We're really " lucky " to have zero-luck standard games...

baDUMtsss....

@scze(blahblahblah

Fizzer shouldn't have to say this a million times (sorry if I am overreacting)
In the US, it is illegal to have online gambling (and child gambling), in certain states (and everywhere,respectively). Putting in the regulation would be a hassle, and as such, Fizzer won't ever put gambling in.

And based on the number of alcoholics revealed in the "Stoptober", it's probably for the better

@Fizzer,Although, I can't wait for the Warlight 3.0,the "Investor" business isn't my cup of tea. Who knows who the investor is ON THE INSIDE (he might be as evil as Romney). And now you're a corporation, imagine the hell (and privileges). This is going to be a great undertaking, and I hope that I can support you, but I am not sure

evil as Romney

Does this mean new accounts will start with 0% luck and cyclic move order unlocked and will have to work to unlock 75% luck and random move order, or is just that from now on games will default to 0% and cyclic, meaning new accounts will already have the full range unlocked?

I have always been a big fan of low luck games(luck modifier 0%, straight round, cyclic move order, manual distribution) and therefore i like the change that the Randomness is now off by default.


How i have understands it, The no-luck cyclic move order is not solving the randomness in when players choose the same startplaces.
So, the only way to play with no randomness at all, is when you have play on a map with two halves that are equal to each other and where the startplaces are also equal to each other. (just like a chess board.)

For me, the picking stage is half of the fun, so i dont think i will play much games like that.

I will also avoid no-luck cyclic move order, the "Whoever plays fastest will be placed 1st in the first move order" will only make the picking phase more frustrating and will probably result in a slower start.

I like the idea of no-luck cyclic move order in a real time game with honest players. Probably not a good idea in multiday... I think the typical cycle move order is better generally.

I remember posting ages ago about a map with fixed equal starts. I was hoping to strategies to evolve over time like chess.

Gone off this idea a bit now though because i just don't think there is enough variation in warlight. I imagine a competetative scene working out the best strategies pretty quickly. It would have to be a very clever map/set up where every strategy had at least one counter.

I guess id still quite like to see this happen. At least until the community found the best strategy.

eww, I bet qwed voted for Obama :p

Personally I like the changes. Though as Green said I would really like to see an option between cyclical and random move order...my weighted option. So it would have some luck involved but you would hopefully not have someone keep getting first move on you.

I really like this a lot though because I think the biggest problem is so many people playing bad templates to start out they don't learn.

@his balls - there was already some attempts for this. Like:

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TournamentID=9375

or

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TournamentID=11395

This 'no luck cyclic move order' doesen't seem to be a preferable setting. I play lot's of low prereq team games with random teammates and what I dislike most is when players pick some nonsense super fast and then walk away until next move starts. This new setting rewards this kind of 'teamplay'.

Unless I'm missing something (which is certainly possible), no-luck cyclic move order seems horribly flawed for games with 3+ players (or 3+ separate teams).

The person who moves quickest in the first round gets the top of the order... but the person who moves the slowest gets the bottom. Each get to go first half of the time.

This means that it's advantageous in large FFA games to wait out the clock, either until everyone else has done their first move or right to the brink of the direct boot time (after which you boot whoever didn't move quick enough).

None of this strikes me as a good thing, particularly as it would seem to encourage slowing down the first round of what are usually already pretty slow-moving games.

Edited 11/12/2014 23:46:59

Pretty sure the time only applies to setting the first turn order, then it would cycle from there

@Mr.Pride Eww, I bet you voted for the Koch brothers

Going first isn't always better

It is always best to have first move because you can delay as needed (yes sometimes you get out delayed). At the very least you can plan for getting out delayed. But you can never plan for first move.