@Ruthless basstard
thats too much thinking before the picking
we will probably need more banked time to calculate
and also i'd much rather take armies than give to my opponent in most of the maps where you cant win on picks only
and for how many turns one should give/take armeis should have a limit or i could say i'll give 1 armies to my opponent for infinite turns cause after a specific amount of turns the value of that army shoulnd't change the result of the game
could you perfect it more,i like the idea :)

@Life

It wont take that long to calculate.

A limit isnt needed. if you offer 1 army for every 1,000,000,000 turns you simply wont get 1st pick youll get the armies your opponent offers and he'll get 1st pick.(or 2nd if he prefers it to 1st *highest bidders choice*)

EDIT: there will most likely be a programming cap on the bid. 1 army for every 100 turns. Anything above that is just pointless nonsense.

EDIT 2: This could be tested if you trust your opponent. The only difference is instead of + armies it would be - armies.

1) Look at distribution
2) submit your bids in chat at the same time
3) Highest bidder chooses 1st or 2nd and you manipulate the time to insure the right order.
4) If the winning bid was 1 army every 5 turns, the player that got 1st pick would waste 1 army every 5 turns via attacking a nuetral with 1 army.

Edited 4/9/2015 09:49:08

4131

but the question still remains if the map is quite evenly distributed and no one wants to waste a single army in getting their choice of picks cause they know it wont matter much
in such cases i'd have no problem if 1st pick is assigned randomly
but i'm not sure that'll be legally ok
it should be actually,since both players are giving the consent

one more question:-
how will this work in more than 2 player games?

That isnt an issue. If 1st pick has no advantage over 2nd pick and vice versa. Why would anyone care which pick they get? They would both offer 0 armies. Whoever bid 0 1st would get 1st pick. The other player wouldnt care because 2nd is just as good. If it wasnt they would have bid 1 army/100 turns, and got their choice of pick with that near worthless bid.

Regardless if the pick is significant or completely insignificant the players will enter turn 1 with no noticeable advantage, so long as they bid correctly.

one more question:-
how will this work in more than 2 player games?

getting way ahead but FFA's could just be a loss of armies. You bid 1 army/8 turns for 1st pick, you win 1st pick, you lose 1 army off your base every 8 turns. Remaing bid for 2nd pick and so on. Regardless the game this auction format can be fit to to work with the game, including team games. Risk had auction distribution.

Edited 4/9/2015 11:34:52

i see a flaw here
in small earth now if someone had to get the first pick over someone like you they'll have to give you 1 army each turn which is a bad trade
cause otherwise we all know you always get the 1st pick
this will make the small earth game more biased than it already is

@ Ryiro

That doesnt make sense why would i always get 1st pick unless you bid 1 army/1 turn?

If i bid 1 army/10 turns you only need to bid 1 army/9 turns to get 1st pick.

Here's how it plays out.

1. You look at the map
2. You bid
3. You make your picks
4. Bids are revealed
5. Best bid gets their choice of 1st pick or 2nd pick
6. The other player gets the armies equal to the winning bid.

ya sorry i got the bidding system wrong way
i thought you had to pay 1 army each turn for 10 turns
silly me :P

5344 max, 21 min.

I think the pre-game somewhat takes away from the main event. The dot, geography, monkey... The current system seems to be a natural part of the warlight (or warzone) culture/process.
Just mho.

I am thinking of a number between 1-100. If you guess the number, you go first. Else I go first. ;)

But seriously, The proposal for weighted picking seems interesting so far.
Each territory is given a random value ahead of picks.
Your first choice is multiplied by some number, second place multiplied by a smaller number and so on.
If you pick territories that sum higher, then you get your first pick.
If everyone wanted Australia, then the focus moves to the value of your second pick.
We would require +3 picks more then required.
In the event of a tie, the board would be reshuffled.
(For FFAs we would continue to use time picking for now)

How does that sound?

i would be a huge fan mercer!

use picking time was always an awful idea imo. I have never created games with that cause i like to pay attention to my picks. When a clock is ticking its a much bigger chance you make a mistake in picks.

sometimes it is rewarding to miss first pick so you get stalling games on picks (which will always be won by the person who clicked the first on begin) sometimes a pick just needs to be first so you cant take your time on picks..

Deciding games by people making mistakes on picks because they feel rushed to pick should not be an issue. I am very interested how this will turn out. Maybe create some testgames with it to see how it works?

I like it, it've values that can be tuned for balance purposes, a different strat for picking that is skill based. It may or may not be better than how it currently is, but I'd say it's worth a try :)

Good thing i signed in once more despite taking a WL-break, i dont want to miss this discussion.

I ve read through the whole thread now and i think there already are a few good ideas.

To me, something that replaces the randomness by a 0luck/0skill game (like stone/paper/scissor)
would be fine, just let them play a round of it pre game (without telling them who won) and there wouldnt be any diffrence to playing in cyclic( not no-luck cyclic ) move order besides that its legal for coingames. Simple and already way better than the no-luck cycle.

Those more complex minigames seem to take away the focus from the actual game, i dont think they fit there. Also the dot-mini game requires a skill totally unrelated to warlight and the geography test favors players more expericened on the map to much (same goes to other minigames that were mentioned).

I like Fizzers idea of adding a weight to the bonuses, it seems to solve every problem i mentioned in the other thread. I dont think team mirror would be a problem, you can just go by picking speed in that situation as the outcome for the team is going to be the same anyway.
Having to pick again in case of same picks (as your opponent) seems to be fair, but picking twice probably isnt that fun (maybe switch to an auction in that situation? not changing the picks of course).
Its not that big of a deal anyway, as this situation will mosty likly not occur to often, and picking twice every X games should be okay.
Also, the map may look a little clustered at picking stage with those weights included,
but those are only minor problems i think.

Ruths idea also looks intresting to me. Not only does this solve every problem mentioned in the previous thread we had regarding this topic, it also seems to take away a luck factor of the game by adding a skill component. I dont see any problem with his idea.

Edited 4/10/2015 15:57:07

"To me, something that replaces the randomness by a 0luck/0skill game (like stone/paper/scissor)would be fine" (GiantFrog)


Unfortunatelly stone/paper/scissor is 100%luck/0%skill game


although in real life there is some space for a deeper strategy
http://iwastesomuchtime.com/on/?i=55376

Edited 4/16/2015 17:04:42

Unfortunatelly stone/paper/scissor is 100%luck/0%skill game

There is no luck in stone/paper/scissor in the sense of randomness, which is what has to be eliminated to make it legal for coin games.
The outcome of a stone/paper/scissor game is fully determined by what each player is doing.
still there is no skill needed, as every "strategy" is as good as any other, all you do is gamble

There is no luck in stone/paper/scissor in the sense of randomness, which is what has to be eliminated to make it legal for coin games.

And who (besides Fizzer) claims that all randomness has has to be removed from WarLight coin games?... and for what legal purpose? Are there American States which would label WarLight a gambling game if there was randomness involved? If yes, would chess also be labeled a gambling game if it's randomly decided who gets white? For me as a German guy with average legal knowledge this all doesen't seem to make much sense.