BaldAdonis wrote:I think OP's right, but not for the reasons he says. I mean, his title is right: top players are overrated. Someone with 5000 points is meant to be able to beat an average player (with 1000 points) 25 out of 26 times. I've heard that on Waterloo with no cards and fog this might happen (once in a blue moon), but that's usually because the new player doesn't understand the little pictures and bombardment rules. The numbers are just too high, as though there were some sort of "inflating" factor which artificially "overrated" most players. By most I mean pretty much everyone.
It would happen if dice weren't an element in the game. I lost a game today vs a sergeant, who I absolutely smashed gameplay wise.
Every single turn for the first 6 turns I had a higher deployment than him, simply by outplaying him. I cashed immediately after he cashed (escalating game), to have more armies than him. I played all the odds correctly, positioned myself significantly better than him, and even was hesitant to make any rash moves. I didn't move in for the win too quickly, I waited until I had secure dice, the first time I waited until I had 11 v 3 to secure my victory. I lost, going 1-10, leaving him two armies left. If I killed him there I would have sectioned his armies all to the Asia section on the board, and would have been able to fortify off the West side completely and focus on another front, meaning that I would have a significant territory advantage and a bonus.
So we were about back to even, my +1 army deployment for each of the turns meaning nothing, including the +2 armies I got. We continued playing, he started wasting armies vs neutrals, something people who know strategy know is a big no-no in a 1v1. However he gets miracle dice, killing 3 neutral 3's, (totaling 9 armies over 3 territories), and lose 2 armies in the process.
So I wait to play my odds again, he's going to take the board if I don't act, so I playing smart, make a 6v2 move in order to section off a small group of armies which would give me a small advantage back over him (from being equal). I go 0-4, of course. Next turn, he has africa, so I know I need to break it. I cash in (he cashed first), and received 10 armies, totally to 11 on a territory. I did 11 vs 2, and went 0-10. I proceeded to lose all other rolls that were 4v1 and 3v1 on the rest of the map, and even though I had a higher deployment than him nearly the entire game, and although I outplayed him in nearly every aspect, dice screwed me over. And the dice weren't mutually destructive for the attacker, he was going nearly 66% on his dice. If he knew what he was doing (didn't kill neutrals, sectioned me off the map, played faster) he could have killed me in 4 turns or so. However the match was a joke, he averaged once again like 66%.
Played another on Doodle Earth today, would have won if I won 12 v 6, but I lost, going 4-9, me having 3 armies left and him 2. He crushed me shortly after.
Luck is a huge element in this game. The dice only balance out in the long run, and often go in streaks, something I detest. I would rather have the dice be less "random" in the short run, even potentially fixed to go more on 50-50 results. For although the dice might average over the course of the game, it means nothing at the end of the game when the deployments are able to significantly overcome poor luck. Anyways, this mini-essay is in response to the "A top player should win 25/26" or some BS like that. Maybe at something like an RTS game where luck isn't an element. However, when this game has a high luck factor involved, it means nothing.
And to whoever is the retard that said something concerning the high players horde the points, it's friggin' impossible to do that amongst each other, as no points are created nor destroyed. They are only transferred. If one high ranked player beats another, one loses 25 the other gains 25, so there's no way they can simply boost each other up. What a stupid comment.
