<< Back to Ladder Forum | Discussion is locked - replying not allowed   Search

Posts 1 - 22 of 22   
VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/22/2011 01:56:07

Fizzer 
Level 58

Warzone Creator
Report

Please vote on whether or not you would like the 1v1 and 2v2 ladders switch from "Random" move order to "Cycle" move order.

In random move order, players have a 50% chance of going before their opponent each turn. In a cyclic move order, the first move alternates between the players. For more details, check out the full explanation via this link.

Click here to vote

Since this poll pertains to the ladders, only WarLight members may vote. Anyone can view the poll, it just won't accept your vote if you're not a member.

The poll will close on May 31st. You have until then to make up your mind. The voting link above allows you to change your vote at any time before then (simply click the link and vote again and your old vote will be thrown away.)

If you'd like, feel free to leave a reply to this thread explaining what you voted and why. It's a good way to persuade those who are on the fence!

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/22/2011 08:39:53


[中国阳朔]Chaos 
Level 49
Report

I like the way it is now, but wouldn't mind if changed to cyclic.

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/22/2011 14:57:59

Fizzer 
Level 58

Warzone Creator
Report

I voted in favor of cyclic move cycle. While I do like random in that it reduces the number of things you need to think about when building your turn, the problem with random is that sometimes it swings largely in favor of side.

Of course, in the long run (averaged over many games), everyone will get first move about 50% of the time. However, you'll encounter some games where one side gets first move far more often than the other.

This also drastically reduces how often you'll end up wasting order priority cards. If you play an order priority card when it's your turn to get first move, you can be 100% certain that you'll get first move. (assuming you know your opponent doesn't have two priority cards to play.)

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/22/2011 16:54:38


Knoebber 
Level 54
Report

Yeah I voted in favor of staying the same, because it will longer to take turns if you have to figure out who's move it is everytime

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/22/2011 17:36:31


Ace Windu 
Level 56
Report

Tbh Knoebber, i think the delay it will cause would be so marginal as to make no difference. They're multi-day games after all and it couldn't take more than 10 seconds to find out who has the first move.

btw I voted yes to the cyclic move cycle because any change is welcome for me. It keeps the ladder interesting.

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/23/2011 04:45:16

Eitz 
Level 11
Report

I voted to keep it the same as even tho I enjoy the cyclic move option for a game's settings, I find it drastically takes the effect of the order priority card out of the game and I rather enjoy the randomness of the current move option, never quite knowing whether ur gonna get a chance to go first or your opponent is and knowing that they have as little power in the outcome as you do. I think it adds a dynamic to the game that would be noticeably lacking in Ladder gameplay to have it structured with the cyclic option.

imo

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/23/2011 05:38:07


x 
Level 58
Report

Can we get cyclic move orders for some of the autogames as well?

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/23/2011 05:38:34


NuckLuck (Retired) 
Level 30
Report

I voted no. I just think it will remove a lot of the guesswork required to know when your opponent has or has not played an order priority card. Furthermore, I believe it would really lower the complexity of the game, especially in the area of all the second and third moves that you make in case o you don't get first move.

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/23/2011 05:52:31


Ruthless 
Level 36
Report

If we do this, I really want to see a Game Notes Uservoice make it because even if I do figure out the turn cycle...it will be hard to remember and I'll have to go back and figure out. If I can just take notes in game of the order than I'll be able to utilize it best. I think most veterans can agree that having game notes would be really helpful. We can just place it in the Players box so that it doesn't take up any room or have it be a button on the right side in between orders and Players.

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/23/2011 07:22:03


Doushibag 
Level 16
Report

Why would I want to remove the ability for the Warlight Gods to reward me!? Just seems silly! Vote yes and the Warlight Gods will punish you! Just because they'd lose a little bit of their power doesn't mean they can't still greatly influence the outcome of your games!

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/23/2011 08:21:57


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report

It'll make intel disruption and gathering more important with cyclic turns, and will downplay the strength of the OP card Imho.. I can foresee someone that gathers intel quicker using the OP card purely to try and confuse the opponents intel...

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/23/2011 17:50:21


Math Wolf 
Level 63
Report

I vote yes.

I remember games where my opponent was moving in front of me 3 turns in a row in my bonus without having a chance to kill him although I had advantage, this can really turn a good game in a bad game.
Of course, the opposite happened too, but either way I don't like those games.

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/24/2011 19:15:06


Duke 
Level 5
Report

Hell yea, because: less luck = better game

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/24/2011 19:34:41


Polaris 
Level 55
Report

That's just a matter of opinion. The luck aspect is what makes for an exciting game

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/24/2011 20:49:50


[中国阳朔]Chaos 
Level 49
Report

its not just less luck imho, also less possibilities/options you need to consider and I dont think that's needed

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 5/25/2011 02:55:32

The Impaller 
Level 9
Report

It's less luck, but I'm not sure I agree it's less possibilities or options to consider. It can be, in some situations, but in other situations it can actually end up being more.

I voted yes, but personally I would not shed tears either way.

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 6/10/2011 18:22:01

Fizzer 
Level 58

Warzone Creator
Report

Surprisingly (to me), the measure fails! The majority likes the random move order.

The results were:

2 votes for "Don't care"
16 votes for "No"
13 votes for "Yes"

The ladders will stay as they are. Thanks for voting!

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 6/10/2011 18:33:14


Ruthless 
Level 36
Report

Recount!

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 6/10/2011 20:24:14

INACTIVE USER
Level 2
Report

May I ask what would happen if "Don't Care" Won?

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 6/10/2011 20:41:50


Ruthless 
Level 36
Report

probably a decision by Randy then. I'm sure he'd pick the one with more 2nd place votes and if it was a tie, he'd just decide

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 6/10/2011 22:53:56


Math Wolf 
Level 63
Report

As a reaction to this decision, I must agree with Qaddafi, I hate all those members!

They don't know what's good for them!
I'm a bit of a sore loser on this decision.

VOTE: Should the ladders use cyclic move cycle?: 6/10/2011 23:52:02

Blue Precision 
Level 32
Report

Sorry folks,

I too voted to keep it as is. There are perks to knowing for sure who gets to move first and, in fact, I would prefer knowing it in team games, but in 1 v 1 I love the stress element of the unknown. It allows for bold moves to be tried where it would require a first turn in consecutive or multi-consecutive succession. Sure, when it works against you it's frustrating but when it works for you it sure feels satisfying.

Posts 1 - 22 of 22   
Discussion is locked - replying not allowed