Winning %

[Meeplelowda]

How is it possible that in the game where luck is involved (3/5) there are so many players, specially in the Arena-mode who has winning procentage over 75% or even higher?

1) That luck factor is a subjective rating. It's not like there is an algorithm they use to calculate it.

2) The better way to assess how luck affects a game is to look at the highest ELOs in that game. In a game that is highly dominated by luck, the highest ELOs are in the 400s, with maybe one person in the 500s. Then there are games where the highest ELOs are in the 600s and 700s (like Wingspan). Even when the game involves randomness, these players aren't simply getting lucky. They are thinking about the game on a different level.

3) FrankJones's post above shows the level they are thinking at, and they aren't even one of the elite players on here (no offense).

[FrankJones]

3) FrankJones's post above shows the level they are thinking at, and they aren't even one of the elite players on here (no offense).

"they" meaning me?

No offense taken

But I am 300 Elo, in 20 games, and I expect to be 500-600 if I keep playing. I do not make mistakes in Wingspan.

[Meeplelowda]

3) FrankJones's post above shows the level they are thinking at, and they aren't even one of the elite players on here (no offense).

"they" meaning me?

No offense taken

But I am 300 Elo, in 20 games, and I expect to be 500-600 if I keep playing. I do not make mistakes in Wingspan.

My guess is that you've played ton of Wingspan outside of BGA, but I can only go by what I see.

But the point is that I see in the threads of so many games about how "lucky" the top players are, whereas they actually are 1) making better decisions because 2) they are considering things lower-ranked players haven't even thought of. I guess I'll add 3) they have frequently flat out memorized all the available information, like knowing which tiles remain in Carcassonne. A lower-ranked player hopes a certain piece will come out. A high-ranked player knows for a fact when there aren't any more and so doesn't waste a move on "hope."

[FrankJones]

My guess is that you've played ton of Wingspan outside of BGA, but I can only go by what I see.

But the point is that I see in the threads of so many games about how "lucky" the top players are, whereas they actually are 1) making better decisions because 2) they are considering things lower-ranked players haven't even thought of. I guess I'll add 3) they have frequently flat out memorized all the available information, like knowing which tiles remain in Carcassonne. A lower-ranked player hopes a certain piece will come out. A high-ranked player knows for a fact when there aren't any more and so doesn't waste a move on "hope."

Exactly.

I've probably played 500 to 600 games outside BGA, and yes, the skilled players will win all of the time, all other things being equal. Sometimes there is just a losing hand. That is true of any game with facedown cards and random card draws.

And you're right about the deck. I have the bae + EE memorized, and most of Oceania. Asia not as much.

I think my point was (and I apologize, because I have been jumping around the forums and playing turn abed games and I might have lost the thread here), in a game between two highly skilled players, there isn't always a lot of room to out-maneuver the other or use superior tactics. A better starting hand, all other things being equal, will win against a terrible hand if both players are of similar skill level.

[Jellby]

A better starting hand, all other things being equal, will win against a terrible hand if both players are of similar skill level.

Isn't that true for every game? If everything else is the same, luck is the decisive factor. Most often, though, everything else will not be the same.

Even in perfect information abstract games, if both players play perfectly, the winner will be decided by the "luck" of who played first or last.

[FrankJones]

A better starting hand, all other things being equal, will win against a terrible hand if both players are of similar skill level.

Isn't that true for every game? If everything else is the same, luck is the decisive factor. Most often, though, everything else will not be the same.

Even in perfect information abstract games, if both players play perfectly, the winner will be decided by the "luck" of who played first or last.

For the most part, yes. But with the Wingspan expansions, which do not exist here, I feel as though there are more opportunities for tactical maneuvering.

[Jontia]

I was wrong about his bonus card. Well, despite all this, you scored 98. That’s a winning score most of the time.

To see this at the end of an incredibly detailed review of the mistakes made probably highlights why the OP was having trouble to start with. They played decently, and got a good score and didn't manage to win. The power of getting a little bit more in a lot of areas is often underestimated.

Thanks for the review of the whole game turn by turn. I learnt a lot.

[FrankJones]

Looking at my games:

When I score 87+, I am 12-1. The one loss was by one point. I would need to review it to see whether I blundered somewhere. Any game lost by one point has the possibility of having been blundered somewhere.


When I score under 87, I am 2-6.

The losses:
1) 2 good starting birds, drew trash the rest of the game, only had one bird in the grassland and it was terrible. As such, I lose the final EOR goal by one egg, a 6-point swing, and I lost the game by 4. My opponent had an astonishing success rate on 3 predators in the grassland, close to 100%.

2) A bad starting hand, but I don't like the way I played it.

3) Two good starting birds, but I misclicked the starting food and couldn't play them without wasting a turn. I remember being baffle when I went to play my first bird and did not have the food.

4) Terrible hand; could not get a forest bird.

5) Bad starting hand

6) Terrible hand; this was the game I scored 88 but lost by a point.

7) Bad starting hand.

I saw a couple of plays I wasn't thrilled with. Overall, I have had some very low scoring games where it seemed as though neither player had the necessary food in the feeder, and no one was getting hummingbirds. Hummingbirds always result in high scoring games.

[Ceaseless]

Yeah, that would be nice. Thank you in advance.
Here's the links:
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=663557000

Well, despite all this, you scored 98. That’s a winning score most of the time.

I was wrong about his bonus card. Well, despite all this, you scored 98. That’s a winning score most of the time.

To see this at the end of an incredibly detailed review of the mistakes made probably highlights why the OP was having trouble to start with. They played decently, and got a good score and didn't manage to win. The power of getting a little bit more in a lot of areas is often underestimated.

Thanks for the review of the whole game turn by turn. I learnt a lot.

Before anyone reading gets the wrong idea about scoring in this game

Hummingbirds always result in high scoring games.

This is the cause. 98 isn't typically something to expect from a game with lots of mistakes. They got their score boosted by their opponent using effects that benefited both of them.

[Ceaseless]

How is it possible that in the game where luck is involved (3/5) there are so many players, specially in the Arena-mode who has winning procentage over 75% or even higher?

-gifusgray-

A winning rate of 75% in a 1 v 1 is expected against opponents with a rating gap of -400log(1/3) below you, assuming BGA uses the elo formula they claim they do, which is listed on Wikipedia. That's approximately 191 rating. Wingspan has the rating groupings for this to be possible. The less luck in a game with reasonable activity, the larger the rating gaps between the best players and everyone else, making it easier to end up paired with such gaps when using BGA's pairing system.