I played a game, where I picked 1st, (2min vs 5min) and for some reason, I lost my 2nd pick to someone's 3rd pick! how is that even possible?!

How many players were there?

Lets say your 1 is the same as their 1, and your 2 is the same as their 3. At first, you get conflict priority, so you get your 1st. They lose their 1st, and get their 2nd. But then there is another conflict between your 2nd,and their 3rd. Becuase you had priority the first time around, they get it this time, and end up with your 2nd pick, which is their 3rd.

2

Our 1st was not the same.

Their 2nd was my 1st. Which is obvious that I got it, and their 3rd was my 2nd. But I still should get the priority because I picked it first and I gave it priority on my picks.

Maybe their second was the same as your first?

So I guess the algorithm gives you priority on the first "round" of obtaining territories, even if you don't need it. So they get priority on the next "round" for obtaining territories.

Wick, I don't think that's how picks work. It doesn't go 1st pick, then 2nd pick, then 3rd pick.

It goes like this in this case: AB BA AB ... until things end, where A is the player who gets first pick

If Peixoto were A: he'd have gotten his 1st pick, his opponent would've gotten their 1st and 3rd picks (their 2nd already taken by Peixoto's 1st), and then he would've gotten his 4th (or below, depending on whether there was a conflict between his 5th pick and his opponent's 1st) pick (his 2nd was already taken by his opponent's 3rd).

I think that's what happened.

Edited 7/22/2015 19:39:21

you guys are making it too complicated. In all formats, picks are simply made from the highest rated spot you have when your slot comes up.

So with 3 picks in 1v1:

If player A gets first pick, they get their #1. Player B gets the highest two picks (regardless of if it is 1-2 or 2-3) next. Then player A gets their two highest rated picks (does not matter if it is 2-3, 2-4, 3-4, etc.). Then Player B gets their next highest rated pick.

Don't pay attention to my #2 vs your #3. That means NOTHING. Only what you have picked the highest when it is your 'turn' to pick.

Knyte I think we said the same thing. round 1 = AB, round 2 = BA, etc...
Anyway, I think that solves that.
more info: http://www.warlight.net/wiki/Move_Order#No-Luck_Cycle_Move_Order

But if the alghoritm is giving priority to picks that are not the same number, how is it no luck exactly? It's basically cleaning up the order that you picked and just randomly giving you priority when you don't need it and taking it away when you should be getting it!

no luck = no random numbers (e.g., coin flips). Presumably someone could anticipate your picks and break up your powerful 1,2 combo while ensuring they get their 1,3 picks. Not a bad reason to take your time in a no-luck cyclic, except you have to be sure what they're going to do!

Edited 7/22/2015 19:48:15

@Wick: Re-read your comment and looks like I was wrong. The way you went through it confused me- my bad.

@Peixoto: No-luck just means that the first pick is given based on your actions (the speed of your picking) and no by luck (as it is under regular cyclic). As for why your opponent's 3rd pick and displace your 2nd, it's because that's how the system has to handle it when you've already displaced their 1st pick. Otherwise, they're stuck with their 4th pick which likely puts them at even more of a disadvantage.

It makes no sense to lose your 1-2 to a 1-3, if you picked faster, and gave it priority you should be getting it 100% of the time!!

^ Uh, so if you and your opponent both made the same 6 picks, you should be getting 1/2/3 and they should be getting 4/5/6? That would make for a horrible game because it vastly increases the number of possible combos players have to anticipate.

I mean, here's how things would've gone in this situation:

A: 1
B: 1
B: 4 (because 3 conflicts with your 2)
A: 2
A: 3, 4, or 5
B: 5 or 6

It would basically be handing you 1/2/3 (most likely) for picking first, which would really imbalance things.

First pick advantage already imbalances the game enough.

Edited 7/22/2015 20:00:30

If you both have the same number on the pick, whoever picked it faster gets the initial priority and then it would alternate.
What I'm trying to say is, it makes no sense to completely ignore the order in which the territories were picked just because some guy's later pick matches one of your early ones.

The order isn't completely ignored.

But what exactly would your alternative look like? Just modifying the system so that players can't end up with a territory someone else picked higher (so adding a constraint)? Or going pick-by-pick (so 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) and flipping priorities?

Both of those alternatives would significantly expand the # of possible combinations that players have to account for (right now it's only 11 for a 6-pick game, iirc) as well as first-pick advantage (2nd pick has 3 unique scenarios to account for in a 6-pick game; 1st pick only has 1, iirc).

Edited 7/22/2015 20:07:19

"It makes no sense to lose your 1-2 to a 1-3, if you picked faster, and gave it priority you should be getting it 100% of the time!!"

What?

You can't lose your 1 AND 2. If you both have the same 1, whoever gets first pick gets it. Let's assume these picks (I think this is your scenario)...

Player A picks: Territory X, Territory Y...

Player B picks: Territory X, Territory Z, Territory Y...

Player A gets first pick, gets X. Player B now gets 2 spots (snake method) and gets Y and Z (their highest two rated not already picked).

You might say not fair! He had Y rated lower than you did. So what? It was the highest rated spot he had when his pick turn came up.

I guess you have never played fantasy sports (auto draft). You pre-rate the players and when your turn comes up, it takes the best player you have rated. It does not matter the actual ranking you gave them, just that it is the highest not taken.

Yeah, in your alternate method it would create a wildly different pick strategy that would be VERY complicated.