this is a really dumb thread

Post by **Baufo** » April 9th, 2007, 12:05 pm

Let's make some simple mathematical calculations:

If there is a forumla for the luck/skill ratio of Wesnoth like you suggested it this formula would look like this.

luck + skill = 100%

Now let's say if the skill differences of two players is high enough we can calculate the percentage of games each player would win if they play a sufficient number of matches like this:

Win percentage of the better player = (skill + luck/2)
Win percentage of the worse player = luck/2

So if a random noob would play against one of the top players he will (if like you said luck/skill is 3/2) still score 0.6/2 = 0.3 = 30% of the games.

Now go and play against one of the very good players and see if you win 30% of the games. If you don't your luck/skill ratio is false. Good luck.

Post by **Doc Paterson** » April 9th, 2007, 12:43 pm

As I've said in the past, I don't believe that "equal players" exist. It's a waste of time to reduce playstyle, strategy and intuition to equalities or inequalities, and it sure won't help the complainers win any more than they are now.

Every replay that Cackfiend has posted that has claimed to show the overbearing influence of luck has been picked apart and revealed as the natural outcome of ignorant playing.

And really, the recent surge in blabber-mouthed, self-assured new-ish players (AKA Elder Noobs) is helping me to take a step back and not get dragged into the same old garbage again and again- I'm content now to just let them wallow in their mediocrity, blaming whatever outside force they like. Let them enter tournaments and chalk their defeats up to luck. It's always been like this, and these players have never been able to beat the best (who, coincidentally, blame almost none of their losses on luck).

Konrad II · Post by **Konrad II** » April 9th, 2007, 1:29 pm

Doc Paterson wrote:As I've said in the past, I don't believe that "equal players" exist. It's a waste of time to reduce playstyle, strategy and intuition to equalities or inequalities, and it sure won't help the complainers win any more than they are now.

Every replay that Cackfiend has posted that has claimed to show the overbearing influence of luck has been picked apart and revealed as the natural outcome of ignorant playing.

And really, the recent surge in blabber-mouthed, self-assured new-ish players (AKA Elder Noobs) is helping me to take a step back and not get dragged into the same old garbage again and again- I'm content now to just let them wallow in their mediocrity, blaming whatever outside force they like. Let them enter tournaments and chalk their defeats up to luck. It's always been like this, and these players have never been able to beat the best (who, coincidentally, blame almost none of their losses on luck).

Indeed, I totally agree with you. Especially your last paragraph.

Personally, I believe we'll never be able to make such players make a step forward, even if we argued forever saying the same things everytime. I guess they have to learn it themselves, eventually, even if most players don't need to "learn" it as it sounds obvious to them.

Imp · Post by **Imp** » April 9th, 2007, 2:12 pm

The crash killed my post, so I will summarise:

To calculate the proportion of games that are decided by luck, imagine two perfect computers (equal opponents) playing each other. Say they are playing the same faction and the maps are perfectly balanced. How many of their games would be decided before turn 100? This will be the upper limit on the number of actual games determined by luck.

I would hazard that this number would be extremely small, confidently less than 5%, likely to be less than 1%, so I would say that Wesnoth is at least 95% skill.

If you are keen to find out the true, exact number, start calculating.

Incidentally, I have never seen or played a of Wesnoth game where the outcome wasn't decided by a mistake, although many were exacerbated by luck.

Post by **Velensk** » April 9th, 2007, 2:59 pm

Did you look at my replay in the archive, I'm not saying I did not make a few mistakes, however I think that that match was definataly dicided by the dice.

Post by **Baufo** » April 9th, 2007, 4:00 pm

Velensk wrote:Did you look at my replay in the archive, I'm not saying I did not make a few mistakes, however I think that that match was definataly dicided by the dice.

We are talking about the influce of the probability of favorable and unfavorable events (= luck) on Wesnoth. Wherever you deal with probabilities one example proves absolutely nothing.

Post by **Velensk** » April 9th, 2007, 4:10 pm

I was responding to

Incidentally, I have never seen or played a of Wesnoth game where the outcome wasn't decided by a mistake, although many were exacerbated by luck.

Cackfiend · Post by **Cackfiend** » April 9th, 2007, 4:27 pm

hey asshats, this thread was locked before the forum crashed for a reason. stop replying to it. i made several replies to this thread and theyre all gone now... i already made my point and you shoulda read them before.

lock this stupid thread please.

Post by **Baufo** » April 9th, 2007, 4:41 pm

Yeah this topic has been dicussed to death and it might be a good idea to lock this before it turns into yet another flamewar.

However calling a thread (and therefore the posts of the people who posted in it) dumb just because everyone of the more experienced players disagreea with you is not fair. And calling those people "asshats" is just a rude insult.