Taxi, by your reasoning your record has a probability of 0.000004%.

I mean, if luck is the primary determining factor between victory and defeat in a 1v1 then the game is a simple binomial probability with odds of 50%. A coin toss if you will. The odds of getting at least 429 of 714 falling the same way is on the order of 1 in 2.5 million.

So no, luck is not the primary determining factor.

It'd be extremely interesting if Fizzer could provide some stats for that. For example make a sample out of all 1v1 ladder games and show the relation between cumulative luck and winning %. Suggestions:
- win% for players with ending luck differential set between x and y, where x and y will be 0,1; 1,2; 2,3 etc.
- win% for the same thing, except we look at luck on turn 1
- same, but we look at turn 2
- same, but we look on turn 3

I'd expect to see a higher correlation when we look at early turns than late game.

I'd expect to see a higher correlation when we look at early turns than late game.

γηράσκω δ᾽ αἰεὶ πολλὰ διδασκόμενος.


Game changing luck is not only the simple math of armies clashing, but who gets the first order in the critical moment decides plenty of games by itself.

Yeah, but i can't think of easy methodology to gather relevant data to measure the importance of that.

myhandisonfire WarLight Member

Game changing luck is not only the simple math of armies clashing, but who gets the first order in the critical moment decides plenty of games by itself.

finally someone who made some sens

luck is a primary factor.

The problem lies with complexity.

Skill vs luck vs experience(in the map/settings) vs mood vs time available.

It has been proven that multi day games show better moves then real time games.
So i bet no disagreement there that time available is a factor.

Mood is also a factor, if one is drunk then it is likely to perform differently then usual when playing, so if he is tired or with a headache.
So i bet no argument there.

Now some may disagree here but it is clear to me that skill and experience in a particular map are 2 different things that do work hand in hand.

You can be the best player of warlight with regards to skill but if u never played a map you wouldn't be able to know every thing there is to know about it.
eg what is the best positioning to be in at turn 20 or so. One can try to guess but in the end you need a couple of games with different scenarios and different players to really grasp the best starting positions of the map in the long run.
Even different settings may trow all your skills out the window and change the game completely.

all these are quite strait forward, the better players has better chances of victory.

when it comes to luck and playing against an average or above average player luck may decide the game.
So looking at stats of players with different skill levels is useless, don't bother asking fizzer to waste his time.

the problem with luck is that luck factors are just too many in this game:

1) loosing your first and getting bad counters
2) missing on neutrals with 16% luck
3) your enemy not missing on neutrals with risky moves thus getting superior expansion rate.
4) first moves decide games
5) last moves decide games
6) unlucky on guessing the enemy tactics(agressive/defensive)(not when done on purpose but just because he was drunk or something), resulting in your not best move.
7) guessing correctly the amount the enemy reinforces is mostly luck.(in equal probability scenarios)
8) in equal probability scenarios of attack/defense on multiple fronts, guessing the right place to defend/attack.
9) bad luck of not having the right card in time could decide the game.(if i had that blockade 1 turn before)
10) luck on having Intel on enemy locations by sheer chance which gives you an edge on the enemy.
11) not loosing your first but loosing other some other vital picks and their counters.

and it goes on like this....

The main point here is that while the other factors have levels(not drastic advantages), the luck factors are just too effective(very drastic advantages) in the game and too many.

So if i had to give a ratio of how much all these luck factors effect a game of 2 equally skilled players with equal experience, all i need to do is looking at some of their games and see that most of the time if not all the times, they win or loose because of a luck factor mentioned above.
On very rare occasions one would completely outsmart the other.

this means that luck is the main factor when comparing 2 people of the same skill and experience.

but in warlight we don't have everybody with the same skills and experience, we have a jungle of variety.

so skills and experience, tactics and styles have an effect but they are in now way even close to the size of the luck factor when above average players are playing.

so my ratio would be:
50-60% luck factor which includes all those mentioned and more
20-30% skills, time, mood and styles
20% experience in the map

That is why you see skilled players winning glorious games against pros then later you see them loosing a game to an average player.

This wouldn't happen if the game wasn't around 50-60% luck based.

I'm not sure how much credibility I can give to someone who doesn't know the difference between lose and loose.

I encourage you to look up the definition of expectation value, mean and standard deviation. If you understand those concepts, the luck setting in a game simply requires you to adjust your strategy. A person who understands statistics and adjusts his strategy to the luck setting can make that luck work for them.

really, he writes more than 670 words and you don't give him credibility for a simple spelling mistake? I suggest you look up the definition of credibility.

---

Some people like to play purely luck (lottery), while some prefer as little as possible. What's so great about warlight is that each player can play on the kind of settings they prefer.

Also I'd like to point out something, In chess there's arguably no luck*. While in warlight there's, how come that in both games a much weaker player can beat someone who's presumably much stronger? It seem like most of you tend to think the reason for that is luck, yet in chess (with no luck) the weaker players also sometimes beat the stronger ones. Luck is not why you "see skilled players winning glorious games against pros then later you see them loosing a game to an average player".


*I'd like to argue there's luck in chess too, but that's a whole other discussion. nevertheless the point that a good player lose to much weaker players in games where there's definitely not 50% luck based, proves Metatron's last statement "This wouldn't happen if the game wasn't around 50-60% luck based. wrong, because it still happens.

A person who understands statistics and adjusts his strategy to the luck setting can make that luck work for them.

It seems you understood nothing of the list of luck factors i listed since they are all independent of the luck settings adaptability.(which is part of skill)

In chess there's arguably no luck*

If you have anyway to support this claim, please do so.
there is luck in chess, but it is no where close to 50-60%
I play chess and the ratio of losses vs average players is very very low compared to warlight.

Warlight is a much more complex game then standard chess with different luck factor, so you cannot really compare the 2.

"This wouldn't happen if the game wasn't around 50-60% luck based."wrong, because it still happens.

It doesn't happen in chess and as I said, they cannot be compared.
In chess in most cases the better player wins, its very rare that a much lesser average player wins against a pro.
assuming an average player reads 3-4 moves ahead and a pro 6-10 moves ahead with a bunch of contingency plans.

Edited 7/1/2014 23:02:54

a lot of discussion. I'll respond to the original subject. Luck isn't everything. You're a noob.

taxi driver = boston

It's a copy of Risk ?!? Dice ?!? In it's core it's a game of luck. Stop whinning ;)

Metatron, based on your breakdown everyone should lose often to mediocre players.

That simply doesn't happen.

I recently went on a 31 game winning streak when playing autogames. If 50-60% of the games should have been decided by luck than that surely shouldn't be possible.

I'm going to analyze one game you've played, until the game becomes decided by sheer idiocy rather than good plays to show why it was not decided by luck:

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3730913

Turn one you deploy in all three bonuses, can't get much stupider than this.

Okay, I lied, your opponent deployed all five to take a bonus he knew you bordered, apparently you can get stupider, he just did, barely.

Turn two you deploy to all three bonuses again. - Pick something and commit to it. Quit being wishy-washy, this type of deployment is why you ended turn 2 on 5 income.

Turn four your opponent is an idiot in Russia, no kind way to put it without lying.

Turn 6 he does it again.

He then goes on to try and take West Us and East Russia at the same time. This is about as stupid as it gets.

You didn't play well, your opponent hung himself from the rafters, yet you have it listed as a favorite game.

If this is you in a relatively good game then you are not even remotely fit to determine when games are or not determined by luck.

You seem to be saying that luck decides most games in which the players are equally skilled, as if that proves luck is the main factor in who wins games.

That argument is a logical fallacy, since if two people are equally skilled, then luck is pretty much the only factor. The thing is two players are virtually never equally skilled. As such skill differences is almost always the factor that decides games.

You keep saying "above average" as a cutoff point. But just what is "above average"? 50% 1v1 players are technically average. I can beat your average 50%+ 1v1 player 80-90% of the time, however I only beat top 1v1 players ~40% of the time, and typically when I do, it is NOT decided by luck.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6247892

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6320551

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6381456

Three recent ladder wins vs. great players, none won by luck as far as I am concerned.

Summer and I tie at the end of the game on the luck graph, heyheuhei kicks my ass on it, and I finish marginally above widzisz, but all 3 games I outplayed and/or outpicked the opponent.

Heyheuheu and widzisz I outpicked to a ridiculous degree. Game vs. summer was less decided by me outpicking her and more by me outplaying her.

Edited 7/2/2014 01:39:57

Metatron, based on your breakdown everyone should lose often to mediocre players.

Did i say that?
just because the game is 50-60% luck it doesn't mean that there is a 60% chance of loosing against mediocre players.
It is much more complex than that.
I will try to explain it in a very simplified way(its even more complex then this)

lets say; 40% of the game is based on skill and knowledge of the map, etc...

pro players have a high percentage out of that 40%,
average players get an average out of that 40%.
lets say for example 20% (it might be different depending on the average skill of all players)

Now the other 60% are luck factors that both the average and the pro player are subjected too.

The more skill you have the better chances you have to win unless the average player luck+ skill is so great that it out-ways the pro players luck + his skill level.

In general no one really gets all the luck factors in 1 single game.
so here is an example.

Average player

40% luck out of the 60%
20% skill(etc..) out of the 40%

Total 60% chance of victory(a mistake anywhere may still change everything)

here we are assuming that no player does mistakes.(eg; delay to expand at the right time because of a hunch that was unfounded)

Pro player

30% luck(picks; etc..) out of the 60%
35% skill(etc..) out of the 40%

Total: 65% chance of victory

So in this scenario the pro player has slightly better chances of victory than the average player.

Now if the average player has more luck then 40% or the pro player has less luck then 30% then the average player has better chances of victory.

Hope this explains better what i was trying to say.

About your blunt accusations about my skills, my favorite game IS MY favorite game, because there is something special about it for me. I do not expect you to understand my feelings while i was playing that game. It is not a show off game, if you look at the date of that game you will see that it is old + i loved that game.

This, in no way represents what i know about luck or not. Pulling a Straw Man fallacy won't work on me because for your misfortune i know a thing or 2 about philosophy.

You seem to be saying that luck decides most games in which the players are equally skilled, as if that proves luck is the main factor in who wins games.

On equally skilled/experience players, luck is the main factor yes.

That argument is a logical fallacy, since if two people are equally skilled, then luck is pretty much the only factor.

(this is not a logical fallacy) You are practically agreeing with me.

The thing is two players are virtually never equally skilled. As such skill differences is almost always the factor that decides games.

Firstly, I'm not making a logical fallacy since you didn't even specify where I did it and what type of logical fallacy.
Second, you are making a Hasty Generalization fallacy, just because "players are virtually never equally skilled" you cannot generalize that "skill differences is almost always the factor that decides games". You failed to support the basis for this claim.
I stated myself that players have different skill levels, You must have missed it.

I hope that in my early explanation i was clear enough on the skill-luck relation.

It in fact is a logical fallacy to decide luck is the primary factor because it decides games between equally skilled players.

It's like saying vehicle weight is the primary determinant in which car is fastest because when you put the same engine in two vehicles the lighter one usually wins. (Hint: the engine still matters more. You can put the prius's engine in a showbox, it's still not going to beat a ferrari in a race.)

I can just as easily say skill is the main factor because when players have equal luck the better player wins.

Edited 7/3/2014 03:47:53

Good kid I think you just won the debate



"I can just as easily say skill is the main factor because when players have equal luck the better player wins."


This is why anecdotal games do not matter I am sure everyone can find at least one game where luck was a primary determinant. However EVERYONE has equal luck in this game. It is a mathematical equation to simulate luck. Really we are talking about probability here and the law of large numbers states:

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.


In other words over a large sample size between two players luck should be a non factor because each player will have received an equal benefit of luck. Thus luck can only be the main factor of wins and losses if both players over a large sample size have a 50-50 split in wins and losses. This would indicate that both players have equal skill and the minor swings of luck dictated the outcome. however, if the results extend beyond an even split it would indicate that a players skill (however you define that) is the primary determinant based on the discrepancy of wins in losses. I.E. a 60% win and 40% loss suggests the player with more wins is 20% more skilled than the player with less wins.


This can be noticeable especially between the tiers of players.

A top 10 player would beat a 100-75th rated player roughly 99.9% of the time. Luck cannot be the primary driver of wins and losses in this case.

"A top 10 player would beat a 100-75th rated player roughly 99.9% of the time. Luck cannot be the primary driver of wins and losses in this case."

You went a bit over the top there.

More like 95%, perhaps as high at 97-98%. Nowhere near 99 let alone 99.9 (which is ten times more often than 99%).

More like 95%, perhaps as high at 97-98%. Nowhere near 99 let alone 99.9 (which is ten times more often than 99%).

If you can get 90 i'll be very impressed.

90% is doable.

I.E. a 60% win and 40% loss suggests the player with more wins is 20% more skilled than the player with less wins.

this statement is also wrong btw

Edited 7/3/2014 18:32:43

Mr. Gentleman's best ladder rank happen to be in the seventies. If you beat him 8 out of 10 i'll be very impressed.

Everyone create 10 games against Mr. Gentleman!