3,759 reputation
11447
bio website filterjoe.com
location California
age 49
visits member for 2 years, 6 months
seen 1 hour ago

I like a wide variety of games. My favorite is the card game of Bridge. In recent years I find myself far more often playing Settlers of Catan, and, lately, Ticket to Ride. I played a lot of Cosmic Encounter (EON Games version), Stratego, and Risk as a kid.


Jan
11
accepted How to use Chapel card to its fullest potential?
Jan
10
accepted How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
Jan
9
comment How to use Chapel card to its fullest potential?
As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that you buy a Chapel and no other action cards until you have 2 silvers? You sort of implied that but I wasn't sure.
Jan
9
asked How to use Chapel card to its fullest potential?
Jan
9
comment How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
Stone Age is a game where numerous people who have played less than 20 games comment about how much luck it has. Yet highly skilled Stone Age players never lose to people who have played fewer than 20 times. So if you have 1000 people rating the game, only 50 of whom have achieved a high level of skill, their voices will be drowned out by the other 950 low skill players that aren't good enough to realize that the role luck plays in this game is small once you reach a certain skill level. The dice rolls and random cards/tiles ordering sure gives it the appearance of luck, though.
Jan
9
comment How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
Though BGG does not have a ratings category for either luck (randomness) or skill, I've seen many text descriptions. I am led to believe from the text descriptions that gamers, being human, are a poor judge of randomness. Classic experiment: ask 10 people to distribute themselves randomly throughout a large room. They spread themselves evenly apart, no clustering. Predictable. And very non-random. To site specific game example:
Jan
8
revised How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
minor content update: sequential vs parallel computing architectures
Jan
8
comment How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
Let's say it takes 500,000 lines of code to program a perfect chess player, vs. 20 lines of code to to program a perfect tic tac toe player. Why is this difference a useless measure? It may not be a truly great measure, because it probably doesn't say much if a game takes 20 vs 30 lines of code. But for wide swings of skill - doesn't several orders of magnitude more code strongly suggest more skill required?
Jan
8
revised How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
changed content to incorporate comments about randomness, using reasoning to determine if a game has zero luck, and using lines of computer code to measure complexity
Jan
8
comment How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
You've convincingly demonstrated how one particular objective measure is barely (or perhaps not at all) useful. However, this does not prove that all possible metrics are useless. One I've been pondering since I read your answer: how many lines of code does it take to program a computer to never lose? By this metric, Chess requires vastly more skill than the game you describe - which obviously matches our intuitions. But the 10 card version of your game vs. the 3 card likely requires the same amount of code or only slightly more, suggesting that the skill required has not increased.
Jan
8
comment How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
@shujaa I agree with you and need to figure out a way to incorporate your comment into my answer.
Jan
8
comment How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
@tttppp You're absolutely right. An even simpler example is Rochambeau (Rock Paper Scissors). I'll figure out how to incorporate into my answer, though it may take some thinking.
Jan
8
comment How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
Conversely, many people claim that Stone Age has a great deal of luck. My son has never won a game and I have yet to see someone who has played less than 5 games win against someone who has played more than 30 games. Could all be a statistical fluke of some sort where the noise is drowning the signal. But it does make me wonder about "games of skill are easy to detect" . . .
Jan
8
comment How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
"knowing players perfectly, games of skill are easy to detect . . ." I was thinking about that very same methodology lately and how it doesn't seem to work. First time I played Dominion, I was one of 2 beginners against two somewhat skilled opponents. I won 1 of my first 4 games. I've seen the same thing more dramatically with my 7 year old son who, after his first 7 games, managed to catch up to his father in skill level, at least as measured by wins per game played since those 1st 7 games. Yet I keep being told over and over that Dominion is a game of great skill . . .
Jan
7
answered How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
Jan
7
comment How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
@user1873 Not following what you're trying to point out with the 3 x 3 tic-tac-toe example. This is zero luck game, as the player with perfect skill will never lose. But it is also a low skill game as it doesn't take too much study to master the strategy.
Jan
7
revised How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
added "objectively" to clarify the intent of the cited study
Jan
7
comment How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
@user1873 Is there a more rigorous way to state your claim? If so, that would be the basis for a good answer. However, if you didn't click on the link I posted about Fluxx above, I suggest you do so. The person conducting the study took a fairly clever approach to a game which has a very random feel to it: See if a purely randomized opponent would beat an opponent who follows a very small set of simple rules. He then ran a large number of simulations and found that following simple rules wins more often over randomness. I'm pretty sure you'd find the same in Texas Holde-em.
Jan
6
asked How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games?
Jan
4
awarded  Yearling