Luck vs Skill

The creator of Magic, Dr. Richard Garfield talks about Luck vs Skill:

https://youtu.be/dSg408i-eKw

I would put Blood bowl in the category: High skill-High luck.

Most interesting Garfield talks about how a development vs less luck in some games when the game matures.... (pile on was removed in one of the rules set...)

I wrote this on another forum:

"The majority seems to play board games to get a nice experience together with others. Winning is not the most important for the majority. Random events creates more variation and unique moments. They bring a feeling of realism to wargames and reduces the loss aversion. Personally I love games and matches where I can challenge my intellect and achieve goals, and the ultimate goal is usually to win. Too many games released got too many random elements and the randomness often decides who win. As pointed out... specially when two players are evenly skilled, the random decides... and this ruins the most rewarding feeling for guys like me = the challenge is tainted. Even if you get lucky and wins... it just don’t feel right. You achieved being the most lucky player**??**"

last edited by Hotdogchef

yawn

Then go and play a game you do enjoy and stop whining about a game you obviously don't.

Or maybe learn to play better, as if it was as luck dependent as you claim, we wouldn't see the same old names at the top.

Yes I think the evidence that skill is higher than luck in BB is pretty clear. But BB still falls in the high luck-high skill category. Dr Garfield also tells us that this is his favorite type of games.

It’s a crazy rush to play many matches just after the champion ladder is reset. Jimmy Fantastic comments just two days after the reset that starting «this» late makes it very hard to qualify. And the reason to this rush is of course the double benefit of having the highest TV.

Also the complete random chance you will meet coaches with equal skill or not = the chance of loss or draw will increase = the chance to qualify goes down.

You should at least expect the MM system secured that the TV difference were low in Championship qualifiers...

So yes Darkson, if the worlds best BB player played 30-40+ games with his favorite race, if he started late after the reset, it would be pure luck if he qualifed with this team. That is what I claim dude.

last edited by Hotdogchef

@hotdogchef said in Luck vs Skill:

Most interesting Garfield talks about how a development vs less luck in some games when the game matures.... (pile on was removed in one of the rules set...)

How do you manage to do the worst possible example in attempt to back up your words, again, while still claiming you're kind of expert in game mechanics? PO actually is as "skill-related" skill as they come. It's basically a clear defined trade off of "you place your player prone and susceptible to foul but get an increased ability to remove defending player". It's a decision making, not luck. The act of nerfing it was exactly because of the fact that skilled coaches were using it to pitch clear with great effectiveness, what (at least by opinion of some coaches) was ending interesting play too soon (as one of teams got outnumbered and unable to put a decent resistance, unless they are elves), shifting accent from ball play to carnage too much, plus to some extet increasing long-term attrition (though the latter was not the main concern). And it had almost nothing to do with "too much RNG/luck" you're complaining about.

Even if you get lucky and wins... it just don’t feel right. You achieved being the most lucky player**??**"

Nope, your achievement is that you, in the first place, was equal to that player and made it to finals to get a chance of playing against him. Then you as well didn't do any mistakes during your match (neither did he) - as whatever best player you are, you are still a human being, humans do mistake. And only then dices decided in some way who of 2 generally equal players wins. Even if you lose, or draw, due to bad luck, you still can see it as an achievement that you weren't swayed away by your bad luck too much, thus didn't lose your head and still prevented unnecessary injuries and worse count from happening. If we are talking about personal feel of achievement, that's a good solace. You compete not only with your opponent, buy with entropy of the universe itself at the same time, and you can always try to gain a small victory over the latter.

And that's not even touching an assumption that there can exist 2 absolutely equal coaches, which in a match implement 2 absolutely equally optimal and well-thought strategies. How exactly do you measure this and decide that you won because of dices? Most of the time there will be clear indications that your opponent exploited your weakness or mistake. But sometimes (though much less often than you try to imply) it will be the case, indeed. Welp, can't be helped, that's what makes BB thrilling. Again, I wish you luck in establishing a better, more skill-based BB community and making this way of play the number one tournament format. Who knows, may be all those people have been staying blind for 20 years, not being aware how great BB can be with less luck involved. May be you'll start a revolution in the way how it' played. But unless majority of players support you, I still fail to see what you advocate for? For Cyanide changing the core mechanics just because you wish so, disregarding all those other people? This just won't happen, no matter how much topics you'll create. You'll much sooner will be able convince the tabletop's designers than Cyanide.

It’s a crazy rush to play many matches just after the champion ladder is reset. Jimmy Fantastic comments just two days after the reset that starting «this» late makes it very hard to qualify. And the reason to this rush is of course the double benefit of having the highest TV.

The only change it asks for is that to new teams meeting already developed opponents perhaps a more favorable inducement conditions should be applied in their first matches, to provide them a smoother start. TVPlus-based MM and TV diff limits already do this, to some extent. May be amount of inducements they get for free could be bumped a bit. But that's about all, and shouldn't last for more than 5-7 matches, otherwise it will start to decrease importance of wise team management and selection of most appropriate tactic for each match.

last edited by Mori-Mori

Although I generally agree that theres no point in complaining about the luck aspect of the game because that basically is what the game is based around, there is a lot in @Mori-Mori 's post that is just wrong.

Pile On is absolutely a very luck-centric ability. The 'skill' involved is limited to a usually fairly simple calculation of risk (how much do you lose by putting your guy prone in this scenario) vs reward (how likely you are to remove the opponent and how important it would be to remove him). Sometimes that calculation is a little more nuanced and complex than others, but overall there really isnt a lot of skill involved.

On the other hand, the luck aspect of it is basically just how well your armour roll turns out, and armour rolls are probably one of the most frustrating areas of the game in terms of getting screwed by luck. I say this as someone who loves BB in all its frustration and randomness, but seriously, if someone is just getting lucky with their armour rolls, and even their blocking dice rolls that allow them to get to the armour roll stage, that is probably the most common thing that leads to those hopeless "nothing you can do about it" kind of games. So just spamming PO and hoping you roll good with armour involves a pretty simple skill calculation and then its just all luck in terms of how well it works out for you.

Think about a game where each team has one clawpomb killer, and they are both playing smart and keeping their killer safe where possible, but eventaully one of them is left open, and the other killer hits him, and gets the pow and piles on, and fails to break armour. Now on the next turn, that opponent gets up and clawpombs some other important piece and injures him, and then fouls and injures the other killer piece too. This kind of scenario is all too common, and more often than not, the game is basically decided right then and there in the span of those two turns. Both coaches played it right, and one just got lucky in the right moment.

Its also totally incorrect to state that the TV mismatches on champ ladder only matter for the first 5-7 matches. Actually in my experience they get worse when my team gets to mid-TV level, because at low TV, theres a lot of other low TV teams to get matched against. There are fewer teams as you get to mid and high TV, so more likely you end up with a TV mismatch. Also, depending on the race your playing, it can often be much worse to be playing as a 1250 TV vs 1600, rather than a 1000 TV playing a 1350. If it was chaos vs chaos for example (and lets be honest, it often is in champ ladder), the first example probably means you have a few guys with block, and are facing clawmb and maybe even clawpomb. The second example means you are a fresh team facing a few block, maybe a MB or two. Much better off in that scenario IMO.

Im not in favour of trying to remove all luck from BB (which wouldnt even be BB anymore, and im not sure if thats what @Hotdogchef is advocating for or not), but I also think its dumb to just ignore the very real problems that this game has, because if its gonna grow in popularity, or even sustain the popularity it has now, some of those problems can and should be addressed.

@stringer-bell said in Luck vs Skill:

Pile On is absolutely a very luck-centric ability. The 'skill' involved is limited to a usually fairly simple calculation of risk (how much do you lose by putting your guy prone in this scenario) vs reward (how likely you are to remove the opponent and how important it would be to remove him). Sometimes that calculation is a little more nuanced and complex than others, but overall there really isnt a lot of skill involved.

You either have very strange idea of what luck is, or missed the whole context of all the ongoing debates with @Hotdogchef (which goes far beyond this one topic). His problem is that he refuses to accept the fact there are too much randomness in BB, i.e. events which are not affected by skill at all, or affected very little by it. Of course PO has some dice rolling part to it, so it's affected by luck to a certain extent. But it's clearly not some totally random element which result is independent of your decisions. By spamming it all over your players and using it on regular basis each turn, you significantly increase chances of removing defending player during your block. It's a decision-based skill which guarantees you certain outcome (greater chance of maiming opponent's players), not something that just happens no matter you do.

That's the main problem with so called "Killstack" (which PO is part of) - surprisingly, it creates a lot of casualties. By nerfing of PO an attempt was made to nerf the "Killstack", to reduce rate of player removal/casualties during the match, not to reduce randomness like @Hotdogchef did assume. I don't think there were too much complaints about PO being "too random" or making a game too random. But there were 100+ pages topics about Killstack ruining the fun in the game due to the fact it significantly facilitates players' removal from the pitch, and long-term attrition.

@stringer-bell said in Luck vs Skill:

Its also totally incorrect to state that the TV mismatches on champ ladder only matter for the first 5-7 matches.

There was not such assumption. TV diff matters at any point in the season, of course. I was talking about helping those coaches who are joining CCL too late in the season and still would like to have a chance to qualify, as opinion was shared that it becomes very hard to qualify in such case due to the fact there is a certain rush in the very first days of each season when everybody try to develop their team asap. So those who managed to join in time should be fine (at least they have all they need to be), but those who join too late are being punished just for being late with the need to play against mostly developed teams (at least it was claimed by some coaches, I guess @dode74 doesn't think it's a problem). Thus I thought they could use a helping hand in their first matches to "bootstrap" them into the ongoing season. "5-7 matches" was selected in totally arbitrary manner. The main idea it should be a brief support, to help them with initial development which may be quite hard for certain teams.

last edited by Mori-Mori
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

That's the main problem with so called "Killstack" (which PO is part of) - surprisingly, it creates a lot of casualties

This may come as shock, but that's the point of it 😉 - the numbers had been assessed before hand as acceptable.
Minor history lesson - sorry if this is teaching you to suck eggs: in LRB4 the killstack as we know it didn't really exist (but then neither did large online matchmaking leagues). There was off-pitch attrition across the board in the form of aging (not the Cyanide version), and it was almost universally disliked. In making LRB5 one of the goals was to remove aging but still maintain a form of attrition which was relatively even across the board. Overall on-pitch attrition was increased, with Claw being added as the leveller between high AV and low AV teams. Along come large online matchmaking leagues and the "stack" is seen as a problem because it "reduces fun". Many solutions are mooted but none can take any traction as GW have basically dumped the game and the only agencies seen as official in any way - the NAF, FUMBBL and Cyanide - don't want to deviate from the rules as written. GW take interest again and BB2016 comes to pass. The rules writers see that people have an issue with the stack and decide (imo poorly) to remove PO from the game. They do, however, add another form of attrition: the Seasons system. This forces a new off-pitch attrition mechanism similar to aging (but with more control from the coach - a good thing because the randomness of old aging was one of the complaints about it) which is even across the board. Overall attrition rates are maintained, not reduced.
So sure, nerf PO. But put in some other form of long term attrition instead.

I was talking about helping those coaches who are joining CCL too late in the season and still would like to have a chance to qualify, as opinion was shared that it becomes very hard to qualify in such case due to the fact there is a certain rush in the very first days of each season when everybody try to develop their team asap.
...
I guess @dode74 doesn't think it's a problem

It's not true that I think mismatches aren't an issue. I have said as much before when talking about ranking system changes. I see no issue with altering the ranking to reduce the advantage gained by those early starters. Something elo-like (which I will resume looking at soon enough).

@mori-mori said in Luck vs Skill:

@stringer-bell said in Luck vs Skill:

Pile On is absolutely a very luck-centric ability. The 'skill' involved is limited to a usually fairly simple calculation of risk (how much do you lose by putting your guy prone in this scenario) vs reward (how likely you are to remove the opponent and how important it would be to remove him). Sometimes that calculation is a little more nuanced and complex than others, but overall there really isnt a lot of skill involved.

You either have very strange idea of what luck is, or missed the whole context of all the ongoing debates with @Hotdogchef (which goes far beyond this one topic). His problem is that he refuses to accept the fact there are too much randomness in BB, i.e. events which are not affected by skill at all, or affected very little by it. Of course PO has some dice rolling part to it, so it's affected by luck to a certain extent. But it's clearly not some totally random element which result is independent of your decisions. By spamming it all over your players and using it on regular basis each turn, you significantly increase chances of removing defending player during your block. It's a decision-based skill which guarantees you certain outcome (greater chance of maiming opponent's players), not something that just happens no matter you do.

If you cant see the luck aspect of what you yourself just said, I dont know what to tell you. It comes down to chance, even by your own admission. Everything in BB basically is about increasing your chances of certain outcomes. Of course skill puts you in the best position with the best odds, but it always comes down to chance and the point I am making is that PO is more about chance and less about skill than most other strategies of play, like good ball control, screening, using guard effectively, etc.

And I agree that the main problem with the killstack thing is that its too powerful, not simply that its too random. That doesnt mean that it isnt basically a strategy of play that comes down to very little skill, and mostly just luck, in terms of who wins. See my example in the previous post to explain that.

As for your second point about the 5-7 games, its still misguided for the same reasons I posted before. I agree that early starters for champ ladder get an advantage, and Dode seems to agree as well. But I just dont think some artificial boost to late starters for their first 5-7 games, or whatever arbitrary number you want to pick, is a smart way to deal with it.

@stringer-bell said in Luck vs Skill:

Everything in BB basically is about increasing your chances of certain outcomes.

No, not everything. For example, arch-nemesis of @Hotdogchef - Kick off events - don't ask you whether you want or not to increase some chances, they just happen in totally random fashion (and it tortures him a lot 🙂 ) Again, you're missing the whole context of this long-lasting bickering with him. BB consists of randomness, but some thing are definitely more random than others. You can divide them in mainly 2 categories: "purely random outcomes" and "decision-based, yet random". There is also "decision based and not random", but those are few. When you apply a bribe, there is possible purely random outcome it won't work (and you can't do a thing about it), but this doesn't negate the fact that it still works almost all the time (5 out of 6 times). So if you decide to apply it, you're almost sure your player is safe. Same way PO can guarantee you that in most matches you'll see significant increase in number of opposing players being removed - but only if you'll decide to use it, you сan control the outcome in a way there is a clear difference, what makes it a skill-based play. You don't get your additional CASes just because. Most of the time it's the best you can hope for in BB.

What was done to PO didn't change any odds related to it, it just limited how often it can be used in a match. It didn't become less random, neither game in general did after its nerf. Just accent was somewhat shifted from bash play towards ball play.

@stringer-bell said in Luck vs Skill:

But I just dont think some artificial boost to late starters for their first 5-7 games, or whatever arbitrary number you want to pick, is a smart way to deal with it.

Deal with what? We are probably talking about different things here.

last edited by Mori-Mori

Deal with the problem of the early grinder advantage in champ ladder. That is what you said you're talking about here - people who join CCL late are at a disadvantage. I agree with that, but I think giving them some kind of artificial boost for some arbitrary number of games is a bad way to deal with it.

I did actually just start another thread about this exact issue though. You should pop in and discuss it there because we both agree there is a problem that should be addressed (but its not the topic of this thread).

As for the PO thing, yes we do seem to be talking about different things. And I have seen some of the @Hotdogchef saga play out already. My point is simply that, even though the semantic reasoning for changing the PO rules is different than just "reduce randomness", the randomness of PO and armour rolls in general really is a frustrating thing in the game at times, and so Im basically saying that finding a way to nerf the whole killstack thing a bit would go a long way to improving the game overall and probably making the hotdogchefs of the world like it more, since randomly getting pitch-cleared can happen whether you are playing well or not, and whether your opponent is playing well or not.

@dode74 said in Luck vs Skill:

It's not true that I think mismatches aren't an issue. I have said as much before when talking about ranking system changes. I see no issue with altering the ranking to reduce the advantage gained by those early starters. Something elo-like (which I will resume looking at soon enough).

Did Cyanide actually agree to implementing an elo-style system? I ask because to do so you need to track an additional stat for each team, and alter the post-game system to calculate changes to that stat... which doesn't sound like a big deal, but to date they've opted only for things that require less work than that. The ranking system is done in-place using existing stats, and TVPlus matchmaking is done in-place using existing stats and only during the matchmaking process... they're not storing TVPlus rating or even zSum values.

Might want to be sure they will before you spend too much time on that, above and beyond the fact that it's tough to find a system of that sort that works better for CCL seasons than win% prorated by games played.

Some random events would be fine if their impact was less severe.

Like Pitch Invasion, for example:

Some randomly selected players are stunned. Turns out one team gets 6 players stunned, while the other gets only 1 player stunned. Not knocked out. Stunned. Before game even begins. This is a huge advantage and not something one can really do much about.

Well, technically you could place your players deeper on your half of the pitch so by the second turn they are ready to help teammates who are still standing, but you can't avoid the event kicking you in the head until you level up your stadium.

@holy said in Luck vs Skill:

Some random events would be fine if their impact was less severe.

Pitch Invasion already is one of the 2 less common events (even Blitz! is more common), with chance to happen of 1/36. And to have 6 opposing players stunned (what is not that bad, no KOs, no Injuries), you need to roll 5 or 6 (assuming you get bonus +1 to the roll from FAME) 6 times, what is also quite rare occasion, on itself. So it's like everything else in BB: every once in a while you can see some rare severe outcome, like your best player tripping over during GFI, TRR failing, armor is broken, and death is rolled. Some people just tend to exaggerate significance of such rare events.

last edited by Mori-Mori

@mori-mori said:

So it's like everything else in BB: every once in a while you can see some rare severe outcome, like your best player tripping over during GFI, TRR failing, armor is broken, and death is rolled. Some people just tend to exaggerate significance of such rare events.

Except it is very significant, even if rare, event. And one that - unlike Go For It - is outside of coach's limited area of influence. When you Go For It you have only yourself to blame, because you have to accept you took a chance. With Pitch Invasion you can only pray to Nuffle to spare your team. There is no other event of such magnitude in Blood Bowl 2. Even an event such as Throw a Rock affects only one player.

last edited by Holy

@holy said in Luck vs Skill:

Except it is very significant, even if rare, event. And one that - unlike Go For It - is outside of coach's limited area of influence. When you Go For It you have only yourself to blame, because you have to accept you took a chance. With Pitch Invasion you can only pray to Nuffle to spare your team. There is no other event of such magnitude in Blood Bowl 2. Even an event such as Throw a Rock affects only one player.

Significance of something is heavily context-dependent matter. Can you say without knowing a context what has more significant impact: having your best player dead, or 6 players stunned at the start of a drive, thus increasing a chance (as against a lot of opponents it's not even certain, slow teams can't capitalize on it anyway, for one) of giving away 1 TD to your opponent? In most cases, I would prefer the latter over the former, but what if it's CCL's season's finals? As you see, it depends, especially in perpetual environments (not like in current CCL). In such environment even losing season's finals may not be as bad as losing your best player - you still have next season ahead of you, it's not the end of everything.

That said, optionality of some action is as well a context-dependent thing. If your ball-carrier stops one square from endzone and must GFI to score, and he stays in range of opposing team's blitzers, with no options to screen him left - do you really have much choice? Of if you need to make just one more step to get out of reach of all opposing blitzers, but that still means you need to GFI, and you have still TRR available - won't your choice be pretty obvious? Risking one GFI backed up by TRR is much better odds than risking a 2 dice Block and getting covered in tackle zones, so the choice is obvious. Yet, you still must place your fate in hands of Nuffle, as rolling 1,1 is not that uncommon at all, neither rolling death on failed GFI. This way or another, you are forced to do some risky moves to prevent even more riskier outcomes. You can try to convince yourself you're the one who chooses your fate, but it seems more like an attempt to find some solace in convenient explanation, that something all people do, as we like to live in illusion that everything is under our control. The truth is that the game is designed in such way it puts you in situations where you simply don't have enough assets at hand to realistically prevent any possible threat, and thus at best can only choose the lesser evil. But the lesser evil still is evil nonetheless, just a situation which is less dangerous to you, or a roll that is less probable to fail you - yet it's still quite dangerous. And you are not in control of this possible failure at all.

last edited by Mori-Mori

This way or another, you are forced to do some risky moves to prevent even more riskier outcomes.

True, but I am making my moves, basing on my initial options, even if at some point I get myself into a position in which I force myself into making a less risky play over taking chance that involves entering a more risky scenario. That's the essence of risk management.

You can't manage events all that much. Some of them can be dealt with by positioning, but others just happen. You - as a coach - could make a substantial financial investment to upgrade and enchance your stadium, but you have to play there in order to get the benefit of that.

That's why I see events in a bit different light than the usual in-game decision making process. I still like the game and its "everything can happen" flair (otherwise I wouldn't watch it or play it, or even be here), but I also agree that there are parts of the game which are largely out of the coaches' hands.

And that's contrary to the spirit of habeo ergo sum.

@holy said in Luck vs Skill:

True, but I am making my moves, basing on my initial options, even if at some point I get myself into a position in which I force myself into making a less risky play over taking chance that involves entering a more risky scenario. That's the essence of risk management.

Regardless of whether you choose that option or another one, in the described situations there is always a certain minimal "risk level" you cannot get rid of, whatever you do. It's the same with kick off events, there is always a chance they will spoil your game, I really can't see much difference here. Just perceive them as an environmental factor you cannot prevent (as in case of GFI you are forced to make to prevent even more riskier situation, and which failure you can't prevent completely), but can mitigate to a certain extent, and you are good to go.

last edited by Mori-Mori

@mori-mori said:

Regardless of whether you choose that option or another one, in the described situations there is always a certain minimal "risk level" you cannot get rid of, whatever you do.

That's why it's "risk management", not "risk removal".

In X-COM there are certain "guaranteed" actions (such as explosives) which can be used before, instead or after attempting any chance-related action, depending on what you want to do.

In Blood Bowl 2 any action can fail by rolling a skull or 1. Or any action can succeed, even if it looks crazy and nobody usually attempts such plays until they get desperate enough to try them. But you still can influence the outcomes both ways.

It's the same with kick off events, there is always a chance they will spoil your game, I really can't see much difference here.

It's not the same because the risk is not applied in the same way. Actions have risk applied to them after making a call, but you know the chances and can manage them to a degree. Events are completely unpredictable - they are entirely luck-based - and largely uncontrollable.

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

@holy said in Luck vs Skill:

In Blood Bowl 2 any action can fail by rolling a skull or 1. Or any action can succeed, even if it looks crazy and nobody usually attempts such plays until they get desperate enough to try them. But you still can influence the outcomes both ways.

Moving can be riskless.

It's not the same because the risk is not applied in the same way. Actions have risk applied to them after making a call, but you know the chances and can manage them to a degree. Events are completely unpredictable - they are entirely luck-based - and largely uncontrollable.

You set up before the kickoff roll, and can therefore set up with the possibilities in mind. Setting up to counter a Blitz result, or setting up the defence 2 squares back in case of Quick Snap, or not putting too many on the LOS in case of Perfect Defence are typical examples; buying Cheerleaders and Assistant Coaches are purely based on the kickoff table results. Some of the results cannot be mitigated, but certainly not all of them.

@holy said in Luck vs Skill:

It's not the same because the risk is not applied in the same way. Actions have risk applied to them after making a call

No, game won't allow you such privilege. Pitch is of limited sizes, and even if you'll keep turtling up in your own corner, eventually your opponent will get in range, and starting that moment there won't be any way to remove a threat of your plans going wrong due to some (un)lucky roll completely. Whatever you do, a few roll of dices may throw all your precautions out of a window. You seem to be ok with that, but when it comes to Kick off events, which work effectively the same, you suddenly have difficulties to cope with them. I just don't get it. Basically, it's the same for both situations: there is certain chance some unfavorable outcome will spoil all your plans, and you can't prevent it. Does the fact you can make a chance somewhat lesser provide you a convenient illusion of being in control of it? After all, all that matters is the final chance of failure.

@holy said in Luck vs Skill:

but you know the chances and can manage them to a degree

As @dode74 has pointed out, it's possible to manage threats of some Kick Off events. He also forgot to mention some stadium upgrades help with it as well. But then again, "manage" doesn't mean "to prevent". You can't prevent all harms from (un)lucky rolls on pitch, you can't prevent all harms from "bad" Kick off events. Then why first is ok, and 2nd is not?

last edited by Mori-Mori

@dode74 said):

Moving can be riskless.

I meant any action other than moving within maximum allowed movement.

You set up before the kickoff roll, and can therefore set up with the possibilities in mind. Setting up to counter a Blitz result, or setting up the defence 2 squares back in case of Quick Snap, or not putting too many on the LOS in case of Perfect Defence are typical examples; buying Cheerleaders and Assistant Coaches are purely based on the kickoff table results. Some of the results cannot be mitigated, but certainly not all of them.

I know. I said that:

Well, technically you could place your players deeper on your half of the pitch so by the second turn they are ready to help teammates who are still standing, but you can't avoid the event kicking you in the head until you level up your stadium.

I also said I am fine with almost all of them, save for the Pitch Invasion because each time I saw it happening one team had ~80% of their lineup stunned on the pitch, while the other was almost untouched. But today I saw the outcome in which only one person was stunned so I guess it isn't necessarily devastating event as I previously thought it to be.

@mori-mori said:

No, game won't allow you such privilege. [...] Whatever you do, a few roll of dices may throw all your precautions out of a window.

That's where you are wrong. If there is one thing you are allowed to do it is making a choice. Sure, it's entirely possible that anything that can go wrong will go wrong but such is the nature of turn-based risk-management games. It's also a part of their charm.

You can't prevent all harms from (un)lucky rolls on pitch, you can't prevent all harms from "bad" Kick off events. Then why first is ok, and 2nd is not?

Because they aren't the same thing. I don't know how to say it in much simpler way than I already had.

@holy said in Luck vs Skill:

That's where you are wrong. If there is one thing you are allowed to do it is making a choice.

That choice will not prevent the risk in most situations that really take place on the pitch.

@holy said in Luck vs Skill:

Because they aren't the same thing. I don't know how to say it in much simpler way than I already had.

That depends on what do you mean by "the same". Because their nature is the same. In both cases there is certain probability of random factor which meddles with your plans. Though in the 1st case you may lower it's probability, you can't remove it, it's still there. So, in the end, in both cases there is certain probability your plan will goo "poof", and you can do nothing about it. Then how it's not the same? Some Kick off events may not have any gameplay (decision-making which leads to them, or mitigates them) bound to them, like Pitch Invasion, but it still doesn't change the fact it's the same kind of random factor as any other in the game you can't mitigate past certain threshold.

They may have different impact, but that's also a subjective matter which depends on context.

last edited by Mori-Mori

@mori-mori said in Luck vs Skill:

Some Kick off events may not have any gameplay (decision-making which leads to them, or mitigates them) bound to them, like Pitch Invasion

Fan-factor can mitigate results of Pitch Invasion, as your team's FAME is added to the dice rolls to determine who is stunned. Of course, you can manipulate your fan-factor only to a certain extent in the upwards direction willingly.

@mori-mori said:

That choice will not prevent the risk in most situations that really take place on the pitch.

I know. It isn't about preventing the risk. It's about managing it. That's why having a choice is so important: with it you can start influencing the odds in your favor.

That depends on what do you mean by "the same". Because their nature is the same. In both cases there is certain probability of random factor which meddles with your plans. [...] Then how it's not the same?

Because when you make a call on the pitch it's up to you what you do and you know what potential outcomes may be. That's why it's on you, while events are more akin to "acts of nature" (or "Act of God") - no person can be held responsible for that.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.