But both players have control over their picks. How is that not a case of someone outplaying the other person (because they outpicked them)?

My point is that both players are in complete control of everything in that game (outside who gets first pick, which was no factor in that game). So I am lost as to what external uncontrolled factor caused that game to result differently? If those two players made the same moves/picks in 100 games on the same board, it would have gone the same way. If there was random move order or %0 WR, it could go differently, and thus luck being a factor. But in this game, it could not have played out any differently, unless the players themselves made different CHOICES.

You can say Buns is the better player (I am not making the argument, just saying it is valid), and got beat on a fluky counter (you could say smart too). But how can you say Buns outplayed his opponent and got unlucky? They were in complete control of that outcome.

Also, sorry for derailing. I wish I could move these posts to the strategic forum as it has nothing to do with MDL.

Edited 7/12/2017 18:51:31

Ancient Greece II LD is the best LD template out there. At least you know right away that there is the possibility of a pick lottery, unlike the other LD templates currently/formerly used on the RTL.

but i think what your talking about is interesting, that significantly more skilled players can lose to significantly worse ones in a scenario where there is no luck involved. normally this is not the case, i cant sometimes make a better chair then a carpenter or be better at math then a math professor. the chair will always be way worse and the math professor will always be right when he says that im wrong in what im saying about math(if i were saying anything :) ). this is because i'm not very good at either math nor woodworking and there is no luck involved in theise activitys. on the other hand something like poker were there is luck involved you can very easily win over a much better player, for obvious reasons. now what your talking about is a no luck scenario were significant skill difference sometimes does not "work". i have a very hard time comprehending what this kind of skill is, as it seems to me very different from what is normally understood by skill

Edited 7/12/2017 22:11:41

My point is that both players are in complete control of everything in that game[...]So I am lost as to what external uncontrolled factor caused that game to result differently? If those two players made the same moves/picks in 100 games on the same board, it would have gone the same way[...] But in this game, it could not have played out any differently, unless the players themselves made different CHOICES.[...] They were in complete control of that outcome. .

so the game battelship is a no luck game?

Edited 7/12/2017 20:19:10

You are equating a wide open board with probably hundreds of thousands of starting combinations with zero intel to a game that has a couple dozen starting options that overlap with your opponent?

I get what you are trying to do. The players have complete control in battleship, but come on. Apples to oranges.

In a game that measures skill like WL, and in a no luck template, it is fair to say the winner played better.

Edited 7/12/2017 20:37:49

@Chris

What would this game be to you?

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=13782946

It is normal cycle rather than nlc if that matters.

That is a great example of what I said. There is some luck in that you don't have control over who gets first pick. The amount of luck from the first pick depends on how impactful having it is. Depends on every distribution (and of course requires the same picks like your example).

Not sure what we are arguing about really. This started out by me saying I don't like Auto Dist because you have less of an expectation that the person who plays better will actually win. Now it seems to be an argument of IS there luck in WL?

im trying to say that your definition of luck means that battelship is a no luck game, i do agree that it an absurd claim, but that was my point, that your definiton is encompassing battelship, this is to show case that prehaps there is a problem whit it.

it was the same reason why i did post about what skill is normally understood as( to some degree at least)

Edited 7/19/2017 21:26:40

I don't really understand why auto-distribution is so wonderful... The idea that you get random picks that can easily give a opponent a advantage/disadvantage is something I don't find appealing or really that interesting. Good simulation for practicing when you have the lead or need to make a comeback but I don't know if the MDL ladder is the correct place. However diversifying game settings into the ladder is very important but for me Auto-distribution isn't the most fairest setting on a ladder.

^My argument to support that would be WHY (instead of looking at the why not)? What does auto dist ADD to that template. Other settings (Multi Attack, Commanders, LD, etc) all add a new set of rules that are all fair to each player. What does auto dist add? The only pro is that it takes less time (no picking time). That is it. So if you do some RT fun game, why not? But in a ladder, what is the benefit?

I suppose there was some satisfaction to 'dig out of a hole' aspect in my game. But is that really a great way to play on a ladder? What makes it 'better' than manual dist? You can argue that %0 WR is better or worse than %0 SR. Those arguments will never end. I don't see how auto dist can ever be better though, unless you just want to save a bunch of time in a RT team game.

Would the template (taken in a vacuum and ignoring what other templates you have on the MDL) be better WITH or WITHOUT auto dist? Are we justifying using auto dist simply because it is different?

Edited 7/12/2017 22:07:29

Are we justifying using auto dist simply because it is different?

it was listed under Unique Templates by motd, so yes

Edited 7/12/2017 22:18:00

What I like on auto dist is that it gives lower skilled player a chance. On RT games which may sometimes be difficult to fill with high pre requ, giving a chance to noobs via picks can make a game challenging.
Maybe this is MDL's way to give a chance to everyone (and thus attract more people this way?), at least on that template, :-).

However with light fog, game can be ended turn 1, as I assume better picks can be spotted straight away. But have no experience on such template so like I said, i'm just assuming. I'm not sure this fog setting fits well with auto dist.

Edited 7/12/2017 22:49:58

you have to have light fog with auto dist

No idea what phase we are in, but I quite enjoyed Fast Earth

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=13450706

Sorry to bring this up, but I missed this discussion earlier, and I have a perfect example of a game on the 1v1 ladder where a much worse player won a game in which they inarguably played badly against a top player.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=13745698

Here blue makes only 3 picks, and lucks into a pick that borders Dom in Mexico. Then Dom calculates he can eliminate him as blue finishes EC. Then on turn 4 blue completely lucks into countering Australia while he expands into a wastelanded bonus.

I don't see any way to justify saying that that blue outplayed Dom in this game.

LOL, that was pretty crazy getting the counter pick automatically.

However, if Dom's 3rd pick was Scan, or SA or another viable bonus...I bet he would have won and outplayed that person easily.

However, if Dom's 3rd pick was Scan, or SA or another viable bonus...I bet he would have won and outplayed that person easily.

so still no, dom played worse........ hmm........... ok

If he did put his attack to complete australia as his last move he would have gotten it

^Also true. I am not saying Dom played worse because he did not. But he also made a pick and some moves that, if different, would have resulted in a win still.

Also, Dom could have not picked CA at all (instead picking Scan), and the USA random would have been quite bad still. CA is clearly a good pick, so I don't fault him. That does highlight how lucky that pick was given it could have easily been worthless.

So while the other player was very fortunate to have his auto pick actually matter, I can't say that Dom could not have overcome that luck.

Edited 7/19/2017 21:08:28

yes something could have been difrent, that is true, it could have been ahole other game for that matter but dom had no way of knowing aka he had no way of having an impact on it aka luck. also i do not think that berens point was only the auto pick. it was that he played better(not perfect) then the other player and still lost on that given game

Edited 7/19/2017 21:11:53