Quote:
Originally Posted by Dysole
If we're using "decides" to mean "no one, not even a perfect Heroscape playing computer could win that game", then the number is probably not that far off from the quoted 1% (a number I'd quibble with only because I'm a math person).
If we're using "decides" to mean "has a larger factor on the game than skill did", I'd probably put that number higher (not too high, but probably somewhere in the 5-10% range).
|
In both of the above examples, we have to assume the decisions of the opponent are fixed. I've played many many games where I would have had a very small chance of winning against an opponent making what I'd consider the correct decisions, but I had a much higher chance of winning if my opponent made what I'd consider mistakes. If that higher chance is somewhere around 50%, and I win, then was that game decided by dice, or by my opponent's mistakes? The correct answer is both, right?
At the risk of getting political, this thread reminds me a little of arguments about why Trump won in 2016. So many people want to say that a given thing (often the hacked e-mails or whatever) was or was not "the reason". The correct answer is that the election was really close, so many many
different things were probably all, individually, necessary and decisive in making the difference. The same is true in a game of Heroscape. The dice decided every game where dice rolls were required, in some sense, but in any close game both the dice and the decisions were likely to have been decisive.
I will say that in my ridiculously long tally of competitive Heroscape games, I've only had 3 or 4 games where I thought I was a significant favorite going in,
and I felt I lost primarily because of the dice. If that's what OEA1 means by 1%, then I'd support the 1% figure he cites.