Hey warlighters what do you think about that feature:

When a game starts there's a coinflip that decides who gets first pick. Both Players will get the Information wheter they get the first pick or not. Unlike the no-luck-cyclic Setting there would be no stress during the picking stage and both Players could adjust their picks with that knowledge.

On some templates not having the first pick might be crucial, but with that Setting you could make the best out of it and the disadvantage caused trough a slower Computer, a laggy mouse etc. could be minimized. Tell me your toughts!

As someone who really hates the no luck cycle i ve had the excact same idea.

First, why do i think the no luck cycle is not a good thing:
1. Warlight is a strategy game that requires that you think things through and that also is what it should be about,
it should be about having an idea / a strategy / a plan.
Of course i can do decent picks in 30 seconds, but they are only based on experience,
its impossible to really think things through that fast.
The no luck cycle basically destroys what warlight should be about, this is not an action game,
so taking away the thinking part pretty much kills it, i dont want to play out my experience game after game.

2. 2nd Pick could be the stronger one, in that case you get a disadvantage when clicking the "Begin" button after your opponent,
guess that could be fixed somehow.


3. As you want to be the faster one, it might be better to not even think about what happens if u get 2nd pick,
u will probably need more time than your opponent if u do and he gets the first pick that he relies on, gaining a advantage not only by having firstpick, but also by having picks that
were made for exactly that situation.
So if both relie on first pick, hoping to be the faster one, one could have a huge disadvantage after picking stage.
You could say its his fault for being the slower one,
but being a second faster than your oppent doesnt have much to do with skill,
to me this looks more luck based than anything else.

4. as mod mentioned, i dont want to buy a mouse/fast internet to stay competetive in warlight.

5. I dont think u will see a lot of (good) creative picks anymore, as u dont want to give away the first pick just to realise u dont see anything good that is not the standart way of picking.


The idea doesnt really help as the coin flip would be something random, so you could not use it in coin games,
however, for example playing a round of stone/paper/scissor at the beginning of every game would do the trick
(not saying that is a good idea, its nonsense obviously)

Edited 3/22/2015 00:58:28

I see some people desperately trying to reduce the luck factor in their games,
for example by using the no luck cylce, which of course at first glance sounds like a good thing,
but i dont think it always is.
I ll try to explain it by comparing SR and WR (sry, i get a little off-topic here)
The SR seemingly reduces the luck factor, but it also strikes out a big factor of the game,
it is way harder to find the perfect move in a game with a lot of diffrent possible outcomes every turn.
I see a lot of strong players doing mistakes when it comes to finding the best move in WR games,
and this already happens Turn 1 where you d think they know what to do, but the luck factor makes it harder
to do the right thing than someone may think.
Example: how do i take my 4pt boni which i double picked, assuming i want to move with my 3rd pick aswell?
(4+3+3 or 5+5 ? how does this change if i have to take 2 territores on my 3rd pick
to see all necesarry territories of the boni i m in?
How does it change if 1 or 2 of my 3v2 attcs would end up in a impasse?)
So reducing the luckfactor here would probably also make the game a lot easier.
An easier games leads to more gambling situations, for example stone/paper/scissor is a game with 0 luck,
but its pretty damn easy aswell, thus its 100% gambling

dont get me wrong here, SR is not a bad thing,
it was more an example to show that a reduction of luck is not always a good thing to do, additional to my first post.
however, No luck cycle is a bad thing, it doesnt add anything to the game, it only destroys it.

I dont really care as long as all that nonsense goes into the coin games,
but i thought i may write something about it before it reaches the ladders.

Sry if some thing were a little confusing, im pretty tired.

Edited 3/22/2015 01:17:59

@GiantFrog

I am in complete agreement with your views. I really hate the fact that the seasonal ladder follows this setting..

Honestly I found it really hard to adjust to, as I like to look at a board for a day before I pick.. After a few games in which I tried to pick faster than my opponent(and failed at that too!), I have played the season assuming I will lose my 1st pick.

I get why the setting has to be used in coin games, but must the ladders have this annoying setting too?

I'm not sure the alternatives suggested by the two of you would work though.

Edited 3/22/2015 01:00:29

Thanks a lot giant frog! You described my problem perfectly. No luck cyclic may be a good thing but i dislike it as well. Even the thinking part on whose turn it is falls away. No chance to fool your opponent early game, what might be game deciding.

I think i'll never create a game with the no luck cyclic setting just because it's stressy and requires less skill. As result games get more boring (see small earth 80coin game).

Finding an alternative for making the first pick less luck based are needed. Bring in your ideas.

+1 to all posts,

Finding an alternative for making the first pick less luck based are needed. Bring in your ideas.

Some wild ideas, not deeply thought out and in no particular order.

1. Player A gets fist priority. Then B etc. (in the ladder, you don't choose your letter... and it is interesting as you know who gets priority before picking. Could be misused easily in custom games through)

2. Coin flip, where first player who commits actually gets to choose heads or tails. (Not sure what to do with changing orders,) Could be a dice instead, at least for FFA's. Maybe first person to join is better.

3. Seeding, player with lowest rank gets first pick. (Works for ladder, at least maybe use level in normal game?)

Edited 3/22/2015 01:39:57

I am by far less experienced than all of you, yet I want to bring in a different opinion.

I really like the coin flip for first pick in a 1v1 game. I don't look at it as "luck" and therefore negative in a strategic sense, but rather as something to consider when making my picks in a way that I maximize my winning chances in both cases. To me, that seems more of a challenge than it would if I knew whether I got first or second pick - it just is harder to find the overall best picking strategy.

And sure, sometimes it sucks when you lose a game just because of bad luck - but that doesn't happen so often (at least not to me) and with many games played, it averages out for all players.

That said, I still support if there other settings available so that everyone can choose what he likes. A simple possible idea is just announcing the picking order during the picking phase (so you know whether you or your opponent will get first pick).

I don't see any problem with mod's suggestion. It seems like randomly getting first or second pick (but knowing which you have) is no different than randomly getting white or black in chess. If I'm not mistaken that isn't a problem for potential chess gaming sites that have play for money options.

When a game starts there's a coinflip that decides who gets first pick. Both Players will get the Information wheter they get the first pick or not. Unlike the no-luck-cyclic Setting there would be no stress during the picking stage and both Players could adjust their picks with that knowledge.

this is a really bad feature, and it easy to explain: if you lose the coinflip, and there is a crucial better bonus (like a FTB, or very afe bonus) you basically lost the game. Now go to the reason. WHy you lost the game? beacuse bad luck. End of story.

In no luck cycle moves, you have to pick fast. You are not able to pick in 15 second or less? you probably going to lose the 1st pick, but not bc luck, but beacuse opponnent is faster.

Also, in general, it is really bad lose 1st pick (the coinflip) beacuse if you have not it, it is harder to make picks:
if you know to have 1st pick, you know which territory you are going to take.

IF you have 2nd pick, basically the territory you will get will mostly deepnd on what your opponent is going to pick as his 1st, and potential you will not be able to take any FTB or coutnerpick.

A related noted, in a 3v3 basically you can ended up the coinflip with the 5th or 6th picks, that literraly will screw up your ways to pick

I think i'll never create a game with the no luck cyclic setting just because it's stressy and requires less skill.

i make an example for try to make you understand why actually no luck cycle require more skill.
let's take as example eu 3v3 with 4 initial picks.
if you are fast, you know you will take 1st pick. Experience say, that you are probably going to take 12/13 picks, as if we are all mirror, you would take 1 12 13 24. Now as it unlikely that all 6 players pick the same 12 territory, my experience say, is good pick as 11/12 10/11 12/13 picks a combo, like bulgaria combo, bieloruss combo, Portugal combo etc.
Are you able to make picks in 25 second or less and at the same time make picks based on thing like this? this is the crucial thing and the fact i like more.

I see what you are saying Gnuffone, with losing 1st pick and hence the game.


"" Are you able to make picks in 25 second or less and at the same time make picks based on thing like this? this is the crucial thing and the fact i like more. ""

But I cannot agree with this. Rewarding a player in a game because he/she has more experience and is hence able to pick faster is not the right way. A truly engaging game must afford equal opportunity to a new comer. What you've suggested ensures you win only because you have played more on that template/map.

A truly engaging game must afford equal opportunity to a new comer

i disagree, in every game, experience is one of the most important factor, why in WL shouldn't be important?

Yes experience has a role, but not to such an extent as to just hand first pick to you :)

Why must an engaging game afford equal opportunity to a newcomer? Because otherwise, we end up with one Gnuffone over a year instead of 50 Ryiro or Deadman like players ;)

Say what you want about our skill levels, but we can at least force you to think, and not take 3 wastelands on strat 1v1 and still win :P

ok. i can understand your point as well.

BTW when you will not expect it, you will lose from 3 wasterland picks xD or at least i will try to :P

I look forward to that lol

i agree to all of the problem but i can't find a definite solution to the problem
there are few templates where you can win/lose solely based on the pick order like the coin games small earth template and addding time dependency to decide who gets 1st pick or 2nd and 3rd picks just ruins the idea of no luck(there are not many picks on that template so usually both players chooses same picks)

i suggest the templates which are bad for no-luck should be removed or modified to adjust better
the small earth in coin games is just like a lottery game these days :(

The coinflip indeed is not a good idea, even if it wasnt for the random factor making it useless in coingames.
The fact the players know if they get first or second pick before picking
actually favors the player with first pick (well, not in every possible scenario i guess)
as he can now rely on hist first pick and having a pick for sure is a strong thing to rely on.
So its better to not know what you get before picking stage, as you now cant rely on anything and
you are forced to think through both scenarios, the disadvantage of having second pick (if it really is one)
will be a smaller one this way, as noone gained an advantage out of relying on something.

if you lose the coinflip, and there is a crucial better bonus (like a FTB, or very afe bonus) you basically lost the game.
Now go to the reason. WHy you lost the game? beacuse bad luck. End of story.

If you play a template in which the team wins that gets one single territory over the other
and with that the game is decided you should probably switch to a template that actually makes sense.

i make an example for try to make you understand why actually no luck cycle require more skill.
let's take as example eu 3v3 with 4 initial picks.
if you are fast, you know you will take 1st pick. Experience say, that you are probably going to take 12/13 picks, as if we are all mirror, you would take 1 12 13 24. Now as it unlikely that all 6 players pick the same 12 territory, my experience say, is good pick as 11/12 10/11 12/13 picks a combo, like bulgaria combo, bieloruss combo, Portugal combo etc.
Are you able to make picks in 25 second or less and at the same time make picks based on thing like this? this is the crucial thing and the fact i like more

We clearly have a diffrent definition of what skill is.


Also, all 5 of the problems pointed out in my first post still stand. Every single one of #1 #3# #4 #5 on its own would make me hate the no luck cycle.

this is a really bad feature

so is the no luck cycle (well, if you like it, go for it, i just dont want to be forced to play it in ladders/autogames)

Edited 3/22/2015 16:02:21

i partly agree with gnuff. in teamgames knowing that you'll get first pick might be a bad Thing. with my inital question i mainly spoke about strategic ME 1vs1 games (to be precise i was thinking about MotDs randomized Bonus ladder). there are no 1 pick ftbs and even if you get a very safe Bonus, there's a big Chance that there's a good Combo that you can pick as 2 and 3. Picking in a short time is still bad and doesn't require that much skill in my opinion

But as giant frog says, it'd maybe make the situation even worse, if the guy with 1st pick knows also that he'll get 1st pick. not sure how it's possible to improve the Situation of the Player with 2nd pick.

Edited 3/22/2015 15:55:27