Negative luck games I won?

Easy, for starters I will only include wins over top 5 ladder opponents, where they had higher cumulative luck (since this is what Taxi has been whining about).

Me beating Summer in the finals of a tournament: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6558262

Me beating Boston: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6400737

Me destroying Angry Beavers on the ladder: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6355351

Me beating Grona in the clan league: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6383395

Me beating Heyheuhei on the ladder: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6320551

Me beating Summer on the ladder: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6247892

Me beating Jehovah while he was rank 1 on ladder with his alt: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6174637


Yeah, not really that hard to find. Certainly found more than one, they're all recent too, and I could find tons more if I included games vs. people that hadn't been top 5 on the ladder but were still very good.

Taxi Driver, if what you say is true and "after hundreds and hundreds of games most every game you lose, your cumulative luck is negative. When you have an at least minimally competent opponent, it seems almost impossible to lose if your luck is positive."

It sounds like you have perfected some kind of super-safe play style. Would you care to post a large sample of your strategic 1v1 games please? I am really interested to see how you turn luck of 50%+ into a guaranteed win. That is something incredibly impressive.

Edited 7/5/2014 04:07:53

@Piggy I think it's more likely he never plays opponents competent enough to smash him no matter what his luck is.

Perhaps, but lets reserve judgement until we see some links.

I think he already said that he's mostly used a higher luck setting?

well Good Kid your post is exactly as expected

the first game you posted your luck was positive/netural, and not an example of a low luck victory.

the second game was a game that did not finish, and was only a 'victory' because one player dropped.

the third game was one where a player got booted for time expiring....

etc etc



you failed to post any significant examples of winning despite low luck.

perhaps there is a reason it was so hard for you to find any, and made you resort to posting ones you knew were poor/fake examples. My guess is LUCK IS PRIMARY is the reason.

all the games I play are pickup games. My only prerequisite is a minimum level 10 experience (and that only sometimes). So I am not cherry picking easy opponents. I have no control over who enters my room. I almost always host, so my opponents are choosing me, I dont choose them. If anything, most of my opponents are higher level.

I have played almost 2000 ranked games, so I think anything I might post would just be a random sample.

But my stats speak for themselves
60%+ on 1v1
60%+ on 2v2 (always pickup game, no fixed partner or clan)
and my FFAs are all above average.

Edited 7/5/2014 17:15:39

What if i told you... levels dont reflect your skill

Just a few winning despite bad luck examples. i tried to pick games were the bad luck in early turns is evident and against decent players:

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=5362606

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=5480984

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=5257196

Vernita,

in the first game you posted, your opponent just dropped. Probably had to end the game early for some reason, but he was beating you. Not a low luck victory.

the second game your 'low luck' was fairly mild. I'll accept it as a barely qualifying example.

the third game, your luck was actually positive, not negative.

All of those games were lower luck for me than opponent, and none were boot wins as you're suggesting.

If you're suggesting Boston surrendered because he had to leave, and not because he lost, no, it was certainly over, I'd won. Maybe you do lose games that are that positionally won, but I don't, and Boston knew it, which was why he surrendered.

Third game beaver got booted, sure, but not a boot win. He had 6 fucking territories, I had 28 income, he'd been stalling that game for a month to keep rank 1. The game was over turn 3, by turn 5 even me completely screwing up wouldn't have mattered, his position was so lost he'd have lost to the worst player on the ladder from that point on.

Edited 7/5/2014 18:03:29

Dear TaxiDriver, your last post made it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

In the first game the opponent didnt just drop, but unlike you, he realized that he couldnt win this game anymore. His income disadvantage was to big to recapture greenland and his army stack in europe would take 4 turns to threaten my core, while at the same time he would have to deal with the defense of South America.

In the second game I missed both bonuses which can be devastating early on. If you ever happen to play a top player, game would be over here for you real quick.

And in the third game i not only missed the FTB, but I had bad luck breaking greenland as you can read in the chat.

If you can not comprehend the fact that luck in the late turns doesn`t matter, but it`s the first 3 to 5 turns that are important, you are beyond help.

i think in the first game, he gave up too early, im pretty sure i would have won that game.
you both forgot hawaii which was your weakest spot, shame on him for not heading there asap.
You were playing a noob and you only won that game because you were lucky on first move in turn 6, which killed him in Russia area when he was doing much more reinf then you.

I don't know what exactly are you trying to demonstrate in that game but you won by pure luck that game.

it is not how much luck you have in total that counts but if you are lucky at the right time.

be honest with yourself and accept the fact that if you didn't kill him that turn most probably you wouldn't have manged to kill him later since he would reinforce much and he was doing more then you. He only needed the first move.(which was a stupid move in my opinion, he shouldn't have risked it)

Edited 7/5/2014 19:21:12

Dearest Megatron.
Now that i contained my laughter, i can reply.

i think in the first game, he gave up too early,

Nobody would have won that game at that stage anymore. Maybe against you playing for me, but not against me.

, im pretty sure i would have won that game.

Yes, Metatron the hero. I am pretty sure you wouldnt even have come that close to winning.

You were playing a noob

This "noob" would slap you around like a bullied schoolboy.

you only won that game because you were lucky on first move in turn 6

I only needed the luck of first move order BECAUSE i have been so unlucky prior. Your inabilty to see that displays your lack of competence.

wazz is noob? lol

lol , you mean just because you were unlucky before, you deserve to be lucky at turn 6, this was funny.
Luck doesn't play fair, it comes and goes, you might be unlucky the entire game and lucky the whole game.
You won only because you got the first move instead of him. that game outcome was decided by luck and not by just skill, actually skill had little to do with it.
You seemed to be better with regards to skill but without that lucky first move, game was over for you.
You didn't win thanks to skill alone, luck clearly favored you there.

Since we will never know what i could have done in that game, i think it is useless to argue about it now, still I'm sure I would have won in 6 turns, and you are sure of your own opinion so we leave it at that.

Metatron, did you really just call Wazz a noob?

Let's put this simply, Wazz is better than me, and I am not in the same league as you. Wazz would play you 20 times and win 17-20 of those 20 games.

There's a very obvious trend in this thread, and it makes it obvious which side is right.

Those capable of being top 10 on the 1v1 ladder say luck decides relatively few games.

Those claiming luck is a primary factor can't sniff the top 30, let alone top 10.

And yes, the phrasing of that last sentence is key, I'm not suggesting all people incapable of being top 30 whine about luck, only that those whining about luck are all incapable.

Edited 7/5/2014 20:11:40

well i was rush in my accusations, I take it back. What i really meant was that in that game he sucked and played like a noob.

And yes if he plays like that always he is a Noob.(that is what i should have said)
Judging a player from 1 game was a mistake on my part.

Turns 6 was just too noobish.

Edited 7/5/2014 20:14:55

Now that I'm on a pc, and not my phone and can actually watch the games:

Game 1 posted by Vernita:

Wazz most surely has lost. Wazz has 6 less income than vernita, vernita just needs to play safe from here on to guarantee victory. He can break Wazz in South America in two turns, he can also take North Africa with no deployment.

Only way Wazz can get more income is to retake Greenland, which isn't at all likely. If he full deploys there to try and do so he can hit 38v32, which is not overly profitable (23 losses for defender, 22 for attacker) and means he does nothing to defend in africa.

turn 6 however was indeed bad as metatron says, but not as bad as he makes it out to be.

Wazz *knows you have 8 income (he knows Scandi and WR off picks, he knows you don't have west africa since he'd see if you ever hit ghana.

As such he knows you can't deploy more than 13, so you could defend with 14, so he attacks with 24, enough to have a 97% chance to beat 14.

He didn't put enough value on staying alive in russia though, it was more important to stay there than to kill you out of africa, especially since he had the game won after turn 5 assuming he played the next 3-4 turns right.

*knows means things a good player in his shoes knows, whether he paid enough attention to actually realize you never hit ghana is anyone's guess, but the info needed to know was available.

Edited 7/5/2014 23:19:04

partially correct, what u missed is an other very important info is that he had all he required to know that the enemy 3 rd pick was surly on the russian side.

Turn 5 vernita didn't even bother defending nigeria = it is expandable so his +3/+4 is not in africa.
So it must be either east china or scandinavian peninsula.

This was just shouting in his face.

To top it off vernita tried to have army advantage in russia by giving up nigeria in turn 5.

clearly vernita wanted him out of russia.

The most obvious choice to make even for an average player is to defend c.us and focus on russia, maybe do just an attack of 2 on last move from brazil.

That is what i would have done without thinking much about it.

Only noobs would risk on luck when they know that they have a sure victory if they play safe.

And Wazz knew he was winning since vernita only hit Ufa with a pathetic force and every other attack was weak from vernita side.
+ counting the amount of reinf vernita placed from start its easy to see that vernita couldn't have captured an other bonus no matter where his 3 rd pick was.

Edited 7/5/2014 23:57:58