1vs1 ladder

[LPhillips]

There is a pretty good system in place now. The points are modified based on the following:

1) Ranking of the opponents
2) Average time required to complete a map

It seems to yield good results. Though if you're sharp, you can abuse the system, as a certain player recently did. He ran 8 games against top players on a map that is broken for 1v1 (Hadesha, where spawns determine the winner). He won 4, lost 4, and rose to the top 15.

[piranha]

You can match team normal and team ladder games too. You can set min and max time per turn since that can be quite important. I'll probably make it so that you won't be matched against your team members. The more prefrences you can set, the harder it will be to find a match so I'll have to think before adding preferences. There will be map pools and for the moment I think for ladder games you should not be able to set map preferences. The best player is after all the one who can play a variety of maps and still win many of them. Not just specialize in one type of maps.

[Versace]

There is a pretty good system in place now. The points are modified based on the following:

1) Ranking of the opponents
2) Average time required to complete a map

It seems to yield good results. Though if you're sharp, you can abuse the system, as a certain player recently did. He ran 8 games against top players on a map that is broken for 1v1 (Hadesha, where spawns determine the winner). He won 4, lost 4, and rose to the top 15.

You are referring to me. You are being ridiculous with this. I had 0 games going as I had been offline. I like the Hadesha map and wanted action so I started multiple games. And I didn't even go around asking top players either, I played with whomever joined the game. I did not even know how the ladder system works.

And as for Hadesha map, the spawn determines winner only when one gets the worst and the other one of the best spawns. This is similar in all big maps when playing 1vs1 I believe.

So, easy with accusations and give some benefit of the doubt, ok?

ps. I only lost one of those by the way

[Maze]

Just wanted to add my thought to the ladder points system: if the time spent to finish a game is a criterion to determine the points, this cannot be measured by linearly counting the number of turns only. A map that is finished in 6-10 turns (lonely isle) requires 3-5 minutes per turn while a map that takes 35-50 turns to complete, will take 4-6 minutes in the beginning to up to 30 minutes at the end (maybe exaggerating a bit). A 6-10 turns map is played as follows:
- only one, maybe two strategies to choose from, depending on starting money and units
- small number of cities
- fast attack
- small number of units
A 35-50 map is played as follows:
- tons of tactics, even not static but dynamic in time depending on situation
- diplomacy (in case of FFA)
- bigger number of cities
- longer distances
- larger number of cities
- usually more routine or other involved, like blessing units if temples are close to the cities, vectoring, re-grouping/stacking units, scouting...
- reading and analyzing the history and stats

Instead of number of turns only I would suggest to base the ladder points on the number of units + the number of cities, owned by the winner, at every moment of the game (= average per turn) and for all the times the maps is played (= average of all the games or the last "x" games on that map).

[LPhillips]

ps. I only lost one of those by the way

Well played, then. I'll certainly acknowledge that you can climb the ladder normally when you choose. That's not really the point.

I didn't use your name because I didn't mean it as a wholesale accusation, and certainly not to bring up a public dispute. I was thinking that you probably did it by accident. However, gaining 66 points in a game (which I believe, in the comments, you noted was due to spawn positioning) does illustrate a flaw in the system. That player is talented in my estimation and didn't deserve a 33-point hit simply because of your ladder position. Maybe some of my assumptions about your overall record are wrong, but the point stands. It is no less than an abuse to jump to the top ranks of the ladder mid-season with 1 or 2 games, at least one of which you publicly admitted was impossibly skewed in your favor at spawn.

You may very well be a better player than I am. I certainly have respect for your abilities and your longstanding presence in the community. This wasn't a vendetta on my part, just an attempt to illustrate a very real potential for abuse in the system.

[Versace]

Yea, you are right in your point

[smursh]

It may be that some FFA maps like Hadesha are not suitable for 1 vs 1. Probably they could be official only for FFA ladder.

As for stacking the system by playing top players, if you aren't that good you won'r win many of those games and wouldn't get a big rise in ladder points. As for top players losing more points by being beaten by a low ranking player, you can't be the champ unless you win those games. In the previous situation the seven players who lost(such as myself) deserve to go down in rankings compared to the one player who beat Versace.

If top players don't lose extra points when beating low ranked players it will encourage them to play against poor players to run up their ladder points. Some players will use disguise names when offering games, why do that unless you hope to ambush an unskilled opponent who doesn't expect to be playing a top player. Top players who like to play unskilled opponents should be penalised for that when the opponent turns out to be more skilled than they expected.

[LPhillips]

Smursh,

The problem is indeed with the maps. They need to be vetted better if we want a balanced ladder. I'm afraid that would require some sort of participation by qualified players, since it's a bit of a high workload to dump on Snotling/Piranha. Otherwise, someone can be totally screwed and lose 33 points without any chance at victory, even were they granted the brain of Steven Hawking, +5 to every unit, and no fog of war.

Hadesha is an auto-win in the right spawns. It's not even a game. Imagine starting in the middle of nowhere with the ability to conquer 3 cities in your first 5 turns. Now imagine your opponent starts at any of the 5 spots that aren't that way, significantly the 3 in the middle where he can have 15+ cities in 5 turns.

That's the sort of thing this system really punishes. I like the current system, but with the maps the way they are, it is ripe for abuse.

[smursh]

I agree. There is an option to vote on if a map should be official or not, but you have two problems.
1- It seems very few people place votes on the maps. If people don't vote how can Snoting/Pirahna know what people think.
2- The vote is all or nothing. I think some maps like Hadesha are good for FFA because you balance stronger starts against being surrounded by more enemy starts. In a 1 vs one if you get a corner start against a middle start you will most likely lose. A map like that is good for FFA, but not 1 vs. 1.

[LPhillips]

Smursh, the only solution I can see to the problem is a dedicated review group. There is already a dedicated forum, but even that isn't used much. Sometimes people need an incentive (like a little inconsequential power, perhaps) to participate. The vetting of maps could make or break the community experience, but it doesn't take any practical control over the project away from the developers. They could also "hire and fire" based on those willing to conform to their vision, or even maintain full oversight and simply seek advice from the group. That's basically what happens now in the forum.

The third problem, which was perhaps outside the scope of what you were addressing, is the small number of maps. This is partially affected by the updates to the game. Some enjoyable maps have not made the jump (or jumps), and unless some special effort is made, they probably never will. Piranha and Snotling have made a pretty good decision to push maps through into approval for ladder etc. in order to give the community something to play on. It's fine and well to insist on balance in your maps, but there isn't an existing base of balanced maps to keep in play while others are slowly introduced.

My thought is that a review group could give specific directions to a mapmaker about what would be needed for a map to gain approval. This is particularly important in the case of spawns. In any case, the small number of maps available prevents anyone from being picky about what we want in our maps. The real burden is on us, the community, to be more prolific.