I prefer cyclic move order while keeping weighted random (WR).

As to WR, you can easily eliminate the risks by deploying an extra unit. It is also easy for you to plan ahead. You can well manage your risks.

As to random move order, you can only rely on priority cards to reduce/eliminate the risks. Other than that, you have no way to control it. I find this unsatisfactory. Sometimes a first move is game-changing (e.g. fighting for a chokepoint). The only viable option is to take the risk. The risk is always there. You can't do much about it.

If we want some variations (to keep the game interesting and diverse), I would suggest a new move order - predictable random move order. The system will announce the move order for this and next turn. The whole cycle is 2 turns. That means each player must get one first move every 2 turns. It could be:

First, second, second, first
First, second, first, second
Second, first, second, first
Second, first, first, second

Since you know which turns you will get your first move, you can plan ahead to reduce/eliminate the risks. Otherwise you have to assume you are always the unlucky to eliminate risks, but most likely you make too much compromise and will lose.

What do you think?

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.

And what skill need for this type of predictions? Nothing!
Maybe the Lucky Luke skill? :P Or the winning the important coinflips skill?...
And I write about situations when to try to get the first move is the unequivocal best action for both side. I think this is much frequent than the situations when there is good enough alternative action againts the first move.

Otherwise, I think if we use cyclic move order, still remain enough uncertaintity in the game (random pick order, 0% WR, and for example the REAL predictions (about opponents' picking, moves))

Walter we can't just abandon the maybe best and for sure most used template just to eliminate luck.

This is not a good reason :P Anyway, this template already have been changed (16% WR to 0% WR).
Otherwise, I do not want eliminate the luck, only the random move order! (0% WR, random pick order, etc. remain)

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.

JSA examined only Summer's lost games, what means 4%*2=8%. And about 10% of the games decided by the luck, well, at least for me is very much!

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.

I write about only change the move order settings from Random to Cyclic! 0% WR and random pick order would be remained.
What is the interesting in a coinflip? Ok, if you are a gambler, yes I see... But this is a strategic game.
Most of the time there is no any risk management possibilities in these situations, only flip a coin and hope...

As to WR, you can easily eliminate the risks by deploying an extra unit. It is also easy for you to plan ahead. You can well manage your risks.

As to random move order, you can only rely on priority cards to reduce/eliminate the risks. Other than that, you have no way to control it. I find this unsatisfactory. Sometimes a first move is game-changing (e.g. fighting for a chokepoint). The only viable option is to take the risk. The risk is always there. You can't do much about it.

THIS!

Playing with 0% WR still luck related, but you CAN MANAGE it!
If you want, you can choose the safety way (and give up the possible advantage (faster bonus)).
You have choice! That is the risk management.
Most of the time there is no good enough alternative action only the first move, so you have no choice just flip a coin. That is not risk management at all.

So I am still waiting for the good reasons why better the random move order than the cyclic one.
What would we lost if we change it?

How isn't random move order also a thing of risk management?

Most of the time there is no good enough alternative action only the first move, so you have no choice just flip a coin.

I've only encountered this scenario a few times, and I probably could've avoided the scenario if I played my cards smarter. Just like you pick with 4v2s vs 3v2s on your expansion, you are the one who decides when you need to prioritize the first move. No, it's nothing like: Well a scenario arrives and only first move will win you the game. That scenario arrives because of your picks, moves, or card management. I know a lot about not getting first move. I played with Frankdeslimste on the ladder and clan league, and I'm playing with him again this clan league. He has probably the worst first order luck I've ever seen. So what do we do? We play in a way we never expect him to get first order. If you are chasing someone with a full stack to eliminate them, but are deploying all your income to do so while your opponent is able to deploy some to get card pieces, you're playing inefficiently. You've made the choice that eliminating your opponent wins you the game, but ignoring the fact that if he wins first order 2-3 times that you've given him enough breathing room to win the game. If you decide to play differently in order to snowball the lead you have, you can find yourself in a scenario where your opponent can win first order for the rest of the game and you'd still win.

That's how the game is played at the high-level, you stop thinking about first order and expansion luck and focus mainly on how you can grow your lead and make a decisive strategy on winning the game.

Cyclic is boring. No-luck Cyclic is even worse.

@Walter,
also, most people think Rock-Paper-Scissors has a predictable 33-33-33% chance in ending in a win/loss/tie. However, you're not playing the odds, you're playing the person.

For another analogy with just a 50-50 chance, or is it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0

... just wait til I get started....

Just dont change it plz. Risk management is also a skill

ChrisCMU's Weighted Random move order is very good, I'll let him explain.

i'm sure this has been brought up before, but the obvious question is why do we have turns? Why can't all orders be executed at once? Presumably there must be a good reason but i can't think of one immediately

For 1v1 ladder

Prefers WR: 31
Prefers SR: 10
50/50 or I can't tell: 6

My favourite part was when Fizzer pretended to care what the community wanted and then completely ignored their opinion.

Let's have a poll on this. VOTE NOW!

Which one do you prefer in ladder games?
http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=56069f9fe4b0148c68da6862

Ladder games concerned: 1v1 ladder, 2v2 ladder, 3v3 ladder

Choices available for each ladder (select one choice only)
1. Straight Round
2. Weighted Random
3. I don't know/mind

Each player can only vote once.
Both new players (who has recently joined or want to join ladder games) or old players are welcome.
Invite more people to participate in this poll. Bump this thread more. ;-)
The poll result will be published on 1 Oct 2015.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/110747-u-prefer-straight-round-weighted-random

I challenge someone to review all 150 posts to see if people were in favor of keeping the same or changing.

i'm sure this has been brought up before, but the obvious question is why do we have turns? Why can't all orders be executed at once? Presumably there must be a good reason but i can't think of one immediately

Multiple orders to/from the same territory?

Consider the scenario where someone's small stack is fleeing someone's large stack. This comes down to turns. Should the small stack be given the opportunity to leave before being attacked?

If you want them all at once, then this isn't Warlight(zone).

I checked the posts to see how many people wanted SR or were against it. Posted here will be the name of every player who spoke for or against SR, and a quote from them showing what they said. I didn't include people who didn't express a definite opinion one way or the other, so I am not included on this list even though I would be against SR.

FOR
Master Bjarke: So in sum; I think it would be sweet with 0% SR
Ps: if it was up to me i'd have everything 0% SR.
ChrisCMU: Can we have no luck minus picking? (Chris later advocated for 0%WR)
Gnuffone: For those reason i believe every ladder should have 0% SR no luck cycle.
Mister Aqua: please make it 0% SR
Master Ryiro: i like the idea of using 0-16 luck straight round in ladders
Idibob: Take that luck out and it will become truly competitive
Windows 10: However, I would still prefer 0% SR.

AGAINST
Master of desaster: Me personally, i like the 1vs1 ladder as it is.
Anna: i personally would prefer the 1v1 ladder stay as it is.
Benjamin628: I think the 1v1 ladder should stay 0% WR.
Hades: Yeah I think keep the 1v1 ladder as is
AWESOMEGUY: However, I prefer the 1v1 ladder to stay as it is.
USA biches: I prefer the 0% WR for the 1v1 ladder.
Almosttricky: As far as the 16% luck, I am leaning to keeping it, but I don't have a strong opinion.
Hedja: Please keep strategic 1v1 as it is.
Beren Erchamion: The 1v1 ladder is perfect as it is.
Perrin3088: I felt the original strat 1v1 settings put the variables of war quite nicely into a strategic simulation.
Knyte: I like the 1v1 Ladder the way it is
Widzisz: I like WR more I think
Tenshi: Also 0% WR should be a better choice of luck here imo.
Peixoto: 1v1 Ladder - Keep the settings, but change the map to Modified Medium Earth.
Dead piggy: Luck makes the games rich and complex.
Master of the Dead :"""Luck makes the games rich and complex. Its not fair, and that doesnt matter, 1v1 ladder is about beauty not who is #1. Dont sacrifice the most regal and storied ladder on the altar of equality.""" - dead piggy
"""Me personally, i like the 1vs1 ladder as it is. Risk management should stay a part of a ladder imo. """ - MoD
+1 to both.
Verzehrer: 0% wr is totally good.
Master Atom: I like ladder the way it is,
Smileyleg: Count me in support for no changes to the 1v1 ladder.
Des: And that, with making it 0% luck is gonna make it not fun.
Veelvraat: I'm another one of those in favour of keeping the current 1v1 ladder.
Good Kid: 0% straight round makes things like this happen:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9245384
It makes picking way less interesting.
FlyingDutchMan: As for me, i prefer 0 luck wr for the 1vs1 ladder.
Master Turtle: 0% WR for 1v1 ladder!!!! Keep it the same!
Pushover: Please don't change the 1v1 template.
Inquisitor: I prefer cyclic move order while keeping weighted random (WR).
Dr. Walter Ego: I write about only change the move order settings from Random to Cyclic! 0% WR and random pick order would be remained.

Conclusion
8 (7 not counting Chris) for SR, 27 against SR. People are against SR in overwhelming numbers.
Also, 15 people said specifically that they are against ANY changes to the 1v1 ladder. Twice as many people are for no changes than are for SR.

EDIT: IF I MISREPRESENTED YOUR OPINION IN THIS POST, PM ME, I'LL CHANGE THE POST.

Edited 9/26/2015 20:27:28

Okay, I made it through about 2.4 pages before giving up. 2-1 people are in favor of keeping luck where it is.

^^Funny how you found 8 for, while Sabali found 10 for 0%SR. (He also found more against change too.) Really hard to count this thread to be honest most people, including me in my post, don't state a clear opinion.
Anyway, I support 0%SR, not because it is 'better' or 'worse' but I like my games to have the same luck settings, and then this seems like the most viable option.

Edited 9/26/2015 20:36:53

Like I said, I was only counting people who came straight out and advocated for or against SR. Sabali may have been counting people who implied very heavily that they did or didn't want SR. I just wanted to be sure that there were no errors due to my assumptions. Also, sorry, but I'm not going to be adding any new names to that list. This is for two reasons. One, everyone on that list said what they did before the change was implemented, and Two, I don't want to have to spend time revising my post every time a new person posts here.

I wouldn't mind the change if he said, this is what I'm doing and why.

However, opening a discussion weeks ago, getting overwhelming NO CHANGE TO LUCK response, making the change, and then (here's the kicker) citing this forum thread as the reason to why he changed it....

I guess I don't have any skin in the game not being a 1v1 Ladder player.

His first post clearly states why Fizzer wanted (and did make) the change. When citing the thread he is kinda citing himself.

...while discounting the whole community that disagreed.

Fizzer, I completely respect the change and I think this update is a step in the right direction, but can we please, please, please have a poll for this? I will never question any change you make to this game, as long as the community wants it to be so.

make sure the community know about the poll and not just those who frequent the forum