@Infrastructure:
@Gamerman01:
@Gamerman01:
10-20% has been my experience as well
Here is some data to back it up
Mr Roboto is by far the most active player in the league so far this year.� Let’s look at his results.
Mr. Roboto is
1-7 against Tier 1’s
7-3 against Tier 2’s
14-2 against Tier 3’s
9-0 against Tier 4’s
Mr. Roboto is near the top of tier 2.
I think this is ample evidence alone, that nowhere near 1/2 of games are decided more by luck than by skill.� Not wanting to dogpile on Infrastructure, but I just want to respectfully disagree with that assertion.
Sorry. I’m intrigued. How does this data back anything up?
Maybe I was murky in my comment. Let me reiterate what I mean. In games between closely matched players I believe that luck determines the outcome as often as skill does.
Here is some empirical data; I have played 3 games against wheatbeer. I am 2-1 but do not feel I can say I am a more skilled player. If you include the playoff game and my current game that I am most likely going to lose against bmnielson I am 1-2 but do not feel I can say he is a more skilled player. One step further is that 3 of these game were definetly decided by luck. 1other game could be argued to have been determined by luck as well. I have had 1 game against Karl this season and 1 game against mrroboto. 1 of those was determined by luck.
A player can of course counteract bad luck with superior skill against an opponent and should not be considered in the data…
That’s the biggest mistake someone can make when arguing about probabilities: Picking out examples. You can always pick out examples, to back up your point, especially when it’s only 5-6 games you’re talking about. The same mistake is made by poker beginners. They remember that one time where they lost despite being favoured 95% of the time.
If you look at a bigger sample size, your argument does not hold.
On a side note, that percentage is heavily influenced by playstyle. Players with risky moves tend to have more games decided by luck, obviously. For example, if you are a fan of the Sealion, your experience may vastly differ to mine, since I tend to go for very long games won by endurance. That sealion attack usually has a success rate of something between 80% and 90%, which means the game is lost every 5-10th time immediately due to that attack only. Add another 2-3 risky attacks (maybe on India or Egypt) early on, and I can understand how that 50% luck/skill decision is percepted.
For example, I can remember you using sealion in our only game. It failed hardcore and you would have lost the game there, had we not agreed on a reroll. Risky play involves luck-based game decisions…
If a player does want to reduce the luck factor in his games, he/she should try to avoid risky battles.
