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.

there is nothing random about Rock-Paper-Scissors

@Richard Sharpe good point. In fact I was designing this system for picking territory purpose only. Wat about turn order - ill have to think about it but what gets on my mind now is:

In no luck cycle games the auction should work in a bit diffrent way. Players won't bid for territories now, instead they will auction the turn order. And after it is resolved then any territorial conflicts should be simply won by the player with the lowest turn order (meaning 1st player should win all the territory picking conflicts) the problem here would be with ties. I propose that in case of tie players should be allowed for a second turn of auction but this time they will be paying from their income from the second round. If this second turn of auctions doesn't bring the result, then the winner should be choosen randomly* and the looser should only pay his bid from the 1st round of auction.

Of course, as now the winner of this auction would win any territory picking conflicts, the players should be also informed which territories are under picking conflict so that they could estimate how much they want to bid.


What is more, it could be also possible to set the auction rules in the way that the players will have to bid in the territory picking turn (without knowing if there would be any territory conflicts) so that the additional turn of auction would be needed only in case of bidding ties.

@green - thx for the positive opinion. About income loss - this is balancing mechanism. You have to estimate how much you want to pay for particular territory and you have to estimate how much you think you opponent would. Of course if you pay too much you may loose the game. So there is skill in it. Almost no luck. And no external mechanism (like minigames riddles etc). A most of all it is fair - students of geography or mathematics re not favoured, players on phone application are not hampered, the winner wins the territory picks but he also pays for, so the looser gets the advantage of initial income (which is not random)




*theoretically this could be set to make as much auctions as needed (without random pick after 2nd tie). This will eradicate any luck factor. But then teiretically it could take forever to resolve that. Eventually you could implement our old speed rule here - after second (third?) tie the winner is the faster player.

Edited 4/4/2015 00:18:16

I don't like the idea of geography questions or math calculations, not all the people has the same knowledge in those areas and this system would be unfair. Same goes for the minigames skills, this is a strategy game, involving other skills is unfair. Is the same as deciding the color in a chess game playing tennis, totally unrelated.

For me the speed system it's fair.

It might be interesting if each starting territory had a randomly determined label/indication, as to which player would receive it if they were to both pick it 1st. Both players could view this at the picking stage.

This could add a bit more strategy to the picking stage and also another uniqueness to each board/distribution presented.

Luck is involved, but is there really a legal issue with it? how come online poker is legal?

Online poker is not legal where I live (and thus, where WarLight is incorporated).

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

So for each tie, then each player gets one fewer territory? Otherwise you'd have to deal with what happens if there aren't enough picks.

We'd also have to handle the case where all picks are the same. Perhaps we just re-create a new map and start over. We'd still have to figure out who gets first move on the first turn, since today's NLC just seeds the cycle. So there is still a lot to figure out with this idea.

Honestly I'd much prefer if it was simply decided after joining a game (rock-paper-scissor or randomly)- like in chess.

From a game design perspective I agree with you. However, from a legal perspective, we can't use randomness.

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.

I agree. This is something that's lacking in the current implementation.

What to bet? Initial income! (usually standard 5 per turn).

That is interesting. You could bet your initial armies (like in S1v1, you start with 9 movable armies on the board). If you wanted to bet more than 9, we start taking it away from your income on each turn until you've paid back your bet.

Whoever bets the highest gets their choice of first or last pick.

What happens if you tie? It reverts back to who picked the fastest again?

Edited 4/4/2015 00:05:07

I prefer the current implementation. Picking quickly is a calculated risk.

@ fizzer Ties are resolved in my second post

Edited 4/4/2015 00:19:52

It might be interesting if each starting territory had a randomly determined label/indication, as to which player would receive it if they were to both pick it 1st. Both players could view this at the picking stage.

Or a variation of that:

Each pickable territory has a "picking speed". For example, Norway has +10 and South Pole has -5, etc. Each player makes 6 picks, and we sum all the numbers. Whoever has the highest total gets first pick.

You can also weight them based on which pick they were. Your #1 pick multiplies the number by 1000, your #2 pick multiplies it by 100, etc. So if both players pick the same territories in different orders, they won't tie.

We still have to handle ties though, especially if multiple players pick the exact same 1-6. We could go by fastest picker again, or instead re-randomize the map and start over.

Edited 4/4/2015 00:21:26

From a game design perspective I agree with you. However, from a legal perspective, we can't use randomness.

That's the thing though, Rock-Paper-Scissors has absolutely nothing random in it. I don't know what the law says where you live, but if the only thing illegal is randomness, then you are covered. usually randomness based games are illegal because it is impossible to program true randomness, and randomness is easily tampered with. you can't tamper with a rock-paper-scissors game because the issue of the game only depends on the players choices.

I think that the current implementation is the most correct one, but it might cause some awkward situations in scenarios where being the second to pick is better than being first (all the players waiting until the very last moment to commit).

So if I had to make something to perfect it, I would just add a dialog when the player commits his first turn, asking "Do you want to play FIRST or LAST?", so the fastest players get to choose their order in the turn.

Edited 4/4/2015 00:47:21

Example:

4-FFA with players A, B, C and D

A commits in 1 second, and he chooses to play LAST -> he's first to choose LAST so he goes 4th
B commits in 2 seconds, and chooses to play FIRST -> first to choose FIRST, he goes 1st
C commits in 3 seconds, he chooses to play FIRST too -> second to choose FIRST, goes 2nd
D commits in 4 seconds, chooses LAST -> second to choose LAST, goes 3rd

So the order will be BCDA


That's the most fair system i can think of

My favourite suggestions, so far, are:

1. Select order of picks - as Sephiroth outlines above.

And, even better:

2. Betting first-turn or basic income for pick priority.

Alternatively, you could bet your starting number of armies per territory, instead of income. Or even starting number of territories, up to the maximum specified by the game.

So the winner of the picks has fewer territories, less income, or fewer armies on each starting territory.

This is excellent!

In either case, break ties based on pick speed, as it is currently. This still makes speed important and removes any random element, but not as important as it is at the moment: people who pick slow can compensate by wagering higher.

3. I also like the idea that contested picks are simply not allocated. If you didn't make enough picks, you get random territories. But you know this ahead of time, so you'll make a lot of picks, just to be safe.

The likelihood of two players both picking the same 10+ territories *in the same order* is almost infinitesimal.

This way you have no issue with luck at all. Turn order can still be based on speed of picks, as it is currently.

This makes picks less obvious: you need to pick territories NEAR desirable areas, not the ones you think your opponent will go for. I think that's interesting.

The one who submits last (right before the auto-boot) gets the first pick. It's skill-based because finishing your picks 0.1 seconds before auto-boot requires tremendous skill and courage:)

Each player gets 1000 points. You bid on territories. one of the "territories" is first move (and one could be second move), which each player has to bid on. player A can only bid in even amounts, player B in odd amounts.

Territory with highest bid gets awarded to that player
Territory with the next highest bid goes to that player, if its available....

Each player gets 1000 points. You bid on territories. one of the "territories" is first move (and one could be second move), which each player has to bid on. player A can only bid in even amounts, player B in odd amounts.

Territory with highest bid gets awarded to that player
Territory with the next highest bid goes to that player, if its available....

Well, for the even/odd thing, then we'd have to ask the question "How do we determine who is even and who is odd?" which has no skill-based answer. I suspect you included this part to avoid ties but we'd have to come up with a different way of resolving ties.

Even then I'm not sure I understand the rules. You're bidding on "first pick" as an item, but if picking switches between the players then why would you allocate points to the territories? Points allocated to territories only rank against yourself, right? So you bid one point on the #1 territory you want and 999 on "first pick". What's the counter to that strategy?

The likelihood of two players both picking the same 10+ territories *in the same order* is almost infinitesimal

It's infinitesimal if they pick randomly. However, if two players are going for the same strategy, it actually happens quite frequently. It probably happens weekly or daily in the 1v1 ladder.

Betting first-turn or basic income for pick priority.

I fear that, most of the time, people would bid 0. Giving up your starting armies is a really big deal, compared to first pick which only increases win rate by 5% on average in the 1v1 ladder. And if most of the time people are bidding 0 or 1, ties would happen very often and we haven't really improved upon the situation.

Edited 4/10/2015 06:17:28

So what you're looking for here is a way to chose who gets first pick, with no randomness, related to warlight, before the game have started, based on skill. Additionally it needs to work when players pick the same territories(eg. does the exact same action). I'm not a fan of minigames, auctions etc.

Pick speed is one way of doing that, Sephiroths idea of letting whoever picks first choose feels like an improvement to me, at least for 1v1s.

However if you completely rework how the picking stage work, many other options are possible. For example if you do open picking, Both players see what the other player pick, and once turn one begins the fog (if any) is back. Hard to explain; so here's an example:
Player A and player B can see the same board. Whoever picks first commits a pick gets first pick, in this case A. Now it's Bs turn, he've to pick two territories, he can also see what A picked. B done with his picks, As turn; A can see Bs picks, A picks two territories... Until each player have done their max number of picks.

I imagine this can also be done with picks being hidden, but that would mean B would have to pick 3 instead of 2 picks on his first turn-> in case he picks the same as A, then A would have to pick 4... etc, it would technically work, but sounds like a pain in the ass. That's why I think open picks is better.

Of course, if you ever do make a big change I'd hope you keep the other options for games that are not "pure-skill".

Edited 4/4/2015 04:04:37

Here's another good system I came up with (for a different game):

You have X points to distribute to your picks. You must distribute all the points, and you must make a certain minumum number of picks (i.e. you can't just pick one territory and put all your points there). The points represent how badly you want to get that pick.

(It may be good to limit the number of possible picks, as well. For instance, you could have a maximum number of picks, or simply a set number of picks: pick five territories, allocate 13 points to them. Having a set number of picks, which all players must follow, could be a good way to control a "non-luck" game.)

Rules:

* Once you're done, each contested territory goes to whoever allocated the most points to that territory.

* Ties are broken by your LOWEST allocated number of points (to any territory).

For example, you have 10 points to distribute, and you have to pick at least 3 territories. You pick Rome with 5 points, Carthage with 3 points, and London with 2 points.

I pick Rome with 6 points, Carthage with 3 points, and London with 1 point.

I get Rome (because I allocated 6 points to it), and you get London (because you allocated 2 points to it).

Carthage is contested. Your lowest point allocation was 2 (London). Mine was 1 (London). Therefore you win ties: you get Carthage.

In the case of a perfect tie, go by fastest speed, as it works currently.

Another option is to use a solution from the board game Go:

Value getting your best pick as worth a certain value - perhaps 1 extra army/turn, an extra starting territory, or a lower number of starting armies. In other words, getting your pick is agreed to be worth a certain value, as it gives you an advantage in the game. (In Go, the player who goes second gets a number of bonus points added to their score at the end of the game.)

Whoever loses their first pick gets a bonus: perhaps an extra army on each starting position, or a similar advantage. The winner starts with 4 armies on each starting territory, but the loser starts with 5 on each starting territory. (Or perhaps an automatic Reinforcement Card on the first turn?)

You'd have to test this for a while to find a "balanced" option (as has been done in Go).

There are other ways of finding different but balanced strategies. For example...

One player is the Choice Position: she gets her first pick, no matter what.

The other player is the Underdog Position: he loses the first pick, but wins the second (if tied). However, the Underdog gets to decide whether they wish to go first or go last in the turn order.

---

Another possibility might be something like this:

When you make your picks, your speed at making them is ranked. A "winner" is selected. That winner can choose:

A. You win ties with your first pick.

or

B. You win ties with your second and third picks.

After that, it alternates (Player A wins a tie with the 4th pick, Player B wins a tie with the 5th pick).

Or, if the first pick is THAT important, you can choose to win the first pick but lose all other ties, or lose your first pick but win all other ties. (Choice would go, again, to the player making the fastest choices.)

Let the system determine who is Player A and B and make it known before they pick

From a game design perspective, I agree that is a good solution. However, from a legal perspective, we want the entire game to be determined based on skill.

Even if we could replace the picking system with one where first pick had a very small amount of influence on the game, if we determine it randomly it means there's technically still an element of chance involved. This causes it to violate some state's laws.