+1 Tomahaha, but I can win that argument over whatever other game we are tearing apart. If a game has any bit of chance anywhere, that must always mean that the winner must be luckier than the loser.

So on that note, I'll just be glad I'm lucky enough to have lucked into what this site considers a very charmed top group of 25 players, pretty much (and with a very propitious amount of luck) since the hall of fame came out. Maybe I should buy a lotto ticket too! (Now where did I place my lucky rabbit's foot? Did I tie it to my fleet or my army?)

While the 1v1 games have nothing to do with luck either, the GvI game is absolutely not balanced. Germany has the clear advantage.

Whatever Gvl is and 1vs1, these are not true Diplomacy, they are variants of the basic game. The statement that this boils down to luck is flawed. I asked what game does not boil down to nothing but luck? How about life itself, you want to make that claim as well?
It would seem to me that such a statement would be made by either someone who does not understand the game or someone who plays poorly and can not accept their deficiencies and want to blame their poor play on chance. Why is it we have people that play better than others? We have people here who win more often than others, we have that on every Dip site, we have it in real life FTF tournaments, if this were a game of luck, then rankings would be remarkably similar but that is not the case is it? "Luck" is random and nothing in Diplomacy is random aside from power assignment. You make your own luck by writing others, influencing others, etc. A bad player or a poor sport who can't accept reality, can't accept they are not as good as they think they are will call it "Luck", people nowadays can't accept responsibility, can't own up to anything negative about themselves and they blame others or blame "luck", anyone/anything but themselves.

If you have two equally skilled football teams playing each other, and neither knows the other's formation or tactics in advance of experience before choosing their own, how would you explain which side won?

Likewise, if we understand that skill takes time, energy, and attention to develop, and people have equal time, energy, and attention to develop with as well as many skills to develop (such as playing football versus Diplomacy), how would you explain which side became more skilled in a particular area?

I still agree that people deserve credit for their victories because they're consenting to assume the risk of success, but we shouldn't be arrogant in claiming skill where things are really luck.

Hey Argo - sounds like you need to start up a tournament to test your ideas.!

@ Argo, "If you have two equally skilled football teams playing each other"

This is the point!!! Teams are NOT Equally Skilled. That's why one team wins and the other loses. You are so blinded by your initial premise you can't even see this.

Is there a certain format for hosting tournaments here?

Round robin style would be ideal so everyone could check their skill against everyone else.

and in the football example, LUCK (aside from maybe Andrew Luck?) plays no part in things. You make calls based on formations, based on situation, based on probabilities, etc. It is not lucky that one team beat another. I just love this example, it's so far from the truth, it's absurd! And again, tell us what game does NOT boil down to luck. You simply can't find one based on your assertions anyways!

Tomahaha, I agree, but you need to understand that all players are making calls and formation and dealing with situations at the same time.

Gameplay is not sequential. Both people mutually play simultaneously.

and that means????
It is obvious you are trolling and I'm allowing you to go on, but I'm playing along anyways. You have still failed to name even ONE game that (according to your flawed logic) does NOT boil down to luck. C'mon, name just ONE game...you can't do it and we will have a field day picking it apart! again, based on your "logic"that is.

I already answered that question:

"I've been thinking about that one as well, and I'm not sure there is such a thing anymore. Yes, people can choose whether or not to commit themselves, but once multiple people commit equally, victory depends on luck.

I'm not denying that victors deserve credit because they've consented to assume the risk of getting lucky, but it needs to be understood that beyond commitment, skill is no longer a factor. Once you realize the point where multiple rational tactics can achieve victory, it becomes a matter of compatibility."

If anyone's trolling, it's you for expecting me to repeat myself.

The flaw in your logic is presuming that equal commitment mean equal skill. It does not.

You are being called a troll because you ignore rational arguments against your premise and continue with the same illogical premise that its all about luck.

Where does skill come from aside from commitment?

Commitment is a persons effort in using the skill they have. Skill is a persons ability, independent from effort.

A noob who does not know all the nuances in tactics can put a lot of effort into beating an accomplished player. But all the effort cannot make up for the lack of knowledge. If they both put equal effort, the accomplished player will come up with superior "choices" to "randomly" pick from.

Compare this to a soccer player who is 11 years old, and determined to be a world cup player someday. They put in a lot of effort, but their skill is not there. Whereas a world cup player, because of their skill, can barely use any effort, and still win.

Well I don't really look at knowledge and commitment differently. Knowledge is just commitment made in the past.

Likewise, what's independent of effort is luck as well. In football, that could mean being born with agility or stamina. In Diplomacy, that could mean being born with instincts that favor responding a certain way in response to how the board appears or just being born with a big or efficient brain that lets you see many moves ahead.

Don't compare football with diplomacy...those games are ENTIRELY and in every aspect different.

If you take your premise that all people put equal effort, having equal knowledge and equal genetically endowed ability/intellect - then I suppose you could say its luck.

However, your argument is flawed logically (see Hypothesis Contrary to Fact). I doubt you could find any two people in the world that are so equal - because men aren't born equal.

Seeing such inequality, than it fails to become about luck in any scenario. Sure, you can say that their genetically endowed talents have a certain "luck" factor that gives them ad edge, but the same cannot be said for commitment or prior knowledge (which is the same according to you anyhow).

"Once multiple people commit equally" - that's an impossible scenario. But I would concede it would be luck.

Still, your initial statement that Diplomacy is based on luck is still flawed. Because no such scenario can exist pragmatically.

Well, you might differentiate between effective/appearent luck and true randomness.
Diplomacy certainly involves no true randomness- dice, cards, etc. However, though each player's moves are chosen logically, the way those moves interact when there are several viable options is in effect luck for us non-omniscient beings.

"Preparation makes its own luck." Gen. Georgie Patton

the problem boils down to not understanding what Luck really means. And to further show this is nothing more than trolling, this person continues to troll away without answering my request to name ONE game, only one that does not boil down to luck (based on his definition of luck that is)
C'mon ONE game!

and your oh-so flawed examples would indicate EVERYTHING in life boiled down to luck. Why try when all that matters is luck?

Halt, I agree that no two people commit completely equally, but I made the point before that some people are born before others such that they have more time to commit, and different people choose to commit themselves to different activities. In a competitive simultaneous environment, it's impossible to know in advance of experience where the other guy is going to commit oneself between one activity and the other.

The matter of what people are born with is likewise lucky because it's not chosen by those who are born.

Caliburdeath, that's exactly what I meant. :-)

Tomahaha, you're projecting. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore over the value of no example existing. I'm not saying everything is boiled down to luck either, and I've even admitted to the skilled value of commitment.

no, you DID say all games boil down to luck. You did so by your examples coupled with your failure to provide even ONE such "luck free" game.
Troll away pal!

Argo, You also ignore my points that skill is not the same as commitment. Either you are trolling or you are so blinded by your flawed premise that you can't handle any argument that doesn't coincide with it.

"Preparation makes its own luck." Gen. Georgie Patton

“You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help.”
...Calvin

Ralph Waldo Emerson said...
“Shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect.”
this fits PERFECT