Ladders

1v1, 2v2, 5v5, 10v10, 20v20.

Double it up.

May be the number of player if not the only point. For example, 1 vs 1, OK but on a same starting planet or on different starting planets ? How many planets and moons ? This really change the gameplay and strategy... (more than just different biomes)

"Small" ladders can be more on same start planet with smal system (one planets with some moons) and team ladders with multiple starts planets in bigger solar system.

To mark the differentiation from other RTS games, some original ladders can be added.
Example:
1 vs 1 Conquest ladder
One planet with two moons with opposite orbits that will crash together. Each player start on a moon. To survive you will have to leave conquest the planet first (and before moons crash) !
(it can be extended to one moon per player)

Very few of you seem to realise without a massive playerbase no-one will be playing all of these 3v3 4v4 5v5 ladders and it will take 10-60 minutes waiting to get a ranked game.

Somebody pull the plug on the SC2 servers and then we'll be cooking!

The Starcraft and TA communities exist relatively independently of each other, so it wouldn't even matter
It is somewhat strange, though, I enjoy both types of RTS.

Yeah, people seem to be forgetting that. Start with 1v1 and 2v2 then add more after its working and the player base expands.

All of them I suppose. I presume there are people who want a 'permanent record' method and others one that just exists for a certain group of matches or with certain people.

I would love there to be achievements like for a 39 v 1 etcetera. I want to play such a game because it would be funny at least. XD

I do think there should be seasons like brianpurkiss suggested. *Highly recommend this approach*

I don't think 'clan rankings' is a good idea at all since some are more exclusive than others and I certainly don't want to start turning people away 'because they aren't good enough'. Certainly not. I want people to have the time to learn. Like I haven't been playing that much recently and that shows (Uber you are forcing me to upgrade )so obviously the option for unranked games is a must also because people need to relearn if they have been away a while.

Unrelated; Anywayz keep up the good work. I like the 'curves by the way.' Very impressed by the innovation.

Is that a request? *fires up pentesting software*

Haha ha! Love it.

I have a better option than 'clan ranking' based on game wins. I think clans or factions or whatever should be ranked more on 'achievements' . I for one as I've said would love to take on a ridiculously handicapped game when this is ready.

It makes the whole thing more enjoyable and not, strictly speaking, all about winning.

I think it would be funny to add achievements like;
°Killing a commander with skitters (x number of times)
°Wiping out all the planet's in the solar system

....

The problem of having clan rankings based on wins is it would cause favouritism (for one group) and prevent people who are not of a high skill level getting accepted into any such group. I don't want this as it would be unfair for those players who are intermediate or newbish.

1v1 is a must
also 2v2 with arranged and random teams (best thing would be though, if players still would be listed independently in the ladder, I find it always hard to play with the same teammate all the time and I dont like if its like
#1 Kryo and Cola_Colin
#2 Kryo and some other guy
#3 Kryo and a 3rd guy
#4 Kryo and neutrino
#5 Kryo and AI



3v3 may be optional but everything above that should be in galactic war only
maybe a 3- to 6 FFA ladder would be cool also.

I dont know why you suggest this? Every team should have its own rating and there should be random team rating. Everything else would be stupid and imbalanced and would lead to not being able to play with friends because it destroys your ladder rank etc...

I'm not a clanner, but 20v20 matches between clans would be awesome to watch.

hmm also true... maybe one should be able to look at the 2v2 ladder with both systems xD

The planets do not follow the regular math of a sphere, it is multiple square maps fitted to a cube shape and rounded via subdivision.
It is very do-able, but not ladder worthy from the perspective of tourney players that require a symmetrical fair map where each player has an equal chance against eachother. I myself dont care too much about fair symmetry maps and they bother me to look at. But consider the fact that having 10 players getting an even slice of the map while still making it interesting for land, sea, air. Where does the ocean go? can all the players fight eachother on that same ocean on a round map? Would there just be a few spotty lakes evenly layered around the map? At the moment an islands map does not work at all for land units until proper air transportation comes in, this is a feature incomplete issue and can be ignored, however. I can imagine some interesting fair designs but they wouldnt be entirely symmetrical. I think just good maps is the key. I have played on some nice balanced maps, where the ocean is all interconnected as 1 peice but also still mostly land mass. My other reason for not wanting more players in that kind of symmetry, is that ladder games and high player count dont mix to well, also neutrino requested that we keep it small and to be honest I still pushed it a bit. Waiting for matchups would be abysmal. This is not currently a multi-million player base...yet...

I really want huge battles, but these are the kinds of things that can be arranged privately, or as a public sign-up. Not a ladder system of matched battles. Neutrino was saying Galactic would serve well for interclan battles and I couldnt agree more. There will be plenty of private boards with their own rules, I dont think it is ubers' responsibility to create infrastructure for the scoring of these games as much as it is their responsibility to at least provide us the ability to set it up ourselves.

if I knew how to program, I would help,unfortunately I don't know yet

That's exactly what I said, we don't disagree on this.

I didn't try to imply that anyone will be overriding anything during tournaments.
Sure, the winner is the player who played the best in a limited amount of games, but if you don't give both players the opportunity to perform better, then it's not fair.
So what I proposed is that we let the players see the map, the metal spots, and their individual spawn points. At which point, each player can estimate the chances of their opponent spawning in a better location and in that case veto the map.

I don't think we need to ask Uber to make "ladders follow tournaments". I think it will happen on its own.
If the ladder maps are bad in terms of balance, then the competitive scene will come up with their own solution. At which point the ladders will conform to that solution. (keep in mind, when I'm talking about this, and say "ladders" I mean the 1v1, maybe 2v2.)
I say this because those people that see this game as "fun" aren't going to be interested in playing 1v1. (Yeah, there might be a few, but this game isn't being made for them)
You can have much more "fun" playing team games, or AI games if you want to play sim city in 1v1.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the competition, and fun is a just a side effect of competition, winning, and improving. Visual effects will entertain you(me) only for so long.

Instead of 3v3, 4v4, 5v5 what about a 'big team' ladder which you can queue into with a large number of players. For example, your party of 6 players queues into ladder, you will be matched up against 6 opponents. If you queue with 3 players you may match up against 3 opponents or you may match together with other players against more opponents, depending on what the system needs to make a match. i.e. you could queue into Big Team Ladder as 1 player and end up in an 5v5 game.

apparently their own because elo can't be applied and trueskill is proprietary

use your brain, this can only result in regret. Elo is outdated and has been worked to the bone, forced by extreme means into a box it can no longer fit into since far too long. elo can not be applied to the million-unit game with 40 players.

ELO actually works out not too badly for 1v1.
Trueskill might be proprietary, but I doubt that it would be a problem if some developer from Uber reads the specs or Trueskill, Elo and Glicko and afterwards develops a rating system that's inspired by them and will be called UberSkill instead.