Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to General Forum   

Posts 1 - 30 of 175   1  2  3  4  5  6  Next >>   
1v1 Template Contest: 11/3/2015 23:11:33


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
Hello,

So I think my last idea of rt cup was a bit too ambitious. This time I'd like to do something simpler. I've been trying to incorporate other people into making templates, but so far it hasn't worked out. In the past few years all new templates I've seen were almost exclusively mine, Gui's or a rehash of them. It is possible I'm now just detached from the "new" community and I don't see anything new, but here is where the contest comes in. Contest is very simple, make your own 1v1 template, test it, optimise it, play on it once and post your results here! Deadline is the 30th of November, so you have a whole month to do it. Of course you can rehash old templates or put a new spin on them, however your chances will be smaller if the template is too similar to some standard templates.

Prizes:
1st place - 750 coins and template will be featured in my next invitational tournament with best players
2nd place - 500 coins

Just to be clear, diplo/rp templates do not qualify, the template always needs some sort of strategic value. When you post give a template link, if you can a game link and describe shortly the idea behind the template and the settings. An example new template I have not released yet:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=727195

Imperium Romanum 1v1 Ltd. Distribution

Setings: All bonuses = territories -2 (there are negative bonuses), 6 starts of 2, 1 base income, 0% sr, no cards

Idea: I wanted to try limited distribution with bonuses that'd have a bias towards bigger bonuses, but bonuses would be normalised (territories -2), that pushed towards lowering base income so that picking stage is not always about the most efficient bonuses.


Also you can post multiple templates if you are like Ra and you have potentailly up to 30 hidden templates. Anyway, go make some templates and show me the results :)
1v1 Template Contest: 11/3/2015 23:19:52


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
Great idea. I hope to see some real interesting ideas on here (I will try to do some of my own).

You may want to establish some ground rules on what is strategic. Like maybe no luck > %16 WR. What about automatic dist? Only 1 pick spot? Things like that should be stated before people post junk templates.
1v1 Template Contest: 11/3/2015 23:23:44


Potatoe
Level 56
Report
I am very interested in this tournament! This is really going to be the Thread you want to click into first when you enter WarLight! Really going to be enjoyable!
1v1 Template Contest: 11/3/2015 23:28:25


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
I really don't want to put in specific rules for settings, i'll let the creators decide what they think is strategic and what is not. The reason behind it is that there are some well-established strategic settings that generally will work on every map, but possibly some things we think of that are not strategic on a general principle, may work in a very specific situation. Different kill rates, card focused 1v1 template, low base income, limited distribution, fog settings, these are all relatively unexplored. Maybe there will be some other new and original ideas or a mixture of those. I'm open to be surprised, if I can I'll test all the templates myself.
1v1 Template Contest: 11/3/2015 23:41:05


ps 
Level 59
Report
nice idea, hope people submit interesting stuff
1v1 Template Contest: 11/3/2015 23:51:23


Benjamin628 
Level 59
Report
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9939608

Greece LLFD (Lim-Lim Full Dist)

It is very different from anything else I've Seen, but the purpose is that FTBs are supposed to be unlikely, and very counter-able, which, according to Gnuffone, adds a lot of skill to a template.

It is also not supposed to be like limited full distribution, which adds a lot of variety and interesting moves to picking, but keeps the map coverage part, where you get a lot of picks (6 in this case).

Settings:

Greece II by Gui
Cyclic Move Order
0% Straight Round
6 Picks Each
4 Base Income
Bonuses = Territories - 2
3 Starting Armies
Full Distribution (103 Territories)
79 Wastelands of 2
In-Dist Neutrals of 2
Out of Dist Neutrals of 2
Normal Fog
Transfer/Attack Only & Percentage Attacks Enabled


Edited 11/29/2015 01:25:34
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 00:19:35


Kenny • apex 
Level 59
Report
Question: If two of us work on a template together, can we split the prize?
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 02:46:29


Master Turtle 
Level 60
Report
Edit: Nevermind just noticed the last part of Sze's post.

Edited 11/4/2015 02:47:07
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 03:33:49


Agony Everlasting
Level 28
Report


Edited 11/26/2015 05:55:51
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 03:42:57


Master Ryiro 
Level 62
Report
symmetric maps are not strategic,they can be solved without playing,either that or the winner is decided based on cycle or luck
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 03:43:49


Fleecemaster 
Level 59
Report
I've got a team template, but I think it might work 1v1 (Hard to say cos it's a large map!) if someone fancies testing it with me then PM me :)

It's based on the concept of negative bonuses reducing expansion, it works great in 5v5 :)

Maybe I could just give everyone 10 starts, then it would be like you're playing the whole team! ^_^
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 03:58:35


skull11244
Level 58
Report
i would be happy to help test Fleece, but i might not be the best choice as i'm not that good overall

Your call

Edited 11/4/2015 04:03:50
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 04:51:23


Fleecemaster 
Level 59
Report
I can't see how that would be a problem :P I'll tinker with the template and send you an invite :) If I forget to get around to it just shoot me a PM, I don't always remember to check the forums and my memory is terrible :P
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 13:40:30


Beren • apex 
Level 62
Report
Here's a template I made a few months ago. It's been tweaked slightly recently, since the map was updated to improve the strategic nature.

World of Earthsea:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=690580

Games:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9952180

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9894963

At it's heart it's a a limited full distribution template, but the distribution excludes the +1 and -1 territories. This exclusion means that there isn't a guarantee of how many territories will be in distribution. In practice this means that players may end up starting with 4, 5, or 6 territories (though of course both players will have the same number of starts). This creates additional variety in initial board position. It also allows us to utilize the +1 and -1 bonuses without them making starts too imbalanced.

Each start begins with only 3 armies, so that players have to make a commitment in order to expand somewhere, and slows expansion a little.

I've also decreased all of the bonuses by 1, so that they're each worth n-2, so that incomes don't rise too quickly. This is especially important since it's 0% SR and expansion comes more easily. It also makes good usage of the castles and pirate bays very important.

Edited 11/30/2015 00:02:19
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 16:45:39


Sephiroth
Level 59
Report
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9565185

Is this the template, or did the map change in-between?
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 18:06:24

RA•Nek
Level 43
Report
@Sephiroth: It's not the same template\map, read the post above: "It's been tweaked slightly recently, since the map was updated to improve the strategic nature."

Edited 11/4/2015 18:07:38
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 18:12:26


Sephiroth
Level 59
Report
@RA: read the post above: Is this the template, or did the map change in-between?
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 18:28:43

wct
Level 56
Report
Do you consider luck % as being necessarily a negative? If I made a template with 100% luck involved would it have a lower chance of winning?
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 19:12:00


Nackickwind
Level 64
Report
You never wanna play with that much luck. 100% luck, I don't believe that can be considered in any bit strategic, I mean there is no risk management, since you really don't know what is going to happen after an attack.

Edit: sorry, I didn't mean you don't want to play with luck, just not with that much involved. Yes Sultan, you're right :(.

Edited 11/4/2015 19:17:10
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 19:14:20


Sułtan Kosmitów 
Level 63
Report
WR or 16% of luck makes templates often more strategic imao
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 19:29:13

wct
Level 56
Report
Actually, Nackickwind, in another sense of the word, it is the *most* about managing risk, since risk is inherently about probabilities/likelihoods, and it's more challenging to manage risk in a game with many likely outcomes than it is in a game with only relatively few.

In other words, if you already *know* the outcome of a move, then there is no risk involved in it.

I think you'd have a better case by focusing on the word 'strategy', which *can* mean 'reducing risk as much as possible', whereby the less luck the game has involved, the less risk by its very nature, and therefore such games are *automatically* less-risky and thus more-strategic, by that definition. But then words have different meanings, and 'strategy' can also mean something like 'managing risk as much as possible', in which case, more luck could be called more strategic. ;-)

I've seen this forum debate these def'ns in the past and I doubt it will be easily resolved. Hence my original question.
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 19:35:15

Ollie 
Level 61
Report
calculating risk to attack with 3 or 4 is risk calculation. With 100% luck it is possible to fail a 10vs1 attack. How is that strategic in any way? It would be easier to just make a game on the duel map cause both are lotteries but duel is way quicker
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 19:40:40


Nackickwind
Level 64
Report
Well like Ollie said, 100% luck is kindof purely nonsense :P. Managing risk is possible with a little luck involved but when there is so much, management is simply impossible. 100% has probabilities yes, but failing a 10vs1 should not be considered normal by any means. So unless you are playing with persons who are used to playing with that much luck, and consider their attacks following it, then yes, 100% can be considered strategic :/.

But seeing that 90% of the players play with SR, I think 100% luck would just be horrible for about everyone. Well that's the thing, with 100% you can never really know the outcome of a move, unless you have about 10 times more income than your opponent ( might be an exaggeration).
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 19:52:01


Beren • apex 
Level 62
Report
@Sephiroth, the map has been changed since then. I'll post a game when I get home.

Edited 11/4/2015 19:52:16
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 20:12:46


Apollo
Level 56
Report
nice idea, I wouldn't mind playing that
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 20:34:57


Nackickwind
Level 64
Report
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=742380
Alright here's my first submission, first of many I hope.

Map: British Raj, Distribution: 3x6, Multi-Attack, Light fog Random Warlord Distribution, with two bonuses out of distrib, and every bonus except the 4 and 5 ones give one less income. Wastelands: 7x4, Cards: Abandon, starts with 7 pieces, and requires 7 pieces to be complete, coupled with Order Delay and Priority, both at 5 pieces.

This template isn't perfect so I appreciate any suggestions, it might need to be retweaked (originally the bonuses of 4 and 5 were upped to 5 and 6). In any case this template produces quick and vicious games, because to get decent income, you are obliged to combo a 4 or 5. And in that way, counters can be incredibly fast, since there is light fog.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9781936
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9781830

In any case, here are two examples of my last games on it.

Edited 11/4/2015 20:35:48
1v1 Template Contest: 11/4/2015 20:47:28

wct
Level 56
Report
calculating risk to attack with 3 or 4 is risk calculation. With 100% luck it is possible to fail a 10vs1 attack. How is that strategic in any way? It would be easier to just make a game on the duel map cause both are lotteries but duel is way quicker


Well like Ollie said, 100% luck is kindof purely nonsense :P. Managing risk is possible with a little luck involved but when there is so much, management is simply impossible. 100% has probabilities yes, but failing a 10vs1 should not be considered normal by any means. So unless you are playing with persons who are used to playing with that much luck, and consider their attacks following it, then yes, 100% can be considered strategic :/.


What's riskier? A stock (in the stock market) where there's zero chance you'll lose it all, and zero chance you'll have a big win? Or a stock where there's a small chance you lose it all and small chance of a big win? Clearly the latter.

You can easily argue about the word 'strategy', but not so easy to argue the word 'risk'. Just trying to hammer that point home. I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of what you said.

And, BTW, 100% luck doesn't mean uniform probability distribution, it simply means that it's an unmodified binomial distribution. You can still do all sorts of *strategic* reasoning about probabilities, means, and variances. :-)

P.S.: I think I've had my original question answered well already by szeweningen. High luck could be considered strategic. I guess it's up to the scenario maker to put forward a good case.

Edited 12/7/2015 09:14:46
1v1 Template Contest: 11/5/2015 04:01:10


Scotty 
Level 56
Report
It seems fair...

Kind of like this game:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9783557
1v1 Template Contest: 11/5/2015 11:56:53


Ottoman Emperor
Level 59
Report
i think every luck ( WR or %16)are bad.i hate losing because of luck. and i hate winning because of luck too.
1v1 Template Contest: 11/5/2015 12:03:54


master of desaster 
Level 64
Report
Ottoman saying luck in general is bad is blasphemy. I agree on everything higher than 16% luck. Bit below it just requires more skill to win despite of bad luck. Games are very rarely decided by luck. If you lose there was often just a better option on the board.

Edited 11/5/2015 12:05:12
Posts 1 - 30 of 175   1  2  3  4  5  6  Next >>   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service