Fog and Obscurity

[Armandolas]

You can do it foggy, because you are very skilled at that. If you can't do it sunny then you aren't as skilled at sunny.

This is pretty obvious. If u can do it in the fog, than u can do it in the sun.

I know that if I am playing for some strange reason a foggy game I will need some good dice to win, while playing sunny I am confident I can absorb bad dice and still prevail.

Someone mentioned that u might be lazy ..and i might agree.
Reading logs and snaps can be hard work but is definitly more challenging.(i even take snaps in the sun)

Ex. you are playing a esc game (does not matter if is team or multiplayer)and u feel u might go for an elimination.Do you think it is easier to do it in the sun or in the fog?
(my answer: in the fog. Why?in the sun all u need to do is deploy and make the proper route. In the fog u must deal with a lot of stuff, not only create the route)

[Mr Changsha]

You can do it foggy, because you are very skilled at that. If you can't do it sunny then you aren't as skilled at sunny.

This is pretty obvious. If u can do it in the fog, than u can do it in the sun.

This comment is almost as fatuous as 'if you can play freestyle you can play sequential'. I've spent years playing teams who typically play foggy and I can tell you that most, not all of them by any means but most, do not have as good an understanding of how to play sunny as they think they do.

BBS put it quite well...

Most people will reject having to play more sunny clan games because they want to avoid costs (and they're afraid). The opening move requires more intensive study; the enemy can see all possible mistakes you've made; and the enemy can more easily follow the map.

Then again the sunny-siders are scared about more risk. "What lurks behind those shadows? Is he building there for the counterattack, or is he building over there to secure that bonus?" Sweat pours from the sunny-sider's brow as uncertainty wreaks his feeble mind.

I'm happy enough to argue about whether foggy or sunny are more skillful (though I will maintain that they require different skills) however I don't think clans play more foggy games than sunny because they consider them to be more skillful. I will elucidate on this fully tomorrow as I am off to bed..

[iAmCaffeine]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here. Without fog I think it takes a very skilled player to create a strong comeback, more so than in the fog (at least in the majority of circumstances). I am much prouder of pulling of a sunny comeback and astounded if it happens against me. It's never quite the same behind the mist.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure why people disagree that each setting requires a different set of skills.

In fog, you're adapting to the problem of uncertainty. For example, some of the range of possible opening moves is unknowable (cuz fog).

In sunny, you're adapting to the problem of perfect information (for both teams). So, the entire range of possible opening moves (and reactions) is knowable.

Those two problems impose different consequences, so the player must seek two different solutions.

[Mr Changsha]

Interestingly, if one searches for active team games either public or private (but excluding tournament which of course includes clan games but also many others) we see this difference narrowing considerably. There are currently 665 active sunny team games on that basis and 770 active foggy (46% sunny games)

You have to consider that clan games form a large percentage of team games. If there were less clan games I would expect to see more public/private foggy team games.

Actually I would say no. My thesis is that clan games because they are clan games are in the fog, if those same players were not playing clan games then I would think a similar percentage 46% sunny\54% foggy would exist.

But I'm not sure you are tackling the key point.

Clan games 80%+ foggy
Public private team games 54% foggy

Why are clan games so much foggier than public and private team games?

That's my key point (or at least one of them heh heh)

I've always thought you a very smart man Mr Changsha. This thread, and your questions puzzle me, if it was Someone else of experience asking them I'd think them trolling.
I have begun several replies to different posts in this thread, but cut myself off from irritation when I find myself stating the obvious.

My opinion would be that foggy games require more effort, thus the clan that puts in more effort into their games profits from their use. Why the best clans use fog thus becomes apparent. Why the mid-level clans use it needs only slightly more imagination. They imitate the strategies of the top clans and practice them in the hopes of one day becoming a top clan. (with a little more imagination it could be argued that trying to beat a clan you know to be superior at it's own game is a fools task, and other tactics might be used here, but I shall leave that avenue unexplored)
Why bottom ranked clans use fog is a question without a definitive answer I'd say, the reasons vary and are not always sound perhaps.
If I was tasked with leading 20ish likely privates and sergeants against TOFU I would probably stay in the sun, and the likes of Waterloo and Conquer Rome would NOT be found on the list of our homes games... And with that little hint I'll rest my case.

I could give you an A4 in clarification of this, but I believe you already know the answer. And I don't care to waste my time arguing with fools that would disagree with the obvious.

I find the explanation that foggy takes more skill to be illogical, and I could prove it in this way: if I decided to check the 10 players ahead of me on the scoreboard and the ten behind what would I find? I'd find the vast majority of the players playing most of their games foggy and some playing almost exclusively foggy. If most high ranking players are making their points from foggy settings (and no doubt often complex maps) well then it stands to reason that it takes more skill to build a score sunny on the basis that so few (can?) do it.

I can feel the howls of derision and anger flowing towards me as i write this but I believe this quite sincerely. If only a few can build scores sunny, and most build them foggy, then sunny actually demands more skill. However there are players who are building or holding a very high score playing sunny and foggy and these are the best.

Now your argument is a different one and actually and I have more sympathy for it: that foggy games take more effort than sunny ones (as no doubt do complex maps) and this is why clans from the elite (that you play for) and the middle-ranking (that I do) play mainly foggy games and no doubt prefer complex maps. I actually agreed with your post in the main (which I doubt surprises you) because of course I know why clans play the vast majority of their games on foggy settings and complex maps. It is to find an advantage, and while I reject the argument presented here by others that clans get that advantage because foggy settings and complex maps demand more skill (and I've attempted to prove above why that simply isn't true), they are trying to gain an advantage from very complicated games and settings by working harder than the opposition. However, I would just point out that winning well against strong opposition on my settings also demands a lot of hard work. I may not be spending a lot of time on the things foggy players do, but I am trying to think two, three, four or more turns ahead from the beginning of the game and that takes a lot of mental effort.

Fair enough, so there are two possible explanations..one I reject and one I have a lot of sympathy with.

However, there is a third issue that I want to focus on and that is the exploitation of map\settings knowledge to gain victory. Now I accept that even my simple settings and maps do require map knowledge as part of the equation that leads to winning. If I have a stronger understanding of how a map should flow, if I know whether a map plays better with chain forts or defensive 2's, if I know which territories are key to dominate and which bonuses should be held and how, I have an intrinsic advantage over the opposition. Now if you play on a complex map with fog you already have all of that advantage as well as confusing the opposition through the fog and knowledge of how the settings will affect the game. A good team will be able to study the game I play, get on top of it early and compete from the beginning if they are a well-coordinated, solid outfit. My issue with adding fog to a basic map is that this makes it harder for the opposition if they don't know the map. My issue with adding unusual settings to a basic map on top of the fog is that it makes it even harder for the opposition if they don't know the map. If we move on to a more complex map (that the opposition doesn't know) and then we add in unusual settings, fog etc..then what chance does the opposition have if they screw up the opening round or two (which they will)? None is the answer (beyond incredible luck with the dice) and in my day on CC we used to call that farming settings!

The crux of all this is that I disagree quite fundamentally with how this game is evolving. I think a game in which the home side has a 85% chance of winning and the away 15% is fundamentally flawed. I have sympathy with your argument that if the away team works very hard indeed (and they have played the map before etc) they might be able to pull out the win. But in my experience a fundamental misconception of how a game works in the opening rounds is generally terminal for a team's chances. I penned this thread mainly to attack the argument that I knew would come my way (though it didn't from you) that foggy games take more skill, and complex settings take more skill and that's why clans focus on them. It is a convenient mistruth, to hide the fact that it is easier to beat the poor sods of an opposition if you have far more knowledge of a particular game than them.

Now I'm not suggesting that clans shouldn't be able to play any map and any combination of settings agreed within the rules of a challenge. What I am saying is that a certain percentage of games should be played on more basic maps and sunny. Finally, I think it has become almost received wisdom that sunny games on basic maps are too luck based, not enough skill etc. Louti's comment above..

I can overcome a bad drop in the fog but almost never when sunny.

..was a glaring example of it and I think many high ranking players believe it. But it isn't true!

I remember discussing with loutil in the MM forum about partnerships and we discovered that spazzattack and I were averaging about 70% together on our settings while he and BBS were averaging about 80% together. Well isn't that the nub of it! I want clans to have wars where the home team may be more likely to win a game, but not to such an extent that the opposition have got almost no chance. I think that's bad sport and that's the point of this thread.

[iAmCaffeine]

tl:dr

[BigBallinStalin]

tl:dr

It's worth reading. Currently, I haven't found any good opposing arguments to the following:

(1) Playing foggy doesn't take more skill.

(2) All things being equal, (fog + complex map) is a farmer setting because of its particular comparative advantage (i.e. obscurity + steep learning curve).

[iAmCaffeine]

1. One could argue it takes more skill as you have to be able to read the map and figure out what your opponent has behind the fog, what bonuses they can take and what regions they have.

2. At least in clan wars, it's hardly farming as games are at a competitive level and clans should be strong on as wide a variety of maps as possible.

[BigBallinStalin]

Mr C pretty much already dealt with those topics, so I'm not going to repeat nor summarize again. Alas, the costs of a tl;dr attitude.

[Mr Changsha]

Mr C pretty much already dealt with those topics, so I'm not going to repeat nor summarize again. Alas, the costs of a tl;dr attitude.

Indeed!

Personally I blame modern education methods (mutter, grumble etc)...

[iAmCaffeine]

Mr C pretty much already dealt with those topics, so I'm not going to repeat nor summarize again. Alas, the costs of a tl;dr attitude.

Indeed!

Personally I blame modern education methods (mutter, grumble etc)...

More to do with mobile browsing on a smoke break at work.

[loutil]

tl:dr

It's worth reading. Currently, I haven't found any good opposing arguments to the following:

(1) Playing foggy doesn't take more skill.

(2) All things being equal, (fog + complex map) is a farmer setting because of its particular comparative advantage (i.e. obscurity + steep learning curve).

I respectfully disagree here...
Foggy takes more skill for 2 basic reasons. 1. It adds significantly more variables and complexity to the play. 2. It reduces the "luck" factor.
Your second point is quite comical in the way you imply what it means. Complex maps take more skill. Fog takes more skill. Put them together, fog + complex map, and what you have is a significant advantage for the tactically skilled and prepared. That is not farming. It would only be farming if one would specifically challenge newer players who do not even know the map. I typically like to play the more complex maps but I am usually playing against other higher ranked opponents. These matches provide tactical challenges for me and an opportunity to test my skills against other top players. That is certainly not farming. Mr C talks about winning 70% of his matches on his settings. I would argue that he could not come close to maintaining that average if he were consistently playing higher ranked opponents. I do not believe it is possible to have that significant an advantage playing simple/sunny maps. The dice variance and drop variance would likely prevent that.

[Mr Changsha]

tl:dr

It's worth reading. Currently, I haven't found any good opposing arguments to the following:

(1) Playing foggy doesn't take more skill.

(2) All things being equal, (fog + complex map) is a farmer setting because of its particular comparative advantage (i.e. obscurity + steep learning curve).

I respectfully disagree here...
Foggy takes more skill for 2 basic reasons. 1. It adds significantly more variables and complexity to the play. 2. It reduces the "luck" factor.
Your second point is quite comical in the way you imply what it means. Complex maps take more skill. Fog takes more skill. Put them together, fog + complex map, and what you have is a significant advantage for the tactically skilled and prepared. That is not farming. It would only be farming if one would specifically challenge newer players who do not even know the map. I typically like to play the more complex maps but I am usually playing against other higher ranked opponents. These matches provide tactical challenges for me and an opportunity to test my skills against other top players. That is certainly not farming. Mr C talks about winning 70% of his matches on his settings. I would argue that he could not come close to maintaining that average if he were consistently playing higher ranked opponents. I do not believe it is possible to have that significant an advantage playing simple/sunny maps. The dice variance and drop variance would likely prevent that.

Well I can only assume you checked my games before making that statement. Granted I suppose every game I play could be against a general, but I am no farmer and even a quick scan of my games would show that I play organised opposition. Furthermore a quick map rank would show that my eq rating for trips is high (1.054). So no I'm not farming, or even close to it.

So it is a strange argument you are employing! You say dice and drop variance would prevent me from winning well on my settings, yet a quick overall trips map rank shows..

+977 90 from 135(67%) 198 (14) Serial Killer (67%)45 Equalitarian (1.054)

..that i do indeed win well on my settings and, since 2012 I am indeed averaging at 70%.

So I will continue to reject the idea that foggy, complex maps takes requires more skill and that's why clans play them. I will certainly reject the idea that..

I do not believe it is possible to have that significant an advantage playing simple/sunny maps

..when surely my own record shows clearly that it is indeed possible to have a significant advantage. Though not as significant as what you can achieve.

[iAmCaffeine]

So you think clans play more complicated maps in the fog because it requires less skill? That logic just doesn't add up. I suppose you could argue that to win regularly on basic maps without fog is harder, but assuming you're frequently playing quality opoosition there shouldn't be much difference.

I think this is going to be another sequential vs freestyle argument.

[Mr Changsha]

So you think clans play more complicated maps in the fog because it requires less skill? That logic just doesn't add up.

Well I can only suggest you read my post in which I explain why!

I think for far too long it has been the conventional wisdom that more complicated means more skillful. This basic misconception has been the driver of ever more complicated maps, ever more divergent settings and therefore a clan game in which the basic game of risk and how to excel at it has been to a great extent forgotten. In fact we have gone so for down this wrong-headed path of dogma that many are now saying it is impossible to gain an advantage from simple maps and settings!

I can remember here on CC superb players who reached very high scores playing a simple game, whether 2.1 dubs or classic quads etc on basic settings. It is actually a comparatively recent evolution where it has become accepted that the simple game is somehow useless.

I'll give you all a little thought experiment:

When you are playing one of your main forms, you know a game at which you are supremely confident, and you are joined by a team with an average rank of lets say 1600, do you immediately think "Well I'm going to win that, they've got no chance etc"?

If you do, then might I gently suggest that this doesn't reflect your tremendous skill, but rather that you have perfected a game in which the opposition have no chance unless they have played it as much or almost as much as you. This is not as much about skill as many think, but rather it is a symptom of all that has gone wrong with CC and, incidentally, why the membership here has dropped by a half.

[Arama86n]

I see, I see my dear Mr Changsha.
What grieves you is the reality that any clan worth their salt is with utmost intention and focus trying to throw the most difficult map/setting combination they can at their opponents as to gain the biggest (in your eyes "unfair") advantage possible. Perhaps even going so far as to research the foe and make damn sure they don't know a certain map/setting combo to further up the odds.
But this i fear is where you lose my interest, for you are simply objecting to the world as it is. As it will continue to be. To be competitive IS to try and seek advantage. Is it not so?
We have non-clan games to play Sunny, NS, USA West.
When TSM and KORT take the field you know it must be Conquer Rome with escalating delight, Hive in heavy fog. Wishing it otherwise is wishing for the dawn at midnight


[quote=Mr Changsha]Now I accept that even my simple settings and maps do require map knowledge as part of the equation that leads to winning. If I have a stronger understanding of how a map should flow, if I know whether a map plays better with chain forts or defensive 2's, if I know which territories are key to dominate and which bonuses should be held and how, I have an intrinsic advantage over the opposition.[/quote]
This is where I really nod and smile. Have have given this a great deal of thought.
Let us suppose that I have played 1000 games on the simple map of Haiti, and you've played 0. And we've both played 500 game son Iceland. If we then play 50 poly(3) on each of those maps, I beleive your wins will be fewer on Haiti. And thus I think you and I are of the same mind in this matter. That even with low complexity maps, experience matters much more than many want to consider.
Naturally the effect is amplified greatly if we exchange Haiti for Poison Rome, and thus as a member of a competetive clan I don't spend my days playing only games on Haiti. I go where the advantage is greater, as is my duty to my clan, which is a competitive one.

Perhaps organize a clan-war with only simple maps played in the sun for a change? If there is interest enough, organize a clan-tournament later. That is as far as you can take this I think

Kind regards
Arama86n

PS, CC would be a darker a drearier place without you.

[loutil]

tl:dr

It's worth reading. Currently, I haven't found any good opposing arguments to the following:

(1) Playing foggy doesn't take more skill.

(2) All things being equal, (fog + complex map) is a farmer setting because of its particular comparative advantage (i.e. obscurity + steep learning curve).

I respectfully disagree here...
Foggy takes more skill for 2 basic reasons. 1. It adds significantly more variables and complexity to the play. 2. It reduces the "luck" factor.
Your second point is quite comical in the way you imply what it means. Complex maps take more skill. Fog takes more skill. Put them together, fog + complex map, and what you have is a significant advantage for the tactically skilled and prepared. That is not farming. It would only be farming if one would specifically challenge newer players who do not even know the map. I typically like to play the more complex maps but I am usually playing against other higher ranked opponents. These matches provide tactical challenges for me and an opportunity to test my skills against other top players. That is certainly not farming. Mr C talks about winning 70% of his matches on his settings. I would argue that he could not come close to maintaining that average if he were consistently playing higher ranked opponents. I do not believe it is possible to have that significant an advantage playing simple/sunny maps. The dice variance and drop variance would likely prevent that.

Well I can only assume you checked my games before making that statement. Granted I suppose every game I play could be against a general, but I am no farmer and even a quick scan of my games would show that I play organised opposition. Furthermore a quick map rank would show that my eq rating for trips is high (1.054). So no I'm not farming, or even close to it.

So it is a strange argument you are employing! You say dice and drop variance would prevent me from winning well on my settings, yet a quick overall trips map rank shows..

+977 90 from 135(67%) 198 (14) Serial Killer (67%)45 Equalitarian (1.054)

..that i do indeed win well on my settings and, since 2012 I am indeed averaging at 70%.

So I will continue to reject the idea that foggy, complex maps takes requires more skill and that's why clans play them. I will certainly reject the idea that..

I do not believe it is possible to have that significant an advantage playing simple/sunny maps

..when surely my own record shows clearly that it is indeed possible to have a significant advantage. Though not as significant as what you can achieve.

Your numbers are a bit deceiving. You claim Equalitarian but you almost always play with lower ranked team members. 64 of your trips games have a player at captain or lower and most lower than captain.
Further, an analysis of your trips games played shows that when faced with equal or better competition you are 33 - 27. Showing some tactical advantage but nowhere close to 70%.

[Armandolas]

Im stil failing to understand how mastering a difficult map can be easy

Clan wars are on a different level than casual games. Its obviuos than most of quality clans and players allready mastered the basic settings/maps and will try to run away from drop/dice factor those maps/setting have to offer.

Also u should exclude conquest maps from this sunny/foggy discussion..those just dont make any sense to play sunny. So i dont think you have too many complicated maps after the the conquest ones are excluded, u just need to play them and learn it.
For ex, i dont think Conquer Rome is a complicated map. I do think though, it really offers a great variety of options and strategies.

[universalchiro]

... throwing in fog so that the opposition has even less chance of competing and hoping that map knowledge trumps strategic ability....It should be about playing a fair and even game and then beating the opposition square.

I refuse to play sunny maps, it neutralizes my strategies. Whereas one with high deductive abilities can discern what a player did on their turn in fog setting and plan accordingly. It seems in a sunny map, it's more about who has the better dice that day, rather than who deduced and planned better.

I factor in around 30% of wins and losses are purely about the dice. The other 70% is about battle tactics in fog games. Playing sunny games seems to change the percentages to 75% dice, and 25% tactics. This is just my humble opinion, could be wrong on %, just a perception I have.

[loutil]

... throwing in fog so that the opposition has even less chance of competing and hoping that map knowledge trumps strategic ability....It should be about playing a fair and even game and then beating the opposition square.

I refuse to play sunny maps, it neutralizes my strategies. Whereas one with high deductive abilities can discern what a player did on their turn in fog setting and plan accordingly. It seems in a sunny map, it's more about who has the better dice that day, rather than who deduced and planned better.

I factor in around 30% of wins and losses are purely about the dice. The other 70% is about battle tactics in fog games. Playing sunny games seems to change the percentages to 75% dice, and 25% tactics. This is just my humble opinion, could be wrong on %, just a perception I have.

If there was a "like" button I would now hit it. Well said.
I would add that tools can be used to your advantage in fog games that have almost no relevance in sunny games. I use a deployment script that counts all deployment for each player including auto drops. Knowing relative strength when your opponent may not is quite helpful. It is about increasing probability. If my opponent does not snap it likely adds 5% to my victory probability. If he snaps but does not take the time to go back through the snaps to piece the movements then add 2%. Tracking relative strength, maybe another 2%. Stats and probability trump drops/dice when playing fog...

[Mr Changsha]

tl:dr

It's worth reading. Currently, I haven't found any good opposing arguments to the following:

(1) Playing foggy doesn't take more skill.

(2) All things being equal, (fog + complex map) is a farmer setting because of its particular comparative advantage (i.e. obscurity + steep learning curve).

I respectfully disagree here...
Foggy takes more skill for 2 basic reasons. 1. It adds significantly more variables and complexity to the play. 2. It reduces the "luck" factor.
Your second point is quite comical in the way you imply what it means. Complex maps take more skill. Fog takes more skill. Put them together, fog + complex map, and what you have is a significant advantage for the tactically skilled and prepared. That is not farming. It would only be farming if one would specifically challenge newer players who do not even know the map. I typically like to play the more complex maps but I am usually playing against other higher ranked opponents. These matches provide tactical challenges for me and an opportunity to test my skills against other top players. That is certainly not farming. Mr C talks about winning 70% of his matches on his settings. I would argue that he could not come close to maintaining that average if he were consistently playing higher ranked opponents. I do not believe it is possible to have that significant an advantage playing simple/sunny maps. The dice variance and drop variance would likely prevent that.

Well I can only assume you checked my games before making that statement. Granted I suppose every game I play could be against a general, but I am no farmer and even a quick scan of my games would show that I play organised opposition. Furthermore a quick map rank would show that my eq rating for trips is high (1.054). So no I'm not farming, or even close to it.

So it is a strange argument you are employing! You say dice and drop variance would prevent me from winning well on my settings, yet a quick overall trips map rank shows..

+977 90 from 135(67%) 198 (14) Serial Killer (67%)45 Equalitarian (1.054)

..that i do indeed win well on my settings and, since 2012 I am indeed averaging at 70%.

So I will continue to reject the idea that foggy, complex maps takes requires more skill and that's why clans play them. I will certainly reject the idea that..

I do not believe it is possible to have that significant an advantage playing simple/sunny maps

..when surely my own record shows clearly that it is indeed possible to have a significant advantage. Though not as significant as what you can achieve.

Your numbers are a bit deceiving. You claim Equalitarian but you almost always play with lower ranked team members. 64 of your trips games have a player at captain or lower and most lower than captain.
Further, an analysis of your trips games played shows that when faced with equal or better competition you are 33 - 27. Showing some tactical advantage but nowhere close to 70%.

Well that's an interesting analysis\spin...

I would think it perfectly obvious from these three stats:
1.+977
2. 90/135
3. (1.054)

that it is possible to gain a significant tactical advantage from no cards, chained, sunny on basic maps. Further, I suspect few woud agree with you (unless they had a subjective interest in proving that black is white for the purpose of a quite untenable argument) that CC has got to the point whereby wins against captain and majors are as irrelevent as beating corporals and cooks! Are they (generally) easier to beat than teams with a colonel or two, or higher, in the ranks? Yes, but that's no doubt also true if you are playing foggy and I'm sure you don't discount such wins on your own account.

I've said that it is possible to win 70% of games on my settings against good quality opposition. I certainly include captains and majors as 'good quality opposition' and I think I have every right to do so. To not is a form of convenient rank elitism.

[Mr Changsha]

... throwing in fog so that the opposition has even less chance of competing and hoping that map knowledge trumps strategic ability....It should be about playing a fair and even game and then beating the opposition square.

I refuse to play sunny maps, it neutralizes my strategies. Whereas one with high deductive abilities can discern what a player did on their turn in fog setting and plan accordingly. It seems in a sunny map, it's more about who has the better dice that day, rather than who deduced and planned better.

I factor in around 30% of wins and losses are purely about the dice. The other 70% is about battle tactics in fog games. Playing sunny games seems to change the percentages to 75% dice, and 25% tactics. This is just my humble opinion, could be wrong on %, just a perception I have.

Isn't this just a simple case of 'if i can't do it no one can'?

I've played sunny over various forms my entire time on CC (standard, 8 man dubs, dubs, trips, quads) and to, I hope, finally swat this insane argument that there is no strategic edge (all luck etc) to bed I present one final stat...

+2626 177 from 344(51%) 443 (15) Serial Killer (69%)134 Equalitarian (0.908) (flat, no cards, sunny all forms)

Yes, it is easier (for most people I happily admit I suck at foggy) to post a high score playing standard fog than sunny, and that is equally true for dubs, trips and quads. And yes, it is impossible for me to reach the top 50 of this site, and that is mainly due to the turbo charge of fog combined with complicated maps but it is, I repeat, an insane argument, flying in the face of irrefutable evidence, to say that sunny is, as you claimed, 75% dice 25% tactics.

Of course, this is the argument my critics need to make if they are to disprove my thesis. Clans don't play sunny (or sunny on basic maps) because it is 'all luck no skill' etc. I've said from the beginning that one can't achieve the level of dominance playing my settings as one can playing the kind of game that now dominates the top 50. But that's the whole point of this thread, that's why I want to see sunny come back to clans. It produces a more equal game, a game in which the opposition always has a fighting chance, and I think that clan wars should have a certain percentage of games played sunny for that reason.

[Mr Changsha]

... throwing in fog so that the opposition has even less chance of competing and hoping that map knowledge trumps strategic ability....It should be about playing a fair and even game and then beating the opposition square.

I refuse to play sunny maps, it neutralizes my strategies. Whereas one with high deductive abilities can discern what a player did on their turn in fog setting and plan accordingly. It seems in a sunny map, it's more about who has the better dice that day, rather than who deduced and planned better.

I factor in around 30% of wins and losses are purely about the dice. The other 70% is about battle tactics in fog games. Playing sunny games seems to change the percentages to 75% dice, and 25% tactics. This is just my humble opinion, could be wrong on %, just a perception I have.

If there was a "like" button I would now hit it. Well said.
I would add that tools can be used to your advantage in fog games that have almost no relevance in sunny games. I use a deployment script that counts all deployment for each player including auto drops. Knowing relative strength when your opponent may not is quite helpful. It is about increasing probability. If my opponent does not snap it likely adds 5% to my victory probability. If he snaps but does not take the time to go back through the snaps to piece the movements then add 2%. Tracking relative strength, maybe another 2%. Stats and probability trump drops/dice when playing fog...

Perhaps you should consider that the expert sunny player has other tools, that you are not aware of, that allows him to win well playing sunny?

[iAmCaffeine]

WHAT IS FOG
BABY DONT HIDE AWAY
DONT HIDE AWAY
NO MORE

[laughingcavalier]

... throwing in fog so that the opposition has even less chance of competing and hoping that map knowledge trumps strategic ability....It should be about playing a fair and even game and then beating the opposition square.

I refuse to play sunny maps, it neutralizes my strategies. Whereas one with high deductive abilities can discern what a player did on their turn in fog setting and plan accordingly. It seems in a sunny map, it's more about who has the better dice that day, rather than who deduced and planned better.

I factor in around 30% of wins and losses are purely about the dice. The other 70% is about battle tactics in fog games. Playing sunny games seems to change the percentages to 75% dice, and 25% tactics. This is just my humble opinion, could be wrong on %, just a perception I have.

If there was a "like" button I would now hit it. Well said.
I would add that tools can be used to your advantage in fog games that have almost no relevance in sunny games. I use a deployment script that counts all deployment for each player including auto drops. Knowing relative strength when your opponent may not is quite helpful. It is about increasing probability. If my opponent does not snap it likely adds 5% to my victory probability. If he snaps but does not take the time to go back through the snaps to piece the movements then add 2%. Tracking relative strength, maybe another 2%. Stats and probability trump drops/dice when playing fog...

Hoist by your own petard. Absolutely here you are saying:

I care very little about skill. What I really like is how much putting in extra effort increases my chances of victory in foggy games. I have gone to the effort of getting a special deployment script – this adds 5% to my victory probability. By the effort of paying more attention to snaps I get an additional 2% chance of winning. Going to the effort of tracking relative strength, maybe another 2%. All this effort trumps drops/dice/tactics strategy when playing fog...

The longer this goes on the more I support Mr C. Nobody bothered contesting his assertion that top clans play fog & funny settings to gain competitive advantage as its incontestable. Now we have players queueing up to say that advantage is based on effort not skill.

I do hope I get a chance to weigh in some more later.