Mr Changsha wrote:@loutil..
I never said it was not possible to have a tactical advantage. I even acknowledge as much in my response. What I said was that it was not enough of an advantage to create a 70% win rate against higher ranked/better opponents. Your 55% win rate against equal opposition clearly shows a statistical advantage. Not sure how I could make it any more clear?
Further, I never said wins against majors was irrelevant. I specifically mentioned captains AND LOWER with the bulk being lower. I will stand on my predicate that you CANNOT win at 70% playing sunny/basic maps against higher level competition. I have played against you twice on basic sunny maps. I have also followed a few of your games when we had the tactical discussions in chat. You bring solid tactics and read the board well. However, I have played against the top players (my opinion) in CC and I feel quite confident in saying that you would not have a tactical advantage over them. Play 10 sunny/basic games with someone like Josko and I will bet good money you cannot beat him at 70%....
Well I
might, it isn't an impossibility but I would agree it is unlikely. But aren't you setting a very high bar for what could be considered 'reasonable opportunity for tactical advantage'? That I have to be able to consistantly defeat
the very best players on CC (of which I am not one anyway..surely a key point) at a consistant rate of 70% for the style I play to be considered 'not 75% luck'...(quoting our current conqueror)
My God, when has my form of trips ever been written of before to be as luck-based as 1vs.1 on classic?
I specifically mentioned captains AND LOWER with the bulk being lower
That statement seems almost to be wilfully false. I couldn't have the eq rating (1.054) if it were true...considering I haven't dropped below, or even close to, sub 2000 since 2008 and spent much of the time hovering around the first page. Further my team are all majors..it just doesn't add up.
Anyone who cares to glance at my trips games will see that my opposition have been consistantly strong. Not ubiquitously of the general class, but then you seem to be most imaginatively suggesting that my form has to reach such heights!
At least I have never heard it said before that a form of the game is irrelevent if you can't beat josko 70% of the time!Though btw you are to a great extent proving my point for me. You demand such an incredible level of success before a form can be valid (when any reasonable neutral reading this will be able to see that my form is perfectly valid) and isn't that the entire point of this thread? If a form of the game can't take one over 4,000 points it is useless and 75% luck. If a form of the game can't guarantee an 85% shot at victory in a clan war it is a complete waste of time. This is the exact attitude that I am railing against in this thread!
I would just further point out that this attitude continues to be one of the main drivers for the ruination of this site. Five years ago we had 20 000+ members and the top, middle and bottom of this game was played on simple maps and settings. Now we can barely muster 12 000 members and the top of the game has become forms of it that are completely confusing and irrelevent to the average member who has come here 'for a game of Risk or something like it'. I know I have made this point before over the years and I accept that it will never be listened to upon high: that by catering for the hardcore 1000 or so on this site, the site has driven away half of its members as a result.