ELO on luck based games

[dschingis27]

If there is no randomness, then there will only ever be one "best" way to win a game, and whoever goes first and follows the best "script" will always win. IMO that's just as boring as luck.

Have you heard of chess or Go?

[tbhp]

Here is an interesting one: Kulami (A zero luck game, no hidden information, pure abstract strategy along the lines of Go, chess, etc.): 324-509.

There are other elements that come into play. Even if a game has zero luck, if people generally don't have a good understanding of how to play the game, then you won't see ELO go very high. It's also possible that a zero luck game doesn't offer a very high variance in skill. Tic Tac Toe, for an extreme example, would have everyone at roughly the same ELO in a competitive setting, because among people who know how to play it, the winrate is always 50% (the person who plays first wins).

THIS is why removing luck might make a game feel more fair, but it doesn't make it more interesting. If there is no randomness, then there will only ever be one "best" way to win a game, and whoever goes first and follows the best "script" will always win. IMO that's just as boring as luck.

I think this is part of the success of Chess. It's a game with no random element but at the same time there is no easily decipherable path to victory (maybe a computer could figure out a way to always at least draw, but it's beyond us humans).

[Name_Taken]

Have you heard of chess or Go?

I think this is part of the success of Chess. It's a game with no random element but at the same time there is no easily decipherable path to victory (maybe a computer could figure out a way to always at least draw, but it's beyond us humans).

This is kinda my point. Someone who is better at Chess than I am will always beat me unless they blunder. I have no chance of winning besides to learn a better script and make those plays instead.

Someone who is better at Catan than I am will have a strong chance of beating me, but unpredictable things could still occur that make it less certain.

IMO the best games combine skill with SOME level of luck.

[tbhp]

I think this is part of the success of Chess. It's a game with no random element but at the same time there is no easily decipherable path to victory (maybe a computer could figure out a way to always at least draw, but it's beyond us humans).

This is kinda my point. Someone who is better at Chess than I am will always beat me unless they blunder. I have no chance of winning besides to learn a better script and make those plays instead.

Someone who is better at Catan than I am will have a strong chance of beating me, but unpredictable things could still occur that make it less certain.

IMO the best games combine skill with SOME level of luck.

I mean, it doesn't mean Chess is boring in the way you say, it just means it's not very interesting unless the players are of similar level. For people of similar level, the game will be uncertain and won't feel like following a script.

There are games that might become boring because once you've "figured them out" you are in more or less total control of them and you're never going to be surprised by what happens and by what your opponents may do. Chess is not one of them (as long as you play against people of similar level).

[Ceaseless]

Have you heard of chess or Go?

I think this is part of the success of Chess. It's a game with no random element but at the same time there is no easily decipherable path to victory (maybe a computer could figure out a way to always at least draw, but it's beyond us humans).

This is kinda my point. Someone who is better at Chess than I am will always beat me unless they blunder. I have no chance of winning besides to learn a better script and make those plays instead.

Someone who is better at Catan than I am will have a strong chance of beating me, but unpredictable things could still occur that make it less certain.

IMO the best games combine skill with SOME level of luck.

No, that wasn't anywhere close to their point. As they said, there is no easily decipherable path to victory, and that whole "one best way to win" is nonsense. The game is vast, with numerous paths you can play, which has kept these rots of games going for so long with new things constantly discovered and tried. You can't just follow some simple script. Get stuck on one path of the game and your opponent can try something else, there's an enormous toolbox available. Even solved variants of games like the standard version of Connect 4 end up maintaining greater depths than the likes of Catan, let alone what happens when the board is expanded.

[Name_Taken]

Have you heard of chess or Go?

I think this is part of the success of Chess. It's a game with no random element but at the same time there is no easily decipherable path to victory (maybe a computer could figure out a way to always at least draw, but it's beyond us humans).

This is kinda my point. Someone who is better at Chess than I am will always beat me unless they blunder. I have no chance of winning besides to learn a better script and make those plays instead.

Someone who is better at Catan than I am will have a strong chance of beating me, but unpredictable things could still occur that make it less certain.

IMO the best games combine skill with SOME level of luck.

No, that wasn't anywhere close to their point. As they said, there is no easily decipherable path to victory, and that whole "one best way to win" is nonsense. The game is vast, with numerous paths you can play, which has kept these rots of games going for so long with new things constantly discovered and tried. You can't just follow some simple script. Get stuck on one path of the game and your opponent can try something else, there's an enormous toolbox available. Even solved variants of games like the standard version of Connect 4 end up maintaining greater depths than the likes of Catan, let alone what happens when the board is expanded.

I think we are not on the same page but if you're honestly saying Connect 4 is deeper than Catan then I don't mind being on a different page lol

[Name_Taken]

Are you following me around the forums for every possible opportunity to call me stupid? You show up with something rude every time I post something no matter what or where it is...

[Ceaseless]

Are you following me around the forums for every possible opportunity to call me stupid? You show up with something rude every time I post something no matter what or where it is...

Following you around the forums, you say? Let's start with this thread, where you've made the accusation. Then consider that my posts here predate you making your account. If someone bothers to check your post history, are they going to find even more discrepancies in this idea? Such as places you've posted in that I haven't?

This is kinda my point. Someone who is better at Chess than I am will always beat me unless they blunder. I have no chance of winning besides to learn a better script and make those plays instead.

Someone who is better at Catan than I am will have a strong chance of beating me, but unpredictable things could still occur that make it less certain.

IMO the best games combine skill with SOME level of luck.

No, that wasn't anywhere close to their point. As they said, there is no easily decipherable path to victory, and that whole "one best way to win" is nonsense. The game is vast, with numerous paths you can play, which has kept these rots of games going for so long with new things constantly discovered and tried. You can't just follow some simple script. Get stuck on one path of the game and your opponent can try something else, there's an enormous toolbox available. Even solved variants of games like the standard version of Connect 4 end up maintaining greater depths than the likes of Catan, let alone what happens when the board is expanded.

I think we are not on the same page but if you're honestly saying Connect 4 is deeper than Catan then I don't mind being on a different page lol

Looks like someone's underestimated the depth these abstracts can reach, even very simple premises can go a lot further than you'd expect. There's a reason Catan's current leaderboard tops out in the 600s while Connect 4 can lob out plenty of 700s. A game like Connect 4 creates an easy premise for nearly anyone to play, but if you only look at games at a shallow level it's easy to underestimate the tricks it has when you dig into it.

[Name_Taken]

Are you following me around the forums for every possible opportunity to call me stupid? You show up with something rude every time I post something no matter what or where it is...

Following you around the forums, you say? Let's start with this thread, where you've made the accusation. Then consider that my posts here predate you making your account. If someone bothers to check your post history, are they going to find even more discrepancies in this idea? Such as places you've posted in that I haven't?

***
Edited: please remain courteous on BGA.

[FrankJones]

Wel, with such an intelligent retort, obviously you're right and taking the higher ground.