When will you remove the luck from the strategic templates Fizzer?
Or if you decided won't remove, please communicate it here at least.

Anyway I understand that the risk management is the part of the game, but now about 20% the risk management but 80% is simple luck... And very annoying when this simple luck destroy you... When one coinflip decide a game...

Edit: and my main problem are not the failed attacks (because not very frequent when an unlucky failed attack so important) but the coinflips (first pick, first turn!), this is the big issue, because there are a lot situations when this type of coinflips can decide a game... And most of the times in this situations no way to use any risk management, because the only good solution (must) try to get the first move, and flip a coin is not risk management...

Edited 9/19/2015 05:11:20

Edited 9/19/2015 11:47:27

Why not setting up another ladder? 1 with 0wr and 1 with 0sr?

you already have the algorithm so how hard can it be to create an extra ladder?

As for me, i prefer 0 luck wr for the 1vs1 ladder. Risk calculation is definitely skill too. 2vs2 ladder template is just messed up. doesn't have much to do with the luck settings

I find that when luck is removed from a game type in which the format stays the same in each game, it tends to make every game more a contest of boring calculations than a fun strategy game. Games start being decided by who is willing to run a bunch of stuff through a calculator. One thing that I found Warlight has always been good at is making the same thing feel new. With Wastelands and random starting territory options, the map itself provides some difference in every game, but with 16% luck, it keeps the overall strategy changing from game to game, which makes every game a "fresh experience". Lets be honest, 16% luck is not going to hurt you too much in the long run. If you are a better player than your opponent, you will still win the game 90% of the time. Also, if the luck stays in, I have something to blame for my losses other than the fact that I'm bad :)

^I disagree. A lot of my recent losses with the 1v1 strategic settings have been because of bad luck, not because I played poorly (at least until luck screwed me) or because I got outplayed.

But in the long run, you have to admit that it balances itself out. Unless you believe that the luck setting specifically targets you, then you'll have won some games as well because of luck.
An interesting experiment to try: Go to your last 10 ladder games (small sample size but I don't want to spend time on it) and find the average difference in luck between you and your opponent (Statistics->Graphs->cumulative luck if anyone didn't know how to do it). I'm curious to see what people's averages are over a 10 game span.

Peixoto, I doubt most of your games are being decided by luck. I looked at your game vs Doga that you complained was decided by luck in game chat, and yet there were so many other things you could have done to win the game. If you play a flawless game and end up losing, then you can blame luck. But that game vs Doga, you had numerous chances to win the game; you just didn't take advantage of them.

I think at the very top of the ladder, luck does make a difference, while in lower levels, it makes little to no difference since players have many chances to catch up if they have some bad luck early. I think luck evens out in the long run and does not make a major difference in Strategic 1v1. My biggest problem with Strategic 1v1 is the fact that in two games between top players, it is essentially a guessing game. While not technically luck, it is still annoying and leads to games not being decided by dominant strategy. I personally am fine with the 1v1 ladder staying at 0% WR for the time being, although 0% SR is ok fine in my book.

Idk about you, but I do not play my best when I'm frustrated. I'm sure I could've played a lot better, but in the end, I lost because of luck.
EDIT: @masterpie tbh, I don't want to find out in the long run, however I have to agree with you.

Edited 9/22/2015 02:50:39

0% WR for 1v1 ladder!!!! Keep it the same!

2v2 needs 4 picks and 0%WR or 0%SR but the picks is the important part.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9472583

You didn't lose that because of luck. Let's take a look at Turn 14 (the start). You are up by 2 income and 28 armies, and he has no easy way to break any of your bonuses. Basically, this should be an easy win for you. Whether or not you had bad luck entering this point is irrelevant, because you were winning at this point. Now let's see how you lost.

Turn 14: Hitting Iran allowed Doga to break your bonus. You could have just sat and won the game that turn. I see no luck involved that turn.

Turn 15: You still have a solid shot at winning this game. You hit first order, and LUCKILY manage to take him out of Pakistan. Unfortunately for you, you gave up Scandinavia to hit so hard in Pakistan. Less would have done the job in Pakistan; it was a guessing game at this point.

Turn 16: The game should be over at this point if not for your mistake on Turn 14. Unfortunately, you did not learn from your mistake Turn 14. You make the same mistake, relying on first order, when you could have just sat there and marched towards his bonuses. Even if you got first order, he would still survive in the Middle East. So first order does not make a major impact here.

Turn 17: You unfortunately do not get first order here, which only matters because of your mistake Turn 16.

What I see is a player who had countless chances to win a game, was in a nearly certain-win position, and manages to lose the game. After a large number of errors and mistakes, he misses a 50/50 first order which puts him away. Not to mention the 50/50 first order he had gotten on Turn 15 which kept him in the game. If he had lost that, it'd be over by now. Not to mention that you could have saved your order priority card and used it Turn 17; instead you wasted it in Turn 13.

You did not lose because of luck; you lost because you made many mistakes. If you had not made those mistakes, luck doesn't matter.

Edited 9/22/2015 03:04:06

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9402901
You complain about luck here. He should have been the one complaining about luck. Can you imagine if you got first pick and got a triple that was bordered by the opponent from the very start of the game?

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9397439
almosttricky outpicks you here. First order luck could make a difference if you had picked strong, but your picks were weak. Turn 3 sucks for you. Your luck in Greenland is alright. 50/50 first order. I think you could win the game without relying on that first order, but this game was partially decided by luck.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8998651
Luck makes no difference for you here. You choose to deploy 2 meaningless armies in East US rather than use them to take Caucasus. Don't complain about luck this game.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8985394
You lose one important first order here. You chose to rely on this first order. You had the option to deploy more and fight him stronger. When you have the option to rely on luck, and you pick luck, you can't complain about it not going your way.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8949871
Choices again. You could have deployed one extra army and guarenteed that you took East Africa. One army in Greenland would not have been missed. Instead, you set yourself up to fail.

I went through all of your losses in your last 50 ladder games and every time you complained about luck, I wrote about it here. Yet only one loss out of your last 50 games was decided by luck that was outside your direct control. In every other one, you got outpicked and/or outplayed.

Out of Summer's 11 losses in her last 50 games, only 2 were decided by luck. https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9478886 and https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9473744

So Summer loses 4% of her games by luck. This is a very small sample size, but I predict it will not be much bigger for other top players. This shows that even at the top level, not many games are decided by luck. Luck may play a minor role, but it rarely actually decides games. Good play and good guesses decide games. After looking at Summer's games, I am more sure about staying with 0% WR than I was originally.

Edited 9/22/2015 03:46:14

Only those get unlucky, who trust in luck.

And very good players doesn't blame luck normally. It's avoidable in most cases so when i lose a game because i fail to take a bonus or fon't get first move, it was calculated risk and i knew that i had only 80% or 50% chance to be successful

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8985394
You lose one important first order here. You chose to rely on this first order. You had the option to deploy more and fight him stronger. When you have the option to rely on luck, and you pick luck, you can't complain about it not going your way.

Why +10 Borneo turn 8?

if those 10 were in western russia, you would be situated much better.

On 2v2 ladder: I didn't know what was so terrible about the old template and map. The change literally prompted me to quit the ladder and i haven't been back since.

These days I'm really enjoying 2v2 on ME with 2 picks per player and 0% SR luck.

If you insist on keeping the current template in the 2v2 ladder then at minimum you'd have to make it 4 picks (as suggested by all the elite strategic players) for me to consider joining it again.

Please don't change the 1v1 template. There are other templates I think I'm better at, but this one is just a good all around template.

Nice analyzes JSA, but offtopic...
Tell me, what is the connection between the luck settings and Peixoto's game skill?

I recognized only one connection, that is the tilt management skill.
I mean after an unluck Peixoto start to play much weak (bad tilt management).
So yes, he can improve his tilt management, but...

When I play Warlight, I want to have fun, playing a skill game, but when pure luck destroy me, well I can't have fun...

And ok, to prevent the random pick order is hard (I do not like the present speed pick solution in NLC neither) I can accept the random pick order.
I think 0% SR would be better, but ok, risk management is a plus dimension (you can decide you get bonuses faster but with more risk or no (risk/reward)) so I can accept 0% WR too.

But can anybody from the other camp (who likes the present settigns) tell me why so bad the cyclic move order???

Could you give me any game link where the random move order means much more dimension than the cyclic move order would have meant?

And you know, that there are many situations where you do not have a choice, you MUST try to get the first move (both side), because if you do not do that you do not do the best play! And everytime in this situations you have no choice, only flip a coin and... Where is the plus dimensions here? I mean this is not risk management like 3vs2 4vs2 captures. What things you would lost if we use cyclic move order instead of random? Help me to understand this please.

And JSA, 10% where the pure luck deciding the game is very much (in every 10th game!), for me at least (10% because you only examined the lost games). If I want gamble I play roulette :P

@Dr. Walter Ego, the connection was made because Peixoto said that a lot of his recent losses were due to pure luck rather than game skill. JSA was analyzing the games to show him that he could have overcome the luck had he made the correct moves. Also, the average "cumulative luck" from his last 10 ladder games was -1.9 vs his opponent. Does he have a reason to complain about luck? Sure, he's gotten less lucky than his opponent, on average, lately. Does a -1.9 luck differential mean he's losing to players that are worse than him because of luck? No.

I believe we have a different definition of recent? Or maybe I wasn't clear enough about my words?
To be honest, I can't probably remember a game that I played more than a week ago.
Your effort is useless, I had the doga game in mind when I said that, but all the others that you looked was just a waste of time.
When I said 1v1 strategic settings, I didn't specify all my ladder games, in fact, you're searching in the wrong place, you should be looking in the recent games page.

^ I would just say "thank you for the free analisys on my games"

The 16% luck from 1v1 strategic template has been removed for quite some time (in early Sep).

However the 16% luck in 2v2 strategic template is still kept.
I'm not sure why when the creator wants to remove and the majority in the community agrees.

What are you waiting for, Fizzer? ^_^"

Edited 9/22/2015 13:04:25

^ I would just say "thank you for the free analisys on my games"

Same here. I would be very much appreciated if someone is willing to review and analyze the whole game and our moves after the match. I like to learn and exchange ideas with others. ^_^

Edited 9/22/2015 13:06:56