We want to ask the community for help us find the fairest map for 1v1 where there is only two starting spots (one for each side) and neither spot has an advantage over the other. We want something strategic that can be played several ways but comes down to skill.

Submit your suggestions please. Thanks!

I really hope you are joking... 1 starting spot for each side and you want it to come down to skill? Nope, will not ever happen. Ever.

Duel is the fairest map that I can think of (2 territories total, both worth the same amount)
Edit: Game e.g. https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=7911599

Edited 1/24/2015 14:30:42

https://www.warlight.net/Map/5062-Sumo

Throw in alot of different cards and this is very fun plus gets down more to strategic skill :)


Edit: I see now that there wasn't any distribution modes with only one starting spot on this map. But if it can be altered I would suggest West Shikiri-sen and East Shikiri-sen as the two starting spots.

Edited 1/22/2015 18:23:23

facepalm

Imo it's very hard to find something really balanced on 1v1 maps: if the start is fixed, then either you find a broken strategy that makes one start better than the other one, or the fact that you aren't seeing your opponent's moves for the first turns makes the game still pretty luck based.

If you're looking for skill-oriented setups, i think you should focus on 3v3s and 5v5s: there are so many balanced maps and settings..

I think it would be amazing to implement a form of "Solo-Duo Queue" ladder that matches you with other people at your same skill level in 3v3 and 5v5 games

I think this can be done, but you'll need more than just 1 spot to start

As long as there are only two options for starting spots, there will be absolutely no way for skill to be involved, and on top of that, there will be almost no variation in gameplay. It's upsetting that the WL "faculty" has so little concept of how the games themselves are played.

Double Earth? Double Turkey? Double Europe? If the starting position must be absolutely equal, then the map must either be very simple or equal too :)

One predetermined spot sounds very boring and devoid of surprises however. After a few practice games, both players' strategies will converge towards a single optimal point, with slight variation coming from trying to outpredict the opponent as to where he deploys and which one territory of the double border he will attack.

A Balanced Map for 1v1:


https://www.warlight.net/Map/215-Duel

If the question was posed "Who is the best WarLight player?" And assume I have the two best players before me. How would we decide in one game?

I Imagine these maps might work:
https://www.warlight.net/Map/1173-Imperium-Romanum
https://www.warlight.net/Map/5745-Battle-Islands-V (for some reason hyperlink doesn't work)
https://www.warlight.net/Map/4179-Macro-Land (possibily the best one made for small 1v1 games imo)

Though it's important to note that you might need to adjust some bonuses etc. Also if the players start next to each other (assuming manual dist. custom will never work, and radom isn't skill) it'll be many unfun turns of building a huge stack before the game can progress. (a situation similar to this game : https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=2400706 After building for many turns (talking easily more than 100) I'd eventually be able conquer the rest of the map while keeping my opponent blocked), not very fun so to speak.
I'd heavily suggest that you make it 2 starting spots, as even if you were able to create a good template I'd doubt it would be fun (especially in the long run).

"If the question was posed "Who is the best WarLight player?" And assume I have the two best players before me. How would we decide in one game?"

Well as WL have infinite number of templates, deciding it on one game wouldn't make much sense (not to mention that players are strong on different settings:p) Anyway that's not the point, I'd think a small map (like macro Land), no-luck settings and cards (reinforcment, sanctions (both positive and negative would work, blockade/abandon/gift etc ) don't have to be many, but need to be a significant reward for capturing territories)

Edited 1/22/2015 20:51:17

@Mercer that would be a stupid question, just slap anyone who made it or blacklist him

Edited 1/22/2015 20:44:25

fairest map for 1v1 where there is only two starting spots (one for each side) and neither spot has an advantage over the other:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=5992602

How would we decide in one game?

You cannot, assessing players skill based on 1 game is frankly impossible. At the very least there would remain a great deal of uncertainty. To a trained eye it might be more apparent who is the better player, but not based on the result, but rather moves and decisions.

Just to be clear, even the new "no luck" template has luck involvement. Not in terms of calculation, but the result. For example if we compare strategies taken by a both players, they all think forward and anticipate multiple scenarios. Based on all of them, we could judge that, for example, one player would win 60% of the time long-run, but as it happened he lost in this game.

If you really want a single game with the least amount of luck that gets in the way, Europe 3v3 is very close to being perfect.

@szew

What about a no-fog template; it would take away a lot of the uncertainty.. (though I'd say a heavy -fog would be a better measure of skill-requiring advanced guessing regarding your opponents status). You need to think outside the box for something like this. (that being said, you're ofc correct, except for the Europe 3v3 part :p)

No-fog template would remove a lot of guesswork early game (direction of attack/expansion), still guesswork when trying to break opponents bonuses is required. Some judgment calls are tricky and can backfire, double-bordering your opponent with an inferior stack is a good example, you'd be able to asess if you can force last order etc., but still some luck will remain. Europe 3v3 part I'm certainly not wrong about, I've played competetively for a long while and I can safely say it's the most skill based template so far. Also there is a general consensus among best players that team games in general with good settings are more skill-based than 1v1's. Still, your proposition of no-luck no-fog template variation of strat 1v1 seems to be a decent contender when it comes to skill-based 1v1.

If the starting spots are predetermined and known to both sides, then the perfect strategy will be easy to find out by trial and error within a few games. If the perfect strategy is easy to determine, then all the games of that template will be very similar to each other and quite predictable, regardless of how many starting points each side has.

And if the game is simple, then the importance of skill decreases whereas the importance of luck increases.

If, on the other hand, the starting positions will be picked out of a large pool of possibilities, each side having at least 2 picks, then a perfect strategy is very difficult to determine. In such cases, overall skill and understanding of the game play a big role, whereas luck plays a smaller role.

Nevertheless, if the opponent's picks are not known beforehand, there will be a considerable amount of luck at play as to how one's picks do against the opponent's picks. Therefore, to determine the "best player of WarLight", there would need to be a best of 9+ games challenge. Even chess world championships are played in the best of 12 format, despite chess being much less luck-based than the so-called "no-luck money games" of WarLight. There is too much luck involved for one game to be enough to decide.

I would like to make sure Coin Games are as much skill as possible. So the question is broad. Small advantages not related to skill should be eliminated as much as possible.

We are working on a few updates that should make coin games more strategic and less about first pick advantage.

Any ideas are welcome.

I don't know how you can get around the first move on the first turn issue. If both starting positions are equally good then what matters is who gets first move, which might be an advantage or a disadvantage.