Knyte I think we said the same thing. round 1 = AB, round 2 = BA, etc...
Anyway, I think that solves that.
more info: http://www.warlight.net/wiki/Move_Order#No-Luck_Cycle_Move_Order

But if the alghoritm is giving priority to picks that are not the same number, how is it no luck exactly? It's basically cleaning up the order that you picked and just randomly giving you priority when you don't need it and taking it away when you should be getting it!

no luck = no random numbers (e.g., coin flips). Presumably someone could anticipate your picks and break up your powerful 1,2 combo while ensuring they get their 1,3 picks. Not a bad reason to take your time in a no-luck cyclic, except you have to be sure what they're going to do!

Edited 7/22/2015 19:48:15

@Wick: Re-read your comment and looks like I was wrong. The way you went through it confused me- my bad.

@Peixoto: No-luck just means that the first pick is given based on your actions (the speed of your picking) and no by luck (as it is under regular cyclic). As for why your opponent's 3rd pick and displace your 2nd, it's because that's how the system has to handle it when you've already displaced their 1st pick. Otherwise, they're stuck with their 4th pick which likely puts them at even more of a disadvantage.

It makes no sense to lose your 1-2 to a 1-3, if you picked faster, and gave it priority you should be getting it 100% of the time!!

^ Uh, so if you and your opponent both made the same 6 picks, you should be getting 1/2/3 and they should be getting 4/5/6? That would make for a horrible game because it vastly increases the number of possible combos players have to anticipate.

I mean, here's how things would've gone in this situation:

A: 1
B: 1
B: 4 (because 3 conflicts with your 2)
A: 2
A: 3, 4, or 5
B: 5 or 6

It would basically be handing you 1/2/3 (most likely) for picking first, which would really imbalance things.

First pick advantage already imbalances the game enough.

Edited 7/22/2015 20:00:30

If you both have the same number on the pick, whoever picked it faster gets the initial priority and then it would alternate.
What I'm trying to say is, it makes no sense to completely ignore the order in which the territories were picked just because some guy's later pick matches one of your early ones.

The order isn't completely ignored.

But what exactly would your alternative look like? Just modifying the system so that players can't end up with a territory someone else picked higher (so adding a constraint)? Or going pick-by-pick (so 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) and flipping priorities?

Both of those alternatives would significantly expand the # of possible combinations that players have to account for (right now it's only 11 for a 6-pick game, iirc) as well as first-pick advantage (2nd pick has 3 unique scenarios to account for in a 6-pick game; 1st pick only has 1, iirc).

Edited 7/22/2015 20:07:19

"It makes no sense to lose your 1-2 to a 1-3, if you picked faster, and gave it priority you should be getting it 100% of the time!!"

What?

You can't lose your 1 AND 2. If you both have the same 1, whoever gets first pick gets it. Let's assume these picks (I think this is your scenario)...

Player A picks: Territory X, Territory Y...

Player B picks: Territory X, Territory Z, Territory Y...

Player A gets first pick, gets X. Player B now gets 2 spots (snake method) and gets Y and Z (their highest two rated not already picked).

You might say not fair! He had Y rated lower than you did. So what? It was the highest rated spot he had when his pick turn came up.

I guess you have never played fantasy sports (auto draft). You pre-rate the players and when your turn comes up, it takes the best player you have rated. It does not matter the actual ranking you gave them, just that it is the highest not taken.

Yeah, in your alternate method it would create a wildly different pick strategy that would be VERY complicated.

@Peixoto, in all 1v1 games (regardless of whether it is random, cyclic, or no-luck cyclic) the order that territories are assigned is ABBAABBA, etc.

All no-luck cyclic order does is ensure that the quickest person to commit gets the A slot, and the next quickest gets the B slot.

@Chris We're not talking about same 1. Not sure why you guys keep bringing up that scenario.

@Knyte
About the alternate, I mean let's say both players have same 1,2,3,4,5,6
Fastest player gets 1,3,5
Slowest player get 2,4,6

Otherwise what's the point in giving priority to a territory in your picks, if the guy who doesn't has the same chances of getting it than you?

^ They don't have the same chances. First pick has a clear advantage because second has to worry about significantly more possibilities (later turn-rounds = more possible combinations).

The issue with your proposed solution is that it' going to exaggerate first pick advantage even more by giving the 2nd player even less predictability (and the first player more) in their scenarios and also just consistently/unconditionally give first player the advantage.

But let's formalize it a system first. Given an arbitrary but equal number N of picks made by each player, how would you go about allocating them algorithmically? Let's just run that and see how it works.

Well, I guess that answers it, thanks Beren.

I tried to google, but failed to find picking for team games. Lets take for example of 3v3 game with 3-territories. Team A: players A,B,C and team B: players Z,X,W.

Does it goes like that:
- Fastest player A
- Opposite team Fastest player Z
- Opposite team second player X
- First team B
- Opposite team W
- First team C

And how it goes with territories?
1.- 1-territory A (TEAM A)
2.- 2-T Z (TEAM B)
3.- 2-T X (TEAM B)
4.- 2-T B (TEAM A)
5.- 2-T W (TEAM B)
6.- 2-T C (TEAM A)
First Pick-cycle over
1.- 2-T
2.- 1-T and to last one

Or have I understood something wrong thus far? And if there would be 4-players in team or 5 would it still go like that first gets Team A, then two from opposite and will alternate by one when everyone has had their first cycle. And about territories fastest player gets 1-territory and other 2 till they alternate to final?

Hope its clear enough to understand me. Basically how the exact order goes after the fastest player and how the amounts of territories are distributed.

Edited 7/22/2015 21:07:18

I think it works just like it does in FFAs, where the pick order is random. I'm looking at a no-luck cyclic game I'm in (where everyone knows what order they're in) and it doesn't seem to alternate between teams.

Never played no luck cycle in team games (why would you want to do that unless you had to...in coin game?).

But it should still be this for the 6 players:

A1, B1, B2, A2, A3, B3

Not sure who gets what slot from the team after the first pick though.

Based on what the Wiki says about Random (which I think is still the de-facto move order on first stage, except the randomization is replaced by initial move time for the first turn in no-luck cyclic), it sounds like the system calculates within teams first (so 1-2-3 in A and B will be calculated normally, like in an FFA) and then goes A-B-B-A-A-B/etc. on top of that. So it wouldn't matter whether A2 is faster than B1 or B2.

Peixoto pls link the game where you dont understand why you got what you got

To sum up players will alternate getting their picks in order of: A1, B1, B2, A2, A3, B,3...B4, A4 etc taking 2 at row? Then in-team time calculations seems logical.
Now about picks they get: A1 - 1 pick, B1 - 1 or 2 picks? And what about the rest. Are they getting 2 picks like it would be in 1v1 Cycle. First gets 1 pick and the rest gets 2 picks? Or in team everyone gets 1 pick so it wont be too unfair for the last player?

Well I would always prefer team games to be cyclic over random. Random is great as well, just not suited for every template. For me it does not matter wheter it is No-luck or regular cyclic - but many players who I have played tend to see No-Luck cyclic better. Although just Cyclic would seems to be more equal to me at least in smaller maps as picks tend to overlay.

Why it is important. Because imagine if you would be in 4v4 4th player in team who gets first pick. So basically before you are 7 players. Lets say it is Rome map with 3 territories and before you people get 13 territories if it is one territory for 1th and two for others? If all gets one then its just 7. But I think it is still quite a high number to consider the speed and territories. But on same time I admit its rather too much overthinking to estimate where the opposite 4 and your team goes and where you should go regarding the speed you get. But I think it would be good to know: especially in 2v2 I would start putting emphasize there more.