We always have a selective memory. We remember the times when 3v2s fail, but we tend to forget when they succeed.

can't agree more

@Pushover: The problem with the old 2v2 template was that it was too small of a map for playing 2v2 on. It still is. This doesn't mean you can't have fun games on the template, it just means there's some maps in which it ends up a bit too crowded for strategic play. The more your options are limited, the more predictable and less fun the template tends to be. Too many options and it becomes a searching game. I like a happy medium. I like a slightly bigger map and 3 picks minimum in my 2v2s. We wanted the new map, it looks better. The settings with 4 picks is fun and strategic. However, we got the same template, on a map way too big for the template. So we went from 1 extreme to another extreme. I dislike the new extreme more than the old.

Edited 9/22/2015 21:42:27

From the perspective of a relatively new ladder player, I can say that I found 0% WR very disorienting when I first joined the ladder (before joining I only played 0% SR). Since most games outside ladders are 0% SR, I think it makes sense to have the ladders be that as well, so that intuition gained over time from 0% SR templates can carry over to the ladders (e.g. on SR, I can usually figure out what bonuses I can take first turn without thinking about attacks and armies left). It also helps since if all my games are 0% SR, I don't constantly have to worry in every game as to whether, e.g., 3v2 is guaranteed.

I also think the number of picks on the 2v2 ladder should be increased, there were a few games where my team lost access to an important area of the map due to the limited number of picks; we subsequently lost.

A compromise solution might be 16% SR, then the strategy works as usual for neutrals, but luck comes into play when facing the opponent directly. However, I would still prefer 0% SR.

16% SR is horrid. Go look at the fringe attacks like 6v4, 5v3, 8v5 etc.

Unfortunately I didn't play yet when the 2v2 ladder template was still ME.

The final earth template is pretty bad, I can see everybody agrees on that, and I never had much fun playing it.

On the other hand, I really enjoyed playing the 2v2 template in the 20C league, 0%SR ME - it's much more strategic than the current 2v2 ladder template and definitely much more fun to play.

Why was the map changed from ME to Final Earth at some point?

Edited 9/23/2015 06:23:54

More like time to remove Fizzer from Warlight, amirite?

The benefit I see to keeping random move order rather than cyclic, is that it gives you options as to how you want to approach the situation. You can choose to play a riskier strategy and hope for a first move, or you can get creative and try to account for not getting first move. In most cases it is possible to accomplish some part of your objectives even without first move, whether by deploying extra armies to stay alive if you have a stack that's running, or deploying in an unexpected manner so that the opponent can't go where he wants.

But there are many situations where the first move is the best move for both sides! What means, if you do not do that, and use your incomes not for that, you do not do the best move in that turn! You can try to be creative and find an alternative solution, but that won't be the best move, so you will play not the best way. So there is no any choice, only try to get the first move and flip a coin...
Otherwise, with the cyclic move order, in a situation like above you can be creative, all turn where the first move is not belong to you, you must be creative :P
So I still do not understand why the cyclic move order worse than the random, and waiting for good explanations or examples.

If this is a pivotal turn and you can't afford the extra armies to do that, then you probably weren't in a winning position anyway.

And? I don't understand what you want to write with this. Playing with similar skill players the positions most of the time will be approx. equal, and many times an important first move will be decided the game! But there are situations too where this important first move need for you to finish the game (getting insurmountable advantage), if your opponent get this first move mean he can stay/back in the game. Ok, these all are very interesting and exciting situations, but not a good solution to flip a coin and hope... It is pure gambling not a risk management for example...

@ Dr. Walter Ego,

This whole thread is TLDR, but to your last point, in cyclic move order each player knows exactly if they will or won't get the first move (Order Priority cards not-withstanding).

Thus, when you know you're getting the First move, you act in one way.

Thus, when you know you're NOT getting the First move, you act in another way.

Each way is different and possibly best for the situation.

When you don't know if you will/won't get the first move, you can either i) hope you get it right, or ii) play a hybrid approach.

It reminds me of the Myagi quote from Karate Kid about the Frog in the middle of the road....

But back to my point, Random Move order preserves an uncertaintity that cannot be replaced in any other method. It is often-times that a right prediction to move order is the game winner. But similarly, the wrong prediction can be a game loser.

Walter we can't just abandon the maybe best and for sure most used template just to eliminate luck. JSA watched the games of summer and she lost 4% of her games because of luck. That's an acceptable price for more interesting, less calculate-only games. I played really a lot of strat 1vs1 games and the template is everytime somehow new. Sr settings like in coingames are already boring after like 50 games.

I prefer cyclic move order while keeping weighted random (WR).

As to WR, you can easily eliminate the risks by deploying an extra unit. It is also easy for you to plan ahead. You can well manage your risks.

As to random move order, you can only rely on priority cards to reduce/eliminate the risks. Other than that, you have no way to control it. I find this unsatisfactory. Sometimes a first move is game-changing (e.g. fighting for a chokepoint). The only viable option is to take the risk. The risk is always there. You can't do much about it.

If we want some variations (to keep the game interesting and diverse), I would suggest a new move order - predictable random move order. The system will announce the move order for this and next turn. The whole cycle is 2 turns. That means each player must get one first move every 2 turns. It could be:

First, second, second, first
First, second, first, second
Second, first, second, first
Second, first, first, second

Since you know which turns you will get your first move, you can plan ahead to reduce/eliminate the risks. Otherwise you have to assume you are always the unlucky to eliminate risks, but most likely you make too much compromise and will lose.

What do you think?

But back to my point, Random Move order preserves an uncertaintity that cannot be replaced in any other method. It is often-times that a right prediction to move order is the game winner. But similarly, the wrong prediction can be a game loser.

And what skill need for this type of predictions? Nothing!
Maybe the Lucky Luke skill? :P Or the winning the important coinflips skill?...
And I write about situations when to try to get the first move is the unequivocal best action for both side. I think this is much frequent than the situations when there is good enough alternative action againts the first move.

Otherwise, I think if we use cyclic move order, still remain enough uncertaintity in the game (random pick order, 0% WR, and for example the REAL predictions (about opponents' picking, moves))

Walter we can't just abandon the maybe best and for sure most used template just to eliminate luck.

This is not a good reason :P Anyway, this template already have been changed (16% WR to 0% WR).
Otherwise, I do not want eliminate the luck, only the random move order! (0% WR, random pick order, etc. remain)

JSA watched the games of summer and she lost 4% of her games because of luck. That's an acceptable price for more interesting, less calculate-only games.

JSA examined only Summer's lost games, what means 4%*2=8%. And about 10% of the games decided by the luck, well, at least for me is very much!

for more interesting, less calculate-only games. I played really a lot of strat 1vs1 games and the template is everytime somehow new. Sr settings like in coingames are already boring after like 50 games.

I write about only change the move order settings from Random to Cyclic! 0% WR and random pick order would be remained.
What is the interesting in a coinflip? Ok, if you are a gambler, yes I see... But this is a strategic game.
Most of the time there is no any risk management possibilities in these situations, only flip a coin and hope...

As to WR, you can easily eliminate the risks by deploying an extra unit. It is also easy for you to plan ahead. You can well manage your risks.

As to random move order, you can only rely on priority cards to reduce/eliminate the risks. Other than that, you have no way to control it. I find this unsatisfactory. Sometimes a first move is game-changing (e.g. fighting for a chokepoint). The only viable option is to take the risk. The risk is always there. You can't do much about it.

THIS!

Playing with 0% WR still luck related, but you CAN MANAGE it!
If you want, you can choose the safety way (and give up the possible advantage (faster bonus)).
You have choice! That is the risk management.
Most of the time there is no good enough alternative action only the first move, so you have no choice just flip a coin. That is not risk management at all.

So I am still waiting for the good reasons why better the random move order than the cyclic one.
What would we lost if we change it?

How isn't random move order also a thing of risk management?

Most of the time there is no good enough alternative action only the first move, so you have no choice just flip a coin.

I've only encountered this scenario a few times, and I probably could've avoided the scenario if I played my cards smarter. Just like you pick with 4v2s vs 3v2s on your expansion, you are the one who decides when you need to prioritize the first move. No, it's nothing like: Well a scenario arrives and only first move will win you the game. That scenario arrives because of your picks, moves, or card management. I know a lot about not getting first move. I played with Frankdeslimste on the ladder and clan league, and I'm playing with him again this clan league. He has probably the worst first order luck I've ever seen. So what do we do? We play in a way we never expect him to get first order. If you are chasing someone with a full stack to eliminate them, but are deploying all your income to do so while your opponent is able to deploy some to get card pieces, you're playing inefficiently. You've made the choice that eliminating your opponent wins you the game, but ignoring the fact that if he wins first order 2-3 times that you've given him enough breathing room to win the game. If you decide to play differently in order to snowball the lead you have, you can find yourself in a scenario where your opponent can win first order for the rest of the game and you'd still win.

That's how the game is played at the high-level, you stop thinking about first order and expansion luck and focus mainly on how you can grow your lead and make a decisive strategy on winning the game.

Cyclic is boring. No-luck Cyclic is even worse.

@Walter,
also, most people think Rock-Paper-Scissors has a predictable 33-33-33% chance in ending in a win/loss/tie. However, you're not playing the odds, you're playing the person.

For another analogy with just a 50-50 chance, or is it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0

... just wait til I get started....

Just dont change it plz. Risk management is also a skill

ChrisCMU's Weighted Random move order is very good, I'll let him explain.

i'm sure this has been brought up before, but the obvious question is why do we have turns? Why can't all orders be executed at once? Presumably there must be a good reason but i can't think of one immediately

For 1v1 ladder

Prefers WR: 31
Prefers SR: 10
50/50 or I can't tell: 6

My favourite part was when Fizzer pretended to care what the community wanted and then completely ignored their opinion.

Let's have a poll on this. VOTE NOW!

Which one do you prefer in ladder games?
http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=56069f9fe4b0148c68da6862

Ladder games concerned: 1v1 ladder, 2v2 ladder, 3v3 ladder

Choices available for each ladder (select one choice only)
1. Straight Round
2. Weighted Random
3. I don't know/mind

Each player can only vote once.
Both new players (who has recently joined or want to join ladder games) or old players are welcome.
Invite more people to participate in this poll. Bump this thread more. ;-)
The poll result will be published on 1 Oct 2015.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/110747-u-prefer-straight-round-weighted-random

I challenge someone to review all 150 posts to see if people were in favor of keeping the same or changing.

i'm sure this has been brought up before, but the obvious question is why do we have turns? Why can't all orders be executed at once? Presumably there must be a good reason but i can't think of one immediately

Multiple orders to/from the same territory?

Consider the scenario where someone's small stack is fleeing someone's large stack. This comes down to turns. Should the small stack be given the opportunity to leave before being attacked?

If you want them all at once, then this isn't Warlight(zone).