melan, if it's all about skill and calculation why are you pouty in circumstances that are obviously based on luck? If it is all based on reason you should remain calm and cool at all times and recognize and appreciate superior skill when beaten. but you often pout as if the result of a turn/game were unexpected due to the influence of luck. why?

in my games I see things for what they are. if skill beats me i might say good game. if luck beats me i might say nice luck. if i beat myself with poor play i might not say much of anything.

Timi, if that's true about defense luck then unknown was just chasing shadows.

warflow, you read only half of ideas and respond in kind. I think luck determines the winner of the majority of games played by MORE OR LESS EQUALLY SKILLED PLAYERS (in the context of ladder 1v1s). the idea is that if both players make equally good picks/moves all game, luck usually deterrmines who gets the advantages and thus wins.

melan's skill categories: picks: are there always worst case scenario options? what if the opponent is your equal and gets lucky enough in picks to cut you off from your worst case scenario? and instead of a worst case scenario you just get worse picks? attack-defense luck and management: if the enemy hits you with a 4v3 or 5v4 or 9v6 to win a key territory to gain a decisive advantage and you did all you could to stop it, is your loss due to luck management or just bad luck? if you flip 100 coins simultaneously how do you manage the flips to accurately predict if there are more heads or tails? and if you can't, why even spend the time flipping coins if skill is not involved?

From the top: Sze Vs Niko turn 3 sze missed his bonus. This cost him "a turn of growth" ie 4 income. Which he gets back over the next few turns by having a 4bonus to nikos 3bonus. He chose during picks to make his frst bonus a 4 where niko chose to make his a 3. Niko then pays for that later, with expansion into the horrible US bonuses. By turn 9 everything has settled down again and once again sze is too cool for his reinf card and eliminated some more neutrals. In this game sze loses because he does stupid stuff like attacking finland, moscow and south africa and not using his card on turn 5 and 9. What mistakes did niko make?

But what if bad luck led Sze to make risky moves to catch up? And Niko's lack of bad luck did not force him into any risky moves? Bad luck not only influences the turn/move in question, but can have a cumulative effect on the game, how the player with bad luck views his chances, and how he adjusts his moves in the future to compensate for earlier bad luck or to deal with the disadvantageous situation left behind by the luck.

Game 2 http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3549676

I am surprised that you think that was a good blockade what did it achieve? Sze spending even the 3 income to stop tibet was pretty nooby, when myanmar is just as good short term. Ollies problem was first pick and bad 5th pick, because he spent the first 2 turns scared that ant had been counterpicked. CA was a ton better. Deploying and not attacking in scand was bad for ollie, and then the only luck of the game sze got by guessing scand instead of hong kong.

He wasn't behind. Sze was absolutely fine until he made risky (bad) moves. Surely the lesson is not to make risky (bad) moves even if you think youre losing?

Game 3 http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3485495

Wish I could read the chat in this game. Skill indeed.

game 4 http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3550688

luck indeed, timis moves turn 4 werent great; worse than ollies and won.

game 5 http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3553273

Artham won because his picks were a load better. Timi was worried about europe or russia so didnt 34 around scand, but europe/russia are bad and if he had had the "skill" to see that his picks would have looked more like arthams. Getting gland with 3v2s is 50/50 and either way its a difference of 5 armies which he then plows into central russia for no immediate gain. Do you think it impacted the game significantly? The net effect is not +5 and -4 it is one or the other. Art picked better and then didnt screw up so he won.

game 6 http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3471141

Meh to so many of those points. Ukraine vs scand you think ukraine has an advantage? really? Timi jumps the gun in ukraine because he has nowhere else to go and if he doesnt get finland he is screwed. This is the problem when 2/3 of your picks are counters. Turn 6 guessing luck indeed. After that its gg and the luck is irrelevant. Do you not think player with the most skill won?

I am going to say unknown should have known timi was in CA, because where else would he be? If he is in russia its gg anyway because unknown has safety and nice expansion. unknown should have hit venezuela with as much as he could afford.

I am surprised not see any games decided by guessing luck in picks, where there is a rock paper scissors scenario. Are there games where someone picks worse and plays worse but wins due to luck?

Sze wasn't behind? Armies and Income,

turns 1-9 (beginning to when Niko gets Canada & Sze gets N Africa):

Armies 12-12..15-14..19-14..25-20..30-28..40-31..36-23..44-36..43-30..
Income 5-5......5-5......8-5......8-9......8-9..13-13..13-13..13-13..18-16..

turns 10-11 (game over):

Armies 41-24..56-29
Income 18-16..18-16

What I see: Niko used his good attack luck in CA and the US to maintain parity in Scand and grow more effectively in the US and Canada. Once Niko got Canada he used his income with a fury turn 10. Sze was surprised by losing so many troops and realized the end was near unless he took some risks. Turn 11 he tries to jump Ant thinking the income came from Aust/Ant. If Sze had that slight advantage in his attack luck while growing in Africa, would Sze have been surprised by Niko's fury turn 10? Would Niko have decided to deploy 100% and attack like he did turn 10 if he didn't have such attack luck while growing? Early luck influences later options. Early luck determines later strategic choices. Niko made no mistakes. But didn't the early luck give him more strategic choices, which led to his skillful assault and battery turn 10? And didn't that lead Sze to make the major mistake of hitting a wasteland? If Niko had normal luck in all his attacks in CA, US and Canada, he would have needed to deploy at least 4 more in those areas to take the bonuses at the same speed. 4 less deployed in Scand changes a great deal in how aggressive Niko would've been. And what if Niko couldn't risk having 4 less in Scand and ended up taking Canada one turn later? Then Sze's moves turn 10 would've been safe and not destructive.

Game 6: Based on the moves made, luck decided the game earlier than the moves would have dictated. Equal luck at the key moments and unknown would have kept his bonuses and the game would have been at parity longer. Based on what could have been: unknown could have made better moves to ensure that skill overcomes luck. I was simply analyzing based on what they did, not what they could have done.

Are there games where someone picks worse and plays worse but wins due to luck?

Of course there are. I was just looking at ladder games from #1 and #2. I didn't hunt games. I just clicked on their names and looked at the best 3 games of their most recent games on their list.

I think a larger examination of all such games would be interesting, so there'd be less theory and more fact.

Sze was behind a tiny amount (because he messed about turn 5) but if he had deployed all including his card in scand Niko would have bounced off 34v31. Nikos army and income advantage are so small that he would likely lose more than he killed. Sze could have made a 4v2 after all his other orders and been up a card piece =D. Nikos early luck was minor but youre right it gave him more strategic choices, and as far as i am concerned he made little use of them. He gave all the advantage back by using 4v2s slowly to take 2 inefficient bonuses, he has so many idle armies every single turn of expansion, if he had been hitting sze repeatedly in scand then I would say he was making the most of his luck, but all his luck gets him is a few more armies stood still achieving nothing until the stacks get so high theyre irrelevant. Sze ends up with plenty of leftovers too. Afaik Nikos early deployment really doesnt fit with an ant/aus combo.

Game 6 the guessing luck relating to the blockade was the most definitive of that game. Do you think it was luck? I think Timi wins a lot of games by correctly predicting the other player.

I think a larger examination of all such games would be interesting, so there'd be less theory and more fact.

Yay! Me too. Its nice reading someone elses annotations on a game.

i close my eyes and click randomly to play warlight, really i'm just very lucky
very, very lucky

melan, if it's all about skill and calculation why are you pouty in circumstances that are obviously based on luck? If it is all based on reason you should remain calm and cool at all times and recognize and appreciate superior skill when beaten. but you often pout as if the result of a turn/game were unexpected due to the influence of luck.

Mmmm are you sure of being so much different from szezi? Actually in this case yoou are much worse because at least he is aware of his nature. From your statement it is pretty evident that when you lose a game it is never your fault but it is always bad luck! I mean since you play perfectly being unlucky it is the only reasonable explanation right?

---

melan's skill categories: picks: are there always worst case scenario options? what if the opponent is your equal and gets lucky enough in picks to cut you off from your worst case scenario? and instead of a worst case scenario you just get worse picks? attack-defense luck and management: if the enemy hits you with a 4v3 or 5v4 or 9v6 to win a key territory to gain a decisive advantage and you did all you could to stop it, is your loss due to luck management or just bad luck? if you flip 100 coins simultaneously how do you manage the flips to accurately predict if there are more heads or tails? and if you can't, why even spend the time flipping coins if skill is not involved?

I am prous you didn't read what I have written!
I have said that luck is mainly irrilevant, not totally. Of course in your scenarios luck would be the decisive factor, but when you play you don't even consider those situations, why? Because they are mainly irrilevant indeed:/

I. I think I should limit myself to simpler sentences:

1. Sze was my first account.
2. Again, I lose for three reasons. First, the other guy made the right moves to win. Second, luck was insurmountable. Third, I could've done better.
3. Luck is the decisive factor in all games? I never said that.
4. What didn't I consider? You read 10 words and assume 100. Do you know how I think when I play? If so could you explain?
5. I can't really say much about your ideas. You limit them to vague, short sentences that could be used by Fizzer when games are loading: "It is wise to attack with at least twice as many armies as the enemy has to defend." Mind explaining your ideas?
6. Are you arguing things I assume are implied (different styles or strategic approaches make the "more or less equal" phrase difficult to measure, since certain boards/layouts/situations/positions make stylistic differences the decisive factor)? I'm simply putting forth a theory and trying to state it in the most basic words possible.

Meh everything I have written above the hr stuff was trolling:/

---

Majority of games (50%-65%): L
Some games (10%-15%): all S
Some games (20%-30%): L and S both contribute, unclear which is most important
Some games (5%-15%): winner has L and S advantage
Some games (5%-15%): winner has S advantage and L disadvantage

3. Luck is the decisive factor in all games? I never said that.

I am not sure if I am answering with short phrases, without big explanations, because the argument is boring, or because you contradict yourselves so much that there is no need f longer sentences:O

Luck or chance is fortune (whether bad or good) which occurs beyond one's control, without regard to one's will, intention, or desired result. There are at least two senses people usually mean when they use the term, the prescriptive sense and the descriptive sense. In the prescriptive sense, luck is a supernatural and deterministic concept that there are forces (e.g. gods or spirits) which prescribe that certain events occur very much the way laws of physics will prescribe that certain events occur. It is the prescriptive sense that people mean when they say they "do not believe in luck". In the descriptive sense, luck is a word people give after the occurrence of events which they find to be fortuitous or unfortuitous, and maybe improbable.Cultural views of luck vary from perceiving luck as a matter of random chance to attributing to such explanations of faith or superstition. For example, the Romans believed in the embodiment of luck as the goddess Fortuna, while the philosopher Daniel Dennett believes that "luck is mere luck" rather than a property of a person or thing. Lucky symbols are popular worldwide and take many forms.

It's good that copying and pasting for no reason is so fun. Because the argument is so boring.

gui, stop sayign shit and get back to the ladder....

oh... u did:

Huckleberry Finn vs skunk940 3679741 skunk940: 1068
Huckleberry Finn defeated {101st}Blowfly 3680153 1/16/2013 4:32:05 PM {101st}Blowfly: 1034
Huckleberry Finn defeated Johnny O 3680704 1/15/2013 3:51:40 PM Johnny O: 1211
Huckleberry Finn defeated [REGL] majokun 3681294 1/14/2013 12:33:30 PM [REGL] majokun: 1439
Huckleberry Finn defeated funeraljames 3679740 1/14/2013 5:58:21 AM funeraljames: 1116

Yeah, and then I quit. This account is best for banter.

Melon vs Hurry http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3735925

- pick order luck: 1-5 are the same. melon got the important two: xinjiang (india should be neutralized) and scand (safest, quickest bonus on the board). that leaves hurry with only aust and a chance at w africa, depending on how he plays it. game was won on pick order luck.
- skill: sa was not the safest bonus or the quickest yet melon went for it anyway. this gave hurry time to take aust. though this would only matter if melon was equally risky in his moves as he is with his strategy. he is not. game over.

why do you think xinjiang is better than india? I think N africa would have been better 6th pick (for both of them) would you agree?