Hi. Maybe some of you know, maybe some don't, but there is an important change in cyclic order: http://blog.warlight.net/index.php/2014/03/website-update-2-4/
For 4 players it used to be ABCD->DABC->CDBA->... and now it is ABCD->DCBA->ABCD->..., where A and D are together.

I have to admit that I really don't like this update. Main Fizzer's argument is that when 2 players are fighting each other, in old settings one can get first move more often than the second one while with that new cyclic order that can't happen. It makes sense but all ideas has their own pros and cons. It all depends on settings and particular map/situation. In this new settings always the same team gets first move, which is an obvious drawback.
My favorite settings are 2v2 with cyclic order on map bracketology and there this is a really significant difference between these cycles. This is a really specific map and in my opinion old cyclic order fits better to it. I think I can say that me and timon got old cyclic order mastered and now all our strategies are gone and I consider this as really unfair. This is changing the rules during the game.

Fizzer wrote: "I considered for a long time adding the new method as a third mode and letting people choose it. But really, I can’t think of a single reason that I’d ever want to recommend the old cycling mode. It seems worse in every way, so I don’t think it makes sense to keep as an option.". There are obvious reasons such as each order has its pros and cons and demands different strategy and many players (like me) got used to old order and if I have hosted a tournament (or my friend :P) with cyclic order I want it to proceed with the same cyclic order along its full length.

As a conclusion I think that in most cases new order will probably be better, but that can't be said for all maps and settings and I see no reasons for fully deleting old mode and in particular nothing can be an excuse for changing rules during lasting games/tournamets.

In other words, you came up with a system to guarantee wins in lottery-style games and this change blew your strategy up.

While it is true that the new method gives a certain player first move every other turn, it also means he gets last move on the opposite. In the current system you either got first move over a given opponent 25% or 75% of the time (and thats just a 4-player game... a ten-player game would be 10% second, 90% first!). How is that possibly fair?

Richard Sharpe: Your first statement sounds like slandering me for being a cheater or something like that. All informations are known to players at the beginning and what kind of strategy they like lies in their hands. Your argument could be the same in a situation when one player is really good at Warlight, which practically lets him guarantee wins with worse players and changing gameplay into flipping a coin will blew his strategy up. This is a similar case.

And in the second part you definitely missed what I was talking about. I haven't said that old cyclic order is always better. I admit that in most cases new order will be better, but I said that can't be said generally and that there exist situations where old order will be better which is a sufficient reason to keep this as a third possible option.

This is a quote from Fizzer on the blog post:

You’re right about the 2v2 issue — if you can think up a way to cycle the orders that fixes both this problem and the old problem, I’m all ears!

So wl community get to work!

No slander at all. Not even close.

Now libel on the other hand, you might have a case...

Give me one situation where the old method is better than the new.

First off, I regret making this change without opening it up for discussion first. While it has been discussed on the forum before, I didn't make a post specifically asking about this change. In the future I will do so.

One of the biggest problems with the old method is that, in a 2v2, the same team could get TWO first moves before the other team gets any. This can lead to problems like one team getting both of their #1 picks and the other teaming missing both of their #1 picks. Here's an example: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=5267538. This is really bad, in my opinion. I've always said that I recommended against using cyclic for games with more than 2 people.

Part of the reason that I made this change, rather than adding it as a third mode, was I didn't think anyone actually wanted the old mode (at least, anyone that understood the drawbacks). I couldn't think of a scenario that it made sense in. From this feedback, I guess I was wrong, and for that I apologize.

I still think that this new method is superior to the old one for both team games and FFA, since it ensures that no team gets multiple moves before the other team, and it also ensures that players flip-flop move order between any two players. If anyone can come up with a better method, please share it and I will consider it.

It definitely makes sense from an FFA stance where it was possible to only get first move over someone 2.5% of the time. No way should that be allowed

I don't know how you would be able to implement in for more teams, but would a
ABCD > CDAB > BADC > DCBA > ABCD
would work somewhat better?

Basically cycle through as you're doing, but add another variable so that team games also have a swap.

This would be every second turn also swapping each odd player for the following even player. (except in the case of 1v1)

3 players would make it
ABC > BCA > ACB > CBA > ABC
Although in some cases this makes it cycle through two players every two turns, it's still an even amount of 'first turns'.

maybe it should be a second option like cyclic A and cyclic B... thoughts?

I think that this systems has some cons too but its better than the previous one.
For example in some maps when all players fight in the same place (castle fight is a good example) the AD team has a very big advantadge against BC.

Lookinf for a better system it's very difficult so I suggest that, meanwhile, you put the 3 systems:
Random
Cyclic (old)
Inverse (new)
The new system is not exactly cyclic so the name is no good :P


2 vs 2, AD vs BC: Cheery dog suggestion it's probably fine. That's what I was thinking at least :P

3 FFA:
ABC, BCA, CAB, CBA, BAC, ACB
There is 3!=6 posibilities to reorganize the players so I think it's fair to use them all. The problem is the order maybe.

And for 4+ is complicated, with 4 players there are 24 combinations already, too much. But in most cases probably is enoug with "2n" times the number of players, the number of turns till we start again the cycle must be even if we want to avoid the case of A gettinng more 1 turns than B.

5 FFA:
ABCDE, BEDCA, CAEBD, DCAEB, EDBAC, EADBC, DCBAE, CBEDA, BEACD, ADCEB
If I did it well each player has 5 turns before the others and 5 turns after each one. 2 1-turn, 2 2-turn, 2 3-turn...
But I did this manually I can't think of a formula right know so this is not that usefull >_>

I'm still failing to see the downsides to the new cyclic move order. The way I see it, it's essentially perfect in its goal of a zero-luck move order. The only thing that matters is not who gets the first move overall, but who gets the first move between any two individual players. This method ensures that all pairs of players swap getting first order between turns.

The only part of it that is debatable is when playing on teams, if multiple players on a team can get first order against a single player on the opposing team, they could be at a disadvantage. For example, suppose team 1 consists of players ABC and team 2 consists of players abc. If the turn order switches between ABCabc <--> cbaCBA then in a battle of player a against players ABC, the multiple first orders of players A, B, and C could be a large advantage against player a, compared to on the next turn player a gets a single first order against one of his opponents, followed by six successive attacks against him. However, this advantage is a natural consequence of a 3 vs 1 battle, and could be reduced by a mixing of players on a single team so 3 in a row is impossible to happen, such as a turn order of AaBbCc.

Finally, while I'm not 100% certain how picking format works, I've always assumed it works in the same method as a single turn. If the initial turn format chosen is AabB, then player A will get his 1st pick, followed by a, b, B, and then reversing, so BbaA, and back and forth until all players have their necessary territories. I see nothing wrong with this format, so long as a setup of ABab isn't possible, as it would give a large advantage to team AB, or AaBb, as it gives a small advantage to team AB. Again, I'd like to restate the point that just because one member of team AB will always get first order in this ideal format of AabB does not matter. AabB <--> BbaA is perfectly equal, a beats B turn one, B beats a turn two. A beats a turn one, a beats A turn two. There's no advantage to either team in that scenario.

memele said

But I did this manually I can't think of a formula right know so this is not that usefull >_>

For a more general formula you can use reversal when going from an even to an uneven turn and use reversal composed with (+1) when going from an uneven to an even turn.
So the first turn order is 123..n, the second turn order is n..321, and the third turn order is n12..(n-1), fourth turn (n-1)..21n, and so on.
In this way all players will get the global first turn and will alternate first order with each other player, except for 2 turns in each 2n turn cycle.

The current system is the only one, in which each two players alternate the first order.

The only thing which might be unfair is the teamorder, which I think should be the fairest as (A1) (B1) (C1) (C2) (B2) (A2) (A3) and so on. In this case the first picks are evenly distributed among the teams.

@ Garret

A team having first pick ever can be a very big advantage dependeing on the situation, for example, local deployment. Let's imagine Middle eart map, you are in E.Africa (Egypt) and fighting against M.East who is trying to break. You have W.Africa moving troops towards Egypt and your teammate have N.Africa and give you troops from Lybia. Any turn your troops from W.Africa or the ones from your teammate will move FIRST, so that the enemy can't break before the reinforcements NEVER.
Local deployment it's not the only option but probably the easiest to understand.


@ B3rz3rk3r

I thought of something like that but didn't go well at all but yours semms pretty fair and simple to use :)

Memele, Under the old formula there is the chance that your scenario would occur 75% of the time. Not much fairer that way either.

For discussion's sake, what if you combined the two ideas?

First you would inverse the order, then, upon returning to the original order, shift it one position backwards.

---

4 players:
ABCD-DCBA-DABC-CBAD-CDAB-BADC-BCDA-ADCB-repeat
(Each player experiences 1423-3241)

5 players
ABCDE-EDCBA-EABCD-DCBAE-DEABC-CBAED-CDEAB-BAEDC-BCDEA-AEDCB-repeat
(Each player experiences 15243-34251)

---

Can someone work out what that would do to 2v2's?

@ Richard Sharpe
In the beggining fo my first message I wrote:
I think that this systems has some cons too but its better than the previous one.

I know that the previous system is not perfect, that's why I didn't use it, but the new one is not the final solution either (but is a step closer).


@Causation
Your suggestion is pretty much the same as b3rz3rk3r if I understood it well.

A very small downside I can see is some tactics in 2v2 games, it might make it harder for one of the teams to use small income. For example if one team has 5+25 income, the other 15+15 and the one with 5 income borders both of the opponents, defending in such a scenario is too easy for the more balanced team since they know they can use always 1st order. Still better method than the last one, but I'd still recommend for people to use random move order :)

The new method seems better than the old one for FFAs, but i beleive it will be better if there where teams AC and BD.

 ABCD -> DCBA

The first move switches between teams just like it switches between players that are fighting each other.
What about that ?

As I posted on the blog post: ABCD -> DCBA -> CDAB -> BADC -> ABCD
Does this solve the issue of one team always being first?
I can't seem to see anything wrong with it.

What about that ?
-------
The old cyclic order but that all games start with ABCD for picking and 1e turn.
And in a 2vs2game one team alwheys has A,D Or B,C
And in a 4vs4vs4game: A,F,G,L or B,E,H,K or C,D,I,J
Etc.
This would solve the unfair picking.
And this will sove unfair gameplay as much as pasible, but the move order will still be "cycle".

With ABCD -> DCBA -> CDAB -> BADC -> ABCD
the move order is not "cycle" exely, but it would be the most fair order.

Edited 3/19/2014 01:39:08