Just got shafted by 5 first moves in a row on me (which makes a HUGE difference when stacks are colliding). I know there is a reason for random move order, but that is ridiculous and I am sure people have had it happen even more. My proposal is that the odds decrease with every consecutive time. Perhaps this could be a new setting (like 'Scaled Random' or something).

So on a the first turn, both players have %50 chance at first move. Next turn, the player that had first move previous turn has %40 chance at it and other player has %60 chance. If that player gets first move again (on the %40 chance), it goes to %30 chance and so forth (by %10 each time). So you still have random element, but a string of first moves is less likely.

Disagree. If I play random, I want it to be random. I don't want it to be kinda random but predictable at the same time. Totally defeats the purpose.

This topic came up before, it's already "scaled random" by principle.

The probability of going first every new turn is 50%, but the probability of going first 5 turns in a row is significantly lower than 50%. Forgot what it's called, but weren't you in that thread as well, Richard?

Anyhow, it was really unlucky (maybe OP cards were involved as well?), but the chances of it occurring again are pretty slim.

No cards, so no OP. And probabilities don't work that way Taisho. It is %50 every time. The chances of it happening the same 6 times in a row is very low. But each individual time it has the same chance of happening. I am talking about scaling the individual chances.

Richard - That is why I said maybe as a new setting option.

Finally found it :P

So it was Richard Sharp who explained it to me before, it's called binomial distribution and is explained in this thread: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread?ThreadID=32550

You still don't get it. That is overall odds not the odds of each move. I am talking about changing individual odds as a new setting

worst I have had was 7 moves in a row. It made a huge difference in the match. ill see if i can find it >.<

I like the idea of a scaled random. Perhaps 1st move 50/50 2nd move 50/50 3rd move 45/55 4th 40/60 5th 30/70 and cap at that.

Honestly anything beyond 3 1st turn move orders seems a bit overpowered.

Edited 4/4/2014 04:55:49

Chris, I get the difference between binomial distribution and scaling, I'm just trying to make a point.

Essentially your idea is making the gray area between random and cyclical order an option for users, where first order is more predictable, but not as much as cyclical. I think it's overkill, is all really.

Could be another feature to unlock though, since we don't have enough of those as is.

Hauptman, that conversation has zero bearing on this discussion. Two completely different concepts.

As for the concept Chris is pushing, I have no issue with it being another option. I just don't think it should replace the current random method.

The other question I would have is how this would impact FFAs or team games? The changing odds are fine for 1v1 but for anything else it will get very complex very fast.

Not sure you want to use the new feature in team games

It should be change long time ago. This "random move order" wtih 50% chance is like critical chance in rpg games so unpredictible. For now it should be and only one move order by turns(cyclical). Simple, predictable and even more real. Imagine the real war when armies are moving by some 50% luck chance and what is more interesting every fucking turn/time :D. How do you want to plan going somewhere if you don't even know that you will reach the destiny. Bullshit nonsense and paradox of a strategy game that name should be posted instead of "random move order". I'm glad that i've stopped playing that crap t_T

Chance favours the prepared mind

Hauptmann you're mathing wrong again.

The other question I would have is how this would impact FFAs or team games? The changing odds are fine for 1v1 but for anything else it will get very complex very fast.
If you subtract X% from the position you got and add X/N% to every other position, every position will have 100%.

(Where N is the number of players minus 1.)

Chris, I get the difference between binomial distribution and scaling, I'm just trying to make a point.

What point? What you are saying is unrelated to the discussion, because every turn the chance is 50% (no matter if you get 100 first turns in a row) and this is what Chris' feature would change (like said before).

Richard, it has bearing because I brought it into the thread to make my point, which is:

Chris is suggesting this feature to reduce the chances of getting first move multiple times in a row, which according to binomial distribution is already quite low, especially after 3-4 turns (theoretically, though the chance for each turn is 50% every time). Binomial distribution, though, is also only taking about chance and does not necessarily determine outcome.

By reducing the chance by 10%, following Chris' example, for the player who got first move the last turn it makes the chances of the other player getting the first move next turn 10% higher or 60%, I get it. While Chris' suggested feature would essentially just reduce the "randomness" even further by making the move order more predictable, but not perfectly so, I think that instead you should just make the move order altogether predictable with cycle order.

Hence why I said making a feature for the "gray area" between random and precise is overkill, but that's only my opinion. I'm not the one who makes the finale decision, ya know? :P

Arun, I already stated previously what my point was, I don't need you to reiterate Chris' suggestion for me. I'm simply disagreeing with him on the necessity of the feature, not attacking him personally.

so in that time your opponent got 1st 5 times in a row, and next time you will get 1st 5 times in a row.

The thing is, it is very likely that you have received the same number of first turns while using random. Just like with those who complain about bad luck hurting them all while seeing plenty of good luck as well, the same applies here. You only ever notice when the luck hurts you, not when it helps you.

Hard to say who has more in game but he has gotten 7 of last 8. Seemed pretty even before. I have certainly gotten good side of first moves in games but that does not make it right. It can take a game you played better and flush it down the toilet

If i want to do random games i go to the loterry if i want to play strategy i want to think plan and calculate what to do in the game not only predict that someone get in 7 turns 1 move. Every turn it change the whole plan and strategy of the actual game cause you don't know will you have the first move.. and it kills the game when 2 players are equal lvl. For example league of legedns in spite of being created later then dota is more popular dota mode game cause it is more predictable and now more playable. If i'm correct it was even created later then warlight. Here nothing is changing for better that's why people stop playing it or "join the clan :D" or just go play other games. It's a human thing that you remember your unluck over oponent no matter how many games you won with better luck.

Even my goddaughter said -> uncle why he atack you all the time and you can't atack him -> it is silly let's play another game ( she has 7 years old )

If you hate random move order so much, just play games with cyclic order. Otherwise, stop complaining. You can have as much or as little luck as you want in Warlight, so it's silly to complain about it like this.