Why is there no ladder for CNC TD like there was in the WW chat days

[BluySY]

There used to be a lot of good players

[Ferret]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[AchromicWhite]

I think it's hurt the game TBH, but I could be wrong...

Part of the issue now is that we've added LOADS of maps into the map pool, and it's arguable which ones are competitive. At least in the old WWchat days there was a short list, and any player with worth knew the maps... AND they could choose or see the slected map and not play on anything that was considered badly imbalanced.

Even the RA1's "pro" community has decided what maps are their top tier stuff, but it's worth noting that their top maps are literally mods (edited harvesters, AND ore). So those are more like StarCraft's "fastest money possible" and "Big Game Hunters", which are popular, but interestingly are laughed at by the serious competitive community of StarCraft.

I've talked about at least building some sort of system to file maps so that we could have something, but it always seems to devolve into bad blood (simply because people want things to be their way). And I get that.

 

[Assist]

To Chem,

It is not simply Democracy vs dictatorship. I personally don’t like that attitude that assumes “just because we played our game in the 90s, We have the final word.” You gotta think about more openly. You still have the mentality of ww days. This mentality of WW days almost killed TS for all new comers at one stage and still an issue. Large chunk of new players are from the new generations. They opened their eyes to the new age games. They are coming from games that are religiously balanced with ranking system that are fair and just. CNCNET is ambitious enough to advertise their games to this kind of population. My point of view is that the ranking system should not be a turn off for new comers ‘the future gamers’. 

[BluySY]

I only got one question ??? what is cheese ???? lol

[cn2mc]

There's too much ego-tripping and game-dodging even without a ladder. I don't think one would make things better or draw in more players. Tournaments seem like a better option, but then you'll definitely have to have a limited map pool, fixed resolution, etc. The main problems are:

A) we lack the player base and games count to derive any meaningful statistics on what maps are actually balanced enough to include them in a pool;

B) we lack the tools to record such statistics, unless we all write down details of how all of our games go, which borders on science fiction;

C) it's all hard to do. 

[AchromicWhite]

Even if you say that people can choose to NOT play against someone on a map... you can HIDE things on a map. So you could make a duplicate map with extra structures to capture and walls and what not.
So, no. It doesn't really solve it.

Nor does 2 people agreeing to play on a map make the map fair; it just means that at least one person might not know that a map is bias. (that makes a ladder even more unfair on new players).

[AchromicWhite]

No. You don't understand...

Say I asked to play you on Blistering Sands... you know the map, know it's pretty well balanced and accept...
But, unknown to you, I placed 2 con yards in the top right corner... it's an edited version with the same name!
So I walk 2 engies up and and BINGO I'm 4000 richer! (structures don't show on the minimap)

OR
Say you're new to the game and don't know what's fair... and I just pick a totally open map with no terrain. Poor bugger is trying to play GDI vs Nod on a massive map. I just make buggies and insta GG him.
He didn't know better. And now, because he didn't know the map, he loses his ladder points. How can a game be fair if it's only the newest of players to be involved with the design of fair maps (as they'd be picking them).

[AchromicWhite]

I've just explained, twice, that the map preview DOESN'T show everything.

And if you had con yards hidden, and took them and sold them, your opponent would never know, would they?

 

[AchromicWhite]

It doesn't show structures. It's caught me out before... and I literally just looked at it now.

I'm sorry that you don't understand that 2 people agreeing to a map doesn't make it a 'fair map', because it's completely open to human error. If we wanted to make a fair ladder, we'd want to limit human error as much as we could. That's the POINT of a ladder. To have an official register of who's 'better' than who.
If it's not a fair ladder, then it's pointless.

[cn2mc]

GDI are only somewhat disadvantaged when the map is both open and impassable for troops / impossible to expand on because of too much tiberium. Otherwise they do well, proof are GA, other stock maps and Utah 2047, which is almost completely open and has been a multiplayer staple for 20+ years. The big point is: if GDI can't expand early on they have no way to deny Nod map control until much later. This can be played around but not always, it seems.

[AchromicWhite]

I try to make my maps responsibly fair, but they're designed to maximise different strategies, more than anything else.

That's why we'd need a way to select a group of maps for ladder, or a filtering system; basically, a standard on how maps are made for competitive play. Which we tried to talk about before, until you completely derailed ALL the threads associated with such ideas and discussion.

[AchromicWhite]

I made a thread on map archetypes to start to understand different styles. You completely went out of your way to fill it with garbage. I'm note writing that up again.
You want to shit on your own carpet, you're going to learn to doesn't just wipe up.