WarLight has a move order called "no-luck cyclic" (NLC). This mode is like cyclic move order where players take turns getting first move, however it also includes a no-luck component: whoever takes their first turn fastest gets first move on the first turn.

This was added for legal reasons, since for coin games it's necessary for there to be no random elements that affect players differently from others.

For example, if multiple players pick the same territory as #1, then WarLight needs a way to resolve the conflict without randomness.

Simply using the pick speed, as it does now, is one way to accomplish this. However, I'm interested in hearing your ideas for alternative methods.

The rules are as follows:

1. It must be skill based and fair between the players. This means that anything involving randomness cannot be used. We also can't let players pay money/coins for it, or anything, since that's not based on skill.
2. It cannot use factors external to the game, such as level or rank or anything. Each game should be self-contained.

One idea is to do a geography test, either on a pre-defined map or on the current game's map. For example, it could say "find China" and the first person to click China wins.

Another idea is some sort of timing game. For example, a dot could move back and forth on the screen in a predictable pattern, and you have to try and click when it's in the center of a circle. Whoever clicks when it's closest to the center wins.

in my opinion, as it is now, is the fairest way possible.
Who have more skill, will be able to pick faster. If you try to pick too fast because your goal is have 1st pick, you may end up with bad picks as you didn't look at the Whole map with attention.

Like i say earlier, if when you go to pick you know you will have 100% 1st pick, and you will think a lot in the possible scenario you will win 90% of the game, as have 1st pick is often the key. That's why, any system will tell you which pick you have before picks round, it is very bad.

Pre-determine before picks know if you have 1st or 2nd pick, will make game point less.

Edited 4/3/2015 19:46:15

I like the idea of a small mini game beforehand. The geographic game would be great, as its related to the game. There are various options for small mini games, eg Snake game.

Though I think the system is fine and the fairest now ^^

Edited 4/3/2015 19:46:45

The definition of luck depends a lot on the point of view. Even chess has luck involved, even if the colors are predetermined. A player might be lucky and start searching for a good move with the right initial moves, or he might start searching in the wrong direction, ending up wasting his time and making bad moves.

That said, a geography test sounds fun. How about asking the player to type in the capital of a given country, or vice versa? Or the year of birth of a famous person?

geography test

No -_-"

Of the two options listed I prefer the current implementation. The other two seem completely arbitrary and unrelated to the game.

Maybe have a luck/kill rate question. Present a situation from the game that is unlikely to be seen and ask the player to predict the number of armies necessary to take the territory. Provide a short time limit (15-60 seconds) to prevent people from outright calculating it.

Something along the lines for:
Luck - 20%
Offensive kill rate - 70%
Defensive kill rate - 60%
Opposing stack of 38 armies
On average, how many armies are needed to ensure victory?
On average, how many armies will be lost in the attack?

The italicized numbers will be randomly determined for each game. The player who guesses closest to the first question gets first turn. In the event of ties, the answer to the second question could determine first turn. If the numbers are sufficiently random (and the last number is large enough) then the odds of two identical answers is negligible.

If you had some sort of pre-game method of choosing who gets first pick, would the players know if they have first pick when picking? I would hope not, but it would be good to clarify that.

Personally, I don't like the current system, since I like to take my time in choosing my picks. That's usually the turn in the game on which I take the longest, so I don't really like having to rush them.

ETA:
Much as I like the idea of having geography questions personally, it doesn't really have much to do with the actual game.

I like Richard's suggestion, though the time limit would have to be quite short.

Edited 4/3/2015 19:56:05

Gnuff, I could be mistaken but I believe the proposals presented by Fizzer would operate in the same fashion as the current one where the first pick would only be known after the fact. You would not know if you were the faster player prior to territory award.

Beren, use it to your advantage. Take extra time and operate under the assumption that you will get second pick and plan your selections accordingly.

Edited 4/3/2015 19:55:46

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/81231-luckcyclic-starting-variation

We had the Topic already once if someone is interested in it.

After the discussion we had on that thread i think the actual way is maybe still the best aviable for coin games atm. The one who picks fast risks to have 1st pick but still worse picks Overall since he hadn't as much time to think about it. so the Advantage of having 1st pick has to be seen relative.

another issue: in teamgames there can one be watching the board and send it to his teammate who can pick extremely fast then. Maybe only teamgames Need another way to determine first pick.

I like the geographic proposal (for teamgames only), but it's maybe a bit unfair again since not everybody is very good in english and got probably a disadvantage trough it.

If its a tie, neither player gets that territory and you move on down the line.

How about a single round of rock/paper/cisors , and the winner gets first pick? Luck is involved, but is there really a legal issue with it? how come online poker is legal?

Edited 4/3/2015 20:43:50

Just to remind!
1. It must be skill based and fair between the players.
2. It cannot use factors external to the game.

And as master of desaster pointed out: Teamgame Chat issue

About Fizzer Geographic Test. I think it would serve educational purpose, which I would favour therefore.

Also Richard Sharp calculation test is interesting. Helps for the new players understand the game mechanism faster. Just 60 seconds would surely mean a lot of players using calculator, not even hard to write the formula in excel and get the answer in 3 seconds.

Minigames: is the usual thing. As apollo pointed out snake game. I´ll add 30 second speed tetris, fast ping pong - may even be 1vs1 in-between players, geometric logic puzzle-solving.

Maybe we need to define the randomness, before looking forward. For example would that be random if in Geographic test every person gets different question (in-case to eliminate team-chat answer sharing). Variations I have in mind:

1) Name of the Country
2) Location of the Country
3) Name of the capital
4) Location of the capital

Everyone gets 4 fast questions! 1 point each. But randomness would determine the either if one gets the Question of where USA/UK/China is located while the player B gets the question of Swaziland, Lesotho, Andorra. Or if we our aim and definition to eliminate randomness lie here and we need to ask everyone the same question, then we place the randomness in our skill-knowledge base. Lets say question comes about Lesotho - who knows where this country is? Probably the person who is located/has knowledge about Africa. Or Andorra - most European people can verify its location. So I do not think it changes the randomness behind being faster in picking territories.

Here lies also another problem. When we discuss the speed one picks territories. Then do not forget 50% in many players case, even most maps we play we already know everything. Take the Rome map for instance. It is not about looking bonuses, choosing any more - most players have different positions they play worked out beforehand. Its either in 1vs1 real picking speed, not deciding, or in team-chat cooperation over who goes where? In first place our skill lies in speed, in second case in our cooperative decision. But after-all we cannot make assumption that everyone has base knowledge even in map as popular as Rome.

Also in minigames. Lets say Tetris. There is randomness of the blocks, but generally it is part of its game, yet despite ones skill. The blocks determine the possibility of best score in limited time period. So the particular game as to be identical. Just remains the question would a 30-second minigame feel frustrating and "splitting a hair" when we talk about who gets the first turn.

Only luck you have in chess is either you play white or black, if it is not swap-rank game = don´t know the real term for this.

Rock-Paper-Scissors has hardly anything to do with skill, unless you can see the person in real and analyse his approach. It is as random as gets to be. Picking speed has at least element of skill.

Gyver, not only is that a ridiculous proposal (what happens if all picks match?) but it doesn't even solve the problem at hand since who gets first turn still needs to be determined

Well, I was thinking about it for some time and I think I might have a new way for resolving this problem. Before I start I'd like to mention that the problem is even bigger than you issued as it not only concerns coin games - many players here use cellphones(smartphones) to play WL and it is obvious that (especially on big maps) the have much lower chances topick

pheir teritories quicker than their opponents that use computer mouse. So basically this highly straegic game cant relies on "who has the fastest mouse and reflex"


Ok. Idea:

I propose the auction system

for easier understanding lets assume that in situation when player has to pick "n" territories, the first "n" number of territories he has choosen are 1-st grade picks and any additional are 2nd grade picks (so if he was to choose 3 territories and he has choosen A B C D E F G , 1st grade picks are A B C and 2nd grade picks are D E F G )

When there is a situation when 2 or more players picked one territory there starts additional round of auction.

The player is informed that one of the territories he has choosen is picked by another player (or more) and now he must

bet on it. The player is informed which territory it is so that he can estimate its value.

Now betting. What to bet?
Initial income! (usually standard 5 per turn).
So player can bet a number ranging from 0 to n (where n is per turn income for this particular game).

Let's suppose he has choosen 3 and his opponent has chosen 2. This means that he has won and that this territory is his.

But this also means that on his first round he will not get this 3 income. So if the base income is 5 he will only get 2.

Of course his opponent doesnt have to pay anything.

When the player looses the auction he is given the first free territory from his 2nd picks list (or random territory if he

doesnt have any valid 2nd grade picks).

The auction is only resolved for a conflicts in 1st grade picks.

If player has more than one conflitct, he is bidding all of them in the same auction turn (so if he has conflict in territories A and B and is given 5 initial income, then if he bids 3 for A he can bid maxmally 2 for B as he has only 5 to spread beetwen them)


There may be two options for conflict of his 2nd grade picks


a) his new territory (2nd grade) was choosen by another player as his main territory (1st grade pick). In that situation he looses this conflict automatically and is given his next 2nd grade territory



Example

in game with 3 territories to pick

(1st grades) (2nd grades)
Palyer 1 picks territories : A B C D E F G
Player 2 picks territories : H I B P O U
Player 3 picks territories : W V D Y Z X

in that situation there is conflict between player 1 and player 2 for territory B
Lets assume that player 2 wins the auction. Now the player 1 is given a teritory from his 2-nd grade picks. D is first in

a row, but it turns out that there is another conflict because D was also choosen by player 3. In thet case D is given to player 3 because it was his 1st grade pick (for player D it was 2nd grade pick). Now the player 1 is given next territory from his 2nd grades which is E.


b) the new territory from 2nd grade picks was also given to another player that has lost auction as his 2nd grade pick. In that situation there is an autoamtic TIE and both of them are given their next 2nd grade picks.

Example

in game with 3 territories to pick

(1st grades) (2nd grades)
Palyer 1 picks territories : A B C D E F G
Player 2 picks territories : K I B P O U
Player 3 picks territories : S V W Y Z X
Player 4 picks territories : R T S D K J


in that situations there is conflict between player 1 and player 2 for territory B and between player 3 and player 4 for territory S Lets assume that players 2 and 3 win their auctions. Now the player 1 is given a first teritory from his 2-nd grade picks which is D and the player 4 is given the first teritorry form his 2nd grade picks which is also D. In that situtation none of them gets it so their are given : Player on E and Player 4 K.

Of course K was picked by player 2 as his 1st grade pick so Player 4 canat have it (situtation a) and is given another 2nd grade which is J. If player 4 didnt have J in his 2ng grade list, he would be given random territory





it may look complicated but it is quite easy. And most of it wil be resolved automaticaly - players will only have to bet.

Summing up.

• 1) player can bet on his conflict territories in auction turn. He is betting with his initial income.
  
  
• 2) if he wins he gets it but his income in first round is lowered by the sum that he has bet
  
  
• 3) if he looses he is given territory from his 2nd grade picks (according to their picking line) and he doesnt have to pay
  
  
• 4) in case of tie both(all) plyers loose that territory
  
  
• 5) if there is conflicts between 2nd and 1st grade pick the 1st grade pick wins
  
  
• 5) if there is conflict between 2nd grade picks all 2nd grade picks loose (tie)
  

*in situation where there is no base income, players could be alowed to bet from the amount of starting troops from particullar territory - eventually this could be a main auction option or they could be mixed (player can bet from the initial income + starting troops from that territory)

I think that this auction system may give even more entertainment to this game. It is also fair because in case of conflict player will need to pay for it to get that teritorry. And it is also strategis as he will have to estimate how much it is reasonable to pay.
The main disadvantage of this method is that it will require additinal turn, but personally I dont think that it would be a big problem. Eventually it may be an optional feature to use that auction system (unlocked on 60th level?).


Edit
@Richard Sharpe - the question of turn order is resolved in my next post on the 2nd page of this thread

Edited 4/3/2015 23:46:05

Whichever game is chosen I think the "winner" should have the option of deferring first move (thus getting two of their first three picks) and getting the first move the first actual turn.

There is no "luck" in rock-paper-scissors in the traditional sense as it is completely deterministic, but there's also no skill. Not sure if that would satisfy the legal requirements. Another issue would be ties, but those could be mostly avoided by choosing 10 "throws" at once or something.

After choosing your territories, ask players to "predict your opponent's picks". Whichever player gets closest, wins. This can be determined via an algorithm that takes the order of picks, geographic proximity, among possible other variables into account to determine who's prediction was the closest. In the event of a tie, you can fall back to play speed, but it's very unlikely to hit a tie in most situations.

One consideration on this is that you can easily botch your prediction on purpose in the event that you don't want first pick. This is already quite a bit better than the current strategy of purposely delaying your turn and possibly delaying a game's start unnecessarily. However, I suggest also allowing the player to choose which turn order he prefers for all players. This would avoid "purposely losing the pick" because you can simply choose that you prefer to get last pick - and you still ONLY get it if you predicted closest (or the player who won the prediction listed you as last anyway). Thus, even if there are 40 players in a game, the algorithm only needs to determine the player who scored highest on prediction. I think needs to be fleshed out more, though, so input is appreciated.

Other details should also be discussed, such as whether you try to predict all players picks or just one opponent's. My suggestion is that it could be nondiscriminatory in that you just choose the territories you think will be popular without specifying which opponent you think will claim those territories. This would help speed the process along.

The advantages of this system I can see:
1) Easy implementation because you don't really need to diverge from the present UI. Some cleverness may be involved for developing the algorithm, but even that shouldn't be too difficult.
2) You can play just as effectively on a mobile device because connection latency is not a factor.
3) It's not really an "extra activity" because you should be predicting your opponents' picks anyway. This just allows the game to collect that information to determine who deserves turn preference.

One side effect I foresee is that this DOES give extra information to the predicting player. If you get your turn preference, you do know your prediction was close (or at least closer than your opponent's), so you may send extra troops in that direction. I don't think I would list this as a negative though, because you can already get more precise information if you choose a territory that someone else claimed first. And perhaps you even deserve that information for predicting properly. Others will have their opinions on this though, so I think it worth mentioning.

Kain, how would your system determine who gets first turn to start the cycle?

Edited 4/3/2015 21:23:44

1. ask players? do they want to be first at picking stage or not?
2. if they want to be first they they play a rock paper scissor game.

other ideas to make picking stage funnier;
- give players 100 votes. they share them between their choices.
- give players 10 order priority and 10 delay cards. allow them to use them at picking stage.
- if they pick same territory as #1, nobody takes it.

EDIT: i didnt see 125ch209 wrote same thing. +1

Edited 4/3/2015 21:28:23

Honestly I'd much prefer if it was simply decided after joining a game (rock-paper-scissor or randomly)- like in chess. There's many creative ideas already, but different minigames is not the way to go. Especially if playing on the app is intended to be on equal footing.

If need be, you can also make each match consist of several games. If you play two games, with the same distribution, alternating who gets first pick, until a player is up by two games you've created a very fair system imo. (Though that might not work well for rt).

Personally I'd prefer the rock-paper-scissor idea, if that's acceptable legally. If not pick speed is, though not perfect, okey.

I really like the current system and believe that the the method must be a measure of skill at playing Warlight, not geography knowledge or mental arithmetic. However, it would be nice for a skill based method to come along that introduces a new strategy into the game.

I've only skimmed Kain's suggestion, but it sounds like this may have the potential to do this - although I think an income loss is a pretty heavy price to pay (maybe something like the initial armies on the board would be better).

I trust you will leave the current system in the game as an option, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, as it would be a loss.