I realized that too after i tought a while about it. On templates like no luck cyclic medium earth there's almost no problem with no luck cyclic i'd say. Often 2nd and 3rd pick are better than first.

On small earth or RoR it's bad since the starting positions are always the same. On some templates it'd maybe make sense to change something, on others it doesn't cause the actual way is the fairest way possible

yeah. For example, in my opinion, i would change back 80 coin games to ME 1v1, and make RoR random warlord, more starting position, no supèrbonus. Still, IMHO, RoR is too big for a 1v1 very well balanced, would be better play it in a 3v3 or 4v4.

Yes ME 1v1 with 80 coin games would be very nice to have back....

in all other templates it is fair but not so in small earth
you either win by 1st/3rd 1st/4th or 2nd/3rd of your picks
but most of the times it is 1st/4th that wins the game
and only because of 1st pick
sometimes the maps are such that you can win if you pick only australia as well,cause the other picks are that bad
and some players(like me) do need more than 1 sec to commit and still want to win but only to find out i could never outmatch speeds of some others and become positionally disadvantaged from the start itself

that template needs a fix

That is why my auction system doesnt include the element of speed

Kain, I think your auction system is inherently unfair, because winning/losing a territory gives a player extra information about opponents' strategies, which would create advantages and disadvantages in games with more than 2 players.

Also, it's pretty complicated, and with each revision it gets worse. Whatever the new picking tiebreaker is, it should be simple and intuitive.

What did people think of traviter's suggestion on the first page? I thought that was one of the most sensible ideas so far. It would be easy on players (everyone makes an additional set of picks in which they try to guess where their opponent(s) picked), Fizzer wouldn't have to do much work to implement it, as it would use the current picking interface, and it's a fair measure of strategic thinking: predicting your opponent's strategy is an important element of Warlight.

because winning/losing a territory gives a player extra information about opponents' strategies, which would create advantages and disadvantages in games with more than 2 players.


If you dont know which player is bidding against you then you cannot know anything specific in >3 players game (fact is that i didnt mentioned that you shoud not know who your bidding opponent is). Additionally other players taht are not taking part in auction for a particullar territory wont know who is bidding with who and for which territory(they can only know that there is some bidding as the additional auction turn is on)

i 2vs2 game there would be equal share of infrmation so again no problem

the third revision is almost the same as first (the addition is that the turn order is based on picking speed). The second one was trully a dead-end.

and while it looks complicated the rulles of it are quite simple and intuitive (I hope :D )

Edited 4/4/2015 16:56:00

Imagine a game in which all available starting territories will go to players, like full distribution. In your system, if their is a tie, nobody gets that territory. This would result in some players being given fewer over all territories.

I also quite like traviter's suggestion on the first page: base turn order and break ties based on whoever could predict popular picks best.

It's completely non-random and yet highly unpredictable. (Especially since you may have an advantage by making unpredictable picks!)

It's based on the current system, and requires few changes to the game. It doesn't require any kind of mini-game or clicking really quickly, and makes you think about some interesting things.

about bidding system and similar ideas like this one:

Each pickable territory has a "picking speed". For example, Norway has +10 and South Pole has -5, etc. Each player makes 6 picks, and we sum all the numbers. Whoever has the highest total gets first pick.

You can also weight them based on which pick they were. Your #1 pick multiplies the number by 1000, your #2 pick multiplies it by 100, etc. So if both players pick the same territories in different orders, they won't tie.

What will happens if team mirror pick? This happens quite often, especially in 3v3 games.

I'd prefer to stay with current system, because like some players already mentioned It works completely fine.

Maybe one thing I'd like to be changed: advanced attack options. I don't see how it is connected with luck. I understand that you want to make game more approachable for new players, but isn't there already separate bracket of coin games only for them? Why not to restore advanced attack options to regular no-luck cyclic games?

do you mean coin games don't have attack/transfer only and attack by percentage?

yes, they don't have it! As well as all others pure-skill games.

lol

@Z-Dog Imagine a game in which all available starting territories will go to players, like full distribution. In your system, if their is a tie, nobody gets that territory. This would result in some players being given fewer over all territories

good point but there is a solution. As it was stated in rules of my auction system, when there is no valid 2nd grade territory to assign, then the player is given random territory (from the rest of avaiable territories). So in that rare case all the conflicting territories that cant be assigned due to the 2nd grade vs 2nd grade conflicts (or auction ties) would be assigned via randonmization. The trick is to allow the unused (2nd grade vs 2nd grade conflict teriotoires or auction tie teriotoires) to take part in those random phase.

yes that's indeed a Point that makes no sense for me. attack/Transfer only requires more skill in my opinion

@Kain The new picking method is supposed to eliminate all randomness, even in a rare situation like this one

Just curious, but what happens if two or more players pick the same territory in the exact same time?

TBest - I don't think that ever happened. Even if you try to do it on purpose, probability of getting the same amount of ms is close to 0

But maybe the game will crush or your computer will burn if it actually happens :)

Edited 4/4/2015 20:18:18

I imagine it must be coded one way or another though if the times are exactly equal.

@Latnox I have tried to make two players chat at the same time too. Always those ms that mess me up :)

And due to legal reasons it can't be simply choosing one random, can it?