|
Disclaimer: These numbers are not supposed to have any real significance
Suppose you are playing an RTS on some ladder. Assume everyone has equal skill levels, so we are simply speaking about build order advantages. Your standard, "safe" build order against a different race gives you an 80% chance of having a 60% chance to win a game. During the other 20% of your games you lose 90% of the time because you are facing a particular cheese.
Your overall chance of winning is 50%. Do you think it likely that you notice and appreciate your 60% natural advantage, or will you assume that you win 60% of the time in long games because of your skill. Do you think it more likely that you feel angry and frustrated because you lose 20% of the time to things outside of your control?
EDIT: Uh I am not saying that skill isn't a factor amongst players. Certainly while laddering you will come across players that are either worse or better than you. However, if you play a random user of equal skill level using a certain build then the above percentages hold. You're mass-laddering using only this one build, facing a bell-curve of skill levels centered around your skill level. The game is balanced, but how do you feel while playing?
|
this goes beyond my logic. sorry. But if i win never think it is my skill..
+ Show Spoiler +until i see the replay xD
|
|
|
uhh this is kind of weird, but if everyone has the same skill level and build orders are the only thing you can win by, then the game is pure luck and you shouldn't feel frustrated at all because your opponent just got lucky. i could be misinterpreting what you're saying though...
|
Your wording seems to imply that you are under the assumption that losing to cheese is beyond your control. It isn't, or no one would do anything but cheese.
If said player loses 90% of the time when cheesed, it is a serious deficiency in his gameplay and he would need to work on his scouting and micro.
|
On July 17 2009 06:23 Muirhead wrote:
Disclaimer: These numbers are not supposed to have any real significance
Suppose you are playing an RTS on some ladder. Assume everyone has equal skill levels, so we are simply speaking about build order advantages. Your standard, "safe" build order against a different race gives you an 80% chance of having a 60% chance to win a game. During the other 20% of your games you lose 90% of the time because you are facing a particular cheese.
Your overall chance of winning is 50%. Do you think it likely that you notice and appreciate your 60% natural advantage, or will you assume that you win 60% of the time in long games because of your skill. Do you think it more likely that you feel angry and frustrated because you lose 20% of the time to things outside of your control?
Have you been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
obviously not as far even as decided to use even go, then i would want to do look more like if i had been far even as decided enough to be frustrated for. :/
|
You posted this in Protoss is easy thread... I don't really understand why you think it's so clever it deserves more attention.
If there were such a game where skill level was not a factor, I would not want to play it. Dice games are boring.
Although I guess in your hypothetical example, the player is not aware that everyone is even skill. In this case I think I'm mature enough as a human being to know when I'm playing greedy and getting an unfair advantage against an opponent who plays safe, and when I'm being punished for being greedy. No one goes 14 CC and then whines when they get rushed. That's just the risk you took. If you're losing to rushes when you're playing 'safe' (as in your terms) I don't see how that can be defined as safe. I play safe when I'm confident I'm better than the other player and I really want to win. Because I know I will come out ahead in the long run with better play. If my opponent is the same skill, better, or unknown, I mix it up because I don't want to be predictable, and I'm hoping that I can throw my opponent off his game. I don't think builds predetermine a game unless they are at very extreme ends of the spectrum (4pool vs 14CC). It's only players who are bad at adapting to situations that aren't optimal.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is your hypothetical situation assumes the game is not fun. '20% of the time I overcome an extremely disadvantageous situation. Only 20% because otherwise I would be winning or losing more than half my games' If I can't feel like I'm better or worse than other players... that we're basically just saying 'heads or tails' to each other every game, what's the point in playing? No one flips coins because it's fun, they just do it because it seems fair. I don't think anyone is delusional enough to think they're winning coin flips because of skill, either.
|
Sex panther.
60% of the time it works every time.
|
Yeah Chef... I guess I mean that some builds give such slight advantages that players don't really realize they have gotten an advantage. 14CC is obviously greedy, but imagine something like 1 gate robo that might be considered standard yet gives a very slight advantage vs FD expand. Then perhaps when the 1 gate robo player finds himself losing to 2 factory he gets frustrated.
Eh... maybe I should just stick to math  . It's quite clear when you say something mathematical whether or not it is interesting.
|
Sure. I don't know if your examples are exactly right, but I understand your meaning. I think that's a case of a player not realizing their build is inferior against whatever situation. Like new players who wonder why their unhidden/untimed M&M is losing so badly to Protoss most games. But I think players that know their build was bad against something are only frustrated they lost the metagame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
