As an ancient ROR player. lol, I can say ROR is at it's best in Random Warlords.

I don't like Full Dist. either, but I think it is not as bad as other maps.

There is slightly more strategy in ROR then other maps.

It is the concept of Late game that has to be planned from picks which is not as important(Sill important) in other maps but a must in ROR which creates OPPORTUNITY for various strategies that simply won't work on most other maps.

One such strategies are Super Bonuses counters where you take a pick or a position just so you counter at the right time after letting your opponent invest in a super bonus that he cannot defend.
Skill is involved in calculating that time.
The fact that it is a very balanced map, makes this aspect even more appealing.

Eg: Picking Rotomulus(+2 of Gallia/France) to counter Germany/Illy

Edited 8/20/2018 07:26:12

All those tournaments are Ror with full dist. It's non-strategic garbage. It's memorizing the best picks and picking them every game. Good job.

No. Many good players try for weird risky bad picks and make it work; this makes game more unpredictable and interesting. Sadly some noobs with high win% doesn't understand this and try to go for same picks every time, which makes game boring.

I consider myself a casual player. I want to win every game I play , but prefer hard games that test me. The problem is I rush my play at times , I don't spend the time planning each move and my overall stratagy like I should. I prefer to pick, in more random games, and where I am just trying to learn a new map. but auto pick seems fairer when some players don't know the map as well as others. I also choose to play a lot of FFA with 10 or more players, that kills the stats , but it feels great when you do win

---

ps I only found one game in common with you Bane. So I have always won against you. LOL

What is a competitive game? A game which is a challenge, a game whose outcome is not preordained at the start. A game, where if I make the right choices, I will win, and if I make the wrong choices, I will lose. A game where every player, every team, has a reasonably equal chance of winning. If that is the criteria, then random teams and auto-dist are effective ways of creating a level playing field, where every player has a reasonable chance of winning.

Isnt the starting position the even playing field though? The game starts with making picks, not with the first turn. Every player has a reasonable chance on winning. If you make mistakes, you lose as a result. This goes for picking as well.

The truth is that you need to have manual Random Warlords distribution to consider a game to be truly competitive. Some old-school players would say that Cities distribution is also for competitive gameplay, but I won't argue it. That being said, I wouldn't call all these "full-distribution" players as bad as Nauz did. After all, this game is about patterns, and you always can counter any strategy with a better one. That's why Seph called herself casual-competitive. I would like to see someone say that he is top10 player, because he is winning on full-distribution ROR. Then I will respond in a different way.

Edited 8/20/2018 11:03:18

I am a top 10 player cause i won a full-distribution ROR game

Limited full dist works as well, but that's really a made up term to describe full dist, with lots of wastelands, that are set to the same size as neutrals just to make them not be starting choices.