Players leaving the game

[Hugo43]

Suggestion: if someone leaves the game on purpose, instead of the game being ruined for everyone why cant there be a default move for inactive players,

for example: automatically throw the first card in hand each turn,

this way all games could be played out until the end even if people leave on purpose.

please share your thoughts

[aratincage28]

It's a good goal and adds to the fun to always be able to finish the game.

However, for players who prioritize competitiveness and want to maximize the extent to which skill (vs. luck) determines the winner, this proposal would add substantial random variance into the game. The player following the hand playing the first card in each hand, will sometimes get a way better card* than they normally would have, and sometimes (probably less often) get a way worse card** than they normally would have. Therefore, the proposed system would shift the game toward a more luck-determined outcome and away from a more skill-determined outcome.


*e.g., automated player takes a free Gardens for 5 points rather than a free Palace for 8 points.
**e.g., automated player takes a science card that doesn't help its score, but the next player would have wanted that science card.


I get that "automatically throw the first card in hand each turn," is just an example. Not sure how complex it would be to program an alternative simple rule (would only work for round 3) like: "automated player takes the card that will add the most points to its score." That would still add some luck to the game's outcome, but probably substantially less.

[Lukov]

It's a good goal and adds to the fun to always be able to finish the game.

However, for players who prioritize competitiveness and want to maximize the extent to which skill (vs. luck) determines the winner, this proposal would add substantial random variance into the game. The player following the hand playing the first card in each hand, will sometimes get a way better card* than they normally would have, and sometimes (probably less often) get a way worse card** than they normally would have. Therefore, the proposed system would shift the game toward a more luck-determined outcome and away from a more skill-determined outcome.


*e.g., automated player takes a free Gardens for 5 points rather than a free Palace for 8 points.
**e.g., automated player takes a science card that doesn't help its score, but the next player would have wanted that science card.


I get that "automatically throw the first card in hand each turn," is just an example. Not sure how complex it would be to program an alternative simple rule (would only work for round 3) like: "automated player takes the card that will add the most points to its score." That would still add some luck to the game's outcome, but probably substantially less.

While I completely agree with this comment I completely find the idea of 7 Wonders actually being competitive laughable. There is so much randomness and lack of balance in both wonder composition (as a solo wonder) and lineups (which wonder is paired next to who) along with the cards you get that any actual competitive play is a joke. Put players of the same skill together and cards will be a decisive factor 8/10 times.

[Ratincage27]

There is so much randomness and lack of balance in both wonder composition (as a solo wonder) and lineups (which wonder is paired next to who) along with the cards you get that any actual competitive play is a joke. Put players of the same skill together and cards will be a decisive factor 8/10 times.

Certainly, the outcome isn't as strongly dependent on skill differences as games like, for example, chess. If a game needs to be similar to chess to meet the definition of "competative play" then I aggree with Lukov. But a game that allows for a player (Lukov) to beat 86% of opponents ("win percentage") over 4,260 games has outcomes that I perceive as considerably more skill-dependent than luck-dependent.

More specifically, if my thinking is correct, in a hypothetical game in which outcomes are maximally SKILL-dependent the best player would have a win percentage approching 100% over the long run (i.e., large sample size). in a hypothetical game in which outcomes are maximally LUCK-dependent the best player would have a win percentage approching 50% over the long run.

Here's where in not sure my logic is correct. . .

Doesn't it stand to reason that it can be determined a game's outcome are more skill-dependent than luck-dependent if the most skilled players can maintain a win% > 75% over the long run?

Drawing some evidence from a game that has quality differences in strategy but outcomes most strongly dependent on luck, currently the top 5 players in Can't Stop ELO (all-time) with over 1,000 games played have win percentages of:
- 64%, 63%, 60%, 53%, 54%
- Dzz, Uhtred_Stark, Marco8435, Lasalve, Pyty001

[swibat]

Not mentioning the fact that Lukov contradicts himself here, because he thinks Edifice is "too random" (it's less than base game).

[Andrei3009]

There is so much randomness and lack of balance in both wonder composition (as a solo wonder) and lineups (which wonder is paired next to who) along with the cards you get that any actual competitive play is a joke. Put players of the same skill together and cards will be a decisive factor 8/10 times.

Certainly, the outcome isn't as strongly dependent on skill differences as games like, for example, chess. If a game needs to be similar to chess to meet the definition of "competative play" then I aggree with Lukov. But a game that allows for a player (Lukov) to beat 86% of opponents ("win percentage") over 4,260 games has outcomes that I perceive as considerably more skill-dependent than luck-dependent.

More specifically, if my thinking is correct, in a hypothetical game in which outcomes are maximally SKILL-dependent the best player would have a win percentage approching 100% over the long run (i.e., large sample size). in a hypothetical game in which outcomes are maximally LUCK-dependent the best player would have a win percentage approching 50% over the long run.

Here's where in not sure my logic is correct. . .

Doesn't it stand to reason that it can be determined a game's outcome are more skill-dependent than luck-dependent if the most skilled players can maintain a win% > 75% over the long run?

Drawing some evidence from a game that has quality differences in strategy but outcomes most strongly dependent on luck, currently the top 5 players in Can't Stop ELO (all-time) with over 1,000 games played have win percentages of:
- 64%, 63%, 60%, 53%, 54%
- Dzz, Uhtred_Stark, Marco8435, Lasalve, Pyty001

I do not know about Lukow specifically, but a high percentage of wins does not always provide up-to-date information about the game or the player. In the 7 Wonders arena, you often get paired against inexperienced (~<200 elo) players and beat them, but this does not guarantee that you will have the same win rate against players with average experience (~300 elo).

A comparison with can't stop shows that 7 Wonders is more skilled than can't stop, but it doesn't mean that it's not random.

Which game is considered random is determined by each player himself. For me, games where the top10 has <=400Elo are extremely random; ~500 are very random, ~600Elo are random, 700+ Elo are little random

[Lukov]

Not mentioning the fact that Lukov contradicts himself here, because he thinks Edifice is "too random" (it's less than base game).

I do not contradict myself here. I listed several random factors that are outside of a player's control yet decide games. I did not mention Edifice because I actively avoid it, but I see it as yet another random factor that just adds to this.

------------------

As for the question at hand - if you put some indiscriminate AI that works in a particular manner it breaks the game the same way a tilted or a bad player will. A part of the game is hate drafting or playing less than best cards so the opponent doesn't get them. This leads to even more randomness that is against what I personally prefer. I find passing a Caravancery in 2nd age to often be game breaking for example.

[Lukov]

There is so much randomness and lack of balance in both wonder composition (as a solo wonder) and lineups (which wonder is paired next to who) along with the cards you get that any actual competitive play is a joke. Put players of the same skill together and cards will be a decisive factor 8/10 times.

Certainly, the outcome isn't as strongly dependent on skill differences as games like, for example, chess. If a game needs to be similar to chess to meet the definition of "competative play" then I aggree with Lukov. But a game that allows for a player (Lukov) to beat 86% of opponents ("win percentage") over 4,260 games has outcomes that I perceive as considerably more skill-dependent than luck-dependent.

More specifically, if my thinking is correct, in a hypothetical game in which outcomes are maximally SKILL-dependent the best player would have a win percentage approching 100% over the long run (i.e., large sample size). in a hypothetical game in which outcomes are maximally LUCK-dependent the best player would have a win percentage approching 50% over the long run.

Here's where in not sure my logic is correct. . .

Doesn't it stand to reason that it can be determined a game's outcome are more skill-dependent than luck-dependent if the most skilled players can maintain a win% > 75% over the long run?

Drawing some evidence from a game that has quality differences in strategy but outcomes most strongly dependent on luck, currently the top 5 players in Can't Stop ELO (all-time) with over 1,000 games played have win percentages of:
- 64%, 63%, 60%, 53%, 54%
- Dzz, Uhtred_Stark, Marco8435, Lasalve, Pyty001

Have in mind that this is a smurf account. In reality I have well over 20k games played. Considering that I join random games I am rarely matched with players of equal skill. There is a skill element in the game, but like I said in my previous comment - assuming the same highest skill level where everyone knows how to utilize their wonder and position to the best of their abilities it all boils down to rng factors.

[swibat]

Certainly, the outcome isn't as strongly dependent on skill differences as games like, for example, chess. If a game needs to be similar to chess to meet the definition of "competative play" then I aggree with Lukov. But a game that allows for a player (Lukov) to beat 86% of opponents ("win percentage") over 4,260 games has outcomes that I perceive as considerably more skill-dependent than luck-dependent.

More specifically, if my thinking is correct, in a hypothetical game in which outcomes are maximally SKILL-dependent the best player would have a win percentage approching 100% over the long run (i.e., large sample size). in a hypothetical game in which outcomes are maximally LUCK-dependent the best player would have a win percentage approching 50% over the long run.

Here's where in not sure my logic is correct. . .

Doesn't it stand to reason that it can be determined a game's outcome are more skill-dependent than luck-dependent if the most skilled players can maintain a win% > 75% over the long run?

Drawing some evidence from a game that has quality differences in strategy but outcomes most strongly dependent on luck, currently the top 5 players in Can't Stop ELO (all-time) with over 1,000 games played have win percentages of:
- 64%, 63%, 60%, 53%, 54%
- Dzz, Uhtred_Stark, Marco8435, Lasalve, Pyty001

Have in mind that this is a smurf account. In reality I have well over 20k games played. Considering that I join random games I am rarely matched with players of equal skill. There is a skill element in the game, but like I said in my previous comment - assuming the same highest skill level where everyone knows how to utilize their wonder and position to the best of their abilities it all boils down to rng factors.

That is obvious, but it changes nothing to what Ratincage is saying about skill. Even in pure "randomness-free games", there are still elements of luck in the match-up, game's schedule, tiredness, anti play and kingmaking (terra mystica has a luck factor for that reason).

7 wonders is extremely quick. Skill absolutely decides who wins any well organised tournament with a lot of games in various situations, especially at 3 and 4 players (AND especially with Edifice at 3 players which is extremely strategical (sorry I know I'm out of topic but I'm kind of annoyed by the way you view this wonderful expansion given how strong you are)). Skill also decides the range of your, however unstable, elo score. So what you're saying about competitive play makes almost no sense IMO. You don't get 600+ elo players in games with a "laughable" competitive environment. Otherwise, the very idea of playing any game with both luck and skill involved on BGA would be absurd outside of unrated friendly games.

[Mars4ever]

This is a very bad idea because it would influence the game a lot, giving the neighbours of the out player an advantage about red cards, or a huge advantage to the mausoleum, et al.