I didn't say you are noob

But i did say that using statistics to evaluate the luck and skill factor is the worst possible way to do it.

if luck is only the major factor with specifically skilled players then it is not the primary determinant.

slight correction here
they the ONLY reasonable games that are important for the luck/skill factors.
We don't care about games vs noobs
it is so irrelevant that I ignored them, you just brought them up to support your claim.

It' is not the primary determinant if you include games vs noobs?
this idea that everything is so linearly is completely wrong.

games vs noobs work differently then games with above average players.
Noobs have much less skills to make them not compete.

It is like sending babies to war, it doesn't matter if you give them the best equipment(machine guns, etc...), which is 5 times superior to the enemy. Even if the enemy soldiers have just their bare hands to fight with. Skill will prevail.

You need to understand what primary factors are first before trying to argue about them.
first you need to derive the boundries like I did.
Declare your assumptions, then build a case taking into consideration those assumptions.

If we are talking on above avrage players(which have a certain level of skill) then those claims and ratios will reflect those assumptions you made at the beginning.

if you want to find even more basic factors that include noobs into it, be my guest but you cannot generalize like you are doing now.
In fact you cannot generalize at all since it will be an even harder job for you to demonstrate that those are basic factors indeed.

Eliminating mistakes from my claims made it possible for me to analyse better the luck factor for above average players.
If you include mistakes= you can be lucky in a game but you lost because of a single(or more) mistake you did.
then statistics have no meaning anymore.

Anybody trying to determine luck/skill from statistics is gonna find it nearly impossible to do it.
Statistics are to complex since they include too many factors not just luck/skill/mistakes.
They include:

-mood(where skill of the same player is not the same in every game)
-Traps(players make settings of games to favor them in some way)
-Teamwork(multiplies every factor by the number of players + the team work capability of them all factor)
-Motivation(sometimes if you are motivated enough to win a game you keep playing a lost game instead of surrendering which results in your victory somehow)
-Booting(if you get booted or your enemy get booted for whatever reason, even if a team mate gets booted)
and more...

filtering those from other games of luck/skill/mistakes from statistics is gonna be an impossible task.

Who ever just looks at statistics and derives conclusions based on just the result, doesn't understand a thing.

Bollocks. I never said that the only games skill doesn't affect are vs. noobs. I'm saying skill is not a primary determinant any of the time. I'm not a noob according to you; most would say I'm above average. Yet my above example shows luck decides at best, 20% of my games against top players.

Of the five factors your mentioned, two effectively end the game immediately; they prevent the game being completed properly. So of the three valid factors, all three are branches of skill. If analysing the game, the judges would throw all boot/unfair games out unless the boot happened late (acting as a surrender). Then, they would look for where the game was won/lost. If it was lost early on before meeting, this is immediately luck decided. If it was decided on a 50/50 first move order (where which ever player got first order would have won), luck decided. Aside from that every game is decided on player merit - skill.

Mood? That's separate from mistakes? Really? It might explain the mistakes, but a mistake is still a mistake, the reason frankly doesn't matter.

That's what I meant when I said the three valid factors were all branches of skill.

you are too simplistic.
Mood is not skill, its a reason why skill is lowered which fucks up statistics of any player.
If a pro player is drunk and plays like a noob, his skill is reduced on that particular turn in a particular game. This might effect the entire game in a multi day.
His average skill in the game will remain the same in that game but for that particular turn he played like a noob and may cost him the game.

Stop being too generic and address directly what you disagree about like Nauzhror did.

and i think you lack the ability to analyse in depth what I'm talking about.

I said clearly, statistics you showed mean nothing and I proved to you why they are useless.

There are no judges in practicality, statistics are either win or loss.
You are seeing a game, or group of games from your perspective.

If you link your games, you are basing your statistics on, then maybe one can spare the time to analyze your claims instead of taking your word for it.
Else they are just numbers, win or loss. No judges are present.

I cannot understand this sentence:

I never said that the only games skill doesn't affect are vs. noobs.

if i get it correctly, you are saying, that you 'didnt' say this:
skill doesn't effect games vs noobs.

So you mean that skill effects games vs noobs.

Did i ever accuse you of saying otherwise?
I accused you of generalizing the idea that if skill is primary factor vs noobs then it is primary vs skilled players.
Thus committing a Hasty Generalization fallacy.

The problem is that you are too simplistic in nature and can't understand what I am saying.


An assumption which i think i forgot to mention in my original post which i should have was:

that when someone lost, it means that no matter what he does/how much luck he has, he cannot win the game(unless he boots the enemy), of-course this is not always evident to a player.
But the ratios are built to that assumption and can be placed per turn until that point.

Then the ratios per turn are somewhat similar per game if one has the take an average idea.

Edited 7/7/2014 23:24:51

We're encountering a language barrier here. Either that or you are deliberately manipulating my points into something you can argue against. I said that not only games vs noobs are not affected by luck; meaning games other than vs. noobs are not affected by luck - games vs average and above are not affected by luck.
The moment I get to my computer, I will do a 20 game sample of a random ladder competitor. However my numbers are not just numbers; based on the maths of probability, they show exactly why your theory is wrong. I won't link those games because that would take me hours. But the figures were accurate (obviously you won't take my word for this so I'll do the sample ASAP).

You did not prove my statistics meant nothing. You just said they did and moved on after mentioning five variables - two of which were irrelevant and three of which derived from the same thing.

The problem is your mind is too dense to recognise the reason of the multiple people who have disagreed with you. Another problem is your completely linear approach. You lack the imagination to think of a valid statistical approach (or you don't want to come up with one as that would swiftly put an end to your arguement). Here is a basic method.
1) Take a sample. I'd reccommend a sample from an above average ladder player's recent games.
2) On each game, determine whether the game was decided by poor luck, move turn lottery or something else. As I understand it the two former situations are the only luck based factors of the Strategic 1v1 game.
3) Tally.

If the game is between two non-noobs, and it isn't decided by luck, it can only be decided by player merit (called skill here). People have said player's skill a lot which I accept to be wrong - because skill is affected by so many factors at different times. The correct wording is player merit; how well the player played during the game. It is irrelevant how skilful the player is anywhere else. Tell me now whether you will argue over luck playing a larger role than the player merit I described, or if you believe I was defending the average skill of a player (which for the record, is generally a good approximation of a player's merit in a given game). If the former is true, you are seriously misguided. I'd suggest you stop attempting to insult me with fancy fallacy and describing a lack of ability and actually address the points.

Edited 7/7/2014 23:38:43

We're encountering a language barrier here.

yea I think you need to be more specific and to the point.
Your English is not clear to me.
My English is not great but at least I think it is fairly reasonable.

Your points aren't built on solid grounds, that is the problem, they are built on your own experience(which is a mixture of the factors i mentioned).
That is why you have such a confusion, since your deriving your analysis from a very complex viewpoint(statistics) with a very simplistic view.

I said that not only games vs noobs are not affected by luck.

wow, I bet you misunderstood me here, Games vs noobs are effected by luck(that is a fact)
what i said, is that that luck is not enough to pay for the superior skills of the skilled player.

games vs average and above are not affected by luck

here is where i wasted a paragraph trying to explain to you that you cannot generalize like this. Thus committing a Hasty Generalization fallacy.

Playing vs noobs and vs skilled players is a completely different game, and factors have different values.
Vs noobs skill makes a huge difference(you can afford to do silly mistakes and have bad luck)
Vs noobs luck is not that relevant
Vs other skilled players doing no mistakes is a pre-requisite(you cannot afford to do one)
vs other skilled players where the game is much more interesting, luck becomes a bigger factor and can decide a game.

You did not prove my statistics meant nothing.

I did, and i say it again.

Unless you filter those factors I mentioned which are independent of the kills/experience of each player, you cannot consider statistics as a reliable source for deriving factors.
There are no judges unless you go yourself and ask people to judge those games.
They are just numbers.

How many games did you ask pros to judge your game on this subject and look for the luck/skill/mistakes/experience factors?

Then eliminating the factors I mentioned.
Then put them down on a list to make a proper statistical analysis.
How many games?

The problem is your mind is too dense to recognize the reason of the multiple people who have disagreed with you.

Appeal to the Bandwagon fallacy(majority means nothing when it comes to an argument)

You lack the imagination to think of a valid statistical approach

I explained why statistical approaches are too hard if not impossible, I have tried it myself, that's why i could explain it to you.

Player merit is an even more simplistic version of skill.
skill is what a player can do
player merit is a collection of what he can do + some other factors he carry with him, mood, etc..(if that is what you mean)
this means that you are making it even more complex because you are grouping different factors together as 1 thus you will not understand when one of the factors is bigger then the other since you are adding them up from the start.
In my simple version of skill i went as far to separate skill in 2(player skills and map/settings experience).

To understand something you need to open the groups not put them in an even bigger group.
Try understanding Einstein field equations without opening them up piece by piece.


You think too simplistically and that is why you cannot understand what i am saying.

Edit:
I think this short booklet about fallacies may help you:

https://bookofbadarguments.com/

Edited 7/8/2014 01:08:37

If your play is lowered by mood you are less skilled than someone who plays that well always. If you are truly, extremely skilled, what to do should not be affected by mood.

I wouldn't claim to be a good driver if every time I got angry I drove into things.

I am a good driver, but if you piss me off I will drive into you no problem.
lol

Apart from the jokes, did you ever hear about mind efficiency.
why do children go to school in the morning?
The mind is fresh in the morning so it is more efficient.

stress/tiredness/drunk are all part of the mood you are in.
those effect your game play too.
That is why when you take an important decision, they tell you:
Sleep on it, you will think with a cool head tomorrow.

Multi day games display better skills then realtime because of this reason too(not only).

Edited 7/8/2014 03:58:45

I consider someone truly skilled to be more consistent regardless of their mood, because the right actions are intuitive and second nature to them. They don't require a ton of thought, they're much more obvious to someone who is incredibly skilled, whereas a intermediate player might be able to pick the best move in a given situation it won't come to them as readily or easily.

this is your opinion, which i consider BS

why do you sleep then?

Your mind can't handle it without rest, it cannot be consistent all the time, it gets tired
this is a well known fact.
Unless you are some freak or robot, you are human and thus are affected from stress/tiredness/alcohol/etc..

If you are immune to these and their effects, you are not human.

Those effects have been studied/researched and drugs have been produced to reduce their strength.

So stop sprouting nonsense please to support your ridiculous claims.

Edited 7/8/2014 04:34:49

Who suggested anyone was immune to the effects of stress/tiredness/alcohol?

I suggested that if someone was good enough that the right moves were second nature than they'd be less affected, not that they'd be unaffected. There's a large difference.

Stress affects different people differently, so does lack of sleep, and alcohol.

You're making a strawman argument, and it's not overly useful for your argument.

Edited 7/8/2014 04:38:06

I consider someone truly skilled to be more consistent regardless of their mood, because the right actions are intuitive and second nature to them.

you are clearly saying that they are consistent,
when being under the effect of stress/tiredness/alcohol/etc.. it means they are not consistent and thus you are the one not consistent with your thoughts.
I am not exaggerating in anyway, you are the one trying to fix what you said, accusing me of pulling a strawman argument won't work.
You are either consistent(does not change) or not consistent.
there is no such term, more consistent.
trust me, if you are drunk you would most likely commit without moving, the right opposite of consistent.
I think you should become drunk before posting to see what you wrote. Then maybe talk about consistence and what skilled players do.
Your claims are unfounded.
Support your claim about consistency of drunk people and maybe I'l consider your argument.

In warlight there are difficult decisions which are not intuitive like 50/50 chance of which front is the enemy gonna attack/reinforce. Those require a lot of thinking and rechecking history and study of the enemy strength up to that point.
It is not intuitive, it takes time.
If you are drunk and are pressured with time because of auto boot, you won't be consistent since you are being stressed and under the effect of alcohol.
You might still do a good move but you cannot say that you are consistent since you would have studied better the situation if you were not under those effects.

Edited 7/8/2014 05:19:48

stop making up statistics and agree to disagree

Longhouse,

if it takes 'the long run' to even out luck, what does that say about the short run?

I don't think you are aware that your comments agree with mine.

Luck is so strong in determining victory in any given game, you have to look at the 'long run' to assess someone's skill. Because in most games, luck is deciding victory.

In order to make fine-grain distinctions between people's skill levels you need a large sample size. This is true in any setting, from chess to basketball.

However, you do not need a large sample to determine that Timinator is a better player than me or that Manchester City is better than Aston Villa.

Play me please taxi driver. We can analyse the game and assess your theory together.

One game will reveal nothing.

and I only play real-time.

Luck sometimes can relate in a "Strategic" 1v1 or 2v2, well at least I think but let's look at the positives and negatives.

Positives for the elite/superior players
-when you win constantly the computer knows you will win again and again under the facade of the Rom hence people who win Europe, Crazy, and Insane, the computer will change the luck settings without you knowing it
-the computer/AI will determine how you win, your Warlight name is your Warlight name get used to it
-and sometimes you are plain lucky unless you counter another players move or uncommonly cluster in the map even if there are wastelands

Positives for the newbies/average player
-The computer determines who you are from the tutorial and the minor levels
-after the level ups/upgrades, the computer will let the higher level player(45-60) win say compared to a (1-10)lower level player unless he/she is receiving more point then the lower player will win if he has already won from a lvl 50 player
-the computer will know if you devoted or inactive and that will reflect your gameplay

Negatives for the elite/superior player
-One of the players will submit their picks before another player an he will most likely get his picks he/she if he was to make a turn first
-less real-time experience
-bad ladder stats for seasonal or real-time
-favorite maps or favorite games

Negatives for the average/newbie
-will not get he/she first picks if playing with elite or superior player
-win rate after 500 games
-availability of cards but not for reinforcement, diplo, or airlift
-not enough luck or experience

So we can come to a conclusion luck is from winning, winning from experience. How can you outwit a computer?? :D

Edited 7/9/2014 14:10:03

"I consider someone truly skilled to be more consistent regardless of their mood, because the right actions are intuitive and second nature to them.


you are clearly saying that they are consistent,
when being under the effect of stress/tiredness/alcohol/etc.. it means they are not consistent and thus you are the one not consistent with your thoughts.
I am not exaggerating in anyway, you are the one trying to fix what you said, accusing me of pulling a strawman argument won't work.
You are either consistent(does not change) or not consistent.
there is no such term, more consistent."

More consistent is not consistent. More consistent is absolutely a thing. Someone whose 1v1 rating bounces between 1990 and 2010 is more consistent than someone whose rating bounces between 1700 and 2400, but not as consistent as someone whose rating is always the same and never budges at all.

Consistency is not an absolute. You are not either consistent or inconsistent, everyone is inconsistent, the difference is the degree.