need to do risky battles...

[Igor]

I meant that any little map lets to make half or more games clear after first hero battle. Best player can provide hero stack to get percentage 75/25 for this battle. But dice can help to win this battle for other player, who had disadvantage 25/75. After this battle the game is almost clear, who win this game.

[Moonknight]

Wanted to bring this topic back up and ask the mods if they plan for anything in the next version along the lines of providing the option of a "pool" to enter into for ladder games in which you will be paired with the closest ranking player(s) in the pool during a given time?

I think it'd be a great option to have and would get me playing 1v1 more as it is not my strong point so I try to avoid the big hitters like Igor, Argammon, LP, and the Ukranians

[piranha]

I'm working on a matchmaking system for next version and it will try to match you against a evenly ranked players but since we dont have a lot of players to choose from it might pair you with someone who is higher or lower ranked. I haven't decided for how long it should wait before picking the closest players to match against. You will be able to create several matchings.

[Moonknight]

Awesome! Will it be in play for FFA (maybe only 4 player) and team ladder games (maybe only 2v2) as well? And, how will it know what map to use?

I realize the matchmaking won't always be perfect as it's up to how many people enter the pool, but I think it will add a lot to the ladder system.

[LPhillips]

Will we have options in the matchmaking? There are some maps that I simply have no interest in playing. Particularly Hammer Mountain or Stratego. They're a matter of counting steps, memorizing distances etc. That is extremely tedious to me and takes the fun out of the game. I know other players have very different opinions about that map, and may dislike the maps I enjoy. Can we have a veto system? Can there also be a minimum of 10 1v1 maps before a pool is enforced, with perhaps 2 or 3 vetos allowed per player?

I assume you must enforce use of the pool. There are a lot of players that won't play me, for example most of the Ukrainians (no one wants their stats hurt)
I am also unlikely to join games with Igor, as he has his pet maps where I don't like to play. So I think an enforced pool for the 1v1 ladder will be the only way to get people to participate. You don't see Chickenchaser, Star, and Igor going out of their way to play each other right now.

[smursh]

The only way to balance ladder points by maps would be to use the average game length on a given map to determine how many points you win. In this way a "quick" map like lonely Isle would only net the winner around 10 points(guessing that it averages only 10 turns to win), while a map like bullrun would probably average say 35 turns and would net 35 points. That way the small maps could be kept for those who enjoy them, but players who play on larger maps would not be penalised for the length of the games they play. By using the average game length of a given map you will prevent people from rigging the system by delaying wins to earn points as if it were a longer game.

Personally I prefer the larger maps, but occasionally play a small map for variety. Still players who are completing 10 small map games for every one game I finish on a large map will always rank higher if they win a reasonable % of their games.