https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9402901
You complain about luck here. He should have been the one complaining about luck. Can you imagine if you got first pick and got a triple that was bordered by the opponent from the very start of the game?

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9397439
almosttricky outpicks you here. First order luck could make a difference if you had picked strong, but your picks were weak. Turn 3 sucks for you. Your luck in Greenland is alright. 50/50 first order. I think you could win the game without relying on that first order, but this game was partially decided by luck.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8998651
Luck makes no difference for you here. You choose to deploy 2 meaningless armies in East US rather than use them to take Caucasus. Don't complain about luck this game.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8985394
You lose one important first order here. You chose to rely on this first order. You had the option to deploy more and fight him stronger. When you have the option to rely on luck, and you pick luck, you can't complain about it not going your way.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8949871
Choices again. You could have deployed one extra army and guarenteed that you took East Africa. One army in Greenland would not have been missed. Instead, you set yourself up to fail.

I went through all of your losses in your last 50 ladder games and every time you complained about luck, I wrote about it here. Yet only one loss out of your last 50 games was decided by luck that was outside your direct control. In every other one, you got outpicked and/or outplayed.

Out of Summer's 11 losses in her last 50 games, only 2 were decided by luck. https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9478886 and https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9473744

So Summer loses 4% of her games by luck. This is a very small sample size, but I predict it will not be much bigger for other top players. This shows that even at the top level, not many games are decided by luck. Luck may play a minor role, but it rarely actually decides games. Good play and good guesses decide games. After looking at Summer's games, I am more sure about staying with 0% WR than I was originally.

Edited 9/22/2015 03:46:14

Only those get unlucky, who trust in luck.

And very good players doesn't blame luck normally. It's avoidable in most cases so when i lose a game because i fail to take a bonus or fon't get first move, it was calculated risk and i knew that i had only 80% or 50% chance to be successful

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8985394
You lose one important first order here. You chose to rely on this first order. You had the option to deploy more and fight him stronger. When you have the option to rely on luck, and you pick luck, you can't complain about it not going your way.

Why +10 Borneo turn 8?

if those 10 were in western russia, you would be situated much better.

On 2v2 ladder: I didn't know what was so terrible about the old template and map. The change literally prompted me to quit the ladder and i haven't been back since.

These days I'm really enjoying 2v2 on ME with 2 picks per player and 0% SR luck.

If you insist on keeping the current template in the 2v2 ladder then at minimum you'd have to make it 4 picks (as suggested by all the elite strategic players) for me to consider joining it again.

Please don't change the 1v1 template. There are other templates I think I'm better at, but this one is just a good all around template.

Nice analyzes JSA, but offtopic...
Tell me, what is the connection between the luck settings and Peixoto's game skill?

I recognized only one connection, that is the tilt management skill.
I mean after an unluck Peixoto start to play much weak (bad tilt management).
So yes, he can improve his tilt management, but...

When I play Warlight, I want to have fun, playing a skill game, but when pure luck destroy me, well I can't have fun...

And ok, to prevent the random pick order is hard (I do not like the present speed pick solution in NLC neither) I can accept the random pick order.
I think 0% SR would be better, but ok, risk management is a plus dimension (you can decide you get bonuses faster but with more risk or no (risk/reward)) so I can accept 0% WR too.

But can anybody from the other camp (who likes the present settigns) tell me why so bad the cyclic move order???

Could you give me any game link where the random move order means much more dimension than the cyclic move order would have meant?

And you know, that there are many situations where you do not have a choice, you MUST try to get the first move (both side), because if you do not do that you do not do the best play! And everytime in this situations you have no choice, only flip a coin and... Where is the plus dimensions here? I mean this is not risk management like 3vs2 4vs2 captures. What things you would lost if we use cyclic move order instead of random? Help me to understand this please.

And JSA, 10% where the pure luck deciding the game is very much (in every 10th game!), for me at least (10% because you only examined the lost games). If I want gamble I play roulette :P

@Dr. Walter Ego, the connection was made because Peixoto said that a lot of his recent losses were due to pure luck rather than game skill. JSA was analyzing the games to show him that he could have overcome the luck had he made the correct moves. Also, the average "cumulative luck" from his last 10 ladder games was -1.9 vs his opponent. Does he have a reason to complain about luck? Sure, he's gotten less lucky than his opponent, on average, lately. Does a -1.9 luck differential mean he's losing to players that are worse than him because of luck? No.

I believe we have a different definition of recent? Or maybe I wasn't clear enough about my words?
To be honest, I can't probably remember a game that I played more than a week ago.
Your effort is useless, I had the doga game in mind when I said that, but all the others that you looked was just a waste of time.
When I said 1v1 strategic settings, I didn't specify all my ladder games, in fact, you're searching in the wrong place, you should be looking in the recent games page.

^ I would just say "thank you for the free analisys on my games"

The 16% luck from 1v1 strategic template has been removed for quite some time (in early Sep).

However the 16% luck in 2v2 strategic template is still kept.
I'm not sure why when the creator wants to remove and the majority in the community agrees.

What are you waiting for, Fizzer? ^_^"

Edited 9/22/2015 13:04:25

^ I would just say "thank you for the free analisys on my games"

Same here. I would be very much appreciated if someone is willing to review and analyze the whole game and our moves after the match. I like to learn and exchange ideas with others. ^_^

Edited 9/22/2015 13:06:56

We always have a selective memory. We remember the times when 3v2s fail, but we tend to forget when they succeed. It is pretty much always the case that the players who complain the most about luck are the ones who play with high-risk strategies.

The benefit I see to keeping random move order rather than cyclic, is that it gives you options as to how you want to approach the situation. You can choose to play a riskier strategy and hope for a first move, or you can get creative and try to account for not getting first move. In most cases it is possible to accomplish some part of your objectives even without first move, whether by deploying extra armies to stay alive if you have a stack that's running, or deploying in an unexpected manner so that the opponent can't go where he wants.

If this is a pivotal turn and you can't afford the extra armies to do that, then you probably weren't in a winning position anyway.

We always have a selective memory. We remember the times when 3v2s fail, but we tend to forget when they succeed.

can't agree more

@Pushover: The problem with the old 2v2 template was that it was too small of a map for playing 2v2 on. It still is. This doesn't mean you can't have fun games on the template, it just means there's some maps in which it ends up a bit too crowded for strategic play. The more your options are limited, the more predictable and less fun the template tends to be. Too many options and it becomes a searching game. I like a happy medium. I like a slightly bigger map and 3 picks minimum in my 2v2s. We wanted the new map, it looks better. The settings with 4 picks is fun and strategic. However, we got the same template, on a map way too big for the template. So we went from 1 extreme to another extreme. I dislike the new extreme more than the old.

Edited 9/22/2015 21:42:27

From the perspective of a relatively new ladder player, I can say that I found 0% WR very disorienting when I first joined the ladder (before joining I only played 0% SR). Since most games outside ladders are 0% SR, I think it makes sense to have the ladders be that as well, so that intuition gained over time from 0% SR templates can carry over to the ladders (e.g. on SR, I can usually figure out what bonuses I can take first turn without thinking about attacks and armies left). It also helps since if all my games are 0% SR, I don't constantly have to worry in every game as to whether, e.g., 3v2 is guaranteed.

I also think the number of picks on the 2v2 ladder should be increased, there were a few games where my team lost access to an important area of the map due to the limited number of picks; we subsequently lost.

A compromise solution might be 16% SR, then the strategy works as usual for neutrals, but luck comes into play when facing the opponent directly. However, I would still prefer 0% SR.

16% SR is horrid. Go look at the fringe attacks like 6v4, 5v3, 8v5 etc.

Unfortunately I didn't play yet when the 2v2 ladder template was still ME.

The final earth template is pretty bad, I can see everybody agrees on that, and I never had much fun playing it.

On the other hand, I really enjoyed playing the 2v2 template in the 20C league, 0%SR ME - it's much more strategic than the current 2v2 ladder template and definitely much more fun to play.

Why was the map changed from ME to Final Earth at some point?

Edited 9/23/2015 06:23:54

More like time to remove Fizzer from Warlight, amirite?

The benefit I see to keeping random move order rather than cyclic, is that it gives you options as to how you want to approach the situation. You can choose to play a riskier strategy and hope for a first move, or you can get creative and try to account for not getting first move. In most cases it is possible to accomplish some part of your objectives even without first move, whether by deploying extra armies to stay alive if you have a stack that's running, or deploying in an unexpected manner so that the opponent can't go where he wants.

But there are many situations where the first move is the best move for both sides! What means, if you do not do that, and use your incomes not for that, you do not do the best move in that turn! You can try to be creative and find an alternative solution, but that won't be the best move, so you will play not the best way. So there is no any choice, only try to get the first move and flip a coin...
Otherwise, with the cyclic move order, in a situation like above you can be creative, all turn where the first move is not belong to you, you must be creative :P
So I still do not understand why the cyclic move order worse than the random, and waiting for good explanations or examples.

If this is a pivotal turn and you can't afford the extra armies to do that, then you probably weren't in a winning position anyway.

And? I don't understand what you want to write with this. Playing with similar skill players the positions most of the time will be approx. equal, and many times an important first move will be decided the game! But there are situations too where this important first move need for you to finish the game (getting insurmountable advantage), if your opponent get this first move mean he can stay/back in the game. Ok, these all are very interesting and exciting situations, but not a good solution to flip a coin and hope... It is pure gambling not a risk management for example...

@ Dr. Walter Ego,

This whole thread is TLDR, but to your last point, in cyclic move order each player knows exactly if they will or won't get the first move (Order Priority cards not-withstanding).

Thus, when you know you're getting the First move, you act in one way.

Thus, when you know you're NOT getting the First move, you act in another way.

Each way is different and possibly best for the situation.

When you don't know if you will/won't get the first move, you can either i) hope you get it right, or ii) play a hybrid approach.

It reminds me of the Myagi quote from Karate Kid about the Frog in the middle of the road....

But back to my point, Random Move order preserves an uncertaintity that cannot be replaced in any other method. It is often-times that a right prediction to move order is the game winner. But similarly, the wrong prediction can be a game loser.

Walter we can't just abandon the maybe best and for sure most used template just to eliminate luck. JSA watched the games of summer and she lost 4% of her games because of luck. That's an acceptable price for more interesting, less calculate-only games. I played really a lot of strat 1vs1 games and the template is everytime somehow new. Sr settings like in coingames are already boring after like 50 games.