Whoops, I thought Wazz got 5th pick, he only got 4th, so, yes he had to guess Scandi rather than know it, but it was still quite obvious.

Edited 7/5/2014 23:50:09

Taxi driver why did you ignore me? =(

yea i would have guessed he was in scandi from turn 1

scandi russia combo is quite popular and knowing that he had placed 2 picks in +4 locations it made perfect sens to have a quick +3 bonus.
The only doubt was the 2 +4's in Africa could have been a possibility but it was cleared at turn 5.

Also, even if his 3rd pick was in Africa, getting killed in Russia is a disaster anyway.
I would rather go offensive in Russia and risk loosing the chance of breaking Africa.
Thus he would be forced to run/defend Russia next turn and my position would be safe.

Also turn 4 hinted that he didnt care about dieing in russia, since he didn't reinforce his only visible location.
This should have given him all he needs to know that vernita had some other locations nearby, scandi was the most likely option.

having all this information shows that he did the wrong move hitting africa instead of russia, very noobish move.

An other disaster move which was not made was not marching on russia as soon as possible from hawaii knowing fully well that china was the only not wastlanded bonus vernita could have expanded to before being strong enough to take on wastelands.
clearly he was not getting though scandi or africa without a big fight. The easiest way was through china where vernita would have to defend on 2/3 fronts.
He instead chose to capture Greenland(a bonus right next to the enemy) which resulted in an other disaster.

His little brother must have started playing with his account after turn 5 or he is highly over rated.

Edited 7/6/2014 01:45:52

I give you another 2 games of bad luck victories.

In this one you can see, that it is not that important if you have bad luck later on, since the first two are the most critical:

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=5364497

And in this one you see that despite I had worse luck than my opponent, I can consider myself lucky that he failed the FTB which was more important than my bad luck.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=5364384

first of all i agree with you that luck earlier on is more effective in most cases.

but as i said , being lucky at the right time is much more important then being slightly lucky all the time.
The beginning is usually an important time but not allways.

your first game was clearly strait forward, you had better picks and you won, no amount of luck would have gotten him out of the mess he was in, he really screwed up on picks there and started expanding blindly without regards to his weak spots and your weak spots.

He was playing as if you were not there.
I see no luck involved there, you just owned him completely, gj

the second FTB?

the second was quite interesting, it not only proves my point that luck matters but also shows how luck can shape the entire game.

First i thought that he lost the game since he missed on his +3 because of luck thus with 1 pick of yours you screwed 2 of his and he had no bonus to pay for that.

then you fuked up in antartica(you got tricked) then by luck you guessed wrong where he will reinforce(50% chance) though u should have reinforced more.
he only does an attack of 2 to tibet, he himself didn't expect he would have killed you lol.
He was lucky to turn the tide in 1 turn that way.

Not only that but he is attacking your +4
So you are loosing, even though u can capture Australia, from there you cannot expand anywhere else, so if the game drags on you will loose anyway.

It looked bad for you, then he screwed up and stopped expanding, and did a bad job at killing you in w.china, it cost him the game, he came close but could have done better if he kept expanding.

If you didn't survive in w.china at turn 7, game was over for you, no matter what you did.
He would be too strong with that +6 and expand faster then you.

He should have attacked Mongolia first move with his stack and you would have been dead.
that was a disaster on his side that you didn't forgive. :)
still cannot understand why he did it 4th move, you have no reason to attack russia in anyway and u could just as well go w.siberia.
If he though that u were gonna reinforce mongolia surely 4'th move and 1'st move wouldn't gonna make a difference, he would still hit your wall in Mongolia.
I think he wanted you to move away from there before hitting it or expected you not to reinforce it and not to move so he could kill ya with that 10 attack.
what ever is the case he has some mental issues.
Clearly his best move by far was a first move, since reinforcing Mongolia made no sens at all.

Then you would have been lucky again on getting the first move and survive by luck :P

Edited 7/6/2014 04:24:14

Metatron, would you kindly say how old are you? I'm not really interested in a kid trying to lecture me on

this is how science works

and on

and statistics is the worst possible way to do it

. If by any chance you're just a misinformed adult I'll invest a little more time into this thread later.

thanks for the nice reply, the age doesn't really mater when it comes to knowledge of particular subjects. Though I'm 27 if you are up for a date :P

And please don't invest any of your time lecturing me, if you have your opinion how science works, I do not wish to know it, since with science there are no opinions.

Science is done in a controlled environment and what i was doing was simply peeling off complexity to derive the basics using a less complex(controlled) environment. If you think that is wrong science then you and I live on different universes.
It is useless arguing any more on the subject if we cannot even agree on how science and experiments work.

Edited 7/6/2014 10:30:05

dead piggy,

I guess I am too lazy to post a 'large sampling' of my games.

And please don't invest any of your time lecturing me, if you have your opinion how science works, I do not wish to know it, since with science there are no opinions.

You do realize that is an opinion, on how science works..Even though, in "science there are no opinions." Don't think I need to say more.

no amount of luck would have gotten him out of the mess he was in

Therefore luck is not a primary factor, if NO luck could make up for his mistake. You said yourself his "better picks" countered any luck.

Edited 7/6/2014 16:49:38

Metatron is an obvious troll.

arun
seriously, i never said that luck can get you out of any situation.

luck is a major factor in a game does not mean that luck can do miracles.

Skill is an other factor

if i said;
no amount of skill can get you out of that situation
would you have said that comment?

This is what we call a Hasty Generalization fallacy.
'just because luck can't get you out of any situation then luck is not a major factor.'
See your mistake?
+ my claims on luck were about when above average players play, i see no above average player making such bad picks. So my argument is valid.

hennns it hurts my IQ just reading your posts.
so i will not reply to your posts until I see that you justify you crazy claims.
Until then, do not think that you are in any way right in your unfunded claims.

just to clarify,
In how science works(the argument i had), there are no opinions.
Those are well tested scientific methods to research something.
The scientific method is how science works and that is not an opinion, there are different approaches yes but they are all valid depending on the situation, claiming that they are not valid without supporting your claim is what we were arguing about.
Science does not work in mysterious ways like god/religion. There are procedures to be followed which are well tested and confirmed to be valid.

However science in itself is a never ending question.
Usually those geniuses that are true scientist(that follow the scientific method) are not recognized and called crazy or weirdos because people resist change.
It took Einstein all his life to get his theory of relativity accepted and it was really accepted after his death.

And since im finding so much resistance even for basic facts:
I will put an other one for you.

Not only science works that way but so does mathematics.

In maths you always try to find an unknown variable by simplifying the equation.
Usually putting a 0 as result to try to eliminate one(or more) of the unknowns so the equation is less complex and thus be able to find out one of the unknowns. Then substitute the found unknown to find the others.

All I was saying was to try and find the most simple of games and analyse those games to derive the basic factors.
this was done by using 0% luck games, using games where there are no mistakes, above average players, etc..
First u get the luck factor from there, then you apply it to the other games to find the other unknowns.

Edited 7/6/2014 22:22:11

It's not any situation. The situation was superior to player A due to his superior skill. His skill was enough to create a situation that luck couldn't save - skill was a larger factor than luck.

Now, show us some evidence. Find a ladder player, not from the very bottom of obvious reasons, and show us his last ten games (random sample). How many were decided by luck? We shall see.

you don't have to wait to see.

download any sampling of games.

you will find that luck was with the winner perhaps 9 out of 10 times.

Link us to your last 10 autogames.

Taxi driver, if luck determines the vast majority of your games, you are a bad player. Discussion closed.

flat denial with an insult and no argument.

a head like a potato for sure.

Vernita,

why not just admit you had to search through many games to find even one example of a bad luck victory?

Claims with refusal to actually link games supposedly won off luck.

Head like one that breathes in taxicab exhaust fumes for sure.

TaxiDriver, do us all a favor and think before you post the next time.

I didnt go through all my games, but statistically i had worse luck than my opponent in 50% of my games. That means that out of the let's say 60 games I have played, in 30 games i had inferior luck. Even if you assume all my losses have been games in which i had worse luck than my enemy, I would still be able to link you at least 15 games and not three like I did.

I really don`t understand the blockade in your mindset that lets you assume that luck is the predominant factor in deciding games, when the empirical evidence speaks a completely different language. Let me tell you, this is not a sign of heightened intelligence.


The reason I picked those games was the correlation of the following factors:

-No 0% straight luck settings (i played some of those)
-No random start positions (i joined some of those)
-Facing an skilled enough opponent (even though I played with a few exceptions only players with more than 65% win rate in 1on1, some were still too noob to be a good example)
-The bad luck is clearly evident for any half decent player

and finally of course

-I looked at them before I looked at other games (since i stopped looking after 3 examples)


There are plenty of players with more than thousand games played and with winrates of around 80%. Independent of their individual skill and if you dont assume they played thousands of games against themselves to manipulate the win rating that way, they clearly have been more skilled than their average opponent.
If you want to explain that by luck, you have a hard time, since the probability of having 5000 games with a 30% deviation of the expected median value, is much lower than you being eaten by a shark. In Tibet!

Edited 7/7/2014 16:12:19