|> *theres a reason the thread got locked: your problem is stupid in a way which cannot possibly be explained to you.*

You need to read the thread in question before you make assumptions. I stated right in the thread why it was locked -- because he tried to make his subject line annoying.

I have nothing against discussing how the automatic distribution system works. In fact, it's to be encouraged. Calling someone stupid isn't helpful. Please try to keep your discussion constructive.

i think i know what the Big Friendly Giant Eurozone means, and i think it would be beneficial to warlight if fizzer looked into what i'll explain below:

at pogo.com's risk game there is random distribution and manual distribution. but the random distribution is not entirely random. i played about 2000 games there before coming here. from that large sample size of games, i realized that pogo's 'random' distribution are actually about a dozen or so custom distributions that appear random but are in fact predetermined to offer "controlled randomness."

how it works:

- all the games are played on the small earth map.
- no player is allowed to have free reign in australia or south america
- every player has a few spots here, a few more there, but it is more or less balanced: each player has an equal chance pick and choose his spots to expand
- reading the map's pattern of distribution (there's no fog) is as strategic there as making picks on the ladders is here: the patterns tell you which area is the best area for you to concentrate your attention
- nobody complains about a bad shake of the dice (unless they are foolish)

in comparison, the biggest problem i have with replicating that risk game on warlight is that the random distribution is not "controlled randomness":

- i recently made a game and was awarded australia right off the bat. my opponent surrendered on turn 2
- i tried making a customized template to alleviate this; it too has problems for lack of "controlled randomness"
- i've since given up on that map's potential

I think we all understood what he was looking for but the majority also recognize that it is impractical to implement if not outright impossible.

isn't it simply an algorithm? pogo can do it. why cant warlight?

It's possible they implemented it with an algorithm, but given that you say there's only a dozen, it's more likely that they just created those dozen by hand.

This can actually be done in WarLight, at least partially, with scenario distributions (not to be confused with custom scenarios). The map creator could define a dozen different scenario distributions, and game creators can choose between them.

The part that WarLight can't do is randomly choose between the distributions. In other words, the game creator has to pick one and everyone can see which was picked.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but pogo creates its own maps (if it even has more then 1). Thus, it's not that hard for them to create these "controlled random" dist.

Warlight has to have around 1000 maps (guestimatiion) and more coming out every day. For Fizzer to have to go and make custom dists. for all of them would be insane.

And that is why pogo can do it and Warlight can't.

TL;DR pogo < 10 maps, Warlight > 1000 maps

Fizzer is a post ninja FYI >.>

I see a way to make it slightly more fair. But in some games, it's simply impossible. For example, 5 player ffa in small earth, and everyone starts with only 1 territory. How can you possibly make this fair? However, as I said, it may be possible to make SOME games more fair. i guess you can randomly pick a player, like player A and give A a random territory, say B. B has a bonus of N. Then for all other players, give them a bonus of either N, N-1, or N+1. Of course, if possible. Like the example above, that's simply not possible.

what i was thinking for an autodistribute algorithm:

1. for warlords

- if 2+ starting territories per player, the system alternates between big and small bonuses given to each player: if 4 starts, i get 2 big, 2 small; you do too.
- for 2+ starts: each start given to one player is a certain distance away

2. for cities/full

- same two points above
- each bonus has either only 1 territory distributed or has 2+ people to contest the territory: thus, if i play small earth, nobody will be able to get aust or sa so easily

it could apply to every map. it is not perfect. but it would make autodistribute games a bit more worth playing

Gui, that would only work if we assume that all bonuses on a map are using a same or very near similar territory/bonus ratio
many maps have varying ratios throughout the map, based on expansion and defense possibilities, difficulty to hold/capture, or just because the creator felt the need to make an over/uner powered bonus... all of these factors would make your 'random but fair' algorithim, no longer fair, and less random then currently..

true. though playing such a map with any imaginable autodistribute system (and in some cases, at all) is just asking for trouble. there are a lot of useless maps -- ie, not worth playing -- on warlight.

Bonus Territories Armies
Germany 12 7 big
Ukraine 10 7 big
France 10 6 big
Italy 10 6 big
NW Russia 9 6 big
Romania 9 6 big
Greeze 9 6 big
Spain 9 6 big
Poland 8 6 big
Sweden 8 5 big
Britain 7 5 big
SW Russia 7 5 big
E Balkans 7 5 big
Turkey 7 4 big
W Russia 6 4
Czech Republic 6 4
Bulgaria 6 4
Norway 5 4 small
Hungary 5 4 small
Finland 5 3 small
Baltic States 5 3 small
W Balkans 5 3 small
Portugal 5 3 small
Iceland 4 3 small
Ireland 4 3 small
Benelux 4 3 small
WC Russia 4 3 small
Austria 4 3 small
Slovakia 4 3 small
Denmark 3 2 small
Switzerland 3 2 small

just did a quick check of europe to find out what bonuses would go to what categories

How does the guy who created [this game](http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1954407) dare complain about unfair distributions?

@ Richard Sharpe - i never had an easy win in all my 600 + games that i've played so far.

@ [WM]x - i hope u will get to play ONLY games like i just have and keep losing like that :))) for the rest of your ignorant life.


as I said before, it's not that i lost a game, it's about improving it to make it better in the future cause NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY A GAME THEY CAN'T WIN!

|> |>"i never had an easy win in all my 600 + games that i've played so far."

Is that why you try to cheat your way to an easy victory?

I think the allure of calling it *-a game you can't win-* draws people to try to play it.. look at the insane challange.. in it's early stages there were countless people trying to beat it, despite it seemingly being unable to beat "*and as I recall, the original version never was defeated..*"

However.. in ffa's, manual distribution can mess you up nearly as bad as auto distribution.. some people just feel more cheated because auto-distribution doesn't have any user-input..

personally, I like the randomness of auto-distribution; However, I can understand the discomfort some people will have by such games.. and to those people I highly suggest Manual distribution..
perhaps Fizzer will modify the auto-distribution to provide more fairness to those wanting..
I can't think of any way to make full-dist auto fully fair.. esp in small earth map..

using the proposed algorithm, you'd have 1 territ per player in SA or Aus.. 1 territ per player in Asia.. 1 territ per player in NA-Europe-Africa..
It could easily be possible to have
Team A
Player 1: Siam Indonesia North Africa
Player 2: Brazil Middle East Madagascar

Team B
Player 3: Venezuela Scandinavia Japan
Player 4: Argentina N.Europe Siberia

now, these followed precise rules, meant to make the game near as fair as possible, and Team A will clearly win.. no algorithm will understand strategic importance..
your only other real option would be to force players to stay together, or to keep teams apart..
aka, force each team to share bonuses, or force each team to share bonuses only with themselves
in which case you would be vastly limiting the number of good bonuses out there, and still have to take strategic importance into account before figuring out who will win.. possibly making impossible situations..

@ steamedhams - that game wasn't about winning, that game was made out of boredom. and cause u now mention it, would u play in a game like that? :)) it's just about the same thing, except that the modification i made was clearly visible in the settings, while my problem with the other game is not visible in any setting.

it will take a while until the map will be visible, but to make a clear picture i will describe the starting positions:

TEAM 1:
Me: Great Britain, Middle East, Siberia
{headstrong}zakyman : Alaska, Kamchatka, Mongolia

TEAM 2:
Starting visible areas:

Master: India
dwoogee: S. Europe

Not visible areas for TEAM 2 were in Australia and South America

With this distribution not even Chuck Norris could have won the game in my team!

So you had some bad luck and you are acting like a little bitch about it, in not one but in two threads?

I think this thread needs to follow the faith of the first one.

|>. |> @ steamedhams - that game wasn't about winning, that game was made out of boredom. and cause u now mention it, would u play in a game like that? :)) it's just about the same thing, except that the modification i made was clearly visible in the settings, while my problem with the other game is not visible in any setting.

First of all, you must get bored a lot, because I've seen you post that template in the open games section MULTIPLE times. I see it because you're the only person on my blacklist. And I don't even play that much.

Second of all, you ask "who wants to play a game they can't win?". So why did you create a game that is decided solely by distribution? Where anyone who doesn't check for changed bonuses has 0 chance of winning? Where you change a 10 to 109 so it still looks like a 10 in the bonus box? The fact is, only 2 kinds of people were going to join that game- people who didn't check the settings (their fault, but you're still cheating them), or people trying for an easy win. And the people who don't check settings are more likely to be beginners, and bs like that drives people away from the game.

Also, if it wasn't about winning, why didn't you make it a practice game? And if it wasn't about winning, why did you choose your megabonus? And if it wasn't about winning, why did you quit as soon as you didn't get it?

Third of all, the "problem" with your other game is clearly visible in the setting "Automatic or Manual distribution: Automatic"

You're a bonus cheating #####, you create games with the exact problem you complain about, only you do it with malice and intent.