Argo, You were just repeating what you said earlier. You seem hell-bent on saying there is only effort (or commitment) and luck. Your pre-disposition is that there is no skill. However, no matter how many ways we point out there is also skill, you discount it and proclaim that it doesn't exist.

and STILL no examples of games that do not boil down to luck. (he conveniently ignores that doesn't he). Honestly, if you want to make a statement that will no doubt get disputed on a freaking game site devoted to the game you wish to slam, then back it up with real facts not opinions. And be prepared to give examples of games that do NOT boil down to simple luck. If your position is every game in the world boils down to what you claim is luck, then WHY bother posting the obvious? (obvious to you anyways) and if you think Diplomacy is a game of luck unlike many others that are not, then tell us how so. Why is "Monopoly" (insert game here) NOT down to luck?

Nope, trolls have no real answers only further trolling, so please do us a favor and give us that ONE example of a game that does not boil down to luck, just one.

Devon, I didn't discount the value of commitment as skill, and just because someone repeats oneself doesn't mean one is "hell-bent". Yes, "hell-bent" people repeat themselves, but everyone who repeats oneself isn't "hell-bent". If anyone's "hell-bent", it's you for ignoring what I said. You even did it here in ignoring my statement on how what's independent of effort is luck since people don't choose what they're born with.

Outside of that and commitment, what skill have you referred to?

Tomahaha, why are you stating the obvious, and why are you expecting examples? Of course no examples have been given, and if a universal principle is realized without exceptions to the rule, then examples wouldn't exist. If anyone's expected to give examples, it's those who believe exceptions to the rule exist. Those who believe in the rule don't have to give their opponents a cheat sheet on how to falsify them, nor is it their burden of proof to make their opponents' position for them.

As for facts, I have referred to the simultaneous character of the game in the situation of multiple rational tactics existing and how multiple players have to make decisions in advance of experiencing each other's. I've also referred to how yes, beginners have patterns that can be predicted, but experts understand the value of randomness to avoid predictability.

so every game boils down to luck (based on your own statements)
..so why bring it up here? According to your failed logic, everything boils down to luck so why state the obvious unless you are trolling?

and with that, I am saying no more until you give us ONE example of a game that does not boil down to luck, Without a single example, you have proven NOTHING. I played with the troll longer than I should have.

Argo, You said: "I didn't discount the value of commitment as skill" Again, you miss the point and are re-stating your premise. As I said, you only see effort (or commitment) and luck. Even now, you are trying to say skill is commitment. They are not the same thing.

"Outside of that and commitment, what skill have you referred to?" I guess this also summarizes your inability to distinguish between the difference between skill and commitment. Do you really need skill defined?

Again, Devon, you're ignoring what I said about what's independent of effort. Yes, I restated what you mentioned. That is not only what I said.

Toma, the question wasn't about whether or not I was stating the obvious. I was asking if alternate paradigms exist that include something that I'm missing.

Argo, I didn't ignore it. You said "what's independent of effort is luck ", to which I responded: "You seem hell-bent on saying there is only effort (or commitment) and luck." How could I have been more clear?

The part where you stated that being born with it is luck, is just another way of denying that there is skill. This is just another example that you only see effort (or commitment) and luck, but do not recognize skill.

Interesting discussion here for sure, enough to entice me to post for the first time :). My first gut reaction to hearing this topic was that there is no way that Diplomacy can ultimately come down to luck and I mostly stand by that now. Even so, I can at least give Argo kudos for bringing up a topic that was sure to be unpopular.

From what little I've read of the other posts here, I think that the reason the argument is starting to become circular is because a true definition for luck hasn't been established. If you believe that it ultimately comes down to luck, the only way I could see that logic working out is if you believe that the natural personality, aptitude, and commitment that people are born with is distributed randomly (luck of the draw). On the other hand, if you believe that luck plays no part whatsoever, you must believe that the traits of each human individual are independent of that "luck" aspect, and it is due to that person's efforts that they are who they are. In this case, since Diplomacy is a human creation and played by humans, it would be luck-independent. Of course there are definite gray areas here as well.

It all depends on what you believe luck really is.

Devon, the problem is you're confusing the three ideas at stake: commitment, skill, and luck. To you, skill is partially luck (although you call it what someone's born with instead) and partially commitment. When I refer to what someone's born with as lucky, you're not seeing the difference between luck and skill.

Erudite, that's basically the perspective I'm taking.

I call that luck because there are times when multiple rational tactics exist, and the winner is the person who has the advantageously compatible personality. Both players make their choice simultaneously, so efforts at prediction cannot entirely learn from experience. This is why I made the rock, paper, scissors analogy originally.

I'm not confusing the three ideas. Skill is completely separate from luck. It is also not what someone is born with, it is what they currently have. Regardless of how they got it. They may have been born with it. They may have been taught it. They may have practiced to get it. How they got it is immaterial though.

I think you are the one who is confusing the three. Actually, I think you don't even acknowledge that there is such thing as skill.

I believe that, as in any endeavour, luck and skill play a role in victory or defeat to varying degrees. Sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce with all the best planning in the world, sometimes it does without. You can argue the semantics of "luck" but i see it as the fallible human element which contributes to a multitude of variables in any game.

In a way, Argo is both correct and incorrect. Since he apparently is defining luck as far back as the situation you were born in and your genetics, then in a way, he's correct. All things being equal, the person born with the more compatible skill set for a certain game will usually end up victorious. A person born with genetics that will make them 7' tall will likely beat someone born with genetics that make them 5' tall in a game of basketball.

That being said, all things are NOT equal. Unless we exist in a vacuum (which we don't), what you are born with is not the final picture. Let us again take my example of a 7' tall player and his 5' tall opponent. For simplicity's sake, let's assume they are twins so that they have the same socio-economic opportunities. Now, on the surface of it, the 7' tall player has the genetic advantage. However, let us assume the 5' tall player practices extremely hard and becomes a master at shooting 3 pointers and learns how to maneuver around his brother while the 7' tall player coasts by on his natural luck to be born tall. If the 5' tall player begins to beat the 7' tall player, would it still be luck? No. It would be dedication, hardwork, and skill.

The same goes for Diplomacy. The person who works hard at analyzing tactical positions and possibilities and investigates his opponents to learn their strengths and weaknesses will likely end up the victor, whether or not he was "naturally lucky" to be born with the right skill set. Why is this? Because unlike Argo's assertation that "rational" players must be "random" when multiple "rational" paths to victory exist, that simply is NOT true. Pretty much every player has a tendency that can be exploited. Many players are cautious and play to prevent a worst-case scenario. Others will strike out boldly in an attempt to get that big breakthrough. The "skill" part of Diplomacy is learning your opponents and using that knowledge against them. If I know Devonian is usually aggressive, I can plan my tactics around that.

Will I sometimes be wrong? Of course. No strategy is foolproof. That said, it is not luck that made me wrong. If it was pure luck, then I'd have a 50-50 shot of being right when there are two options. Using your skill and knowing your opponent, you can swing that chance in your favor and have a better shot at ending up victorious. Otherwise, if it were "luck", then there wouldn't be a large disparity amongst top players. We would see every rational player rated approximately the same since the same "luck" effects all of them. As we do NOT see that, we can thereby deduce that it is not "luck" that is the definitive factor.

Devon, what you described is what's been talked about as commitment.

This is what I mean. You keep confusing commitment with what someone's born with. The first is skill. The second is luck. The first is in someone's control. The second is not.

Drano, I agree that many people have patterns, but as I've said before, experts will realize the value of randomness to avoid being predictable. Reading patterns only works on beginners who get stuck in their ways.

I refuse to accept that Argo. The idea that an "expert" would essentially flip a coin to decide between two paths is laughable. Everyone has an innate draw towards either a conservative or aggressive path. It might be slight in some, which might appear random, but the idea that they just turn off their innate feelings in favor of what is essentially a coin flip is just ludicrous.

I would also love to hear who you consider an "expert" in Diplomacy so that we could try to get in touch with them and see their view on it. Because while we might not be "experts", pretty much every highly ranked player on here is disagreeing with you.

An expert is just someone who looks ahead and sees all the possible paths to achieving victory, and then strategizes efficiently along those paths.

You can actually flip a coin to decide between paths if you want, so there's no worry about innate draws (or use a random number generator if you want in case of weighted scenarios such as having more ways with some tactics, but less ways with other tactics).

In any case, just because highly ranked players here disagree doesn't mean all of them do, and even if they did, that wouldn't justify their positions.

Again, let's get some specific examples of your "experts". According to your definition, there are plenty of people here who would likely meet your definition of "expert". And they're disagreeing with you. Ergo, you would be wrong. Flipping a coin might get your the win "some" of the time, but using logical deduction and skill will get you the win far more often. An expert in ANY game would tell you the same thing.

Also, give some examples. Who's an expert? Your lack of specific examples is why we're all calling you a troll. You skirt around the edges and never actually give concrete examples or proposals to test. I call for you again to play many 1v1 games where you try your random tactics against someone who is using logical deduction and see who wins.

Argo, Then I think Erudite is right. A large part (but not all) of our disagreement comes from our definitions.

How can you be saying there are three ideas: "commitment, skill, and luck." in one message. And, then say commitment is the same as what I describe as skill. Apparently we need to define these.

For example:
When you say "An expert is just someone who looks ahead and sees all the possible paths to achieving victory, and then strategizes efficiently along those paths"

I would disagree slightly. I would say: "An expert is someone who has the ability (skill) to look ahead and who makes the effort (commitment) to see all the possible paths to achieving victory..."

It's a subtle difference, but a highly skilled player can play causally and not choose the best path to victory, and at the same time a lower skilled player can play with great commitment and perform better than would otherwise be expected.

Not that it really needs to be said because the entire premise of the conversation is absurd, but all you need to do to understand Argotitan's perspective is to look at his game history which includes 5 pages of 1v1 games against pretty modest talent. It's small wonder that he see the game as a game of luck and coin tosses. Not only is he not using "diplomacy" as a feature of the game, he's not playing against opposition that could demonstrate to him how absolutely futile the 'coin toss tactic' would be. I can guarantee that playing 1v1 games against drano019 and Devonian will produce different result than the 20 games you've played against kaug.

I just played him twice. I had very very lucky dice. :-)

Drano, I'm saying there are situations where multiple rational tactics exist. Logical deduction is not necessarily a one way thing when it comes to competitions.

I don't know why you need examples either. A principle is justified on its own merit.

Devon, to you, skill is a combination of someone's commitment and what someone's born with.

The problem with that definition is people don't choose what they're born with, so that's luck. If you're going to say skill is partially lucky, OK.

"An expert is just someone who looks ahead and sees all the possible paths to achieving victory, and then strategizes efficiently along those paths."

No, that's someone who knows how to play the game. An expert is someone who consistently beats those people.

Argo, Again no. That is not how I would define skill. Please stop trying to say that I am combining skill and commitment.

Skill is independent from both luck and commitment. See my example above. A person can be skilled, but if they don't use there skill to the full extent (commitment), they can be no more successful than an unskilled person using their skill to the best of their ability.

How they get their skill is irrelevant to whether or not they do in fact have skill.

Anyone who gives credence to Argotitan's argument will doubtful become great at anything.

Raro, you haven't explained what an expert is unto oneself though. You're just comparing it against someone else.

Devon, you've admitted that skill is partially commitment, and partially comes from what someone's born with. I don't know why you're saying it's irrelevant where skill comes from. That would tell us what skill actually is and determines whether it's lucky or not.