Implement the Wesnoth Ladder

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
sylph
Posts: 23
Joined: October 4th, 2013, 11:37 am

Re: Implement the Wesnoth Ladder

Post by sylph »

Personally, I do not like 2 player games. I am very slow. I feel rushed playing a 3 playing game. I want to relax while I play Wesnoth. I would prefer a game with more players and/or less units or I can observe.

What typically happens is that there is a good ladder game. People watch it and organize new ladder games while they are watching. If Wesnoth would have larger games were there no ladder, I would appreciate that. Seeing as how most people play much faster than me, I assumed that most players did not have my problem and preferred the existence of a ladder.
Bast wrote:Before the ladder, in the old days, it was necessary to speak with others to find good games. Random opponents don't allow it.
It was automatic for the players to join & obs games where they had friends or with the experienced players. At least that's what i did, and that's how i've begun to know friendly & good players.
When i was obs a game, i can meet other observers & arrange another game, or just wait for the one i am observing to finish & take part in the game that would follow which could become a 1v1, a 2v2, a 3v3 or even a 4v4 if people had the time to play it.

After the ladder, most experienced players begun to launch a ladder game when entering wesnoth. Some of us did refused to suscribe, others did, well you know the story. With the time, we finally all suscribed to ladder, even being forced to if we wanted to had the chance to play a good game.
The ladder did bring to the game another level for the 1v1 games, but it did killed an huge amount of arranged games, which means killing most 2v2 & 3v3 good games in the lobby.
This is actually why i stopped playing wesnoth for a while: because it became impossible, or really hard, to play good games that are not ladder. But ladder is just about 1v1 and wesnoth is more than just 1v1.
Perhaps my assumption was wrong.

I have never played a good 3v3 Wesnoth game. It might be nice.

I recently had a conversation concerning Wesnoth ladder with my best friend. His responded with a bunch of stupid questions: “Is Wesnoth a turn-based strategy game?” "Is Wesnoth a new game?", "Does Wesnoth have flashy graphics?" "Is Wesnoth proprietary?" “What is the name of that new game with the flash graphics?” “I am pretty sure that (game name) has a ladder.” etc... Then, I started thinking that there may be many players who would prefer not to have a ladder.

The good thing about a ladder is it is convenient way to identify strong players. That way it is easier to organize a game with strong players. As a result, I have enjoyed watching several quality ladder games.

A bad thing about a ladder is it is convenient to identify strong players. Since it is convenient to identify strong players via looking at ladder ratings/rankings, people identify strong Wesnoth players by looking at ladder ratings/ranking. This is not a good way to identify strong Wesnoth players.

This is how I understand the competitive nature of ladder:
Many of the best Wesnoth games are occurring on the same small RBY classic maps. Regular ladder players want to play other maps besides ladder. Ladder is inherently competitive. There exists a learning curve for new maps. People don't want to lose with their competitive ladder nicks. So, then, people make other nicks to play non-ladder games. When people make other nicks to play non-ladder games, it becomes more difficult to identify strong players for non-ladder games. So, then, it is harder to find strong players for non-ladder games because the people are not playing as there popular ladder nicks.

It seems like a cycle. Suppose a bunch of unrecognizable nicks were logged on and interested in playing a larger game but none of the nicks were recognizable. If somebody with an unrecognizable nick starts a 4v4 and some unrecognizable nicks joined, I would not join because I would suspect that the game would end shortly because the game contained many players who are new to Wesnoth.

It seems that the ladder creates a competitive environment that permeates throughout Wesnoth multiplayer server. This is because people identify strong Wesnoth players by looking at ladder ratings/ranking. Because that is the method of identifying strong Wesnoth players, then in order to be identified as a strong player it would be cultural to climb the ladder. The ladder is competitive.

RBY ladder seems like the Walmart game/map variant: it makes it tougher on the mom and pop shop game/map variants.

So, as a result, the mere existence of a competitive ladder takes away from non-ladder games. I don't know the extent of the problem. However, the longer I play, the more random nicks I play with who are clearly experienced. The problem sounds pretty extensive. I do not know how Wesnoth culture was before the existence of a ladder.

I know that what I have stated here is correct to some degree. But I don't know the degree. After talking with my friend and rethinking about Bast's statements... (Bast, was the existence of ladder really a significant factor in not playing Wesnoth?) That seems pretty serious. It seems others we less vocal.

I did code a mysql ladder database from scratch. It supports draws, withdrawals and adjudicated results. It supports the concept of RD. It supports different numbers of players per game. It doesnt have countries but it has timezones. It has the concept of maps. I don't know what should be done with the maps, but since Wesnoth 1.12 is in beta the earliest that it could be available would be Wesnoth 1.14. So, it is not an urgent topic. However, if the net effect for Wesnoth ladder hinders Wesnoth experience, Wesnoth shouldn't have a ladder.
If I spoke the truth, they would put me in a straitjacket. So, I left the society.
Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 4002
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: Implement the Wesnoth Ladder

Post by Velensk »

I'll comment briefly.

I tried the Ladder when it was new and became ranked fairly high (the ranking I had doesn't look impressive now but there were much fewer points in the pool back then). I eventually stopped playing ladder games because I discovered that it made losing painful while it didn't really make winning all that much more fun. At the time the ladders existance wasn't a problem to me. However, the longer it ran and the more the good players would only play on the ladder the more annoying it got. I don't really get a chance for much compedative 1vs1 these days and I agree with anyone who says that the 2vs2 scene has dried up. 3vs3s were always rare but now I wouldn't try it unless I knew five other people who were good and already have the time. It used to be that all of the best players played 2vs2 (and most would also play 1vs1) now if you start a 2vs2 the people who join will almost inevitably be novices most of whom are expecting Isar's Cross which makes testing a map like Terra-Dwelve difficult and good players who play 2vs2 are relatively few.

I personally don't believe it's the ladders inherant fault I think it's the way the player base has subtly changed. When people like bast get warded away by the difficulty of finding the kind of game they want to play it makes it that much harder for the people who log in occasionally looking for the same type of thing. I dont' see any of the old masters around much and when I do they usually aren't interested in playing standard wesnoth. The new players who have talent join the ladder and then don't get into much anything else.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
User avatar
Ravana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2950
Joined: January 29th, 2012, 12:49 am
Location: Estonia
Contact:

Re: Implement the Wesnoth Ladder

Post by Ravana »

As long as ladder is kept away from real games and only limited for core content I dont care if it is possible or not.
abhijit
Posts: 113
Joined: October 4th, 2011, 1:27 am
Contact:

Re: Implement the Wesnoth Ladder

Post by abhijit »

sylph wrote: if the net effect for Wesnoth ladder hinders Wesnoth experience, Wesnoth shouldn't have a ladder.
I disagree with you here. This is how you 'personally' feel about the ladder, for many people, presence of the ladder has been and continues to be an enriching experience.
sylph wrote:Many of the best Wesnoth games are occurring on the same small RBY classic maps...
Again, No. A good amount of players, myself included, play the more adventurous and conservative pack, that has enough maps to learn, and enjoy. RBY Classic Pack, doesn't always present the 'best' games, because of the familiarity with them, players tend to follow a pattern, however, I have always found the better and more thoughtful games( strategy-wise) occuring on the adv + cons. map pack.

New players not getting into 2v2 games, is imho, much more of a timing issue, than anything else. I can barely give more than two hours ( that too not everyday ) for wesnoth gaming, and ladder games which are usually short, fit the criteria, quite nicely. 2v2's on the other hand, demand more time, and hence to finish one means it will take days for a player like me, unless, i start one on a weekend.

@ Velensk: If you come on the server, on weekends, and find me worthy, we can definitely play some non-ladder 1v1 or 2v2 games. Same goes for you, sylph. But on a weekday, 1v1 is the thing for me and I do play with my 'original' nick.
Winner of The Alternate Frontier
Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 4002
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: Implement the Wesnoth Ladder

Post by Velensk »

@ abhijit: I'm actually not all that picky about my opponents. I'll play the best, and I'll also play greenies. It's just annoying when I am testing, particularly for 2vs2. If you see me on the server I'm pretty much always free for a game and I like both 2vs2 and 1vs1.

One thing I find curious is the perception of time commitment for 2vs2s. Obviously at high level tournament play a game takes awhile but for most people, or under common circumstance, I don't think that the average 2vs2 lasts a full two hours. Even for Ruins of Terra-Dwelve the average game I've played on it doesn't take 2 hours (though again, it's hard to get good players for 2vs2 so that can contribute).
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
Post Reply