Fog and Obscurity

[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%.

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.

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%....

[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...

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.

You are welcome to read my words and interpret them any way you like. But, that is clearly not what I said. Tactics and war are about gaining advantages. Skill is clearly one of them. I was responding to Universalchiro's comment. I agreed with his assertion that 70% is about tactics/skill in fog games. I then clearly ADDED to that the use of tools. It is simple to follow my thought as I clearly stated the following words: I would add that tools can be used to your advantage in fog games that have almost no relevance in sunny games.
The relevant part is that I started the sentence with the words "I would add". I already agreed with his direct assessment about skill.

Your second point makes no sense. Of course clans play foggy/difficult maps to gain an advantage. Who would state otherwise? Playing fog/difficult maps REDUCES the odds of losing to a bad drop or bad dice. Fog maps take more skill. Complicated maps take more skill. Otherwise, we could have all wars on doodle earth and whomever gets the best dice would be champions.

The objective of war is to WIN. I use skill, knowledge, tools, settings, ect. Whatever increases my odds of winning. Is effort part of that equation? Certainly. But effort alone will not lead to victory.

[Mr Changsha]

@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.

[iAmCaffeine]

#shamelessplug

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=201929

[loutil]

@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.

I feel I am being taken out of context again. My point was not to set some standard (winning at 70%) but rather to suggest that with the style you play luck and drop matter much more than the style I play. Therefor, in my opinion, you could not win at 70% (as you suggest you do) if playing equal to better competition. Certainly, by playing trips, you eliminate some of the luck/drop factor of playing 1 v 1.
Your eq rating is misleading as it takes into account your team members which are almost always lower rank than you. You suggest your team is all majors. But, you have played multiple games with players that are not majors like: Jordanthedude, m0nkeyb0y, spoongod, squishyg, happy2seeyou, nagerous, ect...
This is all off point however. I do not care whom you play against or the form you play. My point from the start is that I believe fog is harder and takes more skill than sunny. I believe complicated maps are harder and take more skill than simple maps.

[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...

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.

Yes, the inevitable argument over the validity of settings (while interesting enough in of itself) really diverts from my central point, so I will gratuitously re-quote it!

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.

Bolded for sexy emphasis..

[Fruitcake]

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.

This is where I agree.

I have read/skimmed through much of this thread and do think it has lost the way somewhere.

The key argument is simple. Do clans pick foggy maps to gain an advantage. Yes of course they do and well done them. However, this is not true to the heart of the game or the core spirit of the game.

I once advocated that to reduce luck we should play no dice games. I was drummed out of the idea by the plethora of people saying, THIS IS RISK, GET USED TO IT, THIS IS ABOUT THE DICE, GET USED TO IT, SUCK IT UP CUPCAKE. etc etc.

Now I see that the playing community are quite willing to turn that 'risk' argument on its head when it suits them. This does not bother me as hypocrisy is rife in humans and one should be ready for it.

I am surprised at the strength of argument against what Mr C is putting forward. But then seeing both sides of the argument isn't often known for those entrenched in a position that suits them.

Just my ten penneth worth.

[iAmCaffeine]

I do agree with MrC, I just think most people don't grasp what he's arguing. To win more often on the most basic settings is harder than winning more often on the most complicated settings; when you practice those complicated settings.

[loutil]

I do agree with MrC, I just think most people don't grasp what he's arguing. To win more often on the most basic settings is harder than winning more often on the most complicated settings; when you practice those complicated settings.

To a point as the luck factor/dice prevents you from winning as often.

[iAmCaffeine]

I do agree with MrC, I just think most people don't grasp what he's arguing. To win more often on the most basic settings is harder than winning more often on the most complicated settings; when you practice those complicated settings.

To a point as the luck factor/dice prevents you from winning as often.

Sure, but overcoming those factors in sunny games requires more skill than in foggy.

[Mr Changsha]

I do agree with MrC, I just think most people don't grasp what he's arguing. To win more often on the most basic settings is harder than winning more often on the most complicated settings; when you practice those complicated settings.

To a point as the luck factor/dice prevents you from winning as often.

Sure, but overcoming those factors in sunny games requires more skill than in foggy.

For all my many words, fruitcake has grasped and explained it best.

The key argument is simple. Do clans pick foggy maps to gain an advantage. Yes of course they do and well done them. However, this is not true to the heart of the game or the core spirit of the game.

That's exactly the point. I have kept trying to push this thread back to this, but it keeps getting lost in the inevitable (and perhaps required) discussion on settings. I accept people want to defend their settings and possibly discredit mine to further that and that's absolutely fine. But when fruitcake writes of 'the core spirit of the game' he getting to 'the heart' of this thread.

[universalchiro]

Clan wars now seem to me to be about choosing the most complicated\obscure maps and settings (if allowed), throwing in fog so that the opposition has even less chance of competing and hoping that map knowledge trumps strategic ability.... I accept that is a gross generalisation.

The more complicated the map, the more errors an opponent is likely to make. Point conceded.
The more complicated the settings, the more errors an opponent is likely to make. Point conceded.
"hoping map knowledge trumps strategic ability": This is the disconnect. For many players are utilizing complicated maps and complicated settings to offset the dice deciding the outcome of the game.

Let's take this to an extreme: When a high ranking player plays a Cook on let's say a fictitious map of 1 region each player in 1v1 setting. Then the outcome is 100% dice and 0% strategic ability/map knowledge. Therefore, the further the map and settings gets away from that simplistic scenario, the more likely the higher skilled player will win, even if the dice are not in his/her favor.

So both sides of this debate have merit. But to infer that a team/clan/player is selecting complicated maps hoping that map knowledge trumps strategic ability, is as you say an over generalization. For the hope is that map knowledge and strategic ability both trump dice.

[BigBallinStalin]

How does fog reduce the "dice problem"? Do we roll foggy dice for the foggy and sunny dice for the sunny? Have we forgotten that the dice are omnipresent? Fog simply creates uncertainty about your enemies' plans, and uncertainty is the cousin of risk. In foggy games, the dice problem remains, but total risk increases.

There seem to be only two dominant factors in foggy games: (1) the ability to reduce the information problem (e.g. by having a script which reads total deploys), and (2) having superior knowledge of a map's dynamics (which may be partially understood by one's enemies). These two factors reduce total risk, but the "lesser dice argument" is untenable.

By implication, the "greater skill in tactics" argument is less tenable--unless of course you include deployment-reading scripts within the arsenal of tactics, but aren't such tactics against the spirit of the game? It's like counting cards.

[owenshooter]

i don't even care about a word this guy just wrote... all i can say is, as a father, WHAT A FREAKING CUTE PICTURE YOU HAVE FOR AN AVATAR!!!! so, whatever you have said, i agree wholly on liking your avatar!!! the black jesus has been moved by a photo...-el Jesus negro

Clan wars now seem to me to be about choosing the most complicated\obscure maps and settings (if allowed), throwing in fog so that the opposition has even less chance of competing and hoping that map knowledge trumps strategic ability.... I accept that is a gross generalisation.

The more complicated the map, the more errors an opponent is likely to make. Point conceded.
The more complicated the settings, the more errors an opponent is likely to make. Point conceded.
"hoping map knowledge trumps strategic ability": This is the disconnect. For many players are utilizing complicated maps and complicated settings to offset the dice deciding the outcome of the game.

Let's take this to an extreme: When a high ranking player plays a Cook on let's say a fictitious map of 1 region each player in 1v1 setting. Then the outcome is 100% dice and 0% strategic ability/map knowledge. Therefore, the further the map and settings gets away from that simplistic scenario, the more likely the higher skilled player will win, even if the dice are not in his/her favor.

So both sides of this debate have merit. But to infer that a team/clan/player is selecting complicated maps hoping that map knowledge trumps strategic ability, is as you say an over generalization. For the hope is that map knowledge and strategic ability both trump dice.

[loutil]

How does fog reduce the "dice problem"? Do we roll foggy dice for the foggy and sunny dice for the sunny? Have we forgotten that the dice are omnipresent? Fog simply creates uncertainty about your enemies' plans, and uncertainty is the cousin of risk. In foggy games, the dice problem remains, but total risk increases.

There seem to be only two dominant factors in foggy games: (1) the ability to reduce the information problem (e.g. by having a script which reads total deploys), and (2) having superior knowledge of a map's dynamics (which may be partially understood by one's enemies). These two factors reduce total risk, but the "lesser dice argument" is untenable.

By implication, the "greater skill in tactics" argument is less tenable--unless of course you include deployment-reading scripts within the arsenal of tactics, but aren't such tactics against the spirit of the game? It's like counting cards.

Let me try and explain it to you ...
In a fog game my opponent can only guess where I dropped. If I dropped next to one of his stacks and had total dice fail it is possible he will not be aware and may think I am stacking or some other strategy. If we are playing sunny he will know my dice failed and likely will attack or take advantage. I often try and mask my movements in fog games to help keep my opponent off guard. For example: in Conquer Rome I may drop on a capital to swing at the vicarious seat. If I have good dice and take it on my first roll I sometimes advance 3 to the vic leaving the original 3 on the capital. Now my opponent has to guess. Sometimes in fog games I back deploy to leave a 1 facing my opponent to make him think I had bad dice and entice a forward attack into my strength. Both good and bad dice can be covered in the fog ..

[loutil]

By implication, the "greater skill in tactics" argument is less tenable--unless of course you include deployment-reading scripts within the arsenal of tactics, but aren't such tactics against the spirit of the game? It's like counting cards.

Seriously? You ask this question after we have won 74 of our last 100 games teaming together? Counting cards is illegal and the casino will ask you to leave if you are caught doing it. Using scripts is part of this game. Just look to your left on your screen and tell me what scripts your are using? Likely BOB, Map rank, maybe and odds calculator? These are all legal and sponsored tools.What makes mine any different? It is also important to note that ALL the information my script gathers is available to EVERY player as it is clearly in the game log. All I do is compile it. If the spirit of the game did not include us knowing deploy then the game log would leave us in the fog on those numbers as well as the terts

[BigBallinStalin]

How does fog reduce the "dice problem"? Do we roll foggy dice for the foggy and sunny dice for the sunny? Have we forgotten that the dice are omnipresent? Fog simply creates uncertainty about your enemies' plans, and uncertainty is the cousin of risk. In foggy games, the dice problem remains, but total risk increases.

There seem to be only two dominant factors in foggy games: (1) the ability to reduce the information problem (e.g. by having a script which reads total deploys), and (2) having superior knowledge of a map's dynamics (which may be partially understood by one's enemies). These two factors reduce total risk, but the "lesser dice argument" is untenable.

By implication, the "greater skill in tactics" argument is less tenable--unless of course you include deployment-reading scripts within the arsenal of tactics, but aren't such tactics against the spirit of the game? It's like counting cards.

Let me try and explain it to you ...
In a fog game my opponent can only guess where I dropped. If I dropped next to one of his stacks and had total dice fail it is possible he will not be aware and may think I am stacking or some other strategy. If we are playing sunny he will know my dice failed and likely will attack or take advantage. I often try and mask my movements in fog games to help keep my opponent off guard. For example: in Conquer Rome I may drop on a capital to swing at the vicarious seat. If I have good dice and take it on my first roll I sometimes advance 3 to the vic leaving the original 3 on the capital. Now my opponent has to guess. Sometimes in fog games I back deploy to leave a 1 facing my opponent to make him think I had bad dice and entice a forward attack into my strength. Both good and bad dice can be covered in the fog ..

That's true, but [bolded] it's still uncertainty, and since your opponent can do the same, it should balance out--in terms of total risk (unless you're keen or have script better than the deployment counter). This still counts as uncertainty, so foggy games have more risk.

I'd partially concede and add (3) ability to handle uncertainty (which lumps up your examples), so yeah that's a skill and ceteris paribus fog requires more skill in terms of this kind of tactic.

[BigBallinStalin]

By implication, the "greater skill in tactics" argument is less tenable--unless of course you include deployment-reading scripts within the arsenal of tactics, but aren't such tactics against the spirit of the game? It's like counting cards.

Seriously? You ask this question after we have won 74 of our last 100 games teaming together? Counting cards is illegal and the casino will ask you to leave if you are caught doing it. Using scripts is part of this game. Just look to your left on your screen and tell me what scripts your are using? Likely BOB, Map rank, maybe and odds calculator? These are all legal and sponsored tools.What makes mine any different? It is also important to note that ALL the information my script gathers is available to EVERY player as it is clearly in the game log. All I do is compile it. If the spirit of the game did not include us knowing deploy then the game log would leave us in the fog on those numbers as well as the terts

Hey, true to my contrarian nature, I'm just trying to roll with the 'spirit of the game' argument.

Ultimately, I'm just jealous that you have that script, and I don't. Maybe I should rent-seek appeal to people's sentiments about unfairness so that the community would obtain it? Ah, I'm such a Man of the People, it kills me.

[Dukasaur]

By implication, the "greater skill in tactics" argument is less tenable--unless of course you include deployment-reading scripts within the arsenal of tactics, but aren't such tactics against the spirit of the game? It's like counting cards.

Seriously? You ask this question after we have won 74 of our last 100 games teaming together? Counting cards is illegal and the casino will ask you to leave if you are caught doing it. Using scripts is part of this game. Just look to your left on your screen and tell me what scripts your are using? Likely BOB, Map rank, maybe and odds calculator? These are all legal and sponsored tools.What makes mine any different? It is also important to note that ALL the information my script gathers is available to EVERY player as it is clearly in the game log. All I do is compile it. If the spirit of the game did not include us knowing deploy then the game log would leave us in the fog on those numbers as well as the terts

That's nonsense. Sure, anyone can go through the log, but unless they are independently wealthy or permanently unemployed, nobody has the hours to spend going through the log and manually counting the numbers. Other people have written scripts to automate the more menial calculations in the game, but they released those scripts to the community. For you to give use a script and refuse to share it with the community is poor sportsmanship, at the very least.

[Fruitcake]

. For you to give use a script and refuse to share it with the community is poor sportsmanship, at the very least.

hear hear!

[iAmCaffeine]

. For you to give use a script and refuse to share it with the community is poor sportsmanship, at the very least.

hear hear!

That's lame.

[Armandolas]

thats extremely lame..what scripts is that?
Im still refraining to use lates Dako script. Butnow that i have knowledge of this new secret script, then i will unleash Dice 2.1. I will not share it....I might sell it though!

[Mr Changsha]

Clan wars now seem to me to be about choosing the most complicated\obscure maps and settings (if allowed), throwing in fog so that the opposition has even less chance of competing and hoping that map knowledge trumps strategic ability.... I accept that is a gross generalisation.

The more complicated the map, the more errors an opponent is likely to make. Point conceded.
The more complicated the settings, the more errors an opponent is likely to make. Point conceded.
"hoping map knowledge trumps strategic ability": This is the disconnect. For many players are utilizing complicated maps and complicated settings to offset the dice deciding the outcome of the game.

I think you've succinctly found a core issue here. As players of a game based on luck, is there a limit to which we should try our best to take the luck out of it, in that by doing so we may alter the game so fundamentally that it is not recognisable anymore? Because of the competitive nature of sport it is almost inevitable that a community affectively unbridled and free to participate in the evolution of it, will attempt (in a collective sense) to maximise the chance of winning..i.e take the dice out the equation.

But is that a good thing for the game? The drop in membership would suggest it isn't, assuming one agrees with me that this is the direct cause of the drop. I examined this theory in detail in this thread:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=174222

So you write of 'offsetting the dice deciding the outcome of the game' but you seem to assume that this has either a positive consequence for the game, or at least no negative consequence. Now it certainly has a positive consequence for an individual player - no doubt about that at all former conqueror - but this thread is directly questioning whether taking dice out of the equation is having a negative affect on the game overall.

So I would ask you and others to consider this thread in that sense. Yes of course it is good on an individual basis to take luck out of the game, if one is skilled one's score will go up as a result. But I ask you to consider this question in a collective sense, or if that is too profound (and possibly one shouldn't think in such terms), simply whether it is good for the overall state of the game.

[Mr Changsha]

thats extremely lame..what scripts is that?
Im still refraining to use lates Dako script. Butnow that i have knowledge of this new secret script, then i will unleash Dice 2.1. I will not share it....I might sell it though!

If you don't mind, and you will rarely see me make such a request, I'd ask you to not continue this discussion in this thread. I don't want to see two to three pages of arguing about a script (which is likely to be the result). I'm not saying it isn't related to an extent, but I don't want to see this thread derail off in that direction..

A seperate thread could easily be made on the use of private scripts and the discussion take place there.

[Fruitcake]

thats extremely lame..what scripts is that?
Im still refraining to use lates Dako script. Butnow that i have knowledge of this new secret script, then i will unleash Dice 2.1. I will not share it....I might sell it though!

If you don't mind, and you will rarely see me make such a request, I'd ask you to not continue this discussion in this thread. I don't want to see two to three pages of arguing about a script (which is likely to be the result). I'm not saying it isn't related to an extent, but I don't want to see this thread derail off in that direction..

A seperate thread could easily be made on the use of private scripts and the discussion take place there.

Not sure I agree with you on this Mr C.

This thread has opened a debate about sportsmanship, fair play and the core spirit of the game. Whilst it may have started with your focussed subject, it was always going to widen.

History shows us that to tighten circumstances to a point at which the 'win at all costs' attitude takes over, never works in the long term, for it is but a hop skip and a jump from that attitude to 'I will bend, even break the rules to win'. This then leads to a general degradation in the characters involved and sows the seeds of the ultimate destruction by implosion (see Blitz and others for reference).

Open competition is good and healthy. Competition in the manner we are seeing more and more of is unhealthy. Sadly clan war, with this foggy style exclusively used by some clans, is now more about winning at all costs, that first step is already taken.