Ladder Council

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Dreadnough
Posts: 55
Joined: March 7th, 2010, 1:01 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Dreadnough » June 3rd, 2017, 8:59 am

I am curious.
So did the votes happen in the meantime? What was the outcome?

User avatar
Krogen
Posts: 151
Joined: January 1st, 2013, 3:43 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Krogen » June 3rd, 2017, 11:59 am

Yes, there is an outcome a while ago, there are new packs.
Update your Sandbox Map Picker to see them. (There are Competitive, Adventurous, Adv+Com, Bonobo's and Museum packs.)
"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of the sheep." - Tywin Lannister

Dreadnough
Posts: 55
Joined: March 7th, 2010, 1:01 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Dreadnough » June 4th, 2017, 10:57 am

Is there any chance that the average values for each map will be posted?
I am very curious.

User avatar
Krogen
Posts: 151
Joined: January 1st, 2013, 3:43 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Krogen » June 4th, 2017, 4:23 pm

Yes, there is. :) I just talked with Horus, he said he'll make it public.
"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of the sheep." - Tywin Lannister

User avatar
Horus2
Posts: 407
Joined: September 26th, 2010, 1:05 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Horus2 » June 5th, 2017, 3:32 pm

A few weeks ago i released the new sandbox map picker. Maps have been rearranged according to the vote of the five revered council members.

The rules were very similar to the previous public voting which happened in March, but only the balancedness of the map has been judged, no other factors played a role.
If the average of the votes reached 8, and at least 4 numerical votes were given, the has been placed into the Competitive Mappack.
If the average of the votes reached 6, at least 3 players supported it (with a vote of 6 or higher, or calling it ADV), and it has an active maintainer, the map went into the Adventurous mappack for further tests.
The votes were given by: Horus2, Krogen, Oook, Computer_player, Ammazzalepri.

The results can be disputed by anyone, preferably in this thread. If you are unhappy about a certain map ending at a certain pack, you can see who is responsible for it, and if you can change their minds with solid arguments, then you can have impact on the mappacks too.

The maps, starting with the most popular are:
SMP map rating 2017 May.PNG

User avatar
Horus2
Posts: 407
Joined: September 26th, 2010, 1:05 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Horus2 » November 6th, 2017, 6:08 pm

Goodnight ladies and gentlemen for tonight's talk show on the forum! I was on a long wesbreak, similarly to almost all the council members, but we are ready to run this business again. Mostly because Druid tempted the community back with a piece of wood, but that is not our focus now.

The current lineup of core members are me, Krogen, Mint (if he considers himself returned), Oook (similarly) and Computer_player (i think he was a sub even in the previous lineup, but his role of being a sub was more defined than others'). In the absence of any of them, Ammazzalepri can make a return, and then, there is an ElderofZion around.

Our latest changes in the mappacks recieved mixed results (i think this was expectable). First and foremost i would like to invite you to discuss two maps and their results in the voting: Maxplank and Caves of the Basilisk, but aside that, anything that comes to your mind from the role of a mappack to old drake glider graphics. Outsiders are welcome too if they have something to add!

Maxplank was a half-serious map made by me with the intention to fill the gap of not having an aesthetic wooden floor themed map. Some say i failed to meet even that goal. Not long ago another player swore an oath to not play the adventurous pack again if this is what we call certified adventurous (can't give a link because it looks like replay server stopped on 5th november).
Caves of the Basilisk, because people started to play picked cotb for ladder in a concentration visible to naked eye. Is this a counter-movement against our will, nostalgia ride or something else?

Let the talks begin!

User avatar
Krogen
Posts: 151
Joined: January 1st, 2013, 3:43 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Krogen » November 6th, 2017, 6:39 pm

Caves of the Basilisk should obviously be in the Competitive pack. Also, i noticed that it's not even in the Adventorous right now. That's just odd. If a map doesn't make it to the Comp, but it's not considered garbage by the council, it should automatically move to the Adv. But in the case of CotB, it should be in Comp, admit it, we were wrong. Even if its not perfect, if the ppl want to play it, who we are to deny it?
About Maxplank: There should be probably another pack, called Sandbox Test Pack or something like that, where the untested maps are. As soon as they are ready, they can move to Adv. If the creator gives up on them, they go to the Museum. Ofc, you can ask, who would play the Test Pack? Well, the council should do that. (First regard about members should be: how often can they play these test games?) That's why i also think that next to the five members, we should recruit testers. There are a lot of untested maps with potential.
There is also a new version of Karphiol Valley i just made, which hopefully solves the p1 advantage problem.
"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of the sheep." - Tywin Lannister

User avatar
Horus2
Posts: 407
Joined: September 26th, 2010, 1:05 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Horus2 » November 6th, 2017, 7:11 pm

Krogen wrote:Caves of the Basilisk should obviously be in the Competitive pack. Also, i noticed that it's not even in the Adventorous right now. That's just odd. If a map doesn't make it to the Comp, but it's not considered garbage by the council, it should automatically move to the Adv. But in the case of CotB, it should be in Comp, admit it, we were wrong. Even if its not perfect, if the ppl want to play it, who we are to deny it?
About Maxplank: There should be probably another pack, called Sandbox Test Pack or something like that, where the untested maps are. As soon as they are ready, they can move to Adv. If the creator gives up on them, they go to the Museum. Ofc, you can ask, who would play the Test Pack? Well, the council should do that. (First regard about members should be: how often can they play these test games?) That's why i also think that next to the five members, we should recruit testers. There are a lot of untested maps with potential.
There is also a new version of Karphiol Valley i just made, which hopefully solves the p1 advantage problem.
To adventurous belong the maps which are considered good enough for serious play, but they lack the evidence of the massive amount of replays and practice. COTB does not fell into that category, that is why we see here what we see. Before the voting, the requirement for becoming competitive map was 8, and COTB missed it by 0,2. If we initiate another map vote, and you express your guild by giving it one higher rating on the 1 to 10 scale, that will be sufficient to push it into Competitive (if others stick to their opinion).
Regarding a test mappack: do we need such, and if yes, for what purpose? We can have access to any map in SMP, even if they are included in none of the mappacks. In a similar fashion i will include potyi's Phenywesh soon enough.

User avatar
Krogen
Posts: 151
Joined: January 1st, 2013, 3:43 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Krogen » November 6th, 2017, 10:13 pm

Then i think the concept of Adventurous is wrong and should be changed. Every map thats not Competitive, not untested and not garbage should be there. It's just absurd that CotB is not involved in any pack currently.
Then we don't really need a Test Pack, but we need an active council thats biggest accomplishment is not voting twice in a year, and can test new maps. Activity should be the first regard when selecting members. Main part of the work should take place on the server and not here.
Maps that are untested and still changable should be removed from Adv, like Maxplank and Karphiol Valley. And when the council decides they are good enough, they can go back. But then the council has to deal with them. Skill, experience, these are all important traits for a council member... but without activity they don't worth a damn. If we can't make activity our attribute, then probably the whole thing is pointless.
"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of the sheep." - Tywin Lannister

User avatar
Ammazzalepri
Posts: 41
Joined: February 13th, 2010, 8:31 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Ammazzalepri » November 7th, 2017, 9:10 am

Horus2 wrote:In the absence of any of them, Ammazzalepri can make a return,
Well I'm always a bit around, sometimes more, sometimes less^^
I totally agree with Krogen about activity. Since we are all humans with duties and other sources of pleasures besides wesnoth, we may consider to integrate in the circle of the council some other playes to develop a quite serious work of testing. The utopia should be that this page becomes a free space of discussion about balance of the entire ladder community after every match. I don't really know how to get this point but surely if we involve the most active ladder players in our activity, we may obtain a larger amount of datas for the balance calculation.
Sometimes people want to play wesnoth but are too lazy for a ladder game, so they play isar or a friendly match and so on. There is where a good practice of testing new map should enter in the habit of the larger ladder council community.

The first thing I can surely do is trying to be more active hosting some test map, for the rest I give it back to the council.

HAH CotB must be in the competitive pack! We already eliminated some old classics like den of onis and hamlets, do not force too much the revolution we all need some traditional values :mrgreen:

Kipples
Posts: 13
Joined: February 21st, 2013, 4:57 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Kipples » November 7th, 2017, 5:06 pm

my biggest issue with discussing map balance is that all I have right now are numbers there is no meaning behind them other than this map is relatively more balanced than this other map according to this person. why do maps have the numbers they have.

I was the person who said they would no longer play adventurous cause of maxplank but maybe I am wrong and the map is not that bad. I think the map is bad cause a p1 orc rush is really strong and I see no reasonable way to defend the villages on the south side and giving them up is no good due to the ease of which p1 can defend that area. a counterpush doesnt work as you spawn too far from the north keep as p2.

User avatar
Horus2
Posts: 407
Joined: September 26th, 2010, 1:05 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Horus2 » November 8th, 2017, 4:50 pm

Kipples wrote:my biggest issue with discussing map balance is that all I have right now are numbers there is no meaning behind them other than this map is relatively more balanced than this other map according to this person. why do maps have the numbers they have.

I was the person who said they would no longer play adventurous cause of maxplank but maybe I am wrong and the map is not that bad. I think the map is bad cause a p1 orc rush is really strong and I see no reasonable way to defend the villages on the south side and giving them up is no good due to the ease of which p1 can defend that area. a counterpush doesnt work as you spawn too far from the north keep as p2.
Saw your game vs MasterBao tonight, where the p1 drake destroyed a p2 undead. According to my experience, with factions reversed, this is just as one-directional, if not more. So i agree that p1 advantage is a major deal.
Kipples wrote:my biggest issue with discussing map balance is that all I have right now are numbers there is no meaning behind them other than this map is relatively more balanced than this other map according to this person. why do maps have the numbers they have.
Council map vote was not public, but the members had to add remarks to the map to illustrate their point, and for ratings of 8 and below were obliged to describe its flaws.
If anyone finds a certain rating outrageous, i can publish the remark added to it. Also, opinions can be challenged, and not even council members are infallible. If someone makes a good point, he can change the outcome of the next vote. If i and the other members are particularly impressed, we can elect him as a new member for the next voting session. So chatting here is not exactly without stakes.
Ammazzalepri wrote:The first thing I can surely do is trying to be more active hosting some test map, for the rest I give it back to the council.

HAH CotB must be in the competitive pack! We already eliminated some old classics like den of onis and hamlets, do not force too much the revolution we all need some traditional values :mrgreen:
Welcome aboard again! Maptests were always our main focus, and in the past months even that side was neglected. I hope you can help us reigniting this.

Once we decided who will be our voters for our next session, you will be able to help the case of COTB. I agree that current Competitive pack barely contains any of the old classics, and out of those which were left out, COTB is still the best (and the score indicator agrees with me). For me, transition from a ladder pack without Hamlets and Den Of Onis was more gradient, because i mostly stuck to Bonobo-pack, and that eliminated these maps more than a year ago. For others, yes it might have been too steep.
Krogen wrote:Then i think the concept of Adventurous is wrong and should be changed. Every map thats not Competitive, not untested and not garbage should be there. It's just absurd that CotB is not involved in any pack currently.
Then we don't really need a Test Pack, but we need an active council thats biggest accomplishment is not voting twice in a year, and can test new maps. Activity should be the first regard when selecting members. Main part of the work should take place on the server and not here.
Maps that are untested and still changable should be removed from Adv, like Maxplank and Karphiol Valley. And when the council decides they are good enough, they can go back.
What should be the concept of the second mappack then, and what should be the bar for it?
Or do you think the quality bar in the previous voting (with the 8 for average) was too high?
Or would you call your previous rating for COTB an err, and this time you would give it a higher score?
Krogen wrote:But then the council has to deal with them. Skill, experience, these are all important traits for a council member... but without activity they don't worth a damn. If we can't make activity our attribute, then probably the whole thing is pointless.
Looks like activity is starting to get a higher priority that being a legendary good player. I am not saying it is an unwelcome change.

Kipples
Posts: 13
Joined: February 21st, 2013, 4:57 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Kipples » November 8th, 2017, 6:21 pm

Horus2 wrote:Council map vote was not public, but the members had to add remarks to the map to illustrate their point, and for ratings of 8 and below were obliged to describe its flaws.
ok thats nice to hear that there was justification given for the scores, but why is it secret? not trying to judge I just don't see a reason to keep this non public. I get that maybe the comments were pretty informal and making them public might be more work, but it would be nice to see regardless of quality of the comments.

as an example I would cosider pyrennis a decent map but computer_player clearly doesn't think so would be nice to see why, it would speed up discussion rather than me sifting through numbers and calling out people.

User avatar
Oook
Posts: 70
Joined: March 23rd, 2009, 5:51 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Oook » November 8th, 2017, 11:19 pm

Horus2 wrote:What should be the concept of the second mappack then, and what should be the bar for it?
Or do you think the quality bar in the previous voting (with the 8 for average) was too high?
Or would you call your previous rating for COTB an err, and this time you would give it a higher score?
I think either the bar was set too high, or we need to include the 6-8's either by relaxing the 'maintained' criterion, or by having a second tier of maps below Competitive, but still part of the pack.

6 was defined as the minimum standard to be worthwhile for Ladder games. I think I didn't read the small print on the 6-8's closely enough at the time - I had been under the impression they would be included. As it stands, there are several maps that miss the cut, despite a majority of votes being 8+, and / or there being no votes below 6. Was this really the intended effect of this vote + average system? I can certainly understand people being unhappy with the selection on offer. Given the number of maps cut that I'll miss playing on, I don't think I'll be using it as a picker in the current form.

As for not playing Adv due to certain maps, just agree with your opponent before starting what ones you refuse to play. Most people are pretty reasonable, and if not, just play someone else ;)

Kipples
Posts: 13
Joined: February 21st, 2013, 4:57 pm

Re: Ladder Council

Post by Kipples » November 9th, 2017, 12:59 pm

Oook wrote: As for not playing Adv due to certain maps, just agree with your opponent before starting what ones you refuse to play. Most people are pretty reasonable, and if not, just play someone else ;)
that doesn't help if you haven't played the maps a ton to know which ones are ok or not thats what adventurous is to me, maps that haven't seen a lot of play but are considered ok enough to play on. I am relying on other players who have more experience with these maps to do some vetting for me. However if maxplank, a map you lose on the p1/p2 coin flip, is considered adventurous then what does that say about the standard of the other maps in the pack.

Post Reply