i agree with piggy that co-op would be more interesting than FFA, still, would want a messaging system to abstract the coordination factor.

and i also agree with piggy that i'd also be more personally interested in a more advanced strategic 1vs1 instead of any FFA/co-op. With random maps, added wastelands, etc.

Edited 5/11/2014 23:04:33

even tho i would have to improve my coding skills a lot, i do think it is a good idea to make a random template challenge, or at least a 1v1 challenge with a bigger map and more balanced map. But to me the n°1 thing i would like is to lower the luck factor, 100% is just terrible for a strategic game. 2v2 games seems like a big leap, i think we should stick to 1v1 for now at least, there is still plenty interesting things to develop in 1v1

@piggy: the map being balanced or not doesn't depend on the players or the number of players or the fact that players start with the same picking choice; it is just a characteristic of the map. if we follow your reasonning, lotteries are balanced map...

Hello jim

The easiest way for your site getting the most possible attention from warlight players is by implementing the warlight 1v1 ladder settings.
--> Medium Earth Map
--> 1 starting spot per bonus
--> 7 random wastelands
--> Luck is currently 16% including some rounding luck. Luck can also be turned completely off and people will also be happy.
--> Those cards can be turned off and people will also be happy. (Especially the +5 armies card makes calculations to complex and unprecise imo.)

With those settings there are great variations in games and there is a huge competitive warlight playing base playing these settings. If the 1v1 ladder was just about following the same moves each game it would have died out by now. I think the current warlight AI challenge will quickly die out after the finals (people stop updating their bots) but with ladder settings I think there will always be players keep updating their bot and new players writing new bots as long as you keep it online.

I strongly advise against ffa. There is no competitive warlight ffa playing base. The reason is that in ffa if you get to strong other players attack you so you trying to win the game makes you actually lose. I played some small earth ffa and the way I usually try to win them is by first taking Australia and then sit for the next 30 turns in Australia while the other players kill themselves. If they are smart enough not to go on the offensive then there aren't any fights until someone gets bored and goes suicide into an opponent. Also dead piggy is right about the worst player deciding the game. If you start next to a d...bag who keeps attacking you although you are both losing then you have no chance winning the game.

Lotteries are balanced. What do you think balanced means?

I don't think that we should take for granted that settings which are enjoyable or dull for humans will cause the same effect when coding bots to play. While I don't particularly favour FFA it seems to me that they could be potentially much more entertaining for bots then for humans. If you take quitters and alliance junkies away from FFA it's actually fun :)

If the key is long term interest and creating a player(coder) base, I'd say the following things are crucial:

*Different maps:
Small Earth, Medium Earth, Europe... etc. None too big, none with overlapping bonuses or other complications, but some variety is definitely needed to keep people interested.

*No limitations on starting picks, or Warlord distribution mode:
Right now all the games start more or less in the same way, with both players deadlocked from turn 1. Make every province available to pick (or one per bonus: Warlord style). That way people can code up some elaborate starting routines.

*Standardized, reasonable settings.
Personally I think that all the games should have the same basic setting like kill rates, starting armies, fog settings, etc. Custom settings are great fun for humans, but coding bots to take all of these things into account could be a nightmare. Luck as well: 16% is kind of ideal / standard, 100% is madness. The only exception I could possible see working is the number of starting regions.

Looking forward to whatever you come up with!

Edited 5/9/2014 15:20:03

Hey Jim! Welcome to the WL community :)

Trogatog, is that an actual game that you had? This is clearly going wrong somehow. Can you send me the link?

Yup, this actually happened. I don't have the link anymore, it was a while ago, I just came across the pic in my pic folder yesterday and remembered I wanted to post it. With the game settings the way they are, this can very much happen (100% luck). I think I linked a game a couple pages ago where an opponent stack of 6 attack into a stack of 7 of mine and the resulting armies left were in favor of the opponent.

I want to say this happens all the time, but in reality, they happen in the games we lose, which makes them more memorable. Looking at my history, when I stack armies just so they survive an attack, 75% of the time it works as expected.

balanced (ˈbælənst)
adj : having weight evenly distributed

one territory worth 1000 armies, the rest worth 0....doesn't seem very balanced to me. What do YOU think balanced means?

Maybe piggy means _lotteries_ are balanced because everyone has the same probability on starting on the 1000 army tile.

And 123ch means lotteries _maps_ are imbalanced.

Lotteries are balanced because neither player has a advantage before the game starts. Same as evey other game of warlight. An example of an imbalanced game would be chess where one player starts without a queen.

Ok, i understand the misunderstanding now. You are talking about balanced games while Jim was talking about balanced maps

Balanced maps are incredibly dull. Most lottery games are played on balanced maps. All the earth maps are imbalanced, pretty much anything that's not symmetrical is a little. That is a good thing, it creates dynamic strategic games.

I agree, thats why wastelands are generally randomly added, to change the weight of each part of the map randomly. Jim asked ideas of maps more balanced than small earth, it doesn't mean he is looking for perfectly balanced/symetrical maps. And Lottery maps are balanced only if you look at the geometry. But here the meaning of "map" clearly include the bonus distribution. But you already know all that

Hello

Let's just define a balanced map as a map where different strategies are viable. At present there is quite some variety in the games played by the bots. However this variety comes from the bots not playing properly and from the high luck factor. If the bot who took Australia is able to crush South America then only because either the other bot got unlucky or he didn't follow the correct strategy for South America. Thinking about the board I don't see many strategies that are viable here. What I mean by a viable strategy is that any other strategy will lose against it.

Strategy 1: Take South America and blockade North Africa. Then slowly take North America. As soon as you have North America start finishing off the opponent.

Strategy 2: Take Australia and North Africa. Stack high enough against South America until you have enough armies to take Africa / push the opponent out of Africa.

Strategy 3: Take Europe in 3 turns. Then go strong into North Africa and play your 5v4 income advantage.

(Perhaps doing stuff like going for Australia and a big surprise attack with your North America pick is also a possible strategy.)

Only if one of the bots goes for strategy 3 this map allows variety in gameplay. With the strategies 1+2 it's just a race for North Africa.

"Let's just define a balanced map as a map where different strategies are viable"

I realise I risk pissing you all off but the terminology is going to be important if anyone else is going to join the discussion and I really hope they do. A map is simply the board. Territories in a specific arrangement. The map is part of the template. The template includes all the settings; luck, distribution mode, base income, the specific income attributed to bonuses (I think you guys call those super regions?).

Youre absolutely right, we need a template that rewards a little creativity or higher level strategic planning. That is exactly what players look for too, so most games that you see being played in the open games lobby will be candidates. May I recommend guiroma, strat 1v1, 3v3ENC. Ill look for some links now.

Guiroma: A tidy little 2v2 template with not too many connections between bonuses which gives a short game, often won on picks http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6213005

3v3ENC: The quintessential 3v3 template, sprawling with a few high income hot spots that players must contest. Games can feel repetitive due to no wastelands and limited picking options. http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6095307 There are other templates on the same map with more picking options that are much less forgiving to small mistakes.

Strategic 1v1: Dynamic and complex, lends itself to creative aggressive play, with a huge player base. I play 99% of my games on these settings. Cards and wastelands may be too complex for simple bots to handle. http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6088494

Edited 5/10/2014 09:23:32

you just want the master race to conquer all!

As I was coding an update this morning, I wrote this little gem while in code-mode:

RoundNumber = roundNumber; //(for mocking opponent)

Gave me a little chuckle :)

I am now mocking you. Every. Single. Game.

Cheers!

Edited 5/11/2014 14:57:37

Thank you all so far for your suggestions. Definitely some food for thought. I see now why FFA isn´t maybe the best idea for the next competition. But we´re going to think hard and try to come up with the best combination of ideas.

More suggestions are always welcome :)

fixed some bugs and ended up with worse performance on my bot, need to do some serious update on initial rounds battles during this week or i'm out of the top race, hope i find the time. :S

Do you guys think the suggested changes; different map, wastelands, 16% luck factor and different starting regions distribution is enough to have people really adapt their bots?

We're looking for people to really have fun again in (re)coding their bot and not just re-upload the one they have already written and perform really well with it.