And because of auto-distribution that players like you will create this thread, trying to demoralize a player that the hole community knows is much better than you and won't talk crap about it.

No chance for that noob to demoralize me :(

it was his wish, but it wont happen of course
he is demoralizing himself

Furious, the problem with auto distribution, is that a single sample cannot be efficient to judge a skill... in manual distribution it is not unreasonable to expect a 1900 elo player to beat a 1200 elo player 95-100% of the time... with automatic distribution, those same two players would have closer to an 80-20 ratio win rate, purely based on the fact that sometimes the better player will have a major crutch in some of the games, purely based on luck..

this being said, I believe auto-distribution is much more entertaining, as I find the distribution phase to be the least enjoyable in the entire game.. and could be seen as a better method for deciding gameplay skill and adaptability, over just calculated picks and counter-pick possibilities..

How's this for an alternative to the Manual/Auto Distribution Binary Choice:

You pick the territories you want to start in, but order preference doesn't matter. That way, noone gets first pick, and you don't know if you didn't get your spot because you were bumped out or it was just randomness.

My issue with Manuel is that most of the time, one player can figure out exactly where the other player is simply by what was available, and what they got.

Perrin, if I would play with the calculator like Heyhuehei, I would spend more time on chess, which I consider super boring. Warlight is a risk game and auto distribution, especially on big map is a very good option. I dont believe there is something like skill in this game. You can play it, or You cant, rest is just fun. I believe this game is not about being the best of the best, because its not possible here, thats why warlight is so special :)

Dunga, are You a clown in some circus?

Heyhuehei what stops You from making Your move? Its been 21 hours and You seem to be online whole the time? Calculator is not working, moon too big? Are You thinking about some good explanation why did You lose with me again? :) Just accept that when I want to win I just do it :)

Well, as people have said, 1v1 strategic games are often decided on turn 1 even if the players don't know it and I really don't think that's a good thing. The situation was even worse when the seasonal ladder had light fog. Any good 1v1 player would know who was going to win a lot of the games just by looking at the picks.

There is definitely far too much significance put on picks which are also decided by chance to some degree. Remember it's not just who gets the first pick that's decided but all your other picks can be decided on that basis.

Obviously, auto is too arbitrary as Richard said but only in it's most basic form. A refined version such as one Dev was talking about would be, I think, a better alternative to what we have now.

But this situation will be approached from different angles by everyone. Some people will want to keep the quite large element of luck that is in the 1v1 game and others will want to reduce that luck(I'm talking about more than the 16% thing here). Some people will also want to keep picks as the major divider in the game and others will want to take away that importance.

I suspect that the majority would want to keep that element of luck in the 1v1 game because it can make for some interesting(if frustrating) results and that picks should have a reduced significance but really I have no idea.

Personally, I've noticed the luck factor a lot more as I've improved at 1v1s and you can't help but notice the importance of picks. The problem with finding a solution to these problems is who are these solutions for? We have to make the template better for everyone not just for specific levels of playerss. The players at the top may not want much to change much understandably because they're at the top. They might just want to change the luck a bit to eliminate frustrating losses to less skilled players. But that may take away from the experience for the lower skilled players.

I'm not sure how we can find out what players think about these things. A big survey? It seems like a lot of work and I'm not sure it's even worth it. Is it so bad that we need to change the strategic 1v1 template? Probably not tbh.

/anticlimax

Also, on topic, good luck HHH, I hope you destroy Gaddafi :D

AND HE'S DONE IT!!! CROWD WENT CRAZY, WHOLE CITY WENT CRAZY!!!! PEOPLE ARE SALUTING TO FURIOUS LUKASZ!!! HE MADE IT!!! THE TYRRANY HAS BEEN DEFEATED!!!! THIS GAME WILL BE PASSED BY GENERATIONS OVER THE CENTURIES!!! VIVA LA FURIOUS LUKASZ!!!!

http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2620679

Anyone else?

Yeah, me.

I do not view Warlight as a risk-game, rather a risk-management game. I haven't encountered many more players that view it via game-theory perspective (Huruey might be the only one so far), but all the good players I've encountered instinctively understand principles behind effective risk-management. It can be applied both to picking order and mid-game tactics. Since there is distribution involved, auto-distribution might be fun, but to me it is really frustrating when after 2-3 turns I figure out that I was lost from the start. I am almost never lost from the start in my games, but when I am I can see where I made a mistake, and not in an *ex post* way knowing my opponents' picks. That is one more argument behind team games, it lets teams distribute the risk more efficiently in the picking phase than in 1vs1 games.

i agree with szewewnenwen, though from a different perspective. i've always been gambling: sports, cards and board games, investments, career plans, etc., so the risk-management aspect of the game was internalized long ago for me.

i couple that with how i approach the game: a blend of (1a) daoism and (1b) chinese art of war and (2a) european military tactics based on (2b) my readings of history. the chinese part provides strategy, balance/flow, and risk-management. the european part provides historically proven tactics and strategies (the risk has been managed in history by others, so it should work in similar strategic situations on warlight for me).

personally, i think anything you need to know about warfare is in the classical chinese version of sunzi's art of war (the english isn't as good, for ideas having been lost in translation and due to the force of the chinese characters' images providing a deeper meaning than english letters/words). the details can be flushed out with other theories (game theory perhaps) or explanations, but the core ideas were written by sunzi long ago.

Ace Windu wrote:
|> Well, as people have said, 1v1 strategic games are often decided on turn 1 even if the players don't know it and I really don't think that's a good thing. The situation was even worse when the seasonal ladder had light fog. Any good 1v1 player would know who was going to win a lot of the games just by looking at the picks.
|> There is definitely far too much significance put on picks which are also decided by chance to some degree. Remember it's not just who gets the first pick that's decided but all your other picks can be decided on that basis.

This whole discussion about 1v1 ladder distribution came up a few times already over the past months, and it is good to see that players still care about it.
Like I said before, I think the main problem with the 1v1 ladder and it's predictability is not the picking itself, it is the fact that picking of territories and initial distribution of armies are not separated. (Eventually) knowing that my opponent started in South Pole, Mexico and Sweden is not what makes the game predictable. Knowing that he started there with 4 armies each is what really takes a lot of strategy and variation away.
If instead the initial distribution of armies were completely separated from the picking of territories and would happen as an additional step between picking and turn 1, then the game would be MUCH more interesting.
If you like the idea let me point you to the UserVoice entry I made for this: http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/2286567-free-deployment-of-initial-armies

Here is how things COULD be:
a) both players place their picks
b) game advances, players see which (three) picks they actually got and which ones they didn't get, players can also see if their starting spots are adjacent to the opponent's spots.
c) players distribute their initial armies (12 armies for example) freely among their starting positions.
d) in case a player decides to leave a territory completely empty, i.e. he places no armies there, that particular territory reverts back to a neutral with 4 armies in it.
(or VARIANT: d) a territory left empty by a player turns into another 10er wasteland)
e) game advances, proceed with turn 1.

This is a great idea Diabolicus!
I just gave the UV my 3 votes. This could make the strat1v1 template much more interesting (and I wouldn't have to kick myself so much for yet another shitty picking lol)!

You really think anyone is checking the votes? Your votes will change nothing Gnulberg.

well if a UV has more votes, then Fizzer is more likely to check it out.
If he likes it, he may implement it.
It can make a difference to vote for good UVs
such as, ban Gaddafi and all his accounts

Just because You got the Golden Troll Award and the title "The Golden Troll', doesnt mean You have to troll every single topic and every single post! CALM THE TROLL DOWN!!!

From now on, Im not feeding You anymore. You will beg me for any food, I promise You.

ok, from now on i ignore rubbish posts ^^^^^^.


Starting............

**Now**