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

Whoops, I thought Wazz got 5th pick, he only got 4th, so, yes he had to guess Scandi rather than know it, but it was still quite obvious.

Edited 7/5/2014 23:50:09

Taxi driver why did you ignore me? =(

yea i would have guessed he was in scandi from turn 1

scandi russia combo is quite popular and knowing that he had placed 2 picks in +4 locations it made perfect sens to have a quick +3 bonus.
The only doubt was the 2 +4's in Africa could have been a possibility but it was cleared at turn 5.

Also, even if his 3rd pick was in Africa, getting killed in Russia is a disaster anyway.
I would rather go offensive in Russia and risk loosing the chance of breaking Africa.
Thus he would be forced to run/defend Russia next turn and my position would be safe.

Also turn 4 hinted that he didnt care about dieing in russia, since he didn't reinforce his only visible location.
This should have given him all he needs to know that vernita had some other locations nearby, scandi was the most likely option.

having all this information shows that he did the wrong move hitting africa instead of russia, very noobish move.

An other disaster move which was not made was not marching on russia as soon as possible from hawaii knowing fully well that china was the only not wastlanded bonus vernita could have expanded to before being strong enough to take on wastelands.
clearly he was not getting though scandi or africa without a big fight. The easiest way was through china where vernita would have to defend on 2/3 fronts.
He instead chose to capture Greenland(a bonus right next to the enemy) which resulted in an other disaster.

His little brother must have started playing with his account after turn 5 or he is highly over rated.

Edited 7/6/2014 01:45:52

I give you another 2 games of bad luck victories.

In this one you can see, that it is not that important if you have bad luck later on, since the first two are the most critical:

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=5364497

And in this one you see that despite I had worse luck than my opponent, I can consider myself lucky that he failed the FTB which was more important than my bad luck.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=5364384

first of all i agree with you that luck earlier on is more effective in most cases.

but as i said , being lucky at the right time is much more important then being slightly lucky all the time.
The beginning is usually an important time but not allways.

your first game was clearly strait forward, you had better picks and you won, no amount of luck would have gotten him out of the mess he was in, he really screwed up on picks there and started expanding blindly without regards to his weak spots and your weak spots.

He was playing as if you were not there.
I see no luck involved there, you just owned him completely, gj

the second FTB?

the second was quite interesting, it not only proves my point that luck matters but also shows how luck can shape the entire game.

First i thought that he lost the game since he missed on his +3 because of luck thus with 1 pick of yours you screwed 2 of his and he had no bonus to pay for that.

then you fuked up in antartica(you got tricked) then by luck you guessed wrong where he will reinforce(50% chance) though u should have reinforced more.
he only does an attack of 2 to tibet, he himself didn't expect he would have killed you lol.
He was lucky to turn the tide in 1 turn that way.

Not only that but he is attacking your +4
So you are loosing, even though u can capture Australia, from there you cannot expand anywhere else, so if the game drags on you will loose anyway.

It looked bad for you, then he screwed up and stopped expanding, and did a bad job at killing you in w.china, it cost him the game, he came close but could have done better if he kept expanding.

If you didn't survive in w.china at turn 7, game was over for you, no matter what you did.
He would be too strong with that +6 and expand faster then you.

He should have attacked Mongolia first move with his stack and you would have been dead.
that was a disaster on his side that you didn't forgive. :)
still cannot understand why he did it 4th move, you have no reason to attack russia in anyway and u could just as well go w.siberia.
If he though that u were gonna reinforce mongolia surely 4'th move and 1'st move wouldn't gonna make a difference, he would still hit your wall in Mongolia.
I think he wanted you to move away from there before hitting it or expected you not to reinforce it and not to move so he could kill ya with that 10 attack.
what ever is the case he has some mental issues.
Clearly his best move by far was a first move, since reinforcing Mongolia made no sens at all.

Then you would have been lucky again on getting the first move and survive by luck :P

Edited 7/6/2014 04:24:14

Metatron, would you kindly say how old are you? I'm not really interested in a kid trying to lecture me on

this is how science works

and on

and statistics is the worst possible way to do it

. If by any chance you're just a misinformed adult I'll invest a little more time into this thread later.

thanks for the nice reply, the age doesn't really mater when it comes to knowledge of particular subjects. Though I'm 27 if you are up for a date :P

And please don't invest any of your time lecturing me, if you have your opinion how science works, I do not wish to know it, since with science there are no opinions.

Science is done in a controlled environment and what i was doing was simply peeling off complexity to derive the basics using a less complex(controlled) environment. If you think that is wrong science then you and I live on different universes.
It is useless arguing any more on the subject if we cannot even agree on how science and experiments work.

Edited 7/6/2014 10:30:05

dead piggy,

I guess I am too lazy to post a 'large sampling' of my games.

And please don't invest any of your time lecturing me, if you have your opinion how science works, I do not wish to know it, since with science there are no opinions.

You do realize that is an opinion, on how science works..Even though, in "science there are no opinions." Don't think I need to say more.

no amount of luck would have gotten him out of the mess he was in

Therefore luck is not a primary factor, if NO luck could make up for his mistake. You said yourself his "better picks" countered any luck.

Edited 7/6/2014 16:49:38