There's been a lot of discussion/posts about picks, and the order, and the intel you get from those picks. I don't like it. Yes it adds a whole element to the game, but in the end, a decent number of games are decided on picks, and some are decided on who gets 1st pick.

So, what if there was a way to add some randomization to the picks. In a 1v1 game where each player starts with 3 picks, require each player to put in 6 picks, or alternatively have the AI autopick to round out 6. Then, all your picks get thrown into a basket, and you get 3 of your 6 picks.

This way, if you don't get your picks, its because it was random, rather than the other guys picks.

Auto distribution may not cut it, b/c who knows where it will put you, especially if you're playing with wastelands, this could be devastating.

So basically make 6 picks but they aren`t numbered, so you have an even chance of getting either one of them?

@ Min34 Yup.

That sounds like a pretty neat idea. +1

i like it

In the old picking system: assume certain games can be decided on first pick: --> luck decided who gets that pick (if both players have the skill to recognize that pick).

This doesn't actually change when introducing your system, right? Both players will pick that spot, since it's the best pick. The only thing that changes is that they don't have to pick it first. Now luck decides which player gets the best pick once again. --> Same luck factor

@Master Farah,
Yes, but you don't know why you didn't get it. You don't have knowledge of bumps.

The current system may favor the player who gets 1st pick, but at least it is designed to balance that advantage by giving the 2nd and 3rd best picks to the other player.

Let's say the picks of a game can be ranked objectively from best to worst. With your system, a player could get the #1, #2 and #3 picks, while the other would get the #4, #5 and #6 picks... if you're worried about games being decided on picks, this is not the way to go!

i just started writing down all the reasons why this system would be terrible, but i immediatly felt weird having to explain something as obvious.
I am sorry but, it's nonsense.

Don't see why it can't be an option.

There may be ppl who d enjoy this feature. For all i know there are ppl out there playing auto dist. But in a strategic template? replacing manuel dist?

From https://www.warlight.net/wiki/Ladders#Slight_Advantage_for_First_Pick:

In Chess, it's advantageous to play as the player playing white, since the white player goes first. Similarly, in manual distribution WarLight games, it's advantageous to get first pick. That is, if two players pick the same territory as their #1 choice, the randomly decided player with first pick will get the territory and the other player will get their #2 choice.

To counteract this, WarLight gives a slight ratings advantage to the player who gets first pick in ladder games, similar to how some ELO systems give a ratings advantage to the player playing white. In Chess, the advantage is estimated to be worth about 33 points, whereas in WarLight the advantage is only 10 points.

Only the 1 v 1 ladder and the 2 v 2 ladder give an advantage for first pick. The seasonal ladder does not.

In chess, the advantage is around 54%, so it should be less for the 1v1 ladder. Does anyone know the actual value?

Edited 9/21/2016 01:38:34

Another reason why it is good... combo picking.. you may or may not be able to rely on it. Adds an element of surprise/randomness.

But mainly, I'm just trying to remove the aspect of manual selection that I don't like... the bump factor and the intel it provides to the person bumped, and the lack of intel provided to the person that was bumped.

I get why there are reasons to have the manual picks go the way the go. This is an alternative, somewhere between automatic and manual.

This idea is not near as balancing as Manual picking, as explained by Rakleader. If you play infinite number of games in 1v1 with manual picks it balances roughly out how many times you will get the 1.pick or 2. and 3.pick.

Secondly, the main problem with your idea is, that territories being picked are never independent from each other - your idea of randomized territories from pool would make most games luck-based as picking positioning would lose its meaning. Terms like positional advantage, countering would be lost -> whereof games would be decided just by a factor who got best territory combination from pool they assigned! When-ever a strategic players makes his picks he assigns his territories in a way they all combine together a strategy - not each territory alone. + Risk that some territories may be cross-picked.

Thirdly, maps that have clearly 1. pick that is advantageous, are they really that strategic? Even if this is true, it is not always beneficial to pick that position as first. Getting 2nd 3rd pick may offer much better combination than the 1 good territory. And it is always better to know where your enemy are, than to play blind in center of map with just slight income advantage.

If you don´t like the Pick-intel, then only Full Random is the problem solver here. But on middle- ground your idea is interesting, because as you said it breaks-up combination picking and each pick has to be seen as single value. It obviously wont be as strategic in pure-strategy conception, but interesting alternative aside from total randomness. I would definitely play it as it allows Wastelands. And when the ratio of picks chosen is x2 against picks assigned there wont be no conflict between cross picking and intel!

@Player12345 Yes, it is often thought, said and computed, that White has some advantage as he picks the opening strategy and development of pieces, therefore closes the options for black. But in high-level chess is not a about one match. Grandmasters play many games alternating white-black and again it even more balances our. And it is still debated since Fischer whether chess is more strategy or psychological game. In times of cold-war it may truly have been more of psychology, but to me it seems it is fairly both!