Theory of Strategic Concept

[| Vinco |]

Introduction –

This thread was more or less formed as a result of users questioning the blocking system on TacticsArena, and wanting it reformed. The debate that had ensued was not necessarily beneficial, so I made this thread/essay in an attempt to clarify my theory on strategy while playing the game.
I admit to not being able to explain this in a simple manner, nor being capable of having the capacity to make it informal to all. So in order to fully grasp the concept I am going to explain, one is going to need to be relatively smart. Veterans in the game will likely understand it much quicker then the newer players, this because they have the experience to relate to what this thread will use for examples.
So, the following would be useful for one to understand what I will be trying to explain:
- Perception.
- An open mind. A lot of veterans have already formed opinions or theories of their own, which results in an “inner-conflict”. I will be glad to answer questions to the best of my ability in the future.
- If one decides to import flame/insults into their posts, they will not be secure with themselves afterwards. Please, no flame.
- At least a partial understanding of the game. Know the, 1) importance of formations, 2) use of grey units (gold would be helpful, but heck, I don’t know much on them at the moment anyway).

In this essay, multiple subjects will come up that will be difficult to understand. Terms and concepts that may have been unknowingly perceived before, will become difficult to explain for myself.
I will refer to unit placement, unit strategy, formation strategy, and game strategy. Each one of these subjects is immediately recognizable to veterans. None of these subjects will be explaining the strategies themselves, but will be explaining the effect of the strategies against you and your opponent. This is key to understanding the point of this thread. I will repeat this again; nothing in this thread will be explaining how to play the game or how to use these strategies: the point of this thread is to examine the idea of these strategies, what they actually are, and how they effect the game as a whole. At first glance, this may sound completely pathetic; everyone knows how the game occurs and what makes things happen. However, players continually run into conflicts with each other over the details of the game. Such as the influence of luck.
The four things I am going to review and examine, even the most obvious parts of it that most of us already know, are necessary for the conclusion. These four parts are unit placement, unit strategy, formation strategy, and game strategy. Some things I won’t explain very thoroughly; namely formation strategy. This is because complete understanding of a subject on my part would remove the thinking that is necessary in the game. If everyone explained their thinking to the utmost, every new player that would come to the forums would no longer need any thought of their own, and would not earn the capability by themselves to outwit another player.

Unit Placement & Unit Strategy –

Where you put a unit is the first key to unlocking the game. Placing a unit in specific places can result in multiple things; 1) your unit is eliminated by an opponents unit for being placed within range; 2) your unit can force the opponents unit to move in order to strike it’s target, or to avoid being killed (very helpful when Clerics, Pyros, and Witch’s are being targeted); 3) lastly, forcing the opponent to re-examine the situation. All of those points are significant when you are facing a player with the same capability in-game as you have.
The conflict that tends to rise in unit placement is more often then not blocking. There are three positions a unit can block attacks from; front, from the left and from the side. We all know this. An attack from the back results in getting hit and taking damage. This makes it completely necessary to review exactly what units of the opponents threaten yours.

Offensive.
When on the offensive, it becomes significantly easier to be attacked. More units will be able to move against you, and attack continuously. Every block counts. A Scout, moving in to remove a Cleric, would love to block every single attack raised against it. This would assist in keeping the scout alive on it’s mission.
Can it be blamed on luck? Is what I am pinpointing here. I do not believe it can. The following reasons for this are how the units are placed.
A scout can go on the attack, if the opponents formation permits, so that no unit can attack it from the back. This mean’s that the unit is being placed to force luck upon his enemy. Understand; the luck is not inherent in the game. The luck was being used by your opponent to make sure his Scout has a better chance of surviving. Strategy.
That concept alone declares that if your opponent understands the use of unit placement, that luck can be forced into the game. Without strategy, the luck would not occur.

Defensive.
When on the defensive, most of the same things of offensive apply. Defense is one major part of strategy for your unit formation, which I will cover later on.
Going without a Cleric is not recommended. A cleric can heal 10 units by twelve, which is 120hp every 3 or 5 turns. This makes it significantly easier to recover from offensive and defensive if something goes wrong. Your opponent knows that without a Cleric, your chances of winning significantly decrease. Thus, your Cleric is the highest priority in the game. Protecting it is key to the game. The point being that if a hole in your formation opens up, your opponent will immediately go for your Cleric. A Cleric is worth losing a unit to, imo. However, if you place a unit in a specific position, your unit may make it very difficult to reach your Cleric and eliminate it.

Thus is my conclusion for the defensive side of things. Every time you place a unit when on the attack, you open up a path or road for your opponent to follow. From time to time, closing that road can become priority. When closing a road to your Cleric, other targets may become available. Attacking other units may become an option for your opponent if your opponent decides it’s worth risking.
Say your opponent originally attacked you with a knight and an assassin. Neither of these are unblockable, which gives you a chance of losing no damage and still push off the threat. Or being hit every time. Either way, it mean’s absolutely nothing. No matter how much your opponent hits you, or you hit the opponent, it mean’s nothing when it comes to the overall outcome of the game.

What it does mean is simple. It mean’s you’re that much closer to eliminating a threat. Your opponents assassin can move long distances quickly, but has low health. That means it is merely useful for attacking, healing, attacking and then running. It can hit your units both times, probably multiple units. It is luck that was the ruling factor in whether or not the assassin would hit you. However, whether it hits you is unimportant, for you are the one that placed your unit within range; meaning, you were the one that decided luck was the ruling factor in being hit. You are the one that allowed for the loss or disclusion of a Cleric.
Thus, in all of it, you decided whether luck was going to be on your opponents side.

More often then not, you have little choice in whether luck is involved or not. Your opponents actions are what force you one way or the other. To be completely forced into submission is near impossible; no one I have went against is that perceptive or intelligent. Thus you generally have available choices. You are the one that allowed your opponent to move into those forceful positions; which still means you are the one that allowed the luck to become part of the game.

Formation Strategy –

When setting up your formation, you are always the one that chooses what units to disclude, what units to include, and where to place them. You can never expect to know what type of formation your opponent will have. Meaning, you always choose what holes your opponent can follow through.

You can have a Cleric within range of a Witch; inevitably meaning your loss in the game. Had you placed a unit, such as a Knight to prevent a Witch from being able to reach your Cleric, you wouldn’t run into the problem.

Never does your opponent choose how you place your units in your initial formation. You may or may not know what your opponents formation is; but that does not matter, because you are the one that allows for your opponents formation to overrule yours. The most difficult part of the game is finding a formation that prevents immediate loss.

Game Strategy –

Game strategy is the most simplistic part of the game. It can be determined by one phrase; always have an exit strategy. If you have an exit strategy for every move you or your opponent may make, you can be positive forced luck will have no ruling factor in how the game turns out.

[| Vinco |]

Conclusion.

As a conclusion to assist in making the whole point of explaining some of this acceptable, it should be determined that every action you take can be the deciding factor as to whether or not luck will be part of the game. Good or bad luck can become involved and submit to you the results of the game (if you are relatively new, or have baseless strategy and no understanding of all units). In order to play without luck, one has to make moves that won’t effect the outcome of the game. Knight vs. Knight can involve luck. But there are ruling factors that can make that black and white situation change. Who has a remaining Cleric? Who has the Wards? Who forced a side or front attack on you?
All of these factors can be manipulated or changed by small details in the game. Absolute perception is limited in all players, but continually examining the results of your actions can improve your perception against your opponents.
By the examples I’ve used (which are limited) and the examples that can be used in other’s arguments against my own, I will ask that before even questioning my opinion on strategy and luck in the game, question your own; was luck a result of strategy?

If you can answer that question with a simple no, please bring it up. I do believe that no one could form an example that immediately determines that luck could not have been prevented. Every choice in this game has a result; it is impossible to complain about the choice’s players have made that had a result of luck.
TAO is not a card game, or a dice game. It is impossible in those games to pre-emptively perceive what might happen with confidence and factual knowledge.
With unit placement, you can figure out what the effect of your placement can have against your opponent or merely for the rest of your units. Examining things before taking action allows you to prevent your opponent from attacking; which removes the ability of luck.
With unit strategy, you can force an aggressor to choose a different path. Calculation of turns, healing capability, and escape routes allow you to realize where luck can become involved.
With formation strategy, you are allowed the ability to examine all units in the game and where they can be placed that will severely cripple your formation and force you to lose. Not knowing what your opponents formation does not mean you can’t figure out what units placed where could destroy your formation.
With game strategy, you are given the chance to form an exit strategy, which reduces your inability to figure out what stakes you are laying when on the offensive or defensive, and whether you want luck involved.


Footer note: It is impossible for me to write an essay that can make sure all examples and holes have been filled. Thus I write this as a theory, and would encourage questions that will clarify further my reasoning. Nothing in my thesis is intended to improve your game play or is guaranteed to make you a better player, but is merely an attempt to clear up the concept of the game. Also note that some of the examples I used were not necessarily of my origination.
*edit* Because of my lack in experience as a Gold player(none at all), this essay will mostly apply to grey games.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Wow. Are you really as new as your join date suggests?

If so, new people should act like you more often...

Nicely done, well thought-out, and generally agreeable.

I do not agree with the undying importance of the Cleric. Your chances will only drop off by losing your Cleric if you do not get an equivalent or greater exchange for it (such as a Scout and Mud Golem), especially if these units are range units and you have a Frost Golem. In other words, the same rules apply to the death of the Cleric and the death of every other unit--losing it isn't a huge deal if you can get an equal or better trade. The only thing that makes it so much more vital than another unit with this in mind is the fragile nature of the Cleric and the average opponent's greater intent to kill it, which makes it harder to preserve your Cleric and thus easier for your opponent to kill it without losing too much in exchange.

[Moose]

My bet is he's a vet and isn't revealing himself.

That or he's just trying to become a hero.

[Cuathon]

i realized in the other thread that i was attackign to manypoints simultaneously and couldn't bring the brunt of my concentration to bear on each one. i will try to assualt each point i disagree with one at a time in order to luck less like a dumbass. your arguements in the other thread, while not necessarily correct, were superior to mine.

i will discuss grey because grey is what you are, and your arguemnts are far more applicable and correct in far more ways when applied to the grey game. i'm am sorry i started off insulting you earlier.

because only an unskilled would send all his ranged units to attack the cleric for fear of the chanty, many of your arguments are practically flawless when applied to grey games. in a grey game you are far more in control of lines of assault. blocks in a grey game are not so important. i have never had problems in a grey game with regards to luck.

because we are discussing only grey games, their are no faults in your logic that i could reasonably fight. i wish more newbs were as intelligent as you are. you are certainy a more valuble addition to this comunity than i was as a newb. great thread.
i shall try to be more tolerant of newer players in the futere.

i would however love to see an experienced gold expand this and apply it to gold games. anyone bored enough to convince me that this is universally applicable to Tao and not just to grey? if so, i look forward to it.

again great job vinco. i know i keep saying grey game, but that is because i understand how this applies to that. i'd love for someone to show me its application to gold as well.

[Forest_Archer]

My bet is he's a vet and isn't revealing himself.

That or he's just trying to become a hero.

Moose.. really.. just stop right now.

Excellent work, Vinco.

EDIT: Hi, Cua... gotta spread some rep before giving it to you again.. :laugh:

[Spit_101]

My bet is he's a vet and isn't revealing himself.

That or he's just trying to become a hero.Or you just can't accept that newer players aren't always idiots.

[| Vinco |]

Are you really as new as your join date suggests?

The forum date is a few days older then when I started playing, but yes, I'm fairly new.

do not agree with the undying importance of the Cleric. Your chances will only drop off by losing your Cleric if you do not get an equivalent or greater exchange for it (such as a Scout and Mud Golem), especially if these units are range units and you have a Frost Golem. In other words, the same rules apply to the death of the Cleric and the death of every other unit--losing it isn't a huge deal if you can get an equal or better trade. The only thing that makes it so much more vital than another unit with this in mind is the fragile nature of the Cleric and the average opponent's greater intent to kill it, which makes it harder to preserve your Cleric and thus easier for your opponent to kill it without losing too much in exchange.

I would agree; to a point. I originally intended to keep out of the strategy forum for not wanting to release too much information, but I may make an exception or two when discussing my support of the subject.
With enough offensive, perhaps quick moving units I would agree with you. It wouldn't necessarily matter, because you wouldn't give your opponent a fair chance to really "fight back". I wouldn't suggest this sort of circumstance for any grey game. May be different for gold.
The reason being the initial formation used by both players. A good offensive formation, set up for hammering away and such would easily be removed with...certain units in certain places. (Perhaps a witch or two up front.)
My strategy tends to be a balance of offensive and defensive. More or less, I perform the offensive while on the defensive. The result when I balance it out like this, is I take a lot of damage.

I would say that, with specific types of units, a Cleric may not be necessary. Other then that...I think people generally will make a mistake in at least one aspect of the game. Thus a Cleric can be a "back-up" measure if something goes wrong.

[| Vinco |]

My bet is he's a vet and isn't revealing himself.

That or he's just trying to become a hero.

I'll take the hero. I have known about TAO for a month or so, but at the time I was pre-occupied on other websites and never cared to stick around here. I only played for a day or two.
Now I have been playing almost 3 weeks.

[EatMine]

Hmm, i read it two times now, still don't get your point ...
Since you are not talking strategy, but "concept of the game", what is it you are saying?
Luck is not inherent in the game but a result of bad gameplay?
(i am not sure if that's your point, because you went into that direction a few times but then had other comments denying it ...)
(i'd prefer a yes or no answer :) )

[| Vinco |]

will discuss grey because grey is what you are, and your arguemnts are far more applicable and correct in far more ways when applied to the grey game. i'm am sorry i started off insulting you earlier.

No problem. It is more then likely I know more about grey games then gold, and may misunderstand something.
The insults I overreacted to for personal reasons; nothing to do with emotion. Unfortunately, those reasons I have made you a good target. I apologize as well, and you won't seen it drawn out in any other thread.

because only an unskilled would send all his ranged units to attack the cleric for fear of the chanty, many of your arguments are practically flawless when applied to grey games. in a grey game you are far more in control of lines of assault. blocks in a grey game are not so important. i have never had problems in a grey game with regards to luck.

Naturally. Enchantresses tend to be misplaced in by alot of greys. Makes it easy to force the player to not use an Enchantress, or re-arrange their formation to use it.
Imo, I wouldn't send many ranged units to remove a Cleric. Unless I knew for sure that there was no way I could lose the unit.

i would however love to see an experienced gold expand this and apply it to gold games. anyone bored enough to convince me that this is universally applicable to Tao and not just to grey? if so, i look forward to it.


I'll be gold before February; more then likely, that is. If no one is interested or can take it up immediately, I will draw conclusions later on and either edit or post a thread specifically relating to Gold vs. Gold.

[| Vinco |]

Hmm, i read it two times now, still don't get your point ...
Since you are not talking strategy, but "concept of the game", what is it you are saying?
Luck is not inherent in the game but a result of bad gameplay?
(i am not sure if that's your point, because you went into that direction a few times but then had other comments denying it ...)
(i'd prefer a yes or no answer :) )

I didn't want to directly pinpoint it for a couple reasons, but the answer is yes. I figured that with alot of people going into the luck factor of things, I could grab their attention more efficently if I suggested it, instead of forced it.
When you ran into comments denying it, there was a reason. If you want me to specifically state why those reasons are, quote the comments you are reffering to and I will explain further.

[EatMine]

Hmm, if you really deny that luck is inherent in the game, sorry, but then i'd regret spending 15min to read your post ...
You can't deny that! There is a point in every game vs a good player (grey and gold), when luck decides who wins (be it form advantage in the beginning or an important hit/block in the mid/end game. And there is absolutely no strategy that can prevent you from getting to that point.) You can't blame everything to bad gameplay ...

[Cuathon]

you can in grey eatmine. because of limited range in grey games retreat is almost always an option. it is far easier to stratgize in grey games because the number of forms is far less than that of gold. cleric's are not so easily removeable and thus far more vlauble to grey games as well.

after some time of playing gold and forming opinions from that, it would be reasonable to argue gold strat. but luck has very little to do with grey games. you's need a significant majority of luck to affect a grey game.

[EatMine]

you need a significant majority of luck to affect a grey gameSure, it generally doesn't depend as much on luck as a gold-rush vs gold-rush, but you said it yourself: a significant amount of luck even effects a grey game ...
And that is what Vinco denies if i got him correct.

[| Vinco |]

Hmm, if you really deny that luck is inherent in the game, sorry, but then i'd regret spending 15min to read your post ...
You can't deny that! There is a point in every game vs a good player (grey and gold), when luck decides who wins (be it form advantage in the beginning or an important hit/block in the mid/end game. And there is absolutely no strategy that can prevent you from getting to that point.) You can't blame everything to bad gameplay ...

If it is an advantage in the beginning of the game, it will probably have to do with formation. Thus it is preventable, because you always have the choice of how your formation is set up. Meaning, failure in formation strategy.

If it is a block in the middle of the game, chances are, it won't make a significant different. In the game you can both choose to attack, calculate what can happen in the future if there is a block, and make the choice for yourself. Thus it was a failure in unit strategy.

End game...possibly. However, if it come's down to situations where it is, more or less, Knights vs. Knights(often happens between two relatively equal opponents), there is always the consideration of what would have happened to prevent it becoming a knight vs. knight game. Considering what unit could have been moved elsewhere to avoid being eliminated, could have healed at that point, didn't need to be agressive at that point, and so on.
End games are always the result of the beginning of a game. If the end game is developed around luck, it was a failure in the beginning or middle of the game that brought it there.

You have told me that luck can be a deciding factor. I didn't deny this. What I denied is that luck was the ruling factor, and stated that luck was the result of strategy. (Either good or bad.)
In a grey vs. grey game, everything can be pre-examined, thus eliminating the possibility of luck not being a result of your choices.

[| Vinco |]

Sure, it generally doesn't depend as much on luck as a gold-rush vs gold-rush, but you said it yourself: a significant amount of luck even effects a grey game ...
And that is what Vinco denies if i got him correct.

I stated that luck is a result of failure in strategy. Not that luck can't exist in the game.
I did state that unit strategy (the luck involved in unit strategy) rarely effects the result of the game. A Knight can continue to block, continue to get hit, and it is always preventable provided you correctly calculate your moves; or your opponent doesn't outwit you.

[EatMine]

Meaning, failure in formation strategyThere is no unbeatable formation, so there is always a chance that you get an opponent with the perfect form to beat yours, and in that case you have no strategy to prevent it ...
luck is a result of failure in strategySo, we play a grey game, i rush you with three knights, which block every side hit. Additionally my scout makes sure that they don't get trapped by your chanty.
I win, you lose, although you did not make any strategic failure ...

[| Vinco |]

There is no unbeatable formation, so there is always a chance that you get an opponent with the perfect form to beat yours, and in that case you have no strategy to prevent it ...


I didn't mention an unbeatable formation. I mentioned a formation that doesn't immediately risk the game. I.e., putting two Clerics in the front row is immediately threatening your win. Of course no one would be inclined to do this, but I do see Pyro's and Witch's in the front row with grey vs. grey.

So, we play a grey game, i rush you with three knights, which block every side hit. Additionally my scout makes sure that they don't get trapped by your chanty.
I win, you lose, although you did not make any strategic failure ...

Your example proves nothing. My unblockable attacks will likely make it difficult for you to continue rushing me with 3 knights, not to mention the amount of turns it would take to get 3 knights up front and capable of quickly removing all my capabilities.

The strategic failure on my part would be not attacking you at the back with my knights, assassin(s), and however unlikely my Scout.

[Match Strike]

First of all, let me congratulate you on your ability to think for yourself and be articulate about it. Would that we all could be so thoughtful...

Say your opponent originally attacked you with a knight and an assassin. Neither of these are unblockable, which gives you a chance of losing no damage and still push off the threat. Or being hit every time. Either way, it mean’s absolutely nothing. No matter how much your opponent hits you, or you hit the opponent, it mean’s nothing when it comes to the overall outcome of the game.
But it does mean something. Luck is, no matter how thoroughly analyzed, still luck. How lucky it is that a witch blocked is, of course, not 20 percent. However, in almost all circumstances, there is a greater chance the witch will not block than block. Say a knight attacks a witch; the witch has not blocked yet this game, nor has it missed. Let us say for our hypothetical reasoning that it has not yet been attacked; a perfectly plausable circumstance.

The witch blocks. Are you saying it was a failure of strategy on the part of tha attacker not to expect a block from the witch?

If it is an advantage in the beginning of the game, it will probably have to do with formation. Thus it is preventable, because you always have the choice of how your formation is set up. Meaning, failure in formation strategy.
Fisrst of all, advantage at the beginning of the game also has to do with something that is inarguabley a matter of luck; that is who gets first turn. This may or may not be important in any given game, but it can be, and that leads me to both your next point and mine:

You say that it is preventable. Well, naturally any given first move of an opponent is preventable by formation (unless it involves healing or shooting their own units or an empty square on their side of the arena. Neither of those are smart moves, so I probably shouldn't have mentioned them). However, while a formation can prevent a certain move, it will invariably open up another move. In a simplified version of this, say a grey turtler can either ensure his cleric is not hit by witch first turn, or not hit by scout first turn. Most players will choose the former, but nevertheless, it is a matter of luck which formation they come across.

In short, your reasoning is limited in its practicality because no formation can prevent everything, or even close to everything. A good player will try to minimize the amount they rely on luck, but it can always be a factor. That is the nature of luck. I won't patronize anyone with a defenition of the word, but there you have it.

[EatMine]

I mentioned a formation that doesn't immediately risk the game.Ok, obviously you haven't played gold yet :)
And grey: most good grey players use a grey "turtle", because they "don't risk the game immediately". If it is a same side game, start move is pretty important, thus again luck gives you a significant advantage, which has nothing to do with strategy.
Your example proves nothing. The strategic failure on my part would be not attacking you at the back with my knights, assassin(s), and however unlikely my Scout.My point is that if my knights block too much, you can't prevent at least one of them fast enough from breaking your defense and taking down your cleric or chanty, which means you lost.

Dude, what you are saying is, that you can win every game (with superior strategy), which simply is not true ... and i am not very interested in discussing this opinion.

[| Vinco |]

But it does mean something. Luck is, no matter how thoroughly analyzed, still luck. How lucky it is that a witch blocked is, of course, not 20 percent. However, in almost all circumstances, there is a greater chance the witch will not block than block. Say a knight attacks a witch; the witch has not blocked yet this game, nor has it missed. Let us say for our hypothetical reasoning that it has not yet been attacked; a perfectly plausable circumstance.

The witch blocks. Are you saying it was a failure of strategy on the part of tha attacker not to expect a block from the witch?

It is hard to define the exact circumstances. I'm not sure you provided them.
Regardless, where the opponent placed the Witch is part of the strategy. If your opponent placed the witch so that it could only be attacked from the front, increasing the likelihood of a block, then it is forcing luck on you.
If the Witch was agressive, and put up front and was becoming a large threat against your other units, you're effectiveness in strategy is determined by your choices of attack. A Witch takes a 3 turn recovery, and only has 28 HP. You don't need to put luck in your attacks against the Witch.

Fisrst of all, advantage at the beginning of the game also has to do with something that is inarguabley a matter of luck; that is who gets first turn. This may or may not be important in any given game, but it can be, and that leads me to both your next point and mine:

Let's say I get the first turn. I have all 3 Knights up front, various units behind me. I can decide to attack, or re-arrange my formation depending on what units are threatened.
My Scout, could move forward and hit you. But if I did so, my Scout would thus become isolated; an easy target for removal.

Imo, first turn mean's nothing. If I was forced to balance my opinion on it, I would think that second turn would be prefered.

You say that it is preventable. Well, naturally any given first move of an opponent is preventable by formation (unless it involves healing or shooting their own units or an empty square on their side of the arena. Neither of those are smart moves, so I probably shouldn't have mentioned them). However, while a formation can prevent a certain move, it will invariably open up another move. In a simplified version of this, say a grey turtler can either ensure his cleric is not hit by witch first turn, or not hit by scout first turn. Most players will choose the former, but nevertheless, it is a matter of luck which formation they come across.

Two things.
1). If you Cleric is immediately threatened by a Witch, the result is..more or less, stupidity. This is the only attack which should always be prevented in your formation in a grey vs. grey game. Your example with that matter seem's to be a strategic matter...not a luck matter.
2). It isn't a good idea to place anything that has less then 40 hp close enough to be attacked without your opponent having to threaten his own unit. Witch's, Pyro's, ect.
With those two things in mind; your opponent can take his chances, and let's say he isolates his Scout. In fact, let's say that it is impossible for you to attack the Scout with anything other then a Knight and your Scout. He places his Scout in such a position that makes an attack from the back impossible. He is using strategy to force luck upon you.

To sum it up, luck was a result of strategy.

In short, your reasoning is limited in its practicality because no formation can prevent everything, or even close to everything. A good player will try to minimize the amount they rely on luck, but it can always be a factor. That is the nature of luck. I won't patronize anyone with a defenition of the word, but there you have it.

Read above. There are only two things that are being threatened. Everything else; attacks on knights, assassin's, lightning wards, ect. will not force you to lose the game.
I have two Clerics. Attacks on my knights would be more or less worthless in the beginning of the game.

[| Vinco |]

Ok, obviously you haven't played gold yet

And obviously, formations intended to threaten all aspects of your formation differ from formations I am reffering to. Rush for example.

And grey: most good grey players use a grey "turtle", because they "don't risk the game immediately". If it is a same side game, start move is pretty important, thus again luck gives you a significant advantage, which has nothing to do with strategy.

Broadcasted generalizations don't cut it. Give me specific examples where first turn is the deciding factor of the game, and that strategy is not in the slightest bit involved.

My point is that if my knights block too much, you can't prevent at least one of them fast enough from breaking your defense and taking down your cleric or chanty, which means you lost.

Firstly, I already explained to you how it was strategic failure on my part to not attack your Knights from the back.
Second, you act like I place my Cleric and Enchantress out in the open.
Thirdly, I have two Clerics. The best you could do is remove both at the cost of your Knights, or remove an Enchantress for all I care along with a Cleric.
Fourthly, it is ridiculous to believe that all your Knights are suddenly going to spring into the offensive and continuosly attack one unit of mine defending my Clerics.

Dude, what you are saying is, that you can win every game (with superior strategy), which simply is not true ... and i am not very interested in discussing this opinion.

I have a username. Reffering to me as dude is not suggested.

What I do know at this very moment, is you are trying to make an argument by stating I am wrong.

[EatMine]

Broadcasted generalizations don't cut it.
Give me specific examples where first turn is the deciding factor of the game, and that strategy is not in the slightest bit involved.
I have a username. Reffering to me as dude is not suggested.
What I do know at this very moment, is you are trying to make an argument by stating I am wrong.
1) You are the one generalizing
2) Don't turn it around now: Luck=deciding factor and strat=not involved was not what you started with. You started with strat=deciding factor and luck not involved
3) You just keep playing the game and gaining experience and then i want to see your reaction to a new guy, that comes here and claims he mastered the game and does not depend on the slightest bit of luck.

Ok, | Vinco | (with a heart on the i) , good luck with your strategy ...

[monkus]

As many said before, I congradulate your ability to articulate yourself. However, especially with my tremendously awful luck, I know a thing or two about its influence in the game:

First, on your point about formation, you are somewhat incorrect. If a person makes a one-sided bomb, it is not up to the other player to pre-empt this form. There is, as per this form, a 50% chance that a one sided anti will be on the bad end of this formation. It's ALL luck, no skill involved (unless one is particularly experienced and adept at psychology).
Furthermore, the first turn throws a hole in your plan. Let's say (s)he has a dsm-powered pyromancer in range of my lward. If (s)he goes first and hits me before I zap it, that's up to 135 (27x5) extra damage dealt solely because of luck.

Now to go through your well-crafted essay, and attempt to tear it apart:

Unit placement is somewhat irrelevant for two reasons: First, as the game progresses, it slowly deteriorates as units are forced to move. Second, enemy units can move as they wish, and only a few units can ever truly be protected.

Luck can also be blamed for the loss/survival of the scout in the example. The perfect instance of this is in a game I played against Spliff, turtles. He ran a scout up and hit my cleric. The scout was stoned. I threw everything I had against it, but it received block after block after block. Eventually, it killed my cleric and ran away, one hit away from death. I kept shooting at it, but it blocked always enough to keep it alive (mostly side blocks).

At the point where my opponent can use the luck as strategy, and where it favors him more than it favors me against the typical blocking percentages, it is fair to label the luck as unfair. If we're playing a game where whenever we throw a punch, the other player can flip a coin to see if he blocks it or not, then yes, throwing the punch is the only cause of the factor of luck, but if the luck favors one player, then it is still unfair.

On keeping the cleric alive: I've done quite a good job at doing this in the past few months. I've developed antis and turtles that all work at saving the cleric, and most of them work pretty well. However, if my units that guard the cleric fall because of luck, or if my opponent's formation is on the correct side to fight mine, and (s)he gets the first turn, a 25% occurence that more often than not finds its way in my games, that is also a display of luck.

Neither of these are unblockable, which gives you a chance of losing no damage and still push off the threat. Or being hit every time. Either way, it mean’s absolutely nothing. No matter how much your opponent hits you, or you hit the opponent, it mean’s nothing when it comes to the overall outcome of the game.

Of course it does! Sometimes the complex analysis blinds people to the simple truths (it happens to me all the time), and this seems to be one of those instances. If he gets more hits off of me, it affects the outcome under both my view of it and yours. It changes the outcome under my view of the game, that is killing the most units, because it makes it easier to kill those units. It changes the outcome when it comes to killing the cleric (your view), because closing a road is never permanent, and damaging a unit is the first step to reopening that road to the cleric.

There is no game without luck, except maybe bomb vs bomb, or a really well-played turtle game, where the luck doesn't truly affect the outcome. Of course, things are more important than luck, such as placing damage well, and forming correct strategy to protect the cleric and the like. However, at the point where one person has more luck than another, damage is increased, survival of my units is much more difficult, etc.

I'm afraid you misinterpret the true question at stake. No one is saying that luck isn't a result of strategy, or that players make choices based on luck and that isn't fair. People complain about the advantages that luck gives a single player in a game.
Here's an example of how unfair advantages make the actual event unjust:
Let's say we were having a swordfight, to the death. Now, let's say my sword was stronger, longer, faster, more reliable, sharper, and lighter so it could move around better. Also, for argument's sake, let's say you had one leg going into the fight. Would strategy really play the only role in determining the outcome? Sure, you could accomodate for the disadvantages on your side, but even if my strategy was inferior, I could still best you and take your life, only because of unfair advantages that are out of your control going into the fight. Luck is the same. It slices my leg out from under me, and there's nothing I can do about it. I'm forced to accomodate, and face a player when I'm not on equal footing (pardon the pun).

Luck is an unfair advantage, and it really sucks.

[| Vinco |]

1) You are the one generalizing

With examples for specific cases. If I didn't, ask me to, and I will do so immediately.
Now, unless you can't come up with any examples(and I'm sure you can, but just don't understand the concept), I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be providing examples.

2) Don't turn it around now: Luck=deciding factor and strat=not involved was not what you started with. You started with strat=deciding factor and luck not involved

You must have a reading problem. Coupled with your significant incapability of understand things, I should have expected it.
I made no "turn-arounds" as you state. I asked for you to give examples of how luck is not a result of strategy.
Besides being incapable of reading, you still haven't gotten what I said correctly.

I stated, with supporting examples, that luck was a result of strategy. I did not state that luck was the ruling factor. Rather, I said it was not the ruling factor.

3) You just keep playing the game and gaining experience and then i want to see your reaction to a new guy, that comes here and claims he mastered the game and does not depend on the slightest bit of luck.

I never stated anything about not making choices in my game that are related to luck.
By that quote, you entirely define how little you understand this subject and on what basis of luck I am discussing.

Ok, | Vinco | with a heart on the i, good luck with your strategy ...

Now with this quote, I begin to believe that perhaps you aren't incapable of reading and aren't just ignorant, but you are moreover blind. Clearly you did not read the name of this thread, and the footnote at the end of the thesis.

Theory of Strategic Concept.


Lastly, you may have noticed the flame. Every time you post with sarcasm towards my opinions, or unnecessary judgements in a response to my posts, you will find a lot of flame. It's a matter of integrity; that which you don't have any of.

[| Vinco |]

Much better! A good thing that you(Monkus) and Match came along, or else I would have feared having to deal with Eatmine, so far the most efficent incoherent fool I have run across.

First, on your point about formation, you are somewhat incorrect. If a person makes a one-sided bomb, it is not up to the other player to pre-empt this form. There is, as per this form, a 50% chance that a one sided anti will be on the bad end of this formation. It's ALL luck, no skill involved (unless one is particularly experienced and adept at psychology).

I have no experience with bombs. It is difficult for me to examine them without having gone through one of them.
However, I will do my best.

With a bomb, you have a series of units with low HP, correct? Not to mention that all of them have longer periods of recovery then some units. Nor can they move very far.
I have extreme difficulty believing in one type, or style, of formation. Thus I can make out a formation that doesn't relate to Turtle, "anti"-anything, that would be effective.
I base that formation off of speculating what type of moves can be most expected from the bomb formation. This allows me a rough idea of where I stand and what to expect; thus eliminating any "ruling chance".

Furthermore, the first turn throws a hole in your plan. Let's say (s)he has a dsm-powered pyromancer in range of my lward. If (s)he goes first and hits me before I zap it, that's up to 135 (27x5) extra damage dealt solely because of luck.

Why'd you multiple 27 by 5? I would assume that 5 would be the number of Pyro's, but I don't understand how 5 turns after the first turn relates to the first turn itself.
Btw, not to mention that you would be the one that placed the Lightning Ward. Imo, Lightning Wards aren't worth it.

Unit placement is somewhat irrelevant for two reasons: First, as the game progresses, it slowly deteriorates as units are forced to move. Second, enemy units can move as they wish, and only a few units can ever truly be protected.

As for the first, of course units eventually move. Choosing whether it is worth moving is up to you, and that is Unit Placement. Examining what happens after you move it, or if you don't move it, is Unit Strategy.
As for the second, not true, enemy units can't always move as they wish. Physically, they can. However, if you are playing against a reasonable opponent, that opponent will see where it would become threatened if it moved to a specific stop. Thus giving you a very good idea of what is going to happen in the future.

Unit Placement and Unit Strategy are key to influencing your opponent and making your opponent decide exactly what it's worth, and whether forcing luck into the game is worth it. More often then not, the opponent would decide it's not.

Luck can also be blamed for the loss/survival of the scout in the example. The perfect instance of this is in a game I played against Spliff, turtles. He ran a scout up and hit my cleric. The scout was stoned. I threw everything I had against it, but it received block after block after block. Eventually, it killed my cleric and ran away, one hit away from death. I kept shooting at it, but it blocked always enough to keep it alive (mostly side blocks).

Couple things I'd like to point out.
One, is that you are only looking partially at what happened on your side of the table. Your formation allowed the Scout what seems easy access to your Cleric. I would think that a couple things weren't involved in the defense of your Cleric. One is no Furgon. Two is forcing the Scout to reposition if it wished to hit your Cleric for a second time and eliminate that unit.
More or less, the blocks didn't matter. The survival of your Cleric did. There is also the reasoning of how the Scout performed it's actions. You may have kept attacking afterwards, but apparently your opponent was aware that there are three positions which can block an attacking. Your opponent effectively used strategy to force luck on you.

At the point where my opponent can use the luck as strategy, and where it favors him more than it favors me against the typical blocking percentages, it is fair to label the luck as unfair. If we're playing a game where whenever we throw a punch, the other player can flip a coin to see if he blocks it or not, then yes, throwing the punch is the only cause of the factor of luck, but if the luck favors one player, then it is still unfair.


"It" does not choose who it favors. Your opponent chose how to use luck in his strategy. What happened is that instead of focusing directly on the intent of his strategy, you fell into his trap and attempted to use luck in your offensive to fend off his strategy.

Choices.

On keeping the cleric alive: I've done quite a good job at doing this in the past few months. I've developed antis and turtles that all work at saving the cleric, and most of them work pretty well. However, if my units that guard the cleric fall because of luck, or if my opponent's formation is on the correct side to fight mine, and (s)he gets the first turn, a 25% occurence that more often than not finds its way in my games, that is also a display of luck.

Never had the problem myself. I always know that had I made a different choice earlier in the game, it would have foiled the attempt to remove my Cleric.

Of course it does! Sometimes the complex analysis blinds people to the simple truths (it happens to me all the time), and this seems to be one of those instances. If he gets more hits off of me, it affects the outcome under both my view of it and yours. It changes the outcome under my view of the game, that is killing the most units, because it makes it easier to kill those units. It changes the outcome when it comes to killing the cleric (your view), because closing a road is never permanent, and damaging a unit is the first step to reopening that road to the cleric.

I believe I expanded that quote of mine further in a different paragraph.

There is always the possibility that you decide not to attack; that you decide to move away from the opponent. Or perhaps it's not that. Perhaps it's positioning yourself so you get the chance to make a confident strike.
Unless your opponent is relatively genius, the opponent will at some point also make a mistake. This gives you a hole for you to climb through.
Btw, it's not always a black and white situation. There are far too many influences by the other 9 units in the game for it to be as simple as you imply.

I'm not exactly sure you understand the context, or point I am trying to make in that paragraph. I honestly don't know any way to explain it further.

There is no game without luck, except maybe bomb vs bomb, or a really well-played turtle game, where the luck doesn't truly affect the outcome. Of course, things are more important than luck, such as placing damage well, and forming correct strategy to protect the cleric and the like. However, at the point where one person has more luck than another, damage is increased, survival of my units is much more difficult, etc.

Throughout this thread, I get the idea you believe that I said luck is not involved at all. I never said this. I said luck is a result of strategy.

I'm afraid you misinterpret the true question at stake. No one is saying that luck isn't a result of strategy, or that players make choices based on luck and that isn't fair. People complain about the advantages that luck gives a single player in a game.

"Who is the unluckiest"? "Who is the luckiest"? It's not difficult to interpret the implications of that. Blaming your losses for luck is fine and dandy, but I am attempting to disprove the idea that it really is luck. Luck has no bounds, and with the capability of preventing or forcing "luck", it re-defines exactly how one loses a game.

Here's an example of how unfair advantages make the actual event unjust:
Let's say we were having a swordfight, to the death. Now, let's say my sword was stronger, longer, faster, more reliable, sharper, and lighter so it could move around better. Also, for argument's sake, let's say you had one leg going into the fight. Would strategy really play the only role in determining the outcome? Sure, you could accomodate for the disadvantages on your side, but even if my strategy was inferior, I could still best you and take your life, only because of unfair advantages that are out of your control going into the fight. Luck is the same. It slices my leg out from under me, and there's nothing I can do about it. I'm forced to accomodate, and face a player when I'm not on equal footing (pardon the pun).

Luck is an unfair advantage, and it really sucks.

This example doesn't apply very well. Namely because neither side has 1 less unit then the other. Both have 10 units.
What that means is that both of us are equal until otherwise. But once I lose my leg because of your force, luck will then become an issue. For it is true that without two legs, I am virtually unequal to your possiblecapabilities.

[| Vinco |]

Conclusion:

I asked Cuathon this in your thread on the blocking system in the forum Suggestions.
I asked how if he/she believed that luck was a result of strategy, how could luck be the deciding factor? Now I understand what you're answer will probably be. You're answer will probably be something similar to the better sword - both legs concept.
But when it come's to the result of the game, you always chose where your unit would be placed and whether being hit every time was a possibility, or whether blocking every time was a possibility.
Now going under the assumption that blocking every time is the possibility, is a very large mistake. For obvious reasons. One being that units with low HP would be quickly removed because of bad placement.
Going under the assumption that you will never block quickly makes it different. You take more pre-caution in where you place the units.
But you make an interesting point. What about your opponent? What if your opponent blocks every? The answer isn't changing or reforming how the system works. The answer is asking a question.
What pre-cautions must you take in order to defend against your opponents blocks and choices?
You seem pretty experienced. I see you online all the time. I am sure you know that question can be answered.

[Match Strike]

Why'd you multiple 27 by 5? I would assume that 5 would be the number of Pyro's, but I don't understand how 5 turns after the first turn relates to the first turn itself.
Btw, not to mention that you would be the one that placed the Lightning Ward. Imo, Lightning Wards aren't worth it.

Pyromancers can attack 5 squares. a fully DSM powered pyro will deal 27 (unblockable) damage.

I'm now going to draw a politically sensitive analogy, which may or may not be unwise of me:

What I see you doing is drawing evidence to support your pre-concieved conclusions. In your first post, some of your evidence was almost convincing to me. However, I don't see you dissproving or even throwing serious doubt toward the points presented by monkus. Instead, it seems as though you write them off. Admittedly, I may be way off-base here, if so, excuse me, I haven't read any post on this thread twice (but I have read them all once).

Anyways, for the analogy; in the debate over "Intelligent Design" theory, critics of the theory point to the fact that it was not come about by gathering evidence; either conclusive or not; evaluating that evidence, and then coming to a conclusion. That is the scientific method, and I think it applies here.

Anyways, enough of that. I beleive the "bomb" situation is applicable in both grey and gold games, although more so in the latter.

Take, for example, ths grey formation.
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/9288/samesidewitchbomb8pd.th.jpg (http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=samesidewitchbomb8pd.jpg)
Now, I beleive any talented grey could design a formation to beat that form same sides. HOWEVER, that form is NOT the form they would be likely to use in a circumstance where they did not know what form they were facing; it would likely consist of durable units, a lightning ward, but spread out more than a normal grey form to avoid too many multiple hits by witches.

And I know that I could beat that form with pretty much any of my formations, in an opposite sides game.

But you don't know which side you will get, do you? That's why it's luck. When I choose to use that form, I have made a choice to base my wins against most skilled grey players a 50/50 shot. But they did NOT make that choice, and NOBODY decides which side the opponent uses.

Also, again, I simply fail to see the logic in how a bunch of witch blocks would not help my form. My witches would liekly live longer and damage your units more, killing more.

Edit: I just had to respond to this:
Throughout this thread, I get the idea you believe that I said luck is not involved at all. I never said this. I said luck is a result of strategy.
I said earlier I wouldn't include a defenition of luck. Well, it seems to me that you are still missusing the word.

Luck cannot be a result of strategy, by its very nature. One can make the odds better for oneself, but one can still get unlucky. That is what luck is. It is not something that, in its purest form, can be controlled. You cannot use superior strategy in a true coin flip or a roll of a die.

Luck, simply, is a matter of chance. Chance is something that is beyond your control. Ergo, you can do nothing to avoid getting unlucky. Not even using ten frost golems on legends, because there is still first turn, sides, and being lucky enough to be on for ten frost golem drops. The user of my witch bomb will have been lucky enough to even be online for those 6 witches, not to mention actually being in a game, and winning those games.

[Cuathon]

no offense vinco but you said this and it is fairly true.

you cannot argue with vinco on gold till he has played gold on gold. he doesnt have enough experience.

luck in grey games is a very small matter. it very, very, rarely affects the outcome of a game. when you place a scout up front, like i do, it is your own fault if it becomes l-warded, or even hit by a knight. you had the choice of putting it farther back in your form.

i'm sorry if you cant believe it vinco, but in gold games such things are ridiculous. with a teleporting dragon, a move six, range 2, teleporting wisp and 3 6-range units as well, one who doesnt even follow LoS, well its just not that easy. a mud golem can effectively deal with a furgon or you could use LoS.

bombs: they can easily crush you on the defensive, they have a 135 damage or with 3 a 120 damage capability and it is unblockable. if your form can defend against this, it is most likely that it cannot defend verses a rush. there are simply so many forms in existence in gold that form LUCK, yes luck, becomes a significant factor. strategy can only effect it if one side is a moron. and DSMs can get many side or front blocks that force you to move to the back and mage huge holes in your formation.

holy shit Match, totally forgot about that. now assuming no drops, most of my points appear correct, but drops bring in a massive effect on grey. this however is a prviously undiscussed type of luck. but it is avoided fairly easily, by saying no drop game. this deos bring out the sword-leg point. an army of witches can use luck to affect the game dramatically.

[Moose]

I think Vinco has OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder, if that actually exists or not remains to be seen, if not then I just made up :p.

[| Vinco |]

Pyromancers can attack 5 squares. a fully DSM powered pyro will deal 27 (unblockable) damage.

A Lightning Ward only takes up one space. So it would be an assumption that there would be sorrounding units. I wasn't aware of that assumption.

What I see you doing is drawing evidence to support your pre-concieved conclusions. In your first post, some of your evidence was almost convincing to me. However, I don't see you dissproving or even throwing serious doubt toward the points presented by monkus. Instead, it seems as though you write them off. Admittedly, I may be way off-base here, if so, excuse me, I haven't read any post on this thread twice (but I have read them all once).

Perhaps you should read it again.

But you don't know which side you will get, do you? That's why it's luck. When I choose to use that form, I have made a choice to base my wins against most skilled grey players a 50/50 shot. But they did NOT make that choice, and NOBODY decides which side the opponent uses.

This isn't a black and white situation. No matter what side it is on, there is no immediate deciding factor. Simply because the Witch's have easier access on one side then the other, does not necessarily mean you will lose the game.
Now I will give you that. It is luck. But, as I stated before, you are the one deciding how your formation is set up. Thus that luck can be prevented; even if you don't know what your opponent is doing.
My formation, which I will not post, has defeated numerous types of formations and can't be classified as one style.

Also, again, I simply fail to see the logic in how a bunch of witch blocks would not help my form. My witches would liekly live longer and damage your units more, killing more.

But not necessarily killing more. The risk a Witch would have to take (keeping in mind it's long recovery) would have a very damaging effect on the opposite form.
There's always a unit that can counter the strategy, or the effects, of another. Barriers ward, a Lightning Ward, multiple Clerics, would all have a significant effect against your opponent. And all of those combined can be used against any other form by a relatively good player.

The point is, you choose what you want in the game. You choose what to prevent, and what not to prevent. Thus the luck side of it can be prevented; by your choices.
If something can be expected, or thought about before hand, there is no conceivable way it can held entirely to luck.

Luck cannot be a result of strategy, by its very nature. One can make the odds better for oneself, but one can still get unlucky. That is what luck is. It is not something that, in its purest form, can be controlled. You cannot use superior strategy in a true coin flip or a roll of a die.

The thing you are getting at in this point I realized last night. However, I also found out why I originally believed it applies.

Luck is chance. But chance can be prevented by strategic actions. By choice of what your strategy is, you choose whether to allow luck, or whether not to allow luck.
I never stated luck could be controlled, I did state that it could be manipulated both in and out of the game.

While flipping the coin you get to choose whether you want to flip it. Same with a die. You choose whether to role the dice, or not to. That is the point I am making.

[| Vinco |]

Excellent points to all three of you, Monkus, Cuathon, and Match. But I still believe I have a few more jabs to make in your conclusions.

bombs: they can easily crush you on the defensive, they have a 135 damage or with 3 a 120 damage capability and it is unblockable. if your form can defend against this, it is most likely that it cannot defend verses a rush. there are simply so many forms in existence in gold that form LUCK, yes luck, becomes a significant factor. strategy can only effect it if one side is a moron. and DSMs can get many side or front blocks that force you to move to the back and mage huge holes in your formation.

Your opponent chose to use a bomb, correct? He knew that by using a bomb he was submitting relatively weak units without the DragonSpeaker and Tyrant. They can hit one heck of alot harder quickly. There are weaknesses that you are aware of in your opponents form.
However, your opponent knows where to position his units. He knows that his units have weak defence and relatively weak blocking capabilities.

If he was to position his bomb so that attacks could come from any side; it would be a strategic failure. He would want to force that choice of luck on you; and he is doing so strategically.


The point, or conclusion, is that once your opponent chooses those methods of winning the game, he was forcing you to place luck into the game. That is strategy. He used strategy to make a result of luck.
I can think of a couple ways to counter those forceful actions.



Edit.
You have made a good point of what happens if he starts blocking like mad. It would probably make a dent in your strategy; which is an obvious simplicity; eliminate his units with any of yours. That allows for luck to be a part of your offensive.
So change your strategy. Manipulate your way of eliminating his units and putting his Pyro's or Witch's in difficult positions. A couple things come to mind that would be a more effective strategy.

I ask that you all stop viewing this as black and white. So far, people seem to run into a problem and simply collapse.

[Match Strike]

While flipping the coin you get to choose whether you want to flip it. Same with a die. You choose whether to role the dice, or not to. That is the point I am making.
I can choose to press F5 if i come up against a bomb. That results in a loss for me, an effective "no game."

And I don't think that wa the point you were originally making.

The point, or conclusion, is that once your opponent chooses those methods of winning the game, he was forcing you to place luck into the game. That is strategy. He used strategy to make a result of luck.
Yes, of course someone can strategically make their odds of success better. One can decide to attack from the side instead of the front, etc. However, better odds do not mean 100%. There is no 100% fail-proof strategy.

Also, it disturbs me slightly that you write off everything as a choice, therefore preventable. Yes, of course it was my choice to put my grey turtle on the side of the witch bomb, however, and monkus has said this previously, because I have no advance knowledge of what side my opponent will be on, it is a matter of luck, not strategy. I could put my grey turtle in the center, but I'd call that in itself bad strategy because it will likely loose to another grey turtle on either side.

[Cuathon]

find me a gold strat that is effective against all the others. one which is not weak to a bomb, rush, turtle, anti-rush/non stonie turtle, or spread. these cover all possible strats, it's just that some are less effective.

you can, because it isnt possible. form luck in gold games exists. you cannot show me a form i cant show you an effective counter to. it isnt possible. with so many oppoenents it is possible that you will face your forms counter. that puts him at an advantage regardless of strategy. this can come in many levels of countering, even more general forms can have advantages.

as for forcing luck, if he is forcing luck, so what? i still can't prevent it with strategy. what the hell is the point you are trying to make? there is always a chance that luck will come at you that is out of your control. you cant choose what the enemy plays.

clarify your position. you make no sense. what is the basis of your post? we cant debate with your position if it isnt clear.

[Match Strike]

Me?

Edit: Ah.

Yes Cuathon, it is laughably easy to design a counter to any formation. You can make a form that is good against two of the three main types of strategy present in the gold game, but you still have a chance of coming across the third type. If you never come across that type you are undeniably lucky. If that's all you end up playing, you are inherintly unlucky.

[Office_Shredder]

you can, because it isnt possible. form luck in gold games exists. you cannot show me a form i cant show you an effective counter to. it isnt possible.

Of course there isn't a form that has no effective counter to it.... if there was, everyone would be using it. Interestingly enough, the last time this happened they created something called the mudquake because everyone got sick of playing with the exact same setup against the exact same setup every time. If you want to play with no form luck, just ask for games with no GA, poison wisp, berserker, or mudquake.

And if you can't find anyone willing to play you, there's probably a good reason

[| Vinco |]

I can choose to press F5 if i come up against a bomb. That results in a loss for me, an effective "no game."

And I don't think that wa the point you were originally making.

True, pressing F5 is an effective counter jump strategy. :cool:

The difficult thing I am having right now is that I can't connect the dots for anyone. I warned that people would have to be reasonably intelligent or quick witted to understand this completely. I'm trying to find as much ways to present the situation and idea I have of this game in order for everyone to understand.
And it is the point I am making. Combined with wanting people to take accountability for their losses(no one tends to mention a game they won out of luck; no that I've seen), and moving forward in strategic technique.

Yes, of course someone can strategically make their odds of success better. One can decide to attack from the side instead of the front, etc. However, better odds do not mean 100%. There is no 100% fail-proof strategy.

It's hard to say. I imagine there is hundreds of forms out there that can win a game, at some consequences, and depending on who is sitting in front of the Computer screen.

Also, it disturbs me slightly that you write off everything as a choice, therefore preventable. Yes, of course it was my choice to put my grey turtle on the side of the witch bomb, however, and monkus has said this previously, because I have no advance knowledge of what side my opponent will be on, it is a matter of luck, not strategy. I could put my grey turtle in the center, but I'd call that in itself bad strategy because it will likely loose to another grey turtle on either side.

I have never, not once, lost because the opponent had a grey set up on the opposite or same side as I was. I have lost because I missed the intent of the other player, and I have lost because my opponents strategy outwitted my agressive or defensive strategies.
How you manage to get that concept of the game is beyond me. Perhaps I am not experienced enough.

Regardless, everything is a choice. You can't deny this. And everything is preventable. The trouble you are having is that you don't think it really is preventable, because there is no way you can "know".
My formation (which I am beginning to consider posting for sake of the argument) has allowed me the ability to combat all levels of style.

To make a second point. When creating a grey formation, you, from experience, know which units should be placed where. You also know what possible units your opponent can have, and how if he placed his unit here, he would immediately threaten your placement of this unit there. Thus you change the placement. Perhaps you just isolated the unit when you placed it elsewhere. Now that it's isolated, it's easily eliminated by a Scout or such. Then you move it elsewhere.
With all three Knights up front, it's probable that you could run into a significant problem. They have higher HP's then all other grey units. So you know that if you start getting slammed by a strategy set up by your opponent that you could never have known was going to occur, you have the time to think things through.

For a third point. When your opponent is setting up a formation, they are going to try and consider exactly what will happen and what they want to happen. They can set up keen ploys to quickly eliminate front row Knights and such.
It is your job to figure out a strategy that outwits the opponents. Or, the opponent outwits you.
Meaning, the surprise is part of introducing strategy. If you always knew that your opponent was going to have units in this specific area that are always a significant threat in the game, you could find a strategy yourself intent on simply eliminating those units.

For a fourth point. I can't be positive on Gold accounts; which we've already cleared up. Can anyone(since Eatmine lacks any such capability), give me a good example of how the suprise of formation immediately induces luck that will, no matter what, effect the outcome of the game? More or less, that can't be effected by strategy both after the initial start of the game and before the start of the game? (Preferably grey.) I need this example before putting weight on anyone's opinion on formation strategy.

[| Vinco |]

Your post, Cuathon, will definately succeed in clarifying my position. It's the kind of post that I was asking for in my original essay. Something that induces progress.

find me a gold strat that is effective against all the others. one which is not weak to a bomb, rush, turtle, anti-rush/non stonie turtle, or spread. these cover all possible strats, it's just that some are less effective.

you can, because it isnt possible. form luck in gold games exists. you cannot show me a form i cant show you an effective counter to. it isnt possible. with so many oppoenents it is possible that you will face your forms counter. that puts him at an advantage regardless of strategy. this can come in many levels of countering, even more general forms can have advantages.

I can't. You already know this. I have never had the experience to use Gold units at my command and instruction. I can point to the direction I would take. Something standard, but unique. Such as manipulating a turtle just in case a bomb comes along.
I will edit this thread to relate specifically to grey accounts more so then gold. I can't do anything after that, because there is no significant way for me to examine a gold form that can counter all others.

I do ask though, can you give me what I asked Match to give? An example of how formation differences can immediately decide on how the game is won and that strategy could never have changed the course of the game earlier on?

as for forcing luck, if he is forcing luck, so what? i still can't prevent it with strategy. what the hell is the point you are trying to make? there is always a chance that luck will come at you that is out of your control. you cant choose what the enemy plays.

clarify your position. you make no sense. what is the basis of your post? we cant debate with your position if it isnt clear.

You can manipulate where the enemy goes or how the enemy plays based off your moves. Give the enemy second thoughts, more or less.

If he is forcing luck, this means he is using strategy. In order to evade his force of luck, you have to manipulate his intent. Force him to change strategies in order to keep from being eliminated.
All new, but reasonable players, don't expect that they continue to block. If you use that against them, they have no choice but to re-examine what their own strategy is.

It kind of goes with psychology, I suppose. It's worked with me. If it is convincing, I could come up with some sort of example and PM it to you. I would rather not post it for all to see later on in the future.


As for my point. There is no way I can come right out and define the exact point and intent of this thread. The thing I can do is give my best explanations and hope that I do it well enough to allow you the ability to connect the dots.
Obviously, I don't think I am wrong.
The point of my latest posts are, moreover, to eliminate the "what-ifs", and the belief that luck is the ruling factor in strategic formation.

[Match Strike]

The difficult thing I am having right now is that I can't connect the dots for anyone. I warned that people would have to be reasonably intelligent or quick witted to understand this completely.
If you can't connect the dots for anyone. how do you do it for yourself. Are you chalking this entire debate up to us not being able to read your intents clearly because we aren't smart enough?
I do ask though, can you give me what I asked Match to give? An example of how formation differences can immediately decide on how the game is won and that strategy could never have changed the course of the game earlier on?
I gave you an example. Refer to my post with the witch bomb. Here is the point: If two players meet in a game who are equally skilled, the luckier player will win every time. There are no otheer factors. I played a guy once whos one witch blocked 5 times, however I was far more skilled than him, so I still one even though his witch killed two of my units, whereas if it had not blocked it would have killed none.

However, if that had happened in a game against snarr, Realist, Mithrandar, Guns N' Roses or any other multitude of good grey players, I would not have won. I would most likely have already been losing or it would be even, and the witch blocks would tip the balance.
You can manipulate where the enemy goes or how the enemy plays based off your moves. Give the enemy second thoughts, more or less.
If this was your original point, then I don't know why you didn't say it up front. Everyone could understand this, but it's not what I see you saying.

[lazygun]

Vinco,are you a Military History buff?.
I might be wrong but are you perhaps saying that Ideal Strategy as a concept can optimise favourable events for the user?.

[Office_Shredder]

Vinco,are you a Military History buff?.
I might be wrong but are you perhaps saying that Ideal Strategy as a concept can optimise favourable events for the user?.

Yeah.... it takes a military history buff to realize that doing the best move possible results in good things happening :rolleyes:

[Match Strike]

Yeah O_S. I'm starting to think that's all there is to this thread. Kind of dissapointing. I mean, maybe I'm not intelligent enough, but I think I am, and I think this is just going to go in circles.

[lazygun]

Lol,I just meant that using the word LUCK here might be throwing people off...

[| Vinco |]

If you can't connect the dots for anyone. how do you do it for yourself. Are you chalking this entire debate up to us not being able to read your intents clearly because we aren't smart enough?

Hardly.

Subconscious vs. conscious thoughts depict one's opinion. I am very aware that a person can have every point made to them from another person, but something they percieved somewhere directly change's their entire outlook on it.
Naturally, I can't always understand why I view my opinion as I do. I can grasp as many possible points I can think of or come up with, but the way I present them to another person may not, in the slightest bit, effect how they view something.

It's a corelation betwen previous experience and facts. What I have to do is present the best explanation I can come up with multiple times in order to get connect the dots for yourself.
In no way does it mean I am more intelligent. Every person has a different method of percieving, understanding, and expressing curiosity.

I gave you an example. Refer to my post with the witch bomb. Here is the point: If two players meet in a game who are equally skilled, the luckier player will win every time. There are no otheer factors. I played a guy once whos one witch blocked 5 times, however I was far more skilled than him, so I still one even though his witch killed two of my units, whereas if it had not blocked it would have killed none.

Your first post with the Witch bomb has already been discounted. Even by yourself. A strategy employed against the Witch bomb would, could, effectively defeat your opponent. So unit strategy.

Interesting point indeed. So then you agree. Strategy is the rulling factor. If one person has more understanding of strategy then the next, then more then likely they will win.
If both are equal and strategy fails for the both of them, the result is luck.

Your point seems to be that the one with the better understanding of strategy is going to win.

Again, it seem's you are trying to disprove that luck doesn't exist in the game and can be a deciding factor. My argument is simply that luck is a result of strategy; thus strategy is the ruling factor.

If this was your original point, then I don't know why you didn't say it up front. Everyone could understand this, but it's not what I see you saying.

I'm pretty sure I did say it. If not, I said it in response to one of Cuathon's posts in the Suggetions forum and just got the two confused.
And it wasn't my original point, per se. I'm sure I should have put it in the essay if I had not already.

[| Vinco |]

Vinco,are you a Military History buff?.
I might be wrong but are you perhaps saying that Ideal Strategy as a concept can optimise favourable events for the user?.

Something like that. My initial intention was to explain why users on TAO should stop blaming their losses on luck and refer to strategic failure instead. Cuathon and I got into the luck factor on another thread in the Suggestions forum. I figured since I see luck being blamed for losses and the sorts, I might stir up trouble and contradict it.
Presently, in response to Cuathon's posts on blocks and such, your statement on "ideal strategy" would be correct.

[| Vinco |]

Yeah O_S. I'm starting to think that's all there is to this thread. Kind of dissapointing. I mean, maybe I'm not intelligent enough, but I think I am, and I think this is just going to go in circles.


It is going in circles at the moment. Until I find a good explanation for my reasoning on how luck is not the ruling factor in any aspect of the game, it will probably continue to run in circles.

[Match Strike]

I... good Lord you just misrepresented what I said.

[| Vinco |]

I... good Lord you just misrepresented what I said.

Naturally. It progressed my argument. Now it is your turn to respond why my points don't apply and what the initial point was.

[Match Strike]

No it isn't. All it means is that I'm done debating this with you if that's how you're going to be.

[Cuathon]

luck is not the ruling factor, but it CAN be the DECIDING factor. there is a range of skill depending on the amount of luck where it affects you. possibly the psychological effect is more pronounced than the actual effect on the game itself.

because strategy is only the main factor and the absolute factor some games can be blamed on luck, i am fairly sure though that it is overreported due to subconcious or psychological effect.

luck is very limited in grey besides the psycho* effect. in gold formation luck is fairly large and can help lead to other luck as you might need good luck o make up the advantage.

certain luck at important times is more effective than worse luck at a better time. a block in the beginning might not be as important as a life saving block in the endgame. since the cmputer ignores any varibles accept the randomizing rules, blocking is not so much luck as when the blocking(or hitting,) happens. I can have 3 witch side blocks in a row that hurt me less than one scout side block.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Hmm, i read it two times now, still don't get your point ...
Since you are not talking strategy, but "concept of the game", what is it you are saying?
Luck is not inherent in the game but a result of bad gameplay?
(i am not sure if that's your point, because you went into that direction a few times but then had other comments denying it ...)
(i'd prefer a yes or no answer :) )

In short:
Luck favors the prepared mind.

[lazygun]

THAT was the five words I could not find at the time...:cool:
Top marks to L.T..:D

[| Vinco |]

No it isn't. All it means is that I'm done debating this with you if that's how you're going to be.

Oh poor you. I ran into this on debate forums when people I was debating with refused to acknowledge they were wrong; or when they ran into trouble of getting anywhere else with their arguments.

What I did was rather convenient and simple. I used your argument and took it a step further. I pointed out something involved in it that you didn't like; so it becomes misrepresentation.

However, if you want to prove that wrong, please do carry on. I am naturally impatient.

[| Vinco |]

Not quite sure where most of the rest of your post was getting at, but I'll respond to this part.

certain luck at important times is more effective than worse luck at a better time. a block in the beginning might not be as important as a life saving block in the endgame. since the cmputer ignores any varibles accept the randomizing rules, blocking is not so much luck as when the blocking(or hitting,) happens. I can have 3 witch side blocks in a row that hurt me less than one scout side block.

Most of this is true, and I won't get into denouncing some of it. It would be simple for me to just state that you should avoid the possibility of a block/hit during critical periods.

[Cuathon]

not always possible.

[| Vinco |]

not always possible.

Because...

Of the position your unit was in when you chose to put it there? Or because of the position you were forced to apply by your opponents strategy/threat?

[JesusCraig]

Good day Vinco, it is great to see another person who enjoys arguments.

The natural problem here is both people are arguing different points. While Match and Monkus and Cauthon state positions in which luck would be influential or not, Vinco makes statements which state that luck is determined by the employment of each aspect of the game. These two points cannot be reconciled because in the first scenario, monkus, cauthon and match your assuming a predisposition for luck or your inferring prior traits which aren't inferrable.

On this aspect I think I can clarify, Match, Monkus, and Cauthon, you are making assumptions that when you create a form that has an inherent weakness and by "random chance" encounter a form built to defeat it, that luck was involved, but this is not a fair assumption, you made the choice in creating the form with inherent weaknesses, its not luck that resulted in you being beaten, its an inherent weakness in style. Anything which can be preventable is by nature not luck induced. The given argument then becomes that since nothing is inherently powerful against everything, there will always be forms which can beat the one you use, and by "chance" you meet one, how is it not luck that they win even though they are less skilled? It becomes a matter of a larger scope, if there is a form which beats you, but is employed by only a single person, then your form is by nature more strategic then another which is beaten by 2 people, and so forth, the act of minimizing luck in this instance is to adapt to commonalities within forms and create those which will defeat the greatest bulk of players you play, much like in a single instance you cannot determine luck, (Is a player who blocked with a front witch lucky? In the immediate scheme you may say yes, with the knowledge that he has missed 3 knight blocks prior, is that player still lucky?) it requires a larger sampling of games to make that decision, luck may be a determining factor in how one form beats you, but if the vast majority is minimized, the luck factor is minimized as well. In this sense it is indeed strategy as opposed to luck which results in the beneficial outcomes, and in that sense your arguments are misleading, luck cannot be seen through a pinpoint in time.

Take for example a common occurence, many of you may ask for a turtle game. This is done to minimize the chances that a rush will be used, which is the dominant form, this is a minimization of luck, and thus strategy.

This can be applied to within games, however I will not present that argument until tomorrow, and if any of this is incoherent or errantly spelled, I blame it on it being 3 am.

[lazygun]

Just to keep this going i would like to suggest that using the word Luck is incorrect in this context.

I mean that Formations/Blocks/Positioning etc are all ultimately,statisical probability events with no bias against or for any particular player.:confused:

It's how these events are viewed/biased by the player him/herself.

[| Vinco |]

Touche` JesusCraig.

Lazygun,
I had already made comments on that before when Match brought it up. Luck, is chance. Because it can be prevented, or it's occurance can be prevented, does not mean it is not luck.
Point being, luck in itself is not it's occurance, but what it is. The way I have been using luck is reffering to it's occurance. The occurance can be stopped, but luck as it is can't be controlled.

Hmm..the things you are defining as "luck" are indeed so. Block's are luck. They can be prevented; but that in no way interferes with what luck is or how its outcome will be.
Confusing?

[lazygun]

Now Chance is a much better word to use in place of Luck,which for me entails that the nature of the event is fundamentally biased.
Maybe just me and the word luck..:bigsmile:
As for most of everything else you have replied,I'm in general agreement.

[JesusCraig]

Yeah he's right, luck carries connotations whereas chance does not carry the same connotations, luck implies a general predisposition, in the sense that someone can be lucky or unlucky, or an action can do the same. Since you speak of forcing chance in one way or another luck isn't necessarily the correct word, however I find it to be a rather irrelevent topic since its semantics.

Essay cut short because I need to go. (Will resume on the topic of chance within games when I return)

Also, doesn't touche mean imply that I attacked some points you made Vinco, where I was supporting you it doesn't seem to really apply,I say this just to clarify that I was supporting your statement.

[| Vinco |]

Chance and luck I relate to the basic same thing while in game. Same idea, same concept. I don't believe being able to prevent "chance" or "luck" from occuring makes the definition or implications change in any means whatsoever.
I would think, if anything, chance applies to Strategic Concept less so then luck. Chance tends to be reffered to, as a daring or risky move. I.e., the opponent could see your intent and completely flawless you, whereas, luck would mean that your opponent could see your intent, but may or may not be able to flawless you.

Also, doesn't touche mean imply that I attacked some points you made Vinco, where I was supporting you it doesn't seem to really apply,I say this just to clarify that I was supporting your statement.

Doesn't necessarily mean you were touche-ing me. If I were to give it a defintion, I would think that it would mean finishing move, or something similar, to the opposition.

[Ice_Prison]

Bravo! Interesting read and well thought out. Random thoughts in no order:


- It is a novel take on the concept of luck and how losing to luck is nobody's fault but your own bad strategy. You are the decider of your own fate.


-BUT, I don't agree with the way you use the term "luck". If luck and strategy were on a continuum, they would be on opposite ends. If luck is to noobs; then strategy is to vets. Noobs rely on luck to win while vets use strategy. In the common sense meaning of the word "luck", there is no strategic element to it. Pure dumb luck. I think it wise to keep luck and strategy separate, and not mix the 2 together. "Chance" as a replacement would be more apt and less contentious.


- The 3 main points illustrate your argument nicely but some of the situations are too simplistic and not sketched out well enough. While a veteran will understand them, a newb probably won't since you can be pretty vague at times.


- It also seems there is an underlying assumption that your essay is only based on grey turtle matches. Only grey units are mentioned and many of your arguments hinge on protecting the cleric at all costs such as by making unit roadblocks preventing access to the cleric, which is typical of grey turtle games. As such, your essay doesn't cover a lot of other situations such as Gold, rush, bomb and spread games. It can be misleading to others who play those games exclusively. A note at the bottom saying the situations apply only to grey games could prevent future confusion.


Looking forward to your next essay~

[Cuathon]

once you minimize luck to the largest extent you can, it can still be a factor.
it can effect games. besides that since it is impossible, except by luck, to find the form that minimizes luck to the largest extent, seeing as none of us are perfect and there are over 1000000 forms, possibly lots more.

[| Vinco |]

-BUT, I don't agree with the way you use the term "luck". If luck and strategy were on a continuum, they would be on opposite ends. If luck is to noobs; then strategy is to vets. Noobs rely on luck to win while vets use strategy. In the common sense meaning of the word "luck", there is no strategic element to it. Pure dumb luck. I think it wise to keep luck and strategy separate, and not mix the 2 together. "Chance" as a replacement would be more apt and less contentious.


I see.

You agree with me that failure on strategy results in "luck" or "chance". If you succeed in your strategy; say, move your Scout forward to remove a Witch that had attacked and then moved backed. The risks you are taking are a Knight that would easily do a good 20 damage on you. Other then that it would take two turns for the opponent to hit you with something else.
Under the assumption that you would not heal(say your Cleric is recovering), the Knight would need two hits in order to remove the Scout.
We also have to note that the Scout can move close enough to hit the Witch from the side, but you choose not to in case your opponent blocks you in. Thus you are left with the front. You should still hit.
Chance, says you will hit. Luck is that factor that's playing the game, because even with chance, you can never be certain that 4 out of 5 times you will hit that Witch. Or 2 out of 5 times the Knight will hit your Scout.
There's no logical method for finding out whether or not you will hit. You can always find out what the chances of you hitting are, but not precisely nor accurately on all occasions.

- The 3 main points illustrate your argument nicely but some of the situations are too simplistic and not sketched out well enough. While a veteran will understand them, a newb probably won't since you can be pretty vague at times.

Probably true. I'll consider actually editing it. Or wait until I become gold to write a more thorough one.

- It also seems there is an underlying assumption that your essay is only based on grey turtle matches. Only grey units are mentioned and many of your arguments hinge on protecting the cleric at all costs such as by making unit roadblocks preventing access to the cleric, which is typical of grey turtle games. As such, your essay doesn't cover a lot of other situations such as Gold, rush, bomb and spread games. It can be misleading to others who play those games exclusively. A note at the bottom saying the situations apply only to grey games could prevent future confusion.

Mhm. In my previous posts I have mentioned editing it(never got around to it) because there was no credibility to my experience with Golds.

[| Vinco |]

once you minimize luck to the largest extent you can, it can still be a factor.
it can effect games. besides that since it is impossible, except by luck, to find the form that minimizes luck to the largest extent, seeing as none of us are perfect and there are over 1000000 forms, possibly lots more.

I have a form that does. I.e., that removes immediately deciding luck based off what I expect from my opponents strategy. Naturally, my opponent would always be capable of "moving around" my strategy in order to bring luck involved.
I have strategy for stopping that, too.