Example:

4-FFA with players A, B, C and D

A commits in 1 second, and he chooses to play LAST -> he's first to choose LAST so he goes 4th
B commits in 2 seconds, and chooses to play FIRST -> first to choose FIRST, he goes 1st
C commits in 3 seconds, he chooses to play FIRST too -> second to choose FIRST, goes 2nd
D commits in 4 seconds, chooses LAST -> second to choose LAST, goes 3rd

So the order will be BCDA


That's the most fair system i can think of

My favourite suggestions, so far, are:

1. Select order of picks - as Sephiroth outlines above.

And, even better:

2. Betting first-turn or basic income for pick priority.

Alternatively, you could bet your starting number of armies per territory, instead of income. Or even starting number of territories, up to the maximum specified by the game.

So the winner of the picks has fewer territories, less income, or fewer armies on each starting territory.

This is excellent!

In either case, break ties based on pick speed, as it is currently. This still makes speed important and removes any random element, but not as important as it is at the moment: people who pick slow can compensate by wagering higher.

3. I also like the idea that contested picks are simply not allocated. If you didn't make enough picks, you get random territories. But you know this ahead of time, so you'll make a lot of picks, just to be safe.

The likelihood of two players both picking the same 10+ territories *in the same order* is almost infinitesimal.

This way you have no issue with luck at all. Turn order can still be based on speed of picks, as it is currently.

This makes picks less obvious: you need to pick territories NEAR desirable areas, not the ones you think your opponent will go for. I think that's interesting.

The one who submits last (right before the auto-boot) gets the first pick. It's skill-based because finishing your picks 0.1 seconds before auto-boot requires tremendous skill and courage:)

Each player gets 1000 points. You bid on territories. one of the "territories" is first move (and one could be second move), which each player has to bid on. player A can only bid in even amounts, player B in odd amounts.

Territory with highest bid gets awarded to that player
Territory with the next highest bid goes to that player, if its available....

Each player gets 1000 points. You bid on territories. one of the "territories" is first move (and one could be second move), which each player has to bid on. player A can only bid in even amounts, player B in odd amounts.

Territory with highest bid gets awarded to that player
Territory with the next highest bid goes to that player, if its available....

Well, for the even/odd thing, then we'd have to ask the question "How do we determine who is even and who is odd?" which has no skill-based answer. I suspect you included this part to avoid ties but we'd have to come up with a different way of resolving ties.

Even then I'm not sure I understand the rules. You're bidding on "first pick" as an item, but if picking switches between the players then why would you allocate points to the territories? Points allocated to territories only rank against yourself, right? So you bid one point on the #1 territory you want and 999 on "first pick". What's the counter to that strategy?

The likelihood of two players both picking the same 10+ territories *in the same order* is almost infinitesimal

It's infinitesimal if they pick randomly. However, if two players are going for the same strategy, it actually happens quite frequently. It probably happens weekly or daily in the 1v1 ladder.

Betting first-turn or basic income for pick priority.

I fear that, most of the time, people would bid 0. Giving up your starting armies is a really big deal, compared to first pick which only increases win rate by 5% on average in the 1v1 ladder. And if most of the time people are bidding 0 or 1, ties would happen very often and we haven't really improved upon the situation.

Edited 4/10/2015 06:17:28

So what you're looking for here is a way to chose who gets first pick, with no randomness, related to warlight, before the game have started, based on skill. Additionally it needs to work when players pick the same territories(eg. does the exact same action). I'm not a fan of minigames, auctions etc.

Pick speed is one way of doing that, Sephiroths idea of letting whoever picks first choose feels like an improvement to me, at least for 1v1s.

However if you completely rework how the picking stage work, many other options are possible. For example if you do open picking, Both players see what the other player pick, and once turn one begins the fog (if any) is back. Hard to explain; so here's an example:
Player A and player B can see the same board. Whoever picks first commits a pick gets first pick, in this case A. Now it's Bs turn, he've to pick two territories, he can also see what A picked. B done with his picks, As turn; A can see Bs picks, A picks two territories... Until each player have done their max number of picks.

I imagine this can also be done with picks being hidden, but that would mean B would have to pick 3 instead of 2 picks on his first turn-> in case he picks the same as A, then A would have to pick 4... etc, it would technically work, but sounds like a pain in the ass. That's why I think open picks is better.

Of course, if you ever do make a big change I'd hope you keep the other options for games that are not "pure-skill".

Edited 4/4/2015 04:04:37

Here's another good system I came up with (for a different game):

You have X points to distribute to your picks. You must distribute all the points, and you must make a certain minumum number of picks (i.e. you can't just pick one territory and put all your points there). The points represent how badly you want to get that pick.

(It may be good to limit the number of possible picks, as well. For instance, you could have a maximum number of picks, or simply a set number of picks: pick five territories, allocate 13 points to them. Having a set number of picks, which all players must follow, could be a good way to control a "non-luck" game.)

Rules:

* Once you're done, each contested territory goes to whoever allocated the most points to that territory.

* Ties are broken by your LOWEST allocated number of points (to any territory).

For example, you have 10 points to distribute, and you have to pick at least 3 territories. You pick Rome with 5 points, Carthage with 3 points, and London with 2 points.

I pick Rome with 6 points, Carthage with 3 points, and London with 1 point.

I get Rome (because I allocated 6 points to it), and you get London (because you allocated 2 points to it).

Carthage is contested. Your lowest point allocation was 2 (London). Mine was 1 (London). Therefore you win ties: you get Carthage.

In the case of a perfect tie, go by fastest speed, as it works currently.

Another option is to use a solution from the board game Go:

Value getting your best pick as worth a certain value - perhaps 1 extra army/turn, an extra starting territory, or a lower number of starting armies. In other words, getting your pick is agreed to be worth a certain value, as it gives you an advantage in the game. (In Go, the player who goes second gets a number of bonus points added to their score at the end of the game.)

Whoever loses their first pick gets a bonus: perhaps an extra army on each starting position, or a similar advantage. The winner starts with 4 armies on each starting territory, but the loser starts with 5 on each starting territory. (Or perhaps an automatic Reinforcement Card on the first turn?)

You'd have to test this for a while to find a "balanced" option (as has been done in Go).

There are other ways of finding different but balanced strategies. For example...

One player is the Choice Position: she gets her first pick, no matter what.

The other player is the Underdog Position: he loses the first pick, but wins the second (if tied). However, the Underdog gets to decide whether they wish to go first or go last in the turn order.

---

Another possibility might be something like this:

When you make your picks, your speed at making them is ranked. A "winner" is selected. That winner can choose:

A. You win ties with your first pick.

or

B. You win ties with your second and third picks.

After that, it alternates (Player A wins a tie with the 4th pick, Player B wins a tie with the 5th pick).

Or, if the first pick is THAT important, you can choose to win the first pick but lose all other ties, or lose your first pick but win all other ties. (Choice would go, again, to the player making the fastest choices.)

Let the system determine who is Player A and B and make it known before they pick

From a game design perspective, I agree that is a good solution. However, from a legal perspective, we want the entire game to be determined based on skill.

Even if we could replace the picking system with one where first pick had a very small amount of influence on the game, if we determine it randomly it means there's technically still an element of chance involved. This causes it to violate some state's laws.

If the current situation is legal, then pick one of the solutions presented here, and only in tied situations (should happen seldom), use picking speed as a tie breaker.

All right , I was thinking of it during the night (while sleeping :P). And you are right Fizzer - in case of auction for beeeing the first player ties could be the problem as most of players wont bid if there are no teriitory conflicts.

Therfore i propse that:

1) the turn order (which is not so important) should be resolved in a who picks first fashion (like before)

2) any territory conflicts (which are the biggest issue for the start of the game ) should be resolved via auction as mentioned in my 1st post:

auction system:

for easier understanding lets assume that in situation when player has to pick "n" territories, the first "n" number of territories he has choosen are 1-st grade picks and any additional are 2nd grade picks (so if he was to choose 3 territories and he has choosen A B C D E F G , 1st grade picks are A B C and 2nd grade picks are D E F G )

When there is a situation when 2 or more players picked one territory there starts additional round of auction.

The player is informed that one of the territories he has choosen is picked by another player (or more) and now he must

bet on it. The player is informed which territory it is so that he can estimate its value.

Now betting. What to bet?
Initial income! (usually standard 5 per turn).
So player can bet a number ranging from 0 to n (where n is per turn income for this particular game).

Let's suppose he has choosen 3 and his opponent has chosen 2. This means that he has won and that this territory is his.

But this also means that on his first round he will not get this 3 income. So if the base income is 5 he will only get 2.

Of course his opponent doesnt have to pay anything.

When the player looses the auction he is given the first free territory from his 2nd picks list (or random territory if he

doesnt have any valid 2nd grade picks).

The auction is only resolved for a conflicts in 1st grade picks.

If player has more than one conflitct, he is bidding all of them in the same auction turn (so if he has conflict in territories A and B and is given 5 initial income, then if he bids 3 for A he can bid maxmally 2 for B as he has only 5 to spread beetwen them)


There may be two options for conflict of his 2nd grade picks


a) his new territory (2nd grade) was choosen by another player as his main territory (1st grade pick). In that situation he looses this conflict automatically and is given his next 2nd grade territory



Example

in game with 3 territories to pick

(1st grades) (2nd grades)
Palyer 1 picks territories : A B C D E F G
Player 2 picks territories : H I B P O U
Player 3 picks territories : W V D Y Z X

in that situation there is conflict between player 1 and player 2 for territory B
Lets assume that player 2 wins the auction. Now the player 1 is given a teritory from his 2-nd grade picks. D is first in

a row, but it turns out that there is another conflict because D was also choosen by player 3. In thet case D is given to player 3 because it was his 1st grade pick (for player D it was 2nd grade pick). Now the player 1 is given next territory from his 2nd grades which is E.


b) the new territory from 2nd grade picks was also given to another player that has lost auction as his 2nd grade pick. In that situation there is an autoamtic TIE and both of them are given their next 2nd grade picks.

Example

in game with 3 territories to pick

(1st grades) (2nd grades)
Palyer 1 picks territories : A B C D E F G
Player 2 picks territories : K I B P O U
Player 3 picks territories : S V W Y Z X
Player 4 picks territories : R T S D K J


in that situations there is conflict between player 1 and player 2 for territory B and between player 3 and player 4 for territory S Lets assume that players 2 and 3 win their auctions. Now the player 1 is given a first teritory from his 2-nd grade picks which is D and the player 4 is given the first teritorry form his 2nd grade picks which is also D. In that situtation none of them gets it so their are given : Player on E and Player 4 K.

Of course K was picked by player 2 as his 1st grade pick so Player 4 canat have it (situtation a) and is given another 2nd grade which is J. If player 4 didnt have J in his 2ng grade list, he would be given random territory





it may look complicated but it is quite easy. And most of it wil be resolved automaticaly - players will only have to bet.

Summing up.

• 1) player can bet on his conflict territories in auction turn. He is betting with his initial income.
  
  
• 2) if he wins he gets it but his income in first round is lowered by the sum that he has bet
  
  
• 3) if he looses he is given territory from his 2nd grade picks (according to their picking line) and he doesnt have to pay
  
  
• 4) in case of tie both(all) plyers loose that territory
  
  
• 5) if there is conflicts between 2nd and 1st grade pick the 1st grade pick wins
  
  
• 5) if there is conflict between 2nd grade picks all 2nd grade picks loose (tie)
  

*in situation where there is no base income, players could be alowed to bet from the amount of starting troops from particullar territory - eventually this could be a main auction option or they could be mixed (player can bet from the initial income + starting troops from that territory)

I think that this auction system may give even more entertainment to this game. It is also fair because in case of conflict player will need to pay for it to get that teritorry. And it is also strategis as he will have to estimate how much it is reasonable to pay.
The main disadvantage of this method is that it will require additinal turn, but personally I dont think that it would be a big problem. Eventually it may be an optional feature to use that auction system (unlocked on 60th level?).


So now there is only one round of auction with quite good solution for ties (2nd grade picks) and the turn order is based on the on the "who picks faster" rule as it was untill now.

Each player has the % of times they have first pick. The lowest percentage goes first.

Now in case of a tie which will happen primarily in the beginning. First to join the game gets first pick.

Show pick order during picking territory phase.

After "begin" is clicked two buttons come up on the left side of the screen (the action bar) that say "first pick" and "first order".
You glance at the board to quickly determine which one you think would be better to have and then the first one to select will be guaranteed their choice.. But both players still has the full time to make their actual picks.
It would eliminate the annoying scenario when both players want 2nd pick and wait until last second before committing. As some players in this thread complained about wanting to take their time with picking this would also eliminate the stress of making the actual picks.

Edited 4/4/2015 09:36:48

Best idea yet! +1, Darkpie.
Let's say every player has 1min to think about which cicle position they prefer on the board. There can't be any complaining if you tell both players which position the other player picked, because otherwise it's probably unfair if one player knows the opponent will try the only ftb, for example. This improvment would also mean the least change, for Fizzer and for us.

Edited 4/4/2015 11:53:06

there was a thread last month in which a very similar discussion happened
but it went nowhere after that

i hope it does this time

And i don't like Darkpie's idea - if 1st move option would give advantage as often as 1st pick then it's really fine. But 1st move is rarely better than 1st pick - so it will be just clicking fight to click 1st pick first.

Current system is fine to me, couldn't add more to what Gnuff wrote at the beginning.
The only problem is that some coin templates doesn't fit to it:

1. Rise of Rome - no need to check board, just choose what to pick, click begin and commit - whoever can click faster to win

2. Extremly low diversity, so again - no need to think much, just click as fast as you can as losing 1st pick is usually bad.

Change those with other, with more randomness on boards and it's all good.

Edited 4/4/2015 13:01:57

@Krzychu

I'm also fine with the current system, but alot of ppl seem to want it changed and the idea I proposed is something I would also be fine with.

It already kinda is a clicking fight anyway imo. another thing that I think is good with what I proposed is that games where both players rush their picks (and therefore don't think them through properly) to get first pick and then one player is 1 second faster, often putting the second player at a severe disadvantage with rushed picks and no 1st pick, won't happen.


But like I said, I'm fine with the system like it is. I wouldn't be fine with the other ideas in this thread though.

krzychu i am happy you agree with me :-)
- about RoR. The problem is not the map, the problem is the full distribution. Every full distr in 1v1 will have this effect (same picks all times more or less). If it were random warlord, with 1s bonus not pickable, and superbonuse set to 0, the template would be more strategic with more variety of strategy (also some wasterland are ok as well).

Edited 4/4/2015 14:03:12