What percentage is luck involved in a games outcome?

The poll question was @froodster:

“All things being as equal as possible regarding player skill”.

I do NOT read this as excluding skill.  Hypothetically two players could be equal skill, or Frood could play vs. Frood, but these are just hypotheticals, not “All things being as equal as possible regarding player skill”.

There is also the interesting issue of the team imbalance built into the game itself.  Playing Axis is extremely different from playing Allies.  You could be much better at playing one side than the other.

Imagine that we have two players, and also that we can accurately quantify each player’s skill on a scale of one to ten.  Let’s say both players have the same levels of skill for all nations.

Example:

Russia 8
Germany 6
UK 9
Japan 5
USA 8

Now, looking at their statistics, it is plain that the players are equally skilled.  Both of them are better at playing Allies than Axis nations by a good few notches.  Thus, when they play each other, the Axis player is at a serious disadvantage.  Equal yet unequal.  Another facet of the game that is part of the equation.

~Josh

Yeah that all makes sense.

Now, does anyone disagree with this though:

“The more similar two sides are in all other respects, the more important dice become in determining the winner of the game.”

In other words, as other differences decrease, the importance of luck increases. Conversely, the greater the other disparities between players, the less critical dice become.

Does anyone disagree with that idea of a “sliding scale” for the importance of luck in different games?

Do you agree that a good player can beat a bad player even if the bad player rolls better dice?

@froodster:

Do you agree that a good player can beat a bad player even if the bad player rolls better dice?

Yes

Except in the RAREST of cirsumstances.

@jsp4563:

@froodster:

Do you agree that a good player can beat a bad player even if the bad player rolls better dice?

Yes

So in such a game, dice are less significant in determining the outcome - the outcome is pretty much sealed by the inequality between the players.

That’s all I’m saying.

@axis_roll:

Did I really just ask Pagan to ramble….?!
I must be losing it.

It must be the name.  Anyone I know that is Pagan (myself included) or just has some affiliation with Pagan tends to be able to ramble on  :evil:

logic would say that 2 inf, ftr v. inf is better than inf, ftr v. inf

For me Personaly, If I am lucky early on I will push the advantage.  I will attack with lower success odds and I may leave a little less on defence.  If my luck turns bad I tighten it up and play harder with no “mistakes”.

My luck almost always runs in streaks, so if I’m on I push it.  That may not be scientific, but it works for me.

@Wazzup:

logic would say that 2 inf, ftr v. inf is better than inf, ftr v. inf

In a vacuum, yes. But that extra Inf may also be needed elsewhere, and it’s still better to attack 1 Inf 1 Ftr v. 1 Inf than not at all.

DF: I think there is some method to your madness. Once you have the upper hand with early luck, you can afford to take a few risks. If they fail, at worst you have equalized, but if they pay off, you have created an even greater advantage. A risky attack is not as risky once you have a cushion, because a loss is not catastrophic in that it would suddenly give your opponent a significant advantage.

@froodster:

@Wazzup:

logic would say that 2 inf, ftr v. inf is better than inf, ftr v. inf

In a vacuum, yes. But that extra Inf may also be needed elsewhere, and it’s still better to attack 1 Inf 1 Ftr v. 1 Inf than not at all.

DF: I think there is some method to your madness. Once you have the upper hand with early luck, you can afford to take a few risks. If they fail, at worst you have equalized, but if they pay off, you have created an even greater advantage. A risky attack is not as risky once you have a cushion, because a loss is not catastrophic in that it would suddenly give your opponent a significant advantage.

And I think just the opposite. Once you HAVE luck and an advantage, why are you creating an opportunity for your opponent to get back even?? You should still be conservative, and slowly advance, using the advantage you have rather than trying to create a bigger one. Make your opponent force a lucky battle, where the odds are against him, rather than you giving him opportunities.

Of course, such decisions, need to be made. And, of course, such decsions depend upon the player’s knowledge/skill.

Which means that if you have an advantage, and “blow it” because you were more agressive, then the loss of your advantage was due to your decision (thus “skill”), not the luck of the dice.

Squirecam

I agree, the best thing is to play it safe. But you can afford to take more risks when you have the upper hand already. You do trade-off relying on skill for gambling on the dice though.

@froodster:

I agree, the best thing is to play it safe. But you can afford to take more risks when you have the upper hand already. You do trade-off relying on skill for gambling on the dice though.

Yes, but here is what happens.

B has an advantage over A.
B, not content with it, takes “risks”. A makes a comeback, and wins the game.

What does “B” say???

“I had you beat. But you got lucky dice….”

When in reality, B made a tactical error. It was his “skill/lack of skill” in that decision which gave A the chance to come back.

Which is why most of the luck/skill debate, IMHO, involves dice crying rather than looking in the mirror and blaming yourself for your decision making.

Most people want to cry about dice rather than blame themselves. They need an excuse. And if more people say it was “just luck” then they somehow feel better about losing.

Squirecam

Don’t mistake what I am saying.  I am no tgoing to make huge gambles, but if I am on the fence about a particular action recient luck will factor in.  I avoid any situation that is not recoverable if things go bad.

There hasn’t been any dice crying in this thread, at least not by me.

If you individually make dice a big factor by making risky attacks, then IMO you do lose because of bad strategy/skill/decision making. If you win though it’s because you got lucky.

All I’ve said is that luck is more important between relatively equally matched players than it is between a really good player and a really bad player - that game will be decided by skill 99/100 times.

Thus in a way blaming the dice is a way of saying that “I am equal or better than you, it was luck that lost this game for me”. Sometimes that’s true, but often the player is deluding themselves and they just got outplayed - skill really made the difference.

However, sometimes you have an agressive opponent that is also a good player.  IE:  not afraid to lose units, but plays very good board position.

This type of player can sometimes force you to take higher risk battles that you might not otherwise take.  Usually though, lucky dice plays a major factor in many combat rounds.

Sometimes you have a very conservative player that hoards units.  This type of player requires extreme patience.  Lucky dice plays a major factor in 2/3 battles.

@Wazzup:

However, sometimes you have an agressive opponent that is also a good player.  IE:  not afraid to lose units, but plays very good board position.

**This type of player can sometimes force you to take higher risk battles that you might not otherwise take.**  Usually though, lucky dice plays a major factor in many combat rounds.

Sometimes you have a very conservative player that hoards units.  This type of player requires extreme patience.  Lucky dice plays a major factor in 2/3 battles.

That would be a skill thing again wouldn’t it?