why not? :D

If you do make this change, will you know if you get first pick before you pick?

Edit: my current highscore is 5062 :p

Edited 4/7/2015 22:14:56

ouch mine is 5060 you get first move this time

EDIT: actually no give me my first pick back


Edited 4/7/2015 22:19:29

Mine is 5268. In no situation would we reveal if you won first pick before you actually pick and commit.

oh was it a serious proposal?

I sure hope not.

5295 girls, 7th try

my record is 5310 :D

i don't think this or flipping coin or geography should be a solution though
few things i don't like the current system are that i don't get to see the distribution before picking

so after clicking begin if i see an exceptional pick following things can happen:-

1.it is so good pick i do not have to make enough backups cause it'll compensate for the bad backup picks-this is the fault of template or distribution(eg:-small earth coin games sometimes goes horribly one sided based on who commits fast and who checks on his game after/before his opponent)

2.it will help me a lot to win but i must make other good picks as well so i need to commit quickly and efficiently both as well as making sufficient amount of pick at the same time
this can be tricky since it'll actually REDUCE the main objective of the no-luck game which is pure skill

My device/internet connection/Spinal Cord reflex should have nothing to do with whether i get first pick or not
only brain should matter here

few proposals to solve these problems:-

1.allow players to view the distribution before clicking begin
2.allow them to decide whether they want the first pick or not
3.in case their decisions are same do the following:-
both players must make twice the number of starting territories
check which of them coincide
now the remaining picks are those in which both players differ
add the priorities on the remaining picks and calculate average
the player whose average is less gets the 1st pick
REASONING:-the fact that average of his remaining picks is less tells us that he has got the less prioritized picks compared to his opponent in common picks
so while assigning the picks he's less likely to get those picks than his opponent
if he gets the 1st pick it should balance the actual avg of sum total of numbers on priority list of the picks which players got by some amount

this is a very very vague idea though with possible flaws,i dont know if it can be perfected but we need something like this
a system where we have to think more of the entire board instead of just 1st or 2nd and 3rd picks

Edited 4/9/2015 00:55:09

I think it is great as it is now.

Although I should be able view my allies picks in a team game before I start my clock. He could also list all his picks in chat, and I could look them up. This is a completely unnecessary time wasting step though. Fixing this problem would greatly increase the general adoption of this quality selection type, even if you decide to use a different one for coin games in the future.

Both players enter a silent auction for 1st pick. The players submit how many armies they are willing to give their opponent for the choice between 1st and 2nd pick.

Player A chooses to give 1 army every 10 turns
Player B chooses to give up 1 army every 15 turns

Player A gets to choose if they want 1st or 2nd pick.
Player B gets 1 army every 10 turns

In the event both players offer up the exact same bid, the player that submitted the bid faster gets 1st pick and the slower player gets the armies.

This format would add skill to the game. You need to know what the pick is worth. These new games basically start with no bias. Compared to the current system where some games are decided as soon as the picks are made.

Edited 4/9/2015 07:05:34

@ Ruthless Bastard

That sounds like a brilliant idea! A player would have to estimate how many turns a game would last, and the value of armies in the context of that. This would add quite a dimension to the game.

Regardless of whether this idea is used to decide first picks in coin games, I would love for this feature to exist as a setting which a host can use.

@Ruthless basstard
thats too much thinking before the picking
we will probably need more banked time to calculate
and also i'd much rather take armies than give to my opponent in most of the maps where you cant win on picks only
and for how many turns one should give/take armeis should have a limit or i could say i'll give 1 armies to my opponent for infinite turns cause after a specific amount of turns the value of that army shoulnd't change the result of the game
could you perfect it more,i like the idea :)

@Life

It wont take that long to calculate.

A limit isnt needed. if you offer 1 army for every 1,000,000,000 turns you simply wont get 1st pick youll get the armies your opponent offers and he'll get 1st pick.(or 2nd if he prefers it to 1st *highest bidders choice*)

EDIT: there will most likely be a programming cap on the bid. 1 army for every 100 turns. Anything above that is just pointless nonsense.

EDIT 2: This could be tested if you trust your opponent. The only difference is instead of + armies it would be - armies.

1) Look at distribution
2) submit your bids in chat at the same time
3) Highest bidder chooses 1st or 2nd and you manipulate the time to insure the right order.
4) If the winning bid was 1 army every 5 turns, the player that got 1st pick would waste 1 army every 5 turns via attacking a nuetral with 1 army.

Edited 4/9/2015 09:49:08

4131

but the question still remains if the map is quite evenly distributed and no one wants to waste a single army in getting their choice of picks cause they know it wont matter much
in such cases i'd have no problem if 1st pick is assigned randomly
but i'm not sure that'll be legally ok
it should be actually,since both players are giving the consent

one more question:-
how will this work in more than 2 player games?

That isnt an issue. If 1st pick has no advantage over 2nd pick and vice versa. Why would anyone care which pick they get? They would both offer 0 armies. Whoever bid 0 1st would get 1st pick. The other player wouldnt care because 2nd is just as good. If it wasnt they would have bid 1 army/100 turns, and got their choice of pick with that near worthless bid.

Regardless if the pick is significant or completely insignificant the players will enter turn 1 with no noticeable advantage, so long as they bid correctly.

one more question:-
how will this work in more than 2 player games?

getting way ahead but FFA's could just be a loss of armies. You bid 1 army/8 turns for 1st pick, you win 1st pick, you lose 1 army off your base every 8 turns. Remaing bid for 2nd pick and so on. Regardless the game this auction format can be fit to to work with the game, including team games. Risk had auction distribution.

Edited 4/9/2015 11:34:52

i see a flaw here
in small earth now if someone had to get the first pick over someone like you they'll have to give you 1 army each turn which is a bad trade
cause otherwise we all know you always get the 1st pick
this will make the small earth game more biased than it already is

@ Ryiro

That doesnt make sense why would i always get 1st pick unless you bid 1 army/1 turn?

If i bid 1 army/10 turns you only need to bid 1 army/9 turns to get 1st pick.

Here's how it plays out.

1. You look at the map
2. You bid
3. You make your picks
4. Bids are revealed
5. Best bid gets their choice of 1st pick or 2nd pick
6. The other player gets the armies equal to the winning bid.

ya sorry i got the bidding system wrong way
i thought you had to pay 1 army each turn for 10 turns
silly me :P

5344 max, 21 min.