Well I imagine the command looks something like:
if player_A_Timer<player_B_Timer then player_A have first move
else
player_B have first move

So with this assumption in case of equal timers player B is privileged. But that's Fizzer little secret :P

Edited 4/5/2015 09:43:15

Yeah, I'm imagining something like that Latnox. We should maybe shut up about it and not draw attention to it :)

I suppose it could be a bit more fair, like if they're tied A wins if milliseconds is even and B wins if odd.

Btw not having attack/transfer only in coin games makes no sense at all as it only makes games more luck based.
Sometimes I'd even like to have an "attack neutrals only" option, I should add a uservoice for that

Edited 4/7/2015 04:31:17

offtopic

you are wrong, you can put attack only/tranasfer only in coin games.

Is jsut fizzer missed them in his template, but i already try it, you can add them in your no luck template.

Dear creator

The most reason that i don't like to play in NLC in menual distribution setting , it's i have most the time highest ping and also too time-out in my networks connections , you should with considering about that make a right decision , as a result for who has a problem like that, thats not a fair settings.

I'm a programmer control systems , the best programmer who is thinking about everything...

dear TiFoos - your English is bad, and you should feel bad. Also how do you imagine no-luck settings without manual distribution? The problem here is your Internet connection, not the settings itself.

I only read the beginning of the thread, so I'm not sure if that has been mentioned:
I think the current system is fine, however the person who is fster should get 1 minute between picks and distribution, to choose whether he wants 1st order or 1st pick. I have already pointed that out after a weird game with Ruthless Bastard, when neither of us wanted first pick, so we both tried to make our orders during the picking stage as slow as possible, which gives an unfair advantage to someone that clicks "begin" first.

Dear Latnox
You'r right maybe my English isn't well,but seem you couldn't exactly got my point.
I can take my turn even in 1 min , but almost isn't possible for me to take faster under 5 sec .... My Internet connection ( for have too time-outing in most the time) doesn't let me to take it.
If i couldn't played, i hadn't 3500 games played.

As i said a programmer should thinking about everything ... mean think about the worst situations.
And i don't think i'm a only person who has this problem.

How about this game to determine who goes first?

http://llerrah.com/monkeykickoff.htm

why not? :D

If you do make this change, will you know if you get first pick before you pick?

Edit: my current highscore is 5062 :p

Edited 4/7/2015 22:14:56

ouch mine is 5060 you get first move this time

EDIT: actually no give me my first pick back


Edited 4/7/2015 22:19:29

Mine is 5268. In no situation would we reveal if you won first pick before you actually pick and commit.

oh was it a serious proposal?

I sure hope not.

5295 girls, 7th try

my record is 5310 :D

i don't think this or flipping coin or geography should be a solution though
few things i don't like the current system are that i don't get to see the distribution before picking

so after clicking begin if i see an exceptional pick following things can happen:-

1.it is so good pick i do not have to make enough backups cause it'll compensate for the bad backup picks-this is the fault of template or distribution(eg:-small earth coin games sometimes goes horribly one sided based on who commits fast and who checks on his game after/before his opponent)

2.it will help me a lot to win but i must make other good picks as well so i need to commit quickly and efficiently both as well as making sufficient amount of pick at the same time
this can be tricky since it'll actually REDUCE the main objective of the no-luck game which is pure skill

My device/internet connection/Spinal Cord reflex should have nothing to do with whether i get first pick or not
only brain should matter here

few proposals to solve these problems:-

1.allow players to view the distribution before clicking begin
2.allow them to decide whether they want the first pick or not
3.in case their decisions are same do the following:-
both players must make twice the number of starting territories
check which of them coincide
now the remaining picks are those in which both players differ
add the priorities on the remaining picks and calculate average
the player whose average is less gets the 1st pick
REASONING:-the fact that average of his remaining picks is less tells us that he has got the less prioritized picks compared to his opponent in common picks
so while assigning the picks he's less likely to get those picks than his opponent
if he gets the 1st pick it should balance the actual avg of sum total of numbers on priority list of the picks which players got by some amount

this is a very very vague idea though with possible flaws,i dont know if it can be perfected but we need something like this
a system where we have to think more of the entire board instead of just 1st or 2nd and 3rd picks

Edited 4/9/2015 00:55:09

I think it is great as it is now.

Although I should be able view my allies picks in a team game before I start my clock. He could also list all his picks in chat, and I could look them up. This is a completely unnecessary time wasting step though. Fixing this problem would greatly increase the general adoption of this quality selection type, even if you decide to use a different one for coin games in the future.

Both players enter a silent auction for 1st pick. The players submit how many armies they are willing to give their opponent for the choice between 1st and 2nd pick.

Player A chooses to give 1 army every 10 turns
Player B chooses to give up 1 army every 15 turns

Player A gets to choose if they want 1st or 2nd pick.
Player B gets 1 army every 10 turns

In the event both players offer up the exact same bid, the player that submitted the bid faster gets 1st pick and the slower player gets the armies.

This format would add skill to the game. You need to know what the pick is worth. These new games basically start with no bias. Compared to the current system where some games are decided as soon as the picks are made.

Edited 4/9/2015 07:05:34

@ Ruthless Bastard

That sounds like a brilliant idea! A player would have to estimate how many turns a game would last, and the value of armies in the context of that. This would add quite a dimension to the game.

Regardless of whether this idea is used to decide first picks in coin games, I would love for this feature to exist as a setting which a host can use.