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 - 15 of 15   
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 11:35:00


kadagharn
Level 55
Report
Hi everyone,

Here is a little problem:

1vs1, just one pick.

PlayerA choices:
1- positionX
2- positionY

PlayerB choices:
1- positionX
2- positionZ

PlayerA gets positionX and PlayerB gets positionZ.

This means that PlayerB knows where PlayerA will start:
this is a huuuuuge piece of information,
and I think it makes the game unfair.

I see two ways to correct it.

1) total balance

It could be written somewhere :
"PlayerB's PositionX has been denied, therefore PlayerB goes to positionZ"

I mean, in this case, everybody knows.

2) partial balance

It could be written somewhere:
"PlayerA denied positionX from PlayerB"

here, playerA doesn't know where PlayerB starts,
but, at least, PlayerA knows that PlayerB knows the PlayerA's start.



I prefer correction 2)
and you ?
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 12:33:39


master of desaster 
Level 64
Report
There might be a reason why both picked the same spot as #1. Don't play games with only one pick. There doesn't have to be extra information coded just for this niche case in my opinion
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 13:18:57


kadagharn
Level 55
Report
I take this example because, it is clear and simple.

but, it also works if there's more than one pick.


I admit, in a FFA with many players, this could just be a mess.

So, it could be restricted to 1vs1 (players or team):
therefore, it is not just a niche anymore.

(I don't know if 1vs1 is the most represented type of game in warlight ?)
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 13:45:47


master of desaster 
Level 64
Report
Getting the first pick is usually an advantage, so it's only fair if a player who missed that pick gets something in return.
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 13:56:00


kadagharn
Level 55
Report
so it's only fair if a player who missed that pick gets something in return


so, you think if someone has his first pick denied,
knowing that his opponant gets it makes it a bit more fair ?

I understand, but I don't agree:
a) I think that, in general, there are several interesting picks:
to get his first pick denied is annoying, but it does not change the game, most of time.
b) if you know where is your opponent, you will change your plan:
it is a totally different game.

that's why I think 2) is a good option.


btw, I would like to see more comments...
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 15:06:06


Norman 
Level 57
Report
Did you get countered in a 1 pick game lately ;) ?

If the game is no luck cycle, I usually try to commit late in a 1 pick game, so that it's me who loses his first pick and not the opponent.
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 16:38:00


Semicedevine 
Level 60
Report
yea no-luck cyclic is ridiculous

























-ly pure skill
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 16:50:41


kadagharn
Level 55
Report
Ladies, Gentlemen,

thanks for your replies, but that's not the topic.


the topic is :

if one of my pick(s) were denied by my opponents, I can guess some of their picks,
and this is a highly valuable information.

Should we change it ?

I think it's unfair,
And I think that the player that denies one pick should get the information.
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 17:10:19


master of desaster 
Level 64
Report
I think if you get more into the game you'll see why i think getting 1st pick is enough of an advantage i think. It is no overly big advantage to know your opponents first pick on normal games. It might be on 1 pick games, but these are really not played competively so it isn't so important

Edited 2/20/2017 17:11:54
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 17:18:14


ℳℛᐤƬrαńɋℰ✕
Level 56
Report
The "start denial" only clouds the topic. You formulate the problem in way that Player B knows Player A position (in theoretical aspect 2nd movers advantage). But I think it is more complicated than that. For the next part just forget the 1-territory presumption (not going to touch whether those games are inferior to two or three-territory games).

Rules of the game are defined by map and settings which form pay-offs (position, armies gained etc) that later in game determine the winner(s). Usually, as in real life, it comes down to either 1st or 2nd mover advantage. In warlight it is not defined and more of trade-off.

If map is unbalanced and territory values differ, then getting 1st pick may offer some benefits, but it comes with the cost of giving your location away to opponent. If map is balanced, and there are many equally valued territories, then 2nd mover has advantage at least in 1 territory-pick game. In multiple-pickable territories it comes down to who guesses most of opponent picks and in this case first move may be even irrelevant.

Now I would like propose what I have thought and discussed with some of players here. Kain has put together one interesting FFA template, which easily can be used in 1v1 as well. But the problem is system does not allow such settings - so it is more of a work-around. Discussion and reference here: https://www.warlight.net/Forum/132509-bizzare-strategic-ffa-template-advanced-players

But now coming to the initial problem. There is something inherently wrong with picking system. Why? Because you can only submit one strategy (one picking combination, although linearly infinite). But this is turn-based game and each pick should be a turn. This would allow player to use any picking strategy to respond each opponent move accordingly. This would eliminate disharmony in picking. It works best in no-fog settings. In fog settings it would still allow 2nd players advantage getting more information than 1st mover, but at least you can change your initial strategy if some of the territories were claimed before/ranked higher than you assigned them. I am not proposing to eliminate current system, but make it as a settings rule:
1) Sequential Picking
2) Order Picking

And now to answer shortly to the problem proposed in OP. It does not make game unfair, just gives you option - whether pick best territory 1st or pick later-last either to claim it or know if opponent picked it. But if both use same picking strategy, then sequential would solve inconsistency and need to pick too many back-ups. It is not unfair, if you are willing let go the most profitable pick, just to know your opponent location. But it is always a matter of settings we are speaking of.

Edited 2/20/2017 17:24:25
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/20/2017 18:30:56


kadagharn
Level 55
Report

If map is unbalanced and territory values differ, then getting 1st pick may offer some benefits, but it comes with the cost of giving your location away to opponent. If map is balanced, and there are many equally valued territories, then 2nd mover has advantage at least in 1 territory-pick game. In multiple-pickable territories it comes down to who guesses most of opponent picks and in this case first move may be even irrelevant.


I agree


make it as a settings rule:
1) Sequential Picking
2) Order Picking


+1
I think it's a good idea
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/21/2017 14:31:28

Hasdrubal
Level 57
Report
Solution for this problem is random (automatic) distribution. Problem, however, is that random distribution is not fair if there are wastelands. Also, to avoid that one side is considerabile better than other side(s), there should be enough picks for each player, so in average all have the same valued starting positions. Therefore, there should be more picks in automatic distribution than in manual distribution. With only one automatic pick there is chance of great disbalance, 2 picks are still with great chance of un-even starting positions.

I would say that on small maps probably 50% of starting positions should be distributed, and on bigger maps that should not be less than 10%.

With such big number of starting positions, there is the same knowledge of possible enemy positions for all players.

However, having use of only one or two picks, while using automatic distribution, tends to behave like lottery games in some extent.
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/21/2017 16:44:47


ℳℛᐤƬrαńɋℰ✕
Level 56
Report
: @Hasdrubal

If we speak of a single game, then random distribution is by definition "unfair" and it can´t solve the problem - its tautology. If we speak of multiple repeated games, then statistically with each added game the "randomness" and/or "luck", depends on how one looks at it, moves towards to balance itself out.

Even if you increase picks, then it maybe just one pick that is considerable enough to make game deterministic in outcome. More picks may lower the advantage of 1-pick games, but not eliminate it. What I am trying to say, that automatic distribution is not by far a solution, not even with multiple territories.

Small and Big maps are quite vague measurements. What is small to one player, is huge to another. And to repeat your words: "With such big number of starting positions, there is the same knowledge of possible enemy positions for all players" - as you see it solves nothing. Just makes the problem somewhat more complex.

Lottery and randomness are not the same thing: automatic distribution does not make each game a lottery. Lottery - meaning here equal chance of winning, distribution, combination. Randomness - is random, and need not to be equal. As its turn-based game, most games are not lottery, because your actions have significant influence to the outcomes of a game.
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/22/2017 12:36:38

Hasdrubal
Level 57
Report
People who prefer manual distribution over automatic call random distribution "lottery", while it is not lottery itself.

Regarding auto-distribution, it really comes fair with multiple picks over few ones, if wastelands don't exist.

But, poster asked for the solution when the one who didn't take territory knows where his opponent is. Maybe, as in turns that follow initial distribution (when you see that as opposition move(s)), the one who obtain land should know that opponent also tried to pick that land. Thus both sides would have some information about what players do in initial turn.
implementing "starts denial" ?: 2/22/2017 14:19:57


kadagharn
Level 55
Report
Maybe, as in turns that follow initial distribution (when you see that as opposition move(s)), the one who obtain land should know that opponent also tried to pick that land. Thus both sides would have some information about what players do in initial turn.


yes, that's it.
Posts 1 - 15 of 15   

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