betiko wrote:.SCuD. wrote:[spoiler]I can't help myself, because it's maths... and I absolutely bloody love maths. I have to weigh in with a short (and crude) mathematical analysis of why people often think they are losing due to luck, where it is actually skill.
Before I start, this is meant more generally, and not specifically about this match... although I do then mention some bits about this match later! I've seen some of the highest standard of play that I've witnessed, and you've forced me "into the tank" to strategise on numerous occasions. (Fractured China in particular, and also with Vertex at the moment, legendary stuff!). I also hope that we'll be allowed to pick more trench games in the future, as it's clearly your forte, and you deserve that.
On to the crude mathsy bit.
Games are often very simple strategically, and you win or lose on the dice (against moderately good opposition, who don't play super advanced, but don't do those bizarre balls ups we all see). You'll lose 25% of the time because of the dice, and win 25% for the same reason.
What can make a player really great, as much as knowing how to generally play good strategy, is knowing how to play for a bit of luck that will turn a sure fire loss, in to a 15% chance of a win.
Earlier in this war, we were in a position that most teams lose 99% of the time, but we found a way to give ourselves a bizarre 35% chance of turning the game on it's head... now we failed, and the game is lost, but over the course of a war if you can turn every guaranteed loss in to a 35% chance of nicking it, that's a big difference, but it looks lucky when it comes off! What matters is that we found the way, where most people just "play solid" and never find that 35% shot. Would we have left you that same gap? I don't think so, but we are all prone to mistakes on occasion.
Great players "get lucky" more than good players, because when a great player gets lucky, you feel like you've been hit by a sledgehammer. Somehow you've lost what you thought was a guaranteed win... and it hurts. A good player in that same spot with as much dice luck, would only have delayed the inevitable loss.
So the great player vs the good player, both win 25% on dice, lose 25% on dice... but of the remaining 50%, the great win 30% based on solid strategy, and win another 5-10% by knowing how and when to throw the dice to take advantage of luck... and they end up with 60-65% victory against very good opponents.
The good player looks at it and THINKS that it should have been a tie. They don't notice the great player outsmarting them to take 30% through normal strategy, and they put the remaining 5-10% losses down to pure luck... well was it luck? In reality it was the ability of the great player to manipulate the odds in their favour that created that luck to pull off significantly more bizarre comebacks. The good player took no wins off the great player in the same way, because they didn't know how to.
I haven't been involved in every game, but in the games I've been involved in your standard of play has been excellent, but there are just a couple of places where i believe you should have sewn up the game, but left gaps that we could take advantage of. Yes we needed the 20%/30% rolls to turn the games on their head, but you didn't need to give us that chance. I don't know if we've won or lost more than our fair share, but I do think that is what has been the difference... I could be wrong.
Again, this is just games I've been involved in.
Just as a compliment. Our game in Fractured China... I have to say it's been the highest standard game I've been involved in across any setting / format, you name it, it has topped them all. Your team were a cut above the other trench teams I've faced, and I've been consistently surprised by your ability to pick out what actually is the best move, it's so rare I think that! It's been a strange relationship between dice and strategy, with both teams manipulating the odds adroitly. I still think that one minor mistake has been made on each side... though I won't go in to details!
Anyway, is our lead purely down to luck? Os is it what I've said above, where the manipulation and creation of probabilistic opportunity makes it look lucky?
I think it's the second. FNNA is the perfect example. If it had been the other way around, I don't believe we ever lose that game. You dice mullered us from start to finish, and a moment of complacency gave us the opening to roll well for a round. You should never have let us in.
You still have a chance guys, we don't have an insurmountable advantage.
Good luck[/spoiler]
dude, just saying but your experience on this site is close to zero with just 400 something games under the belt... I'm not saying your are not good nor potentially great, just that you haven't seen a lot with just 400 games. I've been a member of tofu, I've been a member of other clans, I've played with your teammates, I've played with and against all sorts of top players and top players on certain settings from this site, most of the old guard from LHDD has and this is not our first rodeo. You sound like a young girl experiencing sex for the first time with her boyfriend explaining to a dirty old hooker how to plug a finger in the ass.
I get you're learning a lot and all that from your first experiences, you'll need to ride a lotamiladick to teach us something there, skippy
While I agree that Scud is very new and the post comes off as very arrogant (maybe just is arrogant), the speed at which he picks up maps and his general ability across the board leads me to believe that he will be named alongside Josko, CoF, Don etc next year.
.
