In the end, it's only luck

[Earthboundia]

The concept of luck in games is very simple:
luck is random, statistically it affects you exactly the same as all the other playes.
This statement made, the consequence is very simple: if you are a better player, in the LONG PERIOD you will win more often than weaker players.

SPOILER: you can't assess how good or bad a player is, based on one lucky/unluky game.

Fullstop.

I'd heavily disagree with that. In many games, wingspan included, getting lucky or unlucky at different stages in the game can have massively different consequences. Typically getting lucky earlier is more important than getting lucky later. It doesn't matter if you get all of the right cards later because by round 3 or 4 you won't have a chance to put that engine into action. Over the course of many games it should even out in theory but from game to game the luck factor can feel very one sided at times.

[Fletcheese]

The concept of luck in games is very simple:
luck is random, statistically it affects you exactly the same as all the other playes.
This statement made, the consequence is very simple: if you are a better player, in the LONG PERIOD you will win more often than weaker players.

SPOILER: you can't assess how good or bad a player is, based on one lucky/unluky game.

Fullstop.

I'd heavily disagree with that. In many games, wingspan included, getting lucky or unlucky at different stages in the game can have massively different consequences. Typically getting lucky earlier is more important than getting lucky later. It doesn't matter if you get all of the right cards later because by round 3 or 4 you won't have a chance to put that engine into action. Over the course of many games it should even out in theory but from game to game the luck factor can feel very one sided at times.

Which part of that are you disagreeing with? I don't think there's any mention of which stage in a game is impacted more by luck. I think everyone in this thread is referring to luck generally.

Your last sentence (which I bolded) is the most important one that some people are disagreeing with on this thread. The claim is that the people at the top of the leaderboard for Wingspan are there because they are getting more lucky on a consistent basis than the other players who are lower. I think this claim is ridiculous and the reality is that the players at the top of the leaderboard are simply making on average better decisions than those lower. Everyone gets lucky and everyone gets unlucky but better players know how to hedge against bad luck and take full advantage of good luck to maximize their winrate.

[BStaude]

You're right, it was offensive and inappropriate. I apologize.

[Pietr_ucci]

The concept of luck in games is very simple:
luck is random, statistically it affects you exactly the same as all the other playes.
This statement made, the consequence is very simple: if you are a better player, in the LONG PERIOD you will win more often than weaker players.

SPOILER: you can't assess how good or bad a player is, based on one lucky/unluky game.

Fullstop.

I'd heavily disagree with that. In many games, wingspan included, getting lucky or unlucky at different stages in the game can have massively different consequences. Typically getting lucky earlier is more important than getting lucky later. It doesn't matter if you get all of the right cards later because by round 3 or 4 you won't have a chance to put that engine into action. Over the course of many games it should even out in theory but from game to game the luck factor can feel very one sided at times.

this doesn't contradict my statement. You are talking about luck in this or that situation. Yet still talking about luck. And I am glad to repeat that in the long period, if you are a better player, you will win, no matter how luck affect you. In your exemple, over let's say 1k games, in some games you will end up being lucky at the beginning, or sometimes in the later game, or unlucky at the beginning or at the end. Exacly as all the other players because this is a statistic rule that applies to all the players. SO, if you are a better player, in the long term all those scenarios "about luck" will balance, and your win rate won't be affected by that.

[Jellby]

Although that is somewhat true, it's also a common misconception.

Luck does not balance out in absolute terms. Suppose you toss a coin multiple (thousands, millions) times. Do you expect the number of heads and tails to be equal "in the long run"? Of course they won't be exactly equal, one of them will be more frequent than the other, even with a completely fair coin, just by chance. Say that their difference is N. Well, the expected N grows more and more the more times you toss the coin, that is, the difference between heads and tails just grows larger "in the long run". This doesn't mean that if you have more heads with 1 million tosses you'll still have more heads with 10 million tosses: you may have more tails instead, but the difference will probably be larger.

But it does balance out in relative terms. Although the absolute difference grows larger, the relative difference (that is, divided by the total number tosses) gets smaller and smaller. In that sense the differences get smeared out.

So, in the long run, for a game like Wingspan, is it the relative difference or the absolute difference that matters? I don't know. But even with perfect-playing and same-strategy players, one of them is likely to have won more times than all the other players.

[Fuchur]

Hi everyone,

i find the idea that there is an empiric way to determine the "luck"-factor of a (popular, established) game interesting (just look at the top ELO).
(I have no opinion concerning Wingspan).

There might be a need to modify the calculation of ELO depending on this "luck"-factor (it seems to me that this was the complaint of the original poster : high variation of ELO du to luck) :
The aim of ELO is to give a good estimation of the players skill; it should converge rapidly to the "real" value (for new players) but don't move around erratically due to luck issues.
A solution might be to vary the "memory" with the "luck"-factor : Short memory for games with little luck like chess, long memory for games with of high influence of luck.

[Earthboundia]

The concept of luck in games is very simple:
luck is random, statistically it affects you exactly the same as all the other playes.
This statement made, the consequence is very simple: if you are a better player, in the LONG PERIOD you will win more often than weaker players.

SPOILER: you can't assess how good or bad a player is, based on one lucky/unluky game.

Fullstop.

I'd heavily disagree with that. In many games, wingspan included, getting lucky or unlucky at different stages in the game can have massively different consequences. Typically getting lucky earlier is more important than getting lucky later. It doesn't matter if you get all of the right cards later because by round 3 or 4 you won't have a chance to put that engine into action. Over the course of many games it should even out in theory but from game to game the luck factor can feel very one sided at times.

this doesn't contradict my statement. You are talking about luck in this or that situation. Yet still talking about luck. And I am glad to repeat that in the long period, if you are a better player, you will win, no matter how luck affect you. In your exemple, over let's say 1k games, in some games you will end up being lucky at the beginning, or sometimes in the later game, or unlucky at the beginning or at the end. Exacly as all the other players because this is a statistic rule that applies to all the players. SO, if you are a better player, in the long term all those scenarios "about luck" will balance, and your win rate won't be affected by that.

I was a little surprised to see a reply 4 months later but it seems fair that I answer anyway. Looking back, I probably responded to the wrong person with that comment and/or I was was half reading it. I think I was responding specifically to the "luck statistically affecting everyone the same" and assumed this was a statement over a single or handful of games (which is an argument I have heard from players in the past). And my response being that in these kinds of games even if everyone gets equally lucky in a game the point at which you get lucky can tilt the balance heavily into a players favour.

[taithunderr]

I tried chess this is some what a bit more fun