by sparr0
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That 1/6 vs 5/6 comparison only holds true if you ignore absolutely everything that went before it in the game.
You cannot simply treat each dice roll as an isolated event.
You cannot simply treat each dice roll as an isolated event.
Die rolls in the middle of the game affect each other. But that does not hold for the potentially-last die roll of the game. As soon as the game reaches a situation where one random event decides the outcome of the game, that event stands alone. Nothing after it can balance it out. Whatever skew from average that specific random event imparts is permanent.
cornixt wrote:
It's a dice/card game, there is an element of luck. There will be occasions when you win or lose due to luck. Better players will still win more of the time.
Given the choice between a game where the better player wins 90% of the time and a game where the better player wins 51% of the time, I'll choose the former. I recognize that plenty of people in this thread thoroughly enjoy the latter. I don't, unless it's a very fast filler game.
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I was playing Settlers of Catan the other day ... Damn luck!
And the designers recognized the problem with the amount of luck in Settlers, so they introduced an official expansion with cards to replace the dice, and included that expansion by default in some future releases.
Pretty much any game that relies on 2d6 can be made less luck-y and more skillful with http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5460/the-deck-of-dice or the game-specific equivalent such as for Settlers.
Thanks for the supporting example.