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.