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!

Good kid said:

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

I didn't say that, quote me where i said it before claiming a fallacy,
secondly, which logical fallacy did i commit?

Quoting myself starting from the reason why luck is the main factor:

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 no 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

I did not say what you claimed i said.


All i said is, that to understand the part that luck plays in a game, one has to look where there is less variables like when equally skilled players are playing.
I gave an entire explanation of the part luck plays and clearly is more effective then skill when average players or above are playing.

Apart that i didn't say it, one could easily argue there that 2 equally skilled players can have a 10-0 matches just because luck plays a major part in warlight.
It doesn't mean necessarily that the guy that won 10 is actually better, could be that he was just lucky enough.
Its when people with superior skill level face inferior players that you see them really filter up the ranks and on top of ladders.
when 2 roughly equally skilled players play, you never really know the outcome beforehand.

According to experience in watching games, the more the 2 roughly equal skilled players play, the more it will eventually even out their score, and come close to 50% win rate each. That is if they keep playing each-other long enough.

Good kid said:

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

Yes you can say that but you need to specify that it is valid only if all games have equal luck.
And it would be the only thing that was correct in your post.

Left how it is, so generic, it is a Hasty Generalization fallacy(a type of logical fallacy).
Since not all games(if any) have equal luck in warlight.
(and luck I mean eg; have equal quantities of first moves at the right time for every player, etc..)

Edited 7/3/2014 19:32:03

this:

taxi driver = boston

Just no Metatron.

Luck making me beat an equally skilled player ten times in a row is a 1 in 1,024 chance. It doesn't happen.

You're not even good enough to determine when a game was decided by luck, you're the external person in x's chart who blames their losses on luck instead of analyzing them introspectively to try and find out how to prevent such losses in the future.

You keep asking "which logical fallacy" as if there's only a short list of logical fallacies one can make.

Informal fallacies are unfortunately infinite.

Your assessment that luck is a larger factor of wins than skill because luck determines most games between equally skilled players is silly.

Just because when one of two main factors is removed from the picture the other decides the conclusion it does not make the other more important.

You're basically arguing that:

In the following scenario:

A + B vs. C + D

B and D matter more than A and B because when A and B are equal the greater of C and D results in a larger value.

It's beyond obvious, but doesn't actually prove anything that backs up your argument.

Equal luck games (or at least those where luck is close enough so as to be a non-factor) are very common, much more common than games where luck makes an inferior opponent beat a superior opponent.

(...) where there is less variables like when equally skilled players are playing.

I think you're mistaking 2 equally skilled players, with 2 perfectly playing sides, those are completely different things.

so skills and experience, tactics and styles have an effect but they are in no way even close to the size of the luck factor when above average players are playing.

That is absolutely not correct. I'd consider myself and experienced player when it comes to top level games and most of my losses I can attribute to a mistake by me, most of my wins I can attribute to a mistake by my opponent. Some games go purely on luck, for example I win if I eliminate someone, I lose if he gets first order twice in a row, which gives 75% chance of winning. If I lose a game like that on luck, I'm still satisfied with my performance. I'd say thinking like you did, attributing most losses to luck, is the main barried intermediate players face and should really reconsider their own games and whether or not there were improvements at any point.


I'd say that the winning percentages that ELO rating in chess gives should be quite similar, except you could make an argument that that tails of distribution might be a bit fatter, meaning there might be a down cap on long-run winning percentage (in chess it goes to 0 with an over 700 rating difference, however it's very rarely tested considering there are not many pairings like that).

Also I'd like to point out one more thing, you should really define "win" when you're discussing luck factor and it's importance, since the players who should win (the players whose moves led to a superior winning chance) wins in the end. Long-run win and win should be distuinguished and then you can start asking about the luck and skill factor.

Good kid fallacy man!

Hahahaha you really made me lol irl :D Where is this from?

szeweningen:

(...) where there is less variables like when equally skilled players are playing.


I think you're mistaking 2 equally skilled players, with 2 perfectly playing sides, those are completely different things.

Are you assuming that i said they are the same thing in that sentence?
I am assuming that equally skilled players make no mistakes, and thus they play perfectly.
I stated the assumption that players make no mistakes, you must have missed it.

All I said is that; it easier to picture luck if you eliminate some variable factors there.

I stated in the beginning that what i was describing is a simplified version of a very complex idea of how to calculate the factors.
Pointing out that there is more complexity then what i mentioned only shows that you haven't read/understood what i was talking about.

so skills and experience, tactics and styles have an effect but they are in no way even close to the size of the luck factor when above average players are playing.

That is absolutely not correct. I'd consider myself and experienced player when it comes to top level games and most of my losses I can attribute to a mistake by me, most of my wins I can attribute to a mistake by my opponent.

I made it clear that my calculations are based on games where players do no mistakes.
it seems you did not read my original posts.
Of-course if you do mistakes then it is your fault that you lost. I am not arguing on that.
I am not arguing on the win factor of all games played either.(some comments claimed that, not me)

One has to note also that if your enemy does a mistake it is luck on your part and vice versa.
So I consider mistakes on either party to be luck in reality but they are not included in the 60% luck factors i mentioned for simplicity sake and for the fact they they are not derived from the game itself.
(also complexity starts to kick in since there are different types of mistakes with different attributes)

Some games go purely on luck, for example I win if I eliminate someone, I lose if he gets first order twice in a row, which gives 75% chance of winning. If I lose a game like that on luck, I'm still satisfied with my performance.

You gave it 75% , I gave that 60%, how is that "absolutely not correct"?
Your satisfaction has nothing to do with the argument.

I'd say thinking like you did, attributing most losses to luck, is the main barried intermediate players face and should really reconsider their own games and whether or not there were improvements at any point.

I never said that most losses are attributed on luck. You are talking statistics which I stated that it does not matter in the current argument.
I said that every game has about 50-60% luck based which is a totally different thing.
It seems you read the comments about my posts and not my posts.

It basically means that if your lucky enough you can win every single game you play even if you are just above average player since skill(etc..) matter less when a player reaches a certain level.
If one plays under the assumption that his enemy will do a mistake then he is a noob, thus I excluded mistakes and their complexity in my calculations. I stated this in my posts.

Long-run win and win should be distinguished and then you can start asking about the luck and skill factor.

Yea, as i stated, I avoided complexity and simplified it as just winning the game.
After all, if you won a single strategic position by luck(eg; first move) then one can argue that you wouldn't have won the game if you didn't get that strategic position.
So instead of entering into such complexity, i simplified it into just winning a game by luck or just by pure skill.

If I enter into such complexity, no one would read the post lol.
Since it would be a mile long.
They already don't read them as they are.

Edited 7/4/2014 03:48:58

I made it clear that my calculations are based on games where players do no mistakes.

Give us those examples please. I'm calling complete bullshit on that.

One has to note also that if your enemy does a mistake it is luck on your part and vice versa.

Yeah, that shows completely you have no idea what you are talking about. Clearly the luck factors we are talking about are 2 different things, since by your definition me not making mistakes (skill for short) is nothing more than the lack of luck by other player.

You gave it 75% , I gave that 60%, how is that "absolutely not correct"?

???

since you ignored about 75% of what i said, do i presume you agree on it?

do you agree that if you did a mistake, then it is your fault that you lost?
If no, this discussion is over.
If yes,keep reading.

So if any calculation is to be made on how much luck effects each and every game, it can only be made if players make no mistakes.
You lack to understand that to calculate something you need check the most simplified examples, even if most games are not that simple.

Give your definition of mistakes, because i think we have a different understanding of mistakes.
inferior playing style, bad expansion method are part of skill, mistakes are when you done most of the thing correctly and then you are either tricked in attacking a position instead of expanding or you did the wrong call and expanded in the wrong area or at the wrong time, etc..
those type of decisions which we call 50/50% chance of success that would decide the game outcome.
However a game is much more complex then this, that is why we look at the most simple of them to see how luck effects any game.
Then extrapolating that that luck is always there and added with it are all the other complexities.

This is actually how science works.
You search for the most simplified version, then you analyse the factors in the simplified version one by one. Then apply them to the complex version to try to understand the more complex factors.
The tendency is that if you have analysed correctly the basic factors, then they will be the same in the more complex games. If they are not then you most probably did not analyze the real factors involved.

EG: to check if water moves within itself.
If you go in a river and try to check if water moves within itself you most likely won't succeed.
The reason is that the river current, the wind, etc.. will effect your experiment.
There is simply too much factors involved(too much complexity).
Instead, if you take a simple scenario like a glass of water and put some colour in it and see what happens, you will succeed since you removed the complexities.
Then you extrapolate the results to the more complex scenario of the river.

Thus the river has your results + the other factors.

you are either tricked in attacking a position instead of expanding or you did the wrong call and expanded in the wrong area or at the wrong time, etc..

this is more a bad prediciton instead to be a mistake.

Edited 7/4/2014 13:19:11