LUCK vs SKILL (a.k.a.: The Big Question)

[Christine]

This one will be controversial .... (hopefully!)

I am new here, but already I've heard a whole lot of complaining about the impact of bad luck on the result of a game. So I have been thinking about the role of luck and skill in Risk. As for me, I would prefer to play a game with more skill and less luck (Chess being my favorite example of an all skill, no luck game). There is a lot of luck in Risk, but I think there are ways to reduce the luck-to-skill ratio, for those interested in doing so. Here's what I've come up with -- I'd appreciate feedback from others who'd like to think about this.

SOURCES OF "LUCK" (i.e., factors that increase randomness):

# 1. The Dice
# 2. The Cards
# 3. The Initial Deployment (of armies)

Anyone want to argue these premises, I'd be glad to, but I do think most would agree with me and move on to the next part: how to reduce the impact of these factors.

#1. The Dice - well, we can't do away with the dice, so the only ways to reduce their impact are the following:
A. play enough that their randomness would hopefully even out
B. within any given game, play variations that include enough complexity that it minimizes the importance of any individual attack. I think the World 2.1 map suits that purpose best.

#2. The Cards. This one's easy. Play the "no cards" option to do away with this randomizing factor.

#3. The Initial Deployment. This is an interesting one. I think the key is to find the map that is the most complicated - probably that means the largest number of occupiable spots and the greatest different combiation of posible bonuses. That way, the randomizing impact of the initial deployment will likely be less significant. I think that means the World 2.1 option is the one bes suited to reduce this randomizing factor.

So, to sum up, I am suggesting that, to reduce the "luck-to-skill ratio" the option to play is the World 2.1 with no cards. I would also argue that "standard" rather than "team" and "sequential" rather than "freestyle" are options favoring one's skill.

(Oh, and, yes, I am now 5 wins out of 5 games of World 2.1, sequential, no cards, standard.... hmmmm

[comic boy]

Wouldnt argue with anything you say but you will hit a problem when you start to play the better exponents of no cards games. Every other match will end up being a trial of patience lasting months and running into hundreds of rounds

[Visaoni]

The thought of no cards 2.1 makes me cry. Just... god. As comic said, get the better players in there and that is a multi-month game.

[freezie]

Add a premium only tag to that

[insomniacdude]

Meh. There's plenty of skill in an escalating battle. I don't have the mindset or strategy for it, but good escalating players would disagree completely that the way you play cards is random. The cards you get my be random, but you have control of when you get cards and when you trade them in. This is true in Flat Rate games as well, to a much lesser extent.

[Ronaldinho]

# 3. The Initial Deployment (of armies)

damn and i thought you was on about the deployment of somthing else in risk

[TipTop]

no cards and flat rate just lead to build games. The game mechanic just doesn't work. There isn't enough incentive in these games to attack as your only weakening yourself and the player you attack and helping everyone else.

Escalating is the proper game of risk and is the only one that avoids long boring stalemates.

[bob72]

you forgot about

No 4 ajdacent unlimited, chained.

This too adds an element of risk especially when you play 2.1 the difference between adjacent and unlimited is vast.

Unlimited being the far riskier choice as it easily allows people to have bonuses before you have taken your first go.

[Incandenza]

Okay, two things.

1. yes, there's luck involved in the game, like most every other game on the planet. But luck can be mitigated by having good strategy and ensuring that a given attack can succeed with only mediocre dice. If you're in a position when you can will rolling only 1-and-1s, then you have a positive result 2/3rds of the time.

2. eliminating cards from the luck equation DOES NOT reduce the overall amount of luck involved. Instead, it inflates the importance of one's luck with the dice and drop, since you can't bail yourself out with cards. No cards games also add an entirely new luck factor: the physical circumstances and mental fortitude of your opponents. See, as pointed out above, no cards games against skilled opponents can go on for months and months. Thus, the only way they end sometimes is because someone deadbeats, or because someone says "f*ck it, I'm bored" and suicides, either against one player or equally against the remaining players.

Anyone who says 'no cards' is the purest form of the game is talking out of their ass, and anyone who says that escalating is all a matter of luck is probably quite bad at escalating.

In closing, I would rather light a bag full of baby unicorns on fire than ever again play in a 2.1 no cards games. Christine, I invite you to consider the following:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=175704#map

Doesn't that look like fuuuuuuuun?

[Scott-Land]

bag of baby unicorns- lmao Don't want to anger the animal activists eh, Incand

[Incandenza]

It sounded even more appalling than a bag of puppies...

[Christine]

Thanks all who replied, for all the quick and good feedback. Lots to think about here.

One major theme is the "Cards vs. No Cards" issue. I will still hold that the use of cards does increase luck. (One can get lucky cards or unlucky cards.) I do agree with what others have said: that it is definitely possible using cards adds a dimension that one could skillfully exploit. But of course one CAN also skillfully exploit lucky (or unlucky) dice rolls or initial drops as well. These matters CAN be managed more or less skillfully, of course - which DOES (potentially) add a skill dimension. But my point was that cards DO increase randomness (the essence of luck) and so, eliminating them decreases randomness, and hence reduces the role of luck in a game.

But this gain (for those who want more skill in that ratio) does seem to be mitigated by the point several made (very well!!): namely that in a no-cards game the danger is that it can go on forever. Certainly Incandenza's example of a game (started in January and now up to Round 229!!!) definitely makes the point very powerfully. Who wants that? But I am wondering if there might be a "third" option here. How about this idea for a rule change: introduce the possibility of a "draw" result after a pre-set number of rounds. Just for example, say after 60 rounds all survivors will share equallly in the pot. That would certainly add a very interesting element to the strategy of the players, and would also prevent the possibility of the game going on endlessly. what do y'all think of that idea?

The other provocation my initial thread had hoped to provoke was the choice of game variations. Since it didn't, should I assume that everyone agrees that the "World 2.1" variant offers the best skill-to-luck ratio? (For the 2 resaons I mentioned.)

[Herakilla]

i play almost all no cards and the only games that build up are against other Xi players lol (must be skill or something) and a lot of the time the players will go all out so that all numbers on the board are ones lol

[billy07]

jesus u do like the 2.1 map

[Mentos-]

I have found the luck factor to be the least in escalating, then no cards, and the most luck in flat rate.

The reason I say flat rate has the most luck, is that in most flat rate games, people go for a continent rather than being spread out like in escalating, increasing the importance of the initial drop. Also, flat rate relys on the dice almost as much as no cards do, because armies don't come in mass amounts like in escalating, where once you turn in a set, there is almost always something you can go for where your armies vs. the opponents armies are practically 2:1 ratio. In flat rate, you have the luck of the cards just like in escalating, except the type of card you get matters even more.

Ecalating is the least luck dependant because you can do well with almost any drop, the type of card itself doesn't matter too much unless you end up with 2 pair at 4 cards, and the dice aren't as big of an impact because you are rolling so much with so many armies that you can steamroll over things (most of the time) and the luck evens out.

No cards is somewhere in the middle...i dont feel like typing any more lol

[Risktaker17]

Today was my unluckiest day since my join on to the site, just bad roll after bad roll. so.. I made one of the games you like, you may join if you wish.

[Incandenza]

I have found the luck factor to be the least in escalating, then no cards, and the most luck in flat rate.

The reason I say flat rate has the most luck, is that in most flat rate games, people go for a continent rather than being spread out like in escalating, increasing the importance of the initial drop. Also, flat rate relys on the dice almost as much as no cards do, because armies don't come in mass amounts like in escalating, where once you turn in a set, there is almost always something you can go for where your armies vs. the opponents armies are practically 2:1 ratio. In flat rate, you have the luck of the cards just like in escalating, except the type of card you get matters even more.

Ecalating is the least luck dependant because you can do well with almost any drop, the type of card itself doesn't matter too much unless you end up with 2 pair at 4 cards, and the dice aren't as big of an impact because you are rolling so much with so many armies that you can steamroll over things (most of the time) and the luck evens out.

No cards is somewhere in the middle...i dont feel like typing any more lol

That's not bad... not bad at all. Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[insomniacdude]

no cards and flat rate just lead to build games. The game mechanic just doesn't work. There isn't enough incentive in these games to attack as your only weakening yourself and the player you attack and helping everyone else.

Escalating is the proper game of risk and is the only one that avoids long boring stalemates.

Thank you for shining the beacon of intelligence down upon us who don't know "the proper game of risk"

[backspin]

I wouldn't really go so far as to say that card based games add more luck than skill to a game. The whole game is a mixture of luck and skill. Its quite easy to keep track of how many cards an opponent has...and taking the card count into consideration...plan your moves accordingly. If you know your opponent has 5 cards, plan for a worst case scenario and assume they have a mixed set. If they have 3 cards, plan around the chance that they may cash in a set. Cards don't take away from a game, just change it. A good player will deploy, attack, and fortify in such a way that any extra armies accrued from cards, won't really affect much. I guess that doesn't apply to escalating games, but then again those are nothing more than a race to see who can unload the biggest bonus the quickest.

[Scott-Land]

If you pitted the top elite players in an escalating game, there obviously would have more luck involved to achieve victory. The lack of mistakes would in turn neutralize the skill factor ( it sounds contradictory but I'm not saying it reduces the skill level just not a big factor because of everyone's almost equally skilled) and the win determined in the round where a player has 2 pair. Skill is then replaced by probability.


In that isolated scenario- I would say that the luck is more predominate than skill.