@newpaintbrush:
"All things being as equal as possible regarding player skill, what percentage does luck influence the outcome of the game? In other words, how much luck is involved in the outcome of the game between players of equal skill? "
The question omits the question of how skilled the players are. Does the question of skill make a significant difference?
Two unskilled players will unknowingly undertake unfavorable battles, but will also fail to exploit opportunities. There, strategy will still be a factor, but luck will play a significant role.
Very skilled players will undertake battles that are unfavorable, if such battles are the only chance of success. Let us say that Germany can take Russia with 20% odds, but that failure to do so will decrease the German player’s chances every turn thereafter. So the LOGICAL thing for the German player to do would be to try the long odds.
In the first case, there will be more luck involved, but the incompetence of the players will minimize the effects of luck.
In the second case, there is less luck involved, but the competence of the players will maximize the effects of luck.
So what’s the percentage?
Hm.
No one has yet answered my question of whether there is ANY factor besides skill and luck in the game.
If there is no third factor, then luck = 100% of the deciding factor where there is no difference in skill.
Let’s try it this way: In chess, is there any factor other than skill? If there is, then this factor might also co-exist with luck and skill in AAR, in which case the question really means what is the percentage between luck and this other factor.
Let’s try one last time. Suppose you have two equally skilled chess players. They alternate playing black and white (white has a slight advantage). Since they are equal in skill, you expect that of the games that do not end in stalemate, each player will win half, since they are equal in skill. Did I mention that they are equal in skill?
Actually, chess demonstrates this quite nicely. At high levels of play, players are very closely matched. For this reason, they play a bunch of games between the same players. Generally, white wins. The players are quite evenly matched, so the result in each game is determined more by the fact that white has a very slight advantage. The player who is just a little better simply manages to achieve more draws as black, or might get one victory as black.
So in chess there are two factors: skill, and the inherent imbalance of the board. Between perfectly matched players, that imbalance between white and black is decisive in pretty much all the games.
In A&A, there is also an inherent imbalance in the game which the bid intends to offset but it probably does not do so perfectly.
So where skill cannot be the deciding factor between players, since it is equal, the question is to what extent do the dice determine the outcome, and to what extent the inherent imbalance? I would say that the bid comes pretty close to eliminating the imbalance, so I would say that luck is 90% and imbalance is 10%.
Unless anyone can think of any other factors. Skill is by definition out of the question, so we are dividing a pie of 100% between dice and any other factors.
Or can someone explain to be how skill can play a role in determining the outcome, when skill is equal.
Gah! It’s just COMMON SENSE!
Imagine two players playing. They have equal skill (they just do.) One of them wins. Now ask yourself the question, why did Player A win? It CANNOT have been because of superior skill, because their skill was equal. When you’re looking for what made the difference in something, you are looking for things that are different. Science 101.
Skill will only win you a game when you have more of it than the other guy. If there is a way to win by being less skilled, I’d like to know about it!
YAY - Trihero gets it! +1 for him!
