Skill vs Luck - Which settings reward the best player?

[giuppi]

Let's hear the community's opinion on the skill vs luck debate. Name the reserves+reinforcement combination that allows the best talents to shine.

For the sake of this argument, let's limit the discussion to 5+ players, Massive, standard, singles; but feel free to point out whether it matters or not and why.

I start: Escalite and especially Escalate allow for snowball dynamics where you might take out opponents before they have a chance to play their turn. Therefore they tend to reward turn order (which is randomly assigned) more than Flat Rate.
I don't have a strong opinion about reinforcements, but intuitively the more restrictive they are, the more you are forced to consider in advance the consequences of your move, since you won't have an opportunity to back up in case of unexpected dynamics. In this sense, Unlimited Anywhere is 'easier' than, say, One Border or None.
All in all, I dare to say Escalate+Unlimited Anywhere has more of a luck factor to it than Flat Rate+None.

 

[AAFitz]

Unfortunately you completely miss the fact that it is the use of those reserves where the skill comes in, and the timing of using them in going for a win. In that way, a set amount of 6 is the same amount each turn so never really matters, and gives the luck of the dice the benefit, but with escalate, you have bigger stacks to work with but more importantly need to decide when to cash, and where to aim them. I choose escalate in any game I want a better chance to win on because while they hardly ever come into play, they do give me an opportunity to use them to undo an unlucky run in a game that Id have otherwise lost. Id lose many more games if I was stuck with only 6.

I understand your reasoning, but in my experience, the more choices means more strategy, and therefore less opportunity for luck to decide the game.

No real experience with escalite however, but can surmise that it does not grow quick enough to save me from an otherwise lost game, and since your opponents grow at the same rate, its unlikely one cash will mean the game, whereas a well timed and well placed set, may very well save it, especially against someone who does not play their sets well.

Similarly, anywhere and unlimited give you lots of choices and lots of armies to work with, which means you actually can overcome someone with better strategy when the dice fail, or they go first more often. With chained or only a few forts however, good dice and going first become far more important than strategy, because it simply doesnt matter how good your one fort is, it cant undo horrible dice. 20 well placed forts on the other hand, can and will very much decide a game.

There is a reason my win rates on those settings are very much skewed in my favor, and why on the others they plummet far closer to 50%. My luck does not improve as I have more options for playing the game, but any opportunity for skill to overcome any bad luck.

I admit its counter intuitive, but it takes experience to learn it, which is further why my win rate is so high on those settings compared to others.

It is true that as the skill of the opponent goes up, so does the role of luck, but that is true of all settings, so its irrelevant.

This is one of those arguments that people need to see to believe because of its counter-intuitiveness, and I myself am happy to have people believe the converse as much as they'd like.

 

[Badorties]

Its hard to say, because flat rate and escalate both require different skill sets. A player may be good at one, and not the other. i will say though, that 6 player escalating games, sometimes another players mistake can just tip the game and its over. In flat rate, errors are often correctable so its more of a snow ball fight than a "lets push this giant snow ball down the hill and see how gets flattened."

 

[Spazm]

I know this sounds like a cop-out, but I don't think you can say one set of settings is the "most skilled" or "most lucky." Each has their own set of circumstances that you have to plan for.

 

[AAFitz]

I know this sounds like a cop-out, but I don't think you can say one set of settings is the "most skilled" or "most lucky." Each has their own set of circumstances that you have to plan for.

It really isnt a cop out at all. The various combinations of all the settings set up a unique blend of skill/luck, and change the skills needed as well.

There are different skills required in different types of games. Knowing when to cash, knowing when to take a card and when not to, and where to use it are important for escalate, vs flat rate.

But diplomacy can be very much more important in a flat rate game with a multiple number of players, but again, not always necessarily more than escalate or escalite.

There are however some settings on some maps that will absolutely reward luck, more than skill, and vice versa over time. Typically, the more decisions you have to make, the more skill required to do so, the less luck is likely to fully decide the game.

The key is for each person to pick those settings they enjoy most, or are good at, to improve their chances of winning or having fun.

 

[giuppi]

Anybody else wants to weigh in on the issue? I'm really curious about what people think.

Let me recap the positions here:
- my position is that the less options you have (more restrictive game), the more you are forced to anticipate future dynamics. There is less room for mistakes and therefore figuring out all possible scenarios becomes 'more' important. And this is undoubtedly a skill.
- AAFitz makes a very compelling argument that the more options you have (less restrictive game), "the more decisions you have to make, the more skill required to do so, the less luck is likely to fully decide the game."
Not only is the argument compelling, but his reputation and track record add further credibility to it.
- Spazm and Badorties seem to agree that different settings require different skills, so it's hard or even pointless to try to state when luck has more/less influence than skills.

In these terms, I think the question is moot. Still, I believe we could try to speculate further, just for the sake of it. Maybe somebody wants to have fun trying to identify the different components of luck (initial arrangement, dice battles, random players' behaviours...) and the different skill sets (strategic vision, diplomatic abilities, statistical analysis, knowledge of map, knowledge of rules, timing, and so many others...) and see how they play with each other in the different settings.

 

[AAFitz]

Anybody else wants to weigh in on the issue? I'm really curious about what people think.

Let me recap the positions here:
- my position is that the less options you have (more restrictive game), the more you are forced to anticipate future dynamics. There is less room for mistakes and therefore figuring out all possible scenarios becomes 'more' important. And this is undoubtedly a skill.
- AAFitz makes a very compelling argument that the more options you have (less restrictive game), "the more decisions you have to make, the more skill required to do so, the less luck is likely to fully decide the game."
Not only is the argument compelling, but his reputation and track record add further credibility to it.
- Spazm and Badorties seem to agree that different settings require different skills, so it's hard or even pointless to try to state when luck has more/less influence than skills.

In these terms, I think the question is moot. Still, I believe we could try to speculate further, just for the sake of it. Maybe somebody wants to have fun trying to identify the different components of luck (initial arrangement, dice battles, random players' behaviours...) and the different skill sets (strategic vision, diplomatic abilities, statistical analysis, knowledge of map, knowledge of rules, timing, and so many others...) and see how they play with each other in the different settings.

You might actually be one of the first persons Ive ever seen accept that theory of mine, without me actually having to prove it in games. It is very much ingrained in common thought that unlimited requires no skill, simply because it seems to be so much easier, but most really miss the fact that in chained you only have to make one perfect fort, and that even by dong so, it is very unlikely to drastically change a game on a board of any real size.

I should mention that anywhere unlimited could be argued to be less skill dependent than say connected unlimited however. I actually dont have enough experience to offer anything but a guess, which is that there are advantages to both depending upon the situation. I again prefer anywhere because it means a few more options, but fully appreciate that by connected unlimited, i may be restricting my opponent and thereby perhaps may benefit from mistakes there.

In practice, I suspect anywhere is better...but its probably a fine line and over many games, a few percentage points either way.

 

[Spazm]

For small 2-3 person games, I think flat rate is the "best" setting in terms of reserves. It creates a better environment for a more "balanced" game; even with flat rate it often becomes 2 people whittling away at each other with 1 person growing bigger and waiting to clean up the leftovers. Escalate enhances this dynamic, imho.

And while Fitz believes Anywhere takes more skill, I think that only one reinforcement, usually path, is actually a bit more skilled. It takes a large amount of planning and foresight to plan your route so that you don't leave your flanks exposed; you may choose to limit an attack that in anywhere you would press on with in Anywhere knowing you could still cover your borders.

Escalate is a must in larger games; flat rate isn't enough to equalize the advantage of initialling dropping in a higher bonus region. Plus, it causes a bit of caution for those who start to grow larger, in that they still have to keep that in mind and not spread themselves too thin.

 

[AAFitz]

For small 2-3 person games, I think flat rate is the "best" setting in terms of reserves. It creates a better environment for a more "balanced" game; even with flat rate it often becomes 2 people whittling away at each other with 1 person growing bigger and waiting to clean up the leftovers. Escalate enhances this dynamic, imho.

And while Fitz believes Anywhere takes more skill, I think that only one reinforcement, usually path, is actually a bit more skilled. It takes a large amount of planning and foresight to plan your route so that you don't leave your flanks exposed; you may choose to limit an attack that in anywhere you would press on with in Anywhere knowing you could still cover your borders.

Escalate is a must in larger games; flat rate isn't enough to equalize the advantage of initialling dropping in a higher bonus region. Plus, it causes a bit of caution for those who start to grow larger, in that they still have to keep that in mind and not spread themselves too thin.

Well the counter argument is that flat rate just becomes a matter of dice, 6 armies mean nothing, but holding on to use a 20 cash later in the game can undo the dice, which is why skill may be able to undo bad luck. With flat rate, there is no skill in undoing a lost game with a 6, since its impossible.

On massive classic, one fort takes nearly no skill and further is only a fort of 2 armies on a board with so many that it just doesnt matter. If your opponent doesnt know what they are doing, and get good dice they will win no matter what you do, which means luck decided the game. Now on unlimited however, you have lots of armies, lots of regions, lots of bonuses, all over the place, you have to decide where to place them to attack, and defend. It are these many decisions that allow skill to undo the luck, and it is very possible to do so. On chained on turn one you can fort 2 armies, but by round 2 it may be over, so to suggest that forting 4 armies could overturn say a 15 army deficit, simply ignores the reality of the situation. Again, this mostly applies to playing a lot of games over time. If you were playing your clone or someone who plays exactly the same way, the skill factor is nill, but even then, to overturn an upset, having access to massive piles of armies is your only chance.

On smaller boards, the possibilities do change however, the map is less complex and it is easier to see where to fort, so it may very well give an advantage to a lesser skilled opponent going first, but again, its tough on all of these games going second. You need every opportunity you can to turn it around, and the more armies you have to work with, and the more places you can put them will give strategy its chance to overcome the dice.

And it really isnt that I believe it, its that Ive seen it. After thousands with both settings on big maps and trying every combination, the unlimited allows for the highest win rate by far and overwhelmingly. It is possible that Im just getting luckier on the games with unlimited, but its more reasonable to assume it just gives the more experienced player a better chance of winning over time, because the strategy is in fact more important than luck.

The other component of unlimited, is if you do get behind in army count early, your only chance really is luck and theres nothing one or two forts can do to undo a massive deficit. The game is over, unless you can take your entire force and use it as effectively as possible. Keeping threes all over the board will usually do absolutely nothing but sacrifice them to an army that gets stronger every turn. However, using them in one concentrated round, can very much give you a chance of turning around a seemingly lost game. In fact, it usually does. At the very least, you feel like you did something in the game as well. If your opponent grabbed a couple bonuses, and has you outnumbered, forting that 2 really isnt gonna do much. I dont care how perfect it is. 25 forts on the other hand....well, thats a whole new ball game, and a real game to boot.

On the larger games, escalate or flat rate as much change the skills you need to have to win. Escalate favors the player who is adept at targeting the weaker players and timing their kills correctly, which can take some serious precision. However, on flat rate games, much skill is needed in the diplomacy arena, both vocal, and non vocal and is a psychological game arguably more complex than escalate. The problem is, if three other players decide to kill you, no matter what it means to them....skill has been irrelevant to the game entirely, and unfortunately, on a large proportion of those games, thats exactly what happens, so, escalate is the better choice for the experienced player, because its his only chance to overcome that kind of threat. Flat rate seals his/her fate.

 

[Robinette]

On the larger games, escalate or flat rate as much change the skills you need to have to win. Escalate favors the player who is adept at targeting the weaker players and timing their kills correctly, which can take some serious precision. However, on flat rate games, much skill is needed in the diplomacy arena, both vocal, and non vocal and is a psychological game arguably more complex than escalate. The problem is, if three other players decide to kill you, no matter what it means to them....skill has been irrelevant to the game entirely, and unfortunately, on a large proportion of those games, thats exactly what happens, so, escalate is the better choice for the experienced player, because its his only chance to overcome that kind of threat. Flat rate seals his/her fate.

This paragraph demonstrates that AA has the highest skill in articulating the highest skill ;o)

I would like to add a note about forts... while i agree with fitz that unlimited forts allows a more skilled player to offset a bad drop,,, i have to say that as a game progresses, the single fort gives an advantage to the more skilled player. I have won many games by working my armies to the right attack points, while my opponents often left stacks unable to effect the game. But ohhh how i wish i had fort anywhere when i've had a seriously bad drop... So perhaps the highest skilled setting by far, would be unlimited forts for the 1st couple turns, followed by a single chained fort for the rest of the game.

But at the end of the day... the most skilled setting is very game dependent. It's like asking which game requires more skill, Chess or Texas Hold'em? 1v1 would be like chess if you eliminated the variable of the drop and the dice. And 6p - 10p escalating is a bit more like Texas Hold'em only without the cocktail hostess in the mini skirts, lol

 

[Pizzetto]

I think everyone is barking up the wrong tree on this one. Winning consistently, regardless of game type, shows player skill. AAFitz and Robinette both have great examples of skill domination, and the examples are completely different. Playing the same game type just to pad my stats would bore me to tears. Not to mention, if I have played the same game type 100 times, and my opponent has played it maybe 5 times, then there is an experience factor that can overwhelm the skill factor.

This thread reminds me of a point Bobby Fischer made late in his life. He had grown bored of classic chess and had become fascinated with playing chess from a random starting position. He felt that random chess was the purest measure of a player's skill.

 

[AAFitz]

I think everyone is barking up the wrong tree on this one. Winning consistently, regardless of game type, shows player skill. AAFitz and Robinette both have great examples of skill domination, and the examples are completely different. Playing the same game type just to pad my stats would bore me to tears. Not to mention, if I have played the same game type 100 times, and my opponent has played it maybe 5 times, then there is an experience factor that can overwhelm the skill factor.

This thread reminds me of a point Bobby Fischer made late in his life. He had grown bored of classic chess and had become fascinated with playing chess from a random starting position. He felt that random chess was the purest measure of a player's skill.

Experience is skill. Though some can still be unskilled with experience, and some can be skilled without experience skill is the ability to make winning moves, however that skill was obtained. Talent might be described as the ability to play well, with little or less experience, but somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of skill vs luck on settings.

As far as playing the same game to supposedly pad stats, I agree that would be boring. However playing hundreds of games to learn the many nuances of the game and many ways to play it against many different players in different players in many different situations can indeed be very fun. In fact, specializing on one or two maps and getting good at them for some, is infinitely more fun that playing every single type and never really learning them fully. I myself have done both, in well over 10000 games now, and the ones Ive specialized in, and really taken the time to learn as much as possible, are the ones I have loved the most. I personally am always hoping to learn something in a game, and consider myself on a journey to find players that will beat me in a game, and teach me what they know in the process. Its definitely a personal choice though, and I suspect it changes for all as it does for me over time, but for me learning has always been more fun than random games with random settings, where the dice decide the game a larger percentage of the time.

I do think you might be up the wrong tree though, because you might be missing the fact that this is just a discussion, not only meant to learn, perhaps teach, and perhaps for fun in its own right. I do think comparing any of us to the genius of Bobby Fischer however, is perhaps a bit much.

 

[AAFitz]

This paragraph demonstrates that AA has the highest skill in articulating the highest skill ;o)

I would like to add a note about forts... while i agree with fitz that unlimited forts allows a more skilled player to offset a bad drop,,, i have to say that as a game progresses, the single fort gives an advantage to the more skilled player. I have won many games by working my armies to the right attack points, while my opponents often left stacks unable to effect the game. But ohhh how i wish i had fort anywhere when i've had a seriously bad drop... So perhaps the highest skilled setting by far, would be unlimited forts for the 1st couple turns, followed by a single chained fort for the rest of the game.

But at the end of the day... the most skilled setting is very game dependent. It's like asking which game requires more skill, Chess or Texas Hold'em? 1v1 would be like chess if you eliminated the variable of the drop and the dice. And 6p - 10p escalating is a bit more like Texas Hold'em only without the cocktail hostess in the mini skirts, lol

Wow, I usually dont love analogies because they break down on a logical level so quickly, but thats the best use of one comparing other games to this one. The only thing Id add is " ....without the cocktail hostess in the mini skirts, or the possibility of losing your house in the process of playing" but I can honestly say I dont think Id be adding to it in any real positive way.

 

[Pizzetto]

I was applying Fischer's game analysis. I have not compared anyone to Bobby Fischer.

 

[Pizzetto]

Experience is skill. Though some can still be unskilled with experience, and some can be skilled without experience skill is the ability to make winning moves, however that skill was obtained. Talent might be described as the ability to play well, with little or less experience, but somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of skill vs luck on settings.

As far as playing the same game to supposedly pad stats, I agree that would be boring. However playing hundreds of games to learn the many nuances of the game and many ways to play it against many different players in different players in many different situations can indeed be very fun. In fact, specializing on one or two maps and getting good at them for some, is infinitely more fun that playing every single type and never really learning them fully. I myself have done both, in well over 10000 games now, and the ones Ive specialized in, and really taken the time to learn as much as possible, are the ones I have loved the most. I personally am always hoping to learn something in a game, and consider myself on a journey to find players that will beat me in a game, and teach me what they know in the process. Its definitely a personal choice though, and I suspect it changes for all as it does for me over time, but for me learning has always been more fun than random games with random settings, where the dice decide the game a larger percentage of the time.

I do think you might be up the wrong tree though, because you might be missing the fact that this is just a discussion, not only meant to learn, perhaps teach, and perhaps for fun in its own right. I do think comparing any of us to the genius of Bobby Fischer however, is perhaps a bit much.

I am not sure how I can add my thoughts to a forum discussion without realizing that it is "just a discussion". I am not missing the fact, I am here because it is a discussion. My theory is the voice in your head that you use to read other posts talks down to you, and you get upset.

I share much of your philosophy, and I agree with all of your points except for the first line. Experience is not skill, and I don't need to prove it. You already proved it in your next few lines. In 10,000 games, you have probably played every map and gametype hundreds of times. I don't think that could possibly count as playing the same way all the time; your numbers are just too large for that.

The point I was trying to add to this discussion is that a skilled player will transcend gametype. I have played with plenty of players who almost always rise to the top, regardless of gametype. So, while we can discuss (with merit) what gametypes eliminate luck the most, I don't think that represents the big picture when it comes to judging a players skill. Admittedly, my point is more of a side note in this discussion.

 

[AAFitz]

I am not sure how I can add my thoughts to a forum discussion without realizing that it is "just a discussion". I am not missing the fact, I am here because it is a discussion. My theory is the voice in your head that you use to read other posts talks down to you, and you get upset.

I share much of your philosophy, and I agree with all of your points except for the first line. Experience is not skill, and I don't need to prove it. You already proved it in your next few lines. In 10,000 games, you have probably played every map and gametype hundreds of times. I don't think that could possibly count as playing the same way all the time; your numbers are just too large for that.

The point I was trying to add to this discussion is that a skilled player will transcend gametype. I have played with plenty of players who almost always rise to the top, regardless of gametype. So, while we can discuss (with merit) what gametypes eliminate luck the most, I don't think that represents the big picture when it comes to judging a players skill. Admittedly, my point is more of a side note in this discussion.

Well, your theory is a little off if you think Im upset. In any case, your points were taken, but the skilled player transcending gametype is an interesting addition and important one. The skilled player does always have the advantage theoretically, though the point of this is kind of to find out on which settings that advantage is greater. I fully agree it doesnt judge a players skill, and that skill is a side note completely, and includes a pretty deep definition of skill, which would need to include a function of talent, intelligence, math ability, psychological prowess, political and social skills, risk management all coupled with experience. When I said skill = experience, it is for the most part true, but it is posted with the assumption that the experience is someone with at least mediocre skill like myself perhaps, who after playing many times, simply learns how to play, almost irrelevant to any original talent or underlying skill per-se. But like you say, its another tangent.

Using myself as an example on the 10000 games, I most definitely have some prolific experience, but not as much as you might think. A large percentage of that really is devoted to a few areas of expertise, which is why I equate skill with experience. Im only really good at the ones Ive played thousands of times, so for me experience is skill, for the purposes of this discussion.

In any case, we are on the same page here, and I will only further add that you started your post of with "everyone is barking up the wrong tree". When posting a line like that, its probably a given that someone will call you out on it, but that doesnt mean they are upset, or even care necessarily...only that they are keeping you honest so to speak. Its the natural ebb and rip of the forum tide. : )

And just so we are clear, we agree and understand each other pretty fully here...lol.

 

[Pizzetto]

It is true, "barking up the wrong tree" put an unintended edge on the statement.