[quote="NickName"]Bill and Dean and my DCI records are evidence enough since we don't lose 40% of games. If the game were 40% luck then we should lose close to that. [quote]

This statement makes no sense. 40% luck leaves 60% of other factors on the table, and that is more than enough for the best players to overcome the potential negative impact of the dice.

Okaaaaay...

So you're saying somehow 40% of an individual game is about dice, but that doesn't translate into 4 losses when playing 10 games. You're making an entirely different point than me or Bill (and I don't really understand it but I can tell it's different now.)

Here's the question I have for you. If you play 10 games against a less skilled player, about how many will be decided by dice rather than other factors? (For example, if you replayed your example game with Aurra/Obi vs Stormies 10 times, how many of them do you think you'd win?)

Shinja, I'm sorry that this thread has turned into a "dice" thread, as I think you didn't intend.

Instead, my SWM New Year's Resolution will be to buy less and trade more. No more 3-4 cases for me, just 1, and trade or buy singly what I need. I don't need to be complete RIGHT NOW anymore.

And, well, have more FUN playing, as is the intent of the game.

Nor should it. I'm not saying that 40% of all games are determined by dice rolls, I'm saying that dice rolls influence 40% of a particular game's outcome. The other factors are certainly relevant. To answer the question in your terms, the more games you play in a row against a particular opponent, the less relevant the dice rolls are as you are now looking at a "data string."



That may be true; all I know is I made an opinionated statement that Bill (per usual) rebutted.



Well, you have to take into account the difference between skill levels. Is it a new player, or a very weak player? Is it someone who can learn from past mistakes each game and get progressively better? Do map choices remain the same?

If I replayed the exact game I posted before on the same map, starting from the same sides, I think dice rolls would have been the most important in the first game. Obviously both me and my opponent would change how we did things based on lessons learned from the previous game (which is partly why I believe the relevance of dice rolls' influence would begin to diminish).

Any and all of the above. You don't have to get this detailed beyond being able to objectively say you were the better player in the particular game and "better" includes both strategy (squadbuilding) and tactics (in-game decisions) in the particular game. Just pick the last 10 of those you played and how many of them were you "cheated" of your "rightful" win by dice?



I think you win at least 8 of the next 9 regardless of how much your opponent learns of your playstyle. It seems as if your opponent is fairly skilled tactically, but his squad (or strategy) is inferior.

Only because I disagreed with it. No need to make some kind of veiled accusation about my disagreement as if it is related to the particular poster... I have so far ignored that tone, but really, is that necessary? Do you really think I was looking to disagree with you or something???

Either way, I dont agree that 40% of a game is decided by dice. I'm not even sure how you are differentiating it from the "outcome" scenario that I am talking about. The only thing that matters are the "outcomes" as you dont get any partial points in this game for a better loss or a bigger win. You may be trying to say something else, but really, if you are claiming it doesnt really affect the outcomes, then whats the point of it?

You felt the need to counter Shinja's point that he wanted to not blame dice this year with some off the wall statistic (this 40% business). Don't play the victim now as if I am targeting you or something. I support Shinja's plan of action and thought this is a good thread to discuss the relevance of dice on game outcomes, since you brought it up.

Your specific statement was dice rolls affect 40% of how a game turns out. I assume that means the outcome - winner and loser. If not about outcomes, then its a pretty pointless statement, and I dont need to argue the point any longer. If so, then I ask you to present data to back it up, as I have provided plenty (much more than we usually have in these debates anyways).

I would truly like to see you address the DCI record of myself, Dean and Jason in this regard and explain why we dont lose 40% of the time. Heck, I didnt even lose 40% of the time to equally skilled opponents and squads last year (70% wins). I will stand firm that I believe the number we throw around of 9/10 games are won by the better player. If you dont care to argue it further, that is fine, but please, leave the victim mentality out of it.

@Shinja - again, I very much support your plan of action. I think you will see remarkable increase in your skills over the course of this year by doing so. I know Matt and I got a lot better when we started doing this a couple of years ago. It also helps a great deal to talk over the game afterwards with your friends win or lose and assess what could have been done differently - and ignore the dice aspect for the most part in those discussions. It really helped me I believe.

I would have responded yesterday but I couldn't log in at home for some reason. Weird.

Bill, don't read so much into the statement. It was what it was: a statement of fact, not a "veiled accusation" or a victimization account or any other such nonsense. The simple truth is that you tend to disagree with me about almost everything SWM-related. I'm sure you don't set out to do so intentionally. However, that doesn't change the fact that you often disagree. Case in point.



What I'm saying is that I believe that dice rolls contribute toward 40% of how a game turns out, and with more contemplation of that statement, I tried to expound upon the point, but I obviously haven't done a very good job at it.



Because one has nothing to do with the other.

Yeah I thought about that after I posted and realized that in some cases the dice could mean more if 2 players are playing identical games over and over again, same squads, map, etc.

It is important to note that it is easy to see how much luck can influence the game. Take Dr_Divot's semi final match in GenCon. He should have lost that, but didn't solely based on luck.

I think Engineer once said that the 100 point level was based on 2 back to back inits and rolling to hit in those 2 rounds. Sounds like that is luck based over anything else.

100 points is pretty luck-oriented, yes. That is because the point level is so unforgiving. At higher point levels luck plays less of a factor, IMO.

Yep, I pretty much ignore 100pts completely when talking about the competitive game any longer. Any points I make should be understood to exclude it, much like I exclude 50pts, or 250, or bigger. I generally only consider 150 and 200 to that extent. That's a good point of clarity worth mentioning.

Yup. But it's generally a game where no player has shown superior strategy or tactics. Both players played great in that game. There were no major mistakes, both squads were top-tier with few exploitable weaknesses, neither squad was a bad matchup for the other, the map did not particularly favor either squad. Given the near equality in every other facet of the game, the only thing left to decide it is luck. (Aaron was in a slightly better position near the end, and the odds were in his favor at that point but not so much as to be a sure thing--he was still at the mercy of inits and won some critical ones just to get to that point where it looked like he had Kelly on the ropes.)

Neither player really "deserved" to lose that game, but one of them had to. There were many games like that at the championships, particularly in the later rounds.

Yes, luck will decide games. But it typically will not decide the game against you if you play more skillfully than your opponent.

I think that's why, with another $500-$1500 on the line, I came away from that game with Dr_Divot without a shred of being upset. I was a little disappointed at the dice, but knew that there were enough other things that went in my favor as far as dice were concerned earlier in the game. For instance, if I hadn't won a key init earlier in the game, his Boba BH would've killed mine, instead of the other way around (we were practically based, each with 40 HP or less).

I surprised even myself when I realized that I was totally OK with the outcome. Thinking back about that day though, there were actually 4 games that dice did decide the outcomes.

1. Round 3, First game against STSparks, where he hit Lando DS, Lobot, and 2 ugos with Missles 30 on his 2nd activation. I promptly failed Lobot and Lando's saves, and rolled 2 20's for the 2 ugos. That alone made a huge difference for the rest of that game.
2. Round 6, against Ulic Qel Droma (Lord Nihl). I won initiative, even though he had Recon, and killed his Quinlan Vos Infiltrator before it got to make a single attack. I also got a fairly key Disintegration on a JWM that game.
3. Quarter-Finals against STSparks. My great "Blunder of GenCon '07" Yes, Boba BH has Flamethrower 20. But the combination of me forgetting that, and chasing his Boba Enforcer and Lando DS around for 3 rounds, all the while both of us making a crazy number of saves, until finally he failed some of his. I honestly should've lost that game, lol.
4. Semi-Finals against Dr_Divot. Very even game overall, no mistakes that I could recall strategy wise for either of us. I won a key init to kill his Boba, but he got a key Deflect, then I missed twice (with a FP re-roll) and then he won the key init.

On the flip side, there were some interesting things to note in other games. Two different games I played an almost exact mirror squad, and the same thing happened in both. I brought reinforcements of 5 Gran raiders, and they brought in Lando DS. After both games, regardless of dice rolls (and there were no Disintegrations in either of those) opponents agreed with me that it was completely the wrong Reinforcements to bring in. In fact, I think Tim Ballard actually said as much as soon as we revealed our Reinforcements.

That weekend was definitely an interesting view for me in how dice can affect games, but as Bill was pointing out, only really affect things in certain situations. Even in games where I don't remember dice playing a pivotal role, I'm sure there were some lousy or great rolls on either side.