Mr Changsha wrote:loutil wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:loutil wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:iAmCaffeine wrote: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%....