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

bad prediciton = you miscalculated something = a mistake

of-course, there is luck involved into it and thus it is a complexity I excluded to make sure I can get a more precise idea of the luck factor on games where there are no mistakes.

then after getting a general idea of the luck involved without including mistakes, one can start to argue on those.

Edited 7/4/2014 14:52:02

several people have suggested if luck were the primary determinant there would be some perfectly balanced statistics in win percentages to reveal it.

NO way!

that would be the case if luck were the ONLY determinant. Obviously there are other factors, and skill is certainly one of them. Just not the biggest one.

When luck is primary, we still see skilled players ranked higher. We still see a normal distribution of win percentages. BUT - that normal curve is very tall and skinny.

That's what I'm suggesting. And my anecdotal observation is that the very large majority tend toward the center, as luck would bring.

I'm losing faith in this game's programming :-(

now that I have come to the realization that luck is the biggest factor, it has lost much of its appeal.

Edited 7/4/2014 15:24:36

Luck is absolutely not the biggest determinant. It's only lousy players that are arguing it is.

Yes, you're both lousy players in my eyes. I am confident I can beat either of you over 70% of the time. I am confident sze can beat you over 80% of the time.

I am equally confident you'd moan that we were excessively lucky after said games.

I very rarely lose due to luck. The games where I am unlucky I still typically win, just in a few more turns, or if I lose them it is due to a combination of bad luck AND errors on my part.

I doubt you can find five games on the ladder, ever, where a low rated player upset a top player, where the reason was purely luck. They might have had superior luck, but the top player still lost due to a mistake on their part.

Edited 7/4/2014 15:29:00

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.

This is just wrong, skill matters more the higher level the players play on. While luck matters more on lower leves of play.

In chess there's arguably no luck*

If you have anyway to support this claim, please do so.
there is luck in chess, but it is no where close to 50-60%
I play chess and the ratio of losses vs average players is very very low compared to warlight.

Warlight is a much more complex game then standard chess with different luck factor, so you cannot really compare the 2.

"This wouldn't happen if the game wasn't around 50-60% luck based."wrong, because it still happens.


It doesn't happen in chess and as I said, they cannot be compared.
In chess in most cases the better player wins, its very rare that a much lesser average player wins against a pro.
assuming an average player reads 3-4 moves ahead and a pro 6-10 moves ahead with a bunch of contingency plans.


First, you should also learn to read the whole post I made (I said I believed it to be luck in chess...) anyway, it is arguable no luck involved because there simply isn't a luck factor, eg in warlight you've luck, turn order picks etc. there's no such thing in chess.

It happens in chess, all the time. Go to (almost) any chess tourney and you'll see a lower ranked player beat a higher ranked one, the biggest upsets I know about are about 600 elo difference...


also your last stament that "assuming an average player reads 3-4 moves ahead and a pro 6-10 moves ahead with a bunch of contingency plans." proves you've no idea what you're talking about (with regards to chess, not luck) no offense but that is also just plain wrong.

Edited 7/4/2014 15:40:18

'Good Kid', all you have done is post a flat denial with some insults.

that's not argument.

perhaps you can post a link to your games where your luck was down but you still won. Good luck finding some.

I very rarely lose due to luck. The games where I am unlucky I still typically win, just in a few more turns, or if I lose them it is due to a combination of bad luck AND errors on my part.

I doubt you can find five games on the ladder, ever, where a low rated player upset a top player, where the reason was purely luck. They might have had superior luck, but the top player still lost due to a mistake on their part.

Learn to read before entering a discussion. As soon as I get on a computer I'll find a negative luck game I won.

you mean you will search for a long time to find maybe one.

haha

I'm actually on holiday and didn't bring my laptop. Don't see a reason to pay for a computer to satisfy your idiotic whims.

Since you ignored the first part of my post, I assume you accept it.

Also, although luck is a factor, it is very small and certainly not the primary determinant. I'd expect no more than 10% of my Strat 1v1 games to be determined by move order or 3v2/6v4 failing, and that percentage is generous.

Edited 7/4/2014 23:23:46

well i wish to argue against those who think that statistics are in any way an effective way on calculating the luck factor.

statistics have very high complexity; different game settings, different player skills, booting, etc..

The luck factor is not an easy thing to calculate and statistics is the worst possible way to do it.

Edited 7/5/2014 00:28:01