Luck Plays No Part in Diplomacy

[Restitution]

Basically what it comes down to is that you are ascribing an incorrect guess to luck, and I am ascribing an incorrect guess to a players decision. You are saying that luck comes into play when there is incomplete information, and I am saying luck comes into play when the rules call for some sort of rng.

We both agree that a player cannot guarantee a win in certain situations because of incomplete information. We both agree that in a game theory situation, a player can have no greater success rate than a coin flip. We both agree (I think?) that game theory perfection does not exist in real life full press diplomacy.

Does that about sums things up?

Yep, that's correct. I am using a broader definition of luck.

Though I think that as skill mutually increases, play will generally approach game theory optimal play.

[Restitution]

My original contention with OP is that he was claiming that people were factually wrong when they were just using different connotations of the words "random" or "luck". It's self-evidently the case that Diplomacy has no RNG mechanics and nobody has ever argued otherwise.

[FiftyFifty]

"Luck plays no part" is such a brilliant phrase. It doesn't deny that there is luck involved. It asserts that luck can always be influenced. For example, your neighbor might enter the game determined to ally with your other neighbor to your detriment. But the game's systems give you some influence over this form of luck, and all others. It's impossible to remove fringe elements of luck that exist within human behavior, but the diplomatic part of diplomacy means you can always control those random elements, unlike in Backgammon, where you can only react - for the most part.

[Restitution]

"Luck plays no part" is such a brilliant phrase. It doesn't deny that there is luck involved. It asserts that luck can always be influenced. For example, your neighbor might enter the game determined to ally with your other neighbor to your detriment. But the game's systems give you some influence over this form of luck, and all others. It's impossible to remove fringe elements of luck that exist within human behavior, but the diplomatic part of diplomacy means you can always control those random elements, unlike in Backgammon, where you can only react - for the most part.

According to this interpretation, "luck plays no part" in poker, since that game is all about manipulating and controlling chance and other players' behavior.

[Your Humble Narrator]

I think that’s an absurd interpretation of “playing no part.”

[swordsman3003]

It's self-evidently the case that Diplomacy has no RNG mechanics and nobody has ever argued otherwise.

I began my essay by quoting real people, including one person describing Diplomacy as having RNG in that exact terminology.

You. Didn’t. Read. The. Articles.

It’s not at ALL “self-evident” that Diplomacy has no RNG mechanics, because a significant number of players labor under the delusion that the moves of the other players are chosen at “random” or “essentially random” or “functionally random” or “should be random” or they however they put it. Now we are debating the idea that players should use a literal random number generator to choose their moves.

In the context of the widespread misconception that guessing-games are “random” (as in randomized), the realization that the other players moves are not random, not equivalent to coin flips or decks of cards or RNG, is a profound, even worldview-altering insight.

Restitution, you have made more than 100 posts on this site and you haven’t even played 20 matches. You don’t read the stuff other people write before running your mouth. You don’t even read the articles you link to. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you talk incessantly.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Restitution]

Restitution, you have made more than 100 posts on this site and you haven’t even played 20 matches. You don’t read the stuff other people write before running your mouth. You don’t even read the articles you link to. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you talk incessantly.

Welcome to my ignore list.

I studied the philosophy of language and game theory in university. I also played poker semi-professionally for a few years. I never claimed to be good at Diplomacy and I didn't really make particular reference to the game in any of my points.

Assuming you haven't blocked me yet, which quote in particular is claiming that Diplomacy has got RNG mechanics?

[Restitution]

It’s not at ALL “self-evident” that Diplomacy has no RNG mechanics, because a significant number of players labor under the delusion that the moves of the other players are chosen at “random” or “essentially random” or “functionally random” or “should be random” or they however they put it. Now we are debating the idea that players should use a literal random number generator to choose their moves.

But these aren't RNG mechanics? These are claims about human psychology being random, they're not claims that the game of Diplomacy has got built-in RNG mechanics.

[Restitution]

Just checked that quote regarding RNG, and, again, you are interpreting that quote uncharitably.

The behavior of other players in 1901 Spring in a Gunboat game is, in fact, down to what is analogous to RNG, because you're being matched against randomly selected players and you can't control their behavior in any way at all. As Russia, you are going to do measurably worse in any game where Turkey opens to Armenia, and you have absolutely 0 control over that outcome.

But that quote still did not claim that the game of Diplomacy itself has RNG mechanics. Nobody has claimed that.

[Carl Tuckerson]

It's self-evidently the case that Diplomacy has no RNG mechanics and nobody has ever argued otherwise.

I began my essay by quoting real people, including one person describing Diplomacy as having RNG in that exact terminology.

You. Didn’t. Read. The. Articles.

It’s not at ALL “self-evident” that Diplomacy has no RNG mechanics, because a significant number of players labor under the delusion that the moves of the other players are chosen at “random” or “essentially random” or “functionally random” or “should be random” or they however they put it. Now we are debating the idea that players should use a literal random number generator to choose their moves.

In the context of the widespread misconception that guessing-games are “random” (as in randomized), the realization that the other players moves are not random, not equivalent to coin flips or decks of cards or RNG, is a profound, even worldview-altering insight.

Restitution, you have made more than 100 posts on this site and you haven’t even played 20 matches. You don’t read the stuff other people write before running your mouth. You don’t even read the articles you link to. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you talk incessantly.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Horrendously poor form. You are doing a massive disservice to your work behaving like this. Multiple people have told you now that you have misrepresented what they've said to make your point, and you persist in pushing on ahead with mischaracterization after mischaracterization.
You're the one playing "puerile word games" at this point, to borrow your turn of phrase. Extremely disappointing.

[Squigs44]

Just checked that quote regarding RNG, and, again, you are interpreting that quote uncharitably.

The behavior of other players in 1901 Spring in a Gunboat game is, in fact, down to what is analogous to RNG, because you're being matched against randomly selected players and you can't control their behavior in any way at all. As Russia, you are going to do measurably worse in any game where Turkey opens to Armenia, and you have absolutely 0 control over that outcome.

But that quote still did not claim that the game of Diplomacy itself has RNG mechanics. Nobody has claimed that.

He was probably referring to this quote:
"Luck plays a non-trivial part of standard diplomacy; if nothing else, there are plenty of times where a situation will boil down to coin flip type attack/defense positions, where it really is just basically RNG who 'wins' an action."

Note the term standard diplomacy in this one. I think this line of reasoning is consistent with the types of discussions we have been having.

That said, I think swordsman could have been less confrontational in his post to you and actually pointed out which quote he was talking about, since there were several in the article.

[Restitution]

He was probably referring to this quote:
"Luck plays a non-trivial part of standard diplomacy; if nothing else, there are plenty of times where a situation will boil down to coin flip type attack/defense positions, where it really is just basically RNG who 'wins' an action."

Note the term standard diplomacy in this one. I think this line of reasoning is consistent with the types of discussions we have been having.

That said, I think swordsman could have been less confrontational in his post to you and actually pointed out which quote he was talking about, since there were several in the article.

That's still using "RNG" as an analogy, though, not a claim that RNG mechanics actually exist in Diplomacy.

[Squigs44]

He was probably referring to this quote:
"Luck plays a non-trivial part of standard diplomacy; if nothing else, there are plenty of times where a situation will boil down to coin flip type attack/defense positions, where it really is just basically RNG who 'wins' an action."

Note the term standard diplomacy in this one. I think this line of reasoning is consistent with the types of discussions we have been having.

That said, I think swordsman could have been less confrontational in his post to you and actually pointed out which quote he was talking about, since there were several in the article.

That's still using "RNG" as an analogy, though, not a claim that RNG mechanics actually exist in Diplomacy.

This user was claiming that the process of a player looking at the board, reading press, thinking through his options, making a decision, and submitting the order for a unit "really is just basically RNG".

Are you saying that a player looking at a board, reading press, thinking through his options, making a decision, and submitting an order for a unit is not part of game mechanics?

[FiftyFifty]

"Luck plays no part" is such a brilliant phrase. It doesn't deny that there is luck involved. It asserts that luck can always be influenced. For example, your neighbor might enter the game determined to ally with your other neighbor to your detriment. But the game's systems give you some influence over this form of luck, and all others. It's impossible to remove fringe elements of luck that exist within human behavior, but the diplomatic part of diplomacy means you can always control those random elements, unlike in Backgammon, where you can only react - for the most part.

There are plenty of RNG elements in poker you can't control, and some you don't even interact with. So they're not the same and my post didn't imply they were.

According to this interpretation, "luck plays no part" in poker, since that game is all about manipulating and controlling chance and other players' behavior.

[swordsman3003]

Multiple people have told you now that you have misrepresented what they've said to make your point, and you persist in pushing on ahead with mischaracterization after mischaracterization.

On this, I simply disagree. My essays on luck in Diplomacy inform the reader that I am not taking other people’s expressions at face value, and explain why I decided to do that.

One of my theses is that players are psychologically drawn to the word “luck” for emotional reasons, which is telling (about their mindset), because the word is loaded. The word choice reveals underlying psychological processes that people rarely perceive in themselves, let alone acknowledge.

It’s quite a startling way of doing things. I know it’s upsetting to be called a sore loser. But it’s what I really think, and self-serving “clarification” doesn’t alter my view. I believe I have characterized others’ attitude correctly. They’re insulted and frustrated that I have put them in a critical light, so they claim I’m mischaracterizing them. That’s to be expected; that’s what would happen whether my claims were accurate or inaccurate.

So believe me, or don’t.

I don’t have to take others at their word, and rarely do.

Welcome to Diplomacy.

[Carl Tuckerson]

You defined out of existence any plausible room for people to disagree with you, insisted on defining others' words your way when others clearly disagreed with the way you were framing them, and then insulted them as sore losers when they got frustrated with your intransigence with the terms of the discussion, and somehow you're the guy sincerely looking for the answers here and everyone else is the one with mental hangups? Good talk. Maybe in the future don't invite discussion on your posts if you're not sincerely looking for it.

[Your Humble Narrator]

I thought we'd moved past dismissing people who believe luck plays a part in Diplomacy as sore losers. People like to throw around the ad hominem accusation, but that's exactly what you're doing when you pointlessly toss in that kind of rhetoric. I, and I'm sure many or all of the people engaging in this discussion, think when I lose at Diplomacy it's typically because I got outplayed. I think that when I win at Diplomacy it's often because I outplayed the other players on the board. My belief about luck playing a part has nothing to do with me trying to distance myself from accountability for my failures. I specifically pointed to a game I won to serve as an example of what I perceived be luck playing a part in Diplomacy, partly in the hopes that you would abandon this silly line of argumentation.

[Your Humble Narrator]

While I'm ranting, let me add that I feel the number of games Restitution has played, the number of games I have won, the number of words in each essay, and a host of other numbers cited in the course of this discussion, are of little to no relevance to the question being debated.

[jmo1121109]

While I'm ranting, let me add that I feel the number of games Restitution has played, the number of games I have won, the number of words in each essay, and a host of other numbers cited in the course of this discussion, are of little to no relevance to the question being debated.

I strongly disagree when the premise of various arguments was based on the concept of dismissing all other factors in a press game. That very concept shows a fundamental flaw in the way you play the game proven out by your rankings. I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm saying it because we offer multiple resources to improve your game. And dismissing the premise of those resources seems odd.

That is why I am making the points I am at least. I'm less interested in the general discussion here and more in the mindset it's revealing some people hold about the importance or lack thereof of press at certain key stages of a game.

[Mercy]

Luck plays a part in Diplomacy. Less so than in a game like Risk, but more so than in a game like Chess.

Other people have already pointed out that, in a gunboat match, you have no control over the opening moves of the other players. I think it is appropriate to call it 'lucky' or 'unlucky' if the opening moves of the other players are good respectively bad for you - in a gunboat match.

Guessing the moves of opponents is a combination of luck and skill. Jmo said that he manages to outguess his opponents in apparently 50/50 guesses 75% of the time. Okay, that means he loses a guess 25% of the time. Are all of these losses because he didn't play well enough? Are 25% of his opponents better than him? I wouldn't necessarily think so. I call it a combination of skill and bad luck. Everyone has a certain chance to guess wrong. This chance differs from person to person and depends, among other things, on ones skill level. But it is a chance.

To illustrate an example of a situation where even a superhuman guesser will sometimes guess wrong, imagine that you are playing a gunboat game as Austria and Italy opens Rome to Venice, Venice to Tyrolia, and Naples to Ionian Sea. How would you guess the Italian moves in the fall of 1901? There is so little game history that there are plenty of examples of an Italy opening this way and doing one thing and of an Italy opening this way and doing another thing. You can certainly improve your odds of guessing right if you are knowledgeable of things that Italy often does in this case, but you cannot eliminate chance completely.

By the way, I saw a question popping up of somebody asking if there is anyone who actually uses an RNG to determine his moves. Yes, I have done that on occasion. I can appreciate the guessing game and, if I may say so, have some skill in it (I came in second in the first FvA tournament on this site, which you can't think is due to luck if you are one of the people I have to convince that luck plays a role in Diplomacy) but when I get the feeling that my opponent is better at it than I, or just has a tendency to outguess my moves, I don't hesitate to let fate decide my moves sometimes.

Lastly, I saw swordsman arguing that in order to try to improve in Diplomacy, you should assume that chance plays no role. I disagree with that, too. I'd assume that your successes and failures are mainly due to skill, but that chance plays some role. If I tried out a new strategy and won the game, I wouldn't conclude 'This is a good strategy', I would conclude 'I have obtained some statistical evidence that this is a good strategy'.