I was under the impression that the player who did not get first pick was guaranteed to get the priority pick for the 2nd and 3rd rounds of territory selection. In reality, they are just guaranteed to get both their 2nd and 3rd pick (if they didn't get their first pick), but they will be beaten out in pick priority in the 3rd "round" of territory selection.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1269896

Here is an example of what I mean. I was very surprised after the game to see that I got Central Russia, and it showed that I had been thinking about who gets what starting territories in a very flawed way. Here is how I assumed it worked:

Round 1: I win the die roll, so I get first pick. I get Scandinavia. Since that was Nuck's first pick as well, he gets Indonesia, his 2nd pick instead.

Round 2: Since I got first pick, Nuck has priority in this round. He gets India, his 3rd pick. I get Central America, my 2nd pick.

Round 3: Since I got first pick, Nuck has priority picking in this round again. The next territory on the list for both of us is Central Russia (his 4th, my 3rd). He gets it. I would then look to get India and Indonesia (my 4th and 5th), which were both selected earlier in the process, and finally end up getting my 6th pick, Antartica.

Round 4: If both players started with more spots, I would have priority in this round.

Round 5: If both players started with more spots, I would have priority in this round.

Round 6: If both players started with more spots, Nuck would have priority in this round.

In other words, I thought it worked in an ABBAAB system where each "A" and "B" represent an individual round of picking. This is clearly not the actual case. From reading the help, it seems like it works in an ABABABAB format, which definitely benefits the person who gets first pick and makes the "first pick" penalty more reasonable. Previously I had never really liked the first pick penalty, since I was under the impression that it worked in an ABBAAB system, and it's debatable whether being A or B is actually better. Is getting priority picking in the first round of territory selection more valuable than being guaranteed to get the next 2 spots you want? I think that can be argued either way.

This all raises a question:

Why not abolish the first pick penalty and change to an ABBAAB picking system over an ABABAB picking system for 1v1 games? Anyone have any thoughts on that? Right now it's a big advantage to go first because not only are you going to get your first pick, but you're going to have priority on getting your 3rd pick as well.

hmm.. by your logic, that would mean in a strat 1v1, if I *didn't* get first pick.. I would get 2-3-4, no questions.. while if I did get first pick, I would get 1, and any combination of 2-3-4-5-6.. seems like ababab would be more reasonable then abbaab imho

no questions presuming we both had the same first pick*

IE, the person that didn't get first pick would be guaranteed 3 of his top 4 choices, while the person that did get first pick would have any combination of his top 6, including his original... seems like you'd be giving first pick an even greater conceivably challange, intelligence wise

It does work on ABBAAB basis, where A and B are individual picks, not rounds. So you went 1st, then NuckLuck gets his top 2 picks, then you get 2 picks, then he gets his last. What you are proposing would change the existing system to ABBABA. A's advantage would be very slighly reduced but not enough to care.

|> hmm.. by your logic, that would mean in a strat 1v1, if I didn't get first pick.. I would get 2-3-4, no questions.. while if I did get first pick, I would get 1, and any combination of 2-3-4-5-6.. seems like ababab would be more reasonable then abbaab imho

This is not true. It will be true often enough, but only in situations where A and B don't share a lot of the same picks after pick 1. Let's say A gets first pick and B gets 2nd pick. Let's say they have the exact same 6 picks in the same order.

Round 1: A gets pick 1, B gets pick 2.
Round 2: B gets pick 3, A gets pick 4 (picks 2 and 3 have been selected, 4 is the next option).
Round 3: B gets pick 5, A gets pick 6.

So if it gets changed to an ABBAAB system, then A gets 1-4-6 and B gets 2-3-5. The current ABABAB system has A getting picks 1-4-5 and B getting picks 2-3-6. The player who doesn't get first pick is not guaranteed to get his next 3 picks. This can happen, but only if the player who does get first pick doesn't highly rank the other guy's 4th pick.

|> It does work on ABBAAB basis, where A and B are individual picks, not rounds. So you went 1st, then NuckLuck gets his top 2 picks, then you get 2 picks, then he gets his last. What you are proposing would change the existing system to ABBABA. A's advantage would be very slighly reduced but not enough to care.

This is true if you look at it not in terms of rounds but in terms of individual picks. I think this is good analysis. It does weaken A's picks, but not by a significant margin. However, I think it weakens them enough to remove the "first pick punishment" that currently exists in the ELO system, where you get less points for a win where you had first pick. What are your thoughts on that?

Honestly, I don't think that anything should be done without first doing more research on how much of an advantage there really is to having first pick in the current system. The current first pick advantage entered in the bayeselo system is really very small (try changing who goes first in one game and see how little it affects the ratings).

I will try to spend some time in the near future using the game logs to look in to this. Probably next week, as I will be out of town for a few days starting tomorrow.

"It does work on ABBAAB basis, where A and B are individual picks, not rounds. So you went 1st, then NuckLuck gets his top 2 picks, then you get 2 picks, then he gets his last. What you are proposing would change the existing system to ABBABA. A's advantage would be very slighly reduced but not enough to care"


I also thought of it this way. You pick first, then Nuck picks twice, then you pick twice, then Nuck picks again. You go in order of your respective picks, skipping any that were already assigned.

That's how it worked out and you got your 3rd pick (Nuck's 4th). It's not really true that "you're going to have priority on getting your 3rd pick as well", that's only true if your opp didn't have your top 3 as his top 3 (regardless of order), if he did then you
get your 4th.

With 6 picks maybe the advantage might be too strong for the player who picks first, versus 8 (the original default - ABBAABBA) where the player who picks 2nd gets more earlier picks and A is potentially pushed to the back for his last pick.

Considering the value of intelligence, I don't really mind getting a later pick most of the time, especially if I got 2 of my top 3, so I think the present method is fine for the player who picks second.