What percentage is luck involved in a games outcome?

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?

I think everyone acknowledges that sometimes bad players get lucky and sometimes good players get unlucky. It is possible to loose a game because you made a good move and got that <1% chance of catastrophe in a crucial battle that you skillfully set up over multiple turns. In that situation, a good player can lose to a bad player.
So obviously this game is not 100% luck, or 100% skill. not sure that there is any way to resolve the issue, but arguing is always fun i guess.
Luck does, however, make every game unique, and give every player a chance a to win, however small. I believe that is a good thing. And if you want a game that is entirely skill based, than by all means play Crossbows and Catapults, and leave Axis and Allies for the gamblin types.

Or play Diplomacy - no dice in that! I never have but would like to try sometime.

diplomacy is cool, as long as there are no “preset” alliances among friends, and people play it straight, and don’t give up once things start to go down hill. Really screws up the balance of the game. But watch out. You may lose friendships. Personally, for a less luck and more skill base game on a similar note, I recommend the game of thrones, which can actually be completed in a night, and is WAY cooler thematically.

Never trust a Lannister…

@mateooo:

diplomacy is cool, as long as there are no “preset” alliances among friends…

The “playing monopoly with a couple” syndrome. Sure, I’ll trade you my good property for your worthless property so you can win honey…

Squirecam

@Craig:

@squirecam:

@mateooo:

diplomacy is cool, as long as there are no “preset” alliances among friends…

The “playing monopoly with a couple” syndrome. Sure, I’ll trade you my good property for your worthless property so you can win honey…

Squirecam

Not that you ever have to worry about “the couples” thing, Squirecam. :roll: :-D

Craig

True. When you are always surrounded by beautiful women, you can’t really attach yourself to just one…

Squirecam

The degree to which luck affects the game varies with the degree of skill of the players.  The less the degree of skill of the players, the greater the degree luck affects their game.

But in the context above, “degree” is not used to describe a hard and fast direct or inverse relationship.  “Degree” in this context refers to the overall tendency, the general probability.

Why do I say this?

I posit that the less skilled the players involved, the longer it will GENERALLY take for the game to end, because of the ineffectual strategies used by both sides.  Over the course of a longer game, there should naturally be more dice rolls, so the cumulative effect of the luck variable will be considerable.

On the other hand, the more skilled the players involved, the sooner the game will find a crucial point or points beyond which victory may be decided.  On that single or multiple battle will the outcome of the game be largely decided.  So although the eventual outcome of that battle will be decided by chance, and thus the game could be said to be decided by chance, it is likely that the side that had the superior probability of winning will actually win.

Of course, that in turn asks the question of how it is that if both sides were equally balanced, how it could be that one side could have a superior probability of winning the crucial battle.  The correct answer, given a starting bid option that is empirically fair, is that the side that has the superior position will have that superior position through chance.

Of course, if the starting bid is not empirically proven fair, it could simply be that both players are of insufficient skill to determine the game primarily based on skill, but must rely on luck to determine the victor.

––

All in all, I would say that given the complexity of the game, it is unfair to say that the “better” player should always win, because the element of chance will make it so that the player that would win MOST of the games will lose SOME of the games, against a player of near equal skill.

So - short version.  The worse the players are, the greater the element chance will play in determining the winner.  However, even the best players will find that luck plays a considerable role in determining the victor.

If you want to determine a real percentage, I recommend taking down game results.