I've concluded this game is almost all luck, skill not required

[noisyturtle]

You can have the best deck with the strongest synergies, then draw RNG and boss blinds just say 'nah, you lose this one'

87% Luck
13% Knowledge
0% Skill

[RazzberryMocha]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Milkshake:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย RazzberryMocha:

Explain how the entire argument of content creators cheating at all isn't a Russell's teapot fallacy.

the russel teapot fallacy is when you claim that something exist and the sole argument is "just trust me bro, you can't see it but it's there"

And my point is that we cannot know if they modified their game files unless they verify game files before playing. And since i never saw one do it, all i can do is trust them.
If anything, the russel teapot argument comes from you guys asking me to just accept any runs as legit until proven false.
Like saying god exists until proven false.

And yeah i do trust them.
I've watched some northernlion videos playing balatro and i don't think he's cheating. But can i be sure about it ? Not really.

So when you tell me "You can see people get crazy win streaks online", i cannot just accept it without pressing X to doubt.

Russell's teapot is about how an argument/claim can be disproven without evidence. You are claiming that some, if not multiple people in the community are blatant cheaters because there isn't proof that they aren't. Proof isn't necessary for someone to be deemed legit, a lack of proof doesn't prove cheating. You have constructed an argument with the only defense being that no one can disprove you, so you are right. Everyone against you has claimed that content creators are not cheaters with more reasons than purely "you can't prove they are"(replaying seeds, using your eyes to see if they have mods, that persons reputation, etc.). It is very easy to prove/disprove cheating in any game, even something such as minor probability changes as you have suggested.

[Milkshake]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย RazzberryMocha:

Russell's teapot is about how an argument/claim can be disproven without evidence. You are claiming that some, if not multiple people in the community are blatant cheaters because there isn't proof that they aren't. Proof isn't necessary for someone to be deemed legit, a lack of proof doesn't prove cheating. You have constructed an argument with the only defense being that no one can disprove you, so you are right. Everyone against you has claimed that content creators are not cheaters with more reasons than purely "you can't prove they are"(replaying seeds, using your eyes to see if they have mods, that persons reputation, etc.). It is very easy to prove/disprove cheating in any game, even something such as minor probability changes as you have suggested.

You're doing a reversal of the burden of proof right now.
I never said that everyone is cheating until proven otherwise. I simply said that the argument that some people made good win streaks online is not a strong argument because the game is so easy to modify.

You are the one claiming that they don't cheat until proven otherwise. Are you familliar with speedrunning or world records ? You know there's a reason why they require participants to do some chekups, right?

I'm tired of arguing about this. So let's assume you are correct.
It would STILL not be enough to say that skill is what makes them win consistently alone.
If i flip a coing 10000x there will be a point where i will hit Face 10 times in a row.
If they play 100 games of balatro there will be a point where they win 5 times in a row.

[srn347]

Yes but if you want to get 20 heads in a row, it'll (on average) take you 1,048,576 flips. The win streaks achieved by, for instance, balatro university are beyond the point where you can merely explain it away as random variance. In addition, if the game were entirely luck based then each streak would be fully independent of other ones. You would have as much chance of getting a 20 win streak as balatro university would have of getting another one. In practice there are those who are consistently streaking (skilled players), as well as several who are consistently losing (unskilled players). This is not the expected data for a luck-based game, just saying.

[RazzberryMocha]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Milkshake:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย RazzberryMocha:

Russell's teapot is about how an argument/claim can be disproven without evidence. You are claiming that some, if not multiple people in the community are blatant cheaters because there isn't proof that they aren't. Proof isn't necessary for someone to be deemed legit, a lack of proof doesn't prove cheating. You have constructed an argument with the only defense being that no one can disprove you, so you are right. Everyone against you has claimed that content creators are not cheaters with more reasons than purely "you can't prove they are"(replaying seeds, using your eyes to see if they have mods, that persons reputation, etc.). It is very easy to prove/disprove cheating in any game, even something such as minor probability changes as you have suggested.

You're doing a reversal of the burden of proof right now.
I never said that everyone is cheating until proven otherwise. I simply said that the argument that some people made good win streaks online is not a strong argument because the game is so easy to modify.

You are the one claiming that they don't cheat until proven otherwise. Are you familliar with speedrunning or world records ? You know there's a reason why they require participants to do some chekups, right?

I'm tired of arguing about this. So let's assume you are correct.
It would STILL not be enough to say that skill is what makes them win consistently alone.
If i flip a coing 10000x there will be a point where i will hit Face 10 times in a row.
If they play 100 games of balatro there will be a point where they win 5 times in a row.

Are you familiar with speedrunning/competitive gaming? You realize that they typically only ask for proof of you not cheating when there is a suspicion of cheating in the first place, never will you be forced to submit your game files along with your speedrun unless it looks fishy or you're new and have done something that people won't believe from your reputation.
Also, comparing Balatro to flipping a coin is the biggest false equivalence fallacy I've seen.

[Milkshake]

Just right now i had a good run with spade suit because i openned spectral boosters and chosed to covert all my cards to a random suit twice, hitting spades both of the time. With the spade chip joker and the spade mult joker

It was the result of one of my decisions yes, but my decision would have meant nothing without the result. If it had hit hearths, would have probably lost faster.

And i also had the egg (+3$ value each rounds) + the joker that gives +mult equal to the value of other jokers.

with that, i found a vampire which i used to carry me to the end of the run.

I was lucky, sure. Was it all luck ? no because i had to give an input to affect the outcome.
But also yes because my inputs would have meant nothing without the right joker at the right moment to carry me from one ante to the other.

But if you want to tell me i'm good at the game then you're welcomed.

[AnonTwo]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Milkshake:

I know.
And did you do that everytime you watched someone make a good run or a win streak ?
i would not do that, i better play the game instead.
I don't think a lot of people will do it tbh.
Such cheating could easily fly under our noses for months before someone tries using the same seed with the same moves just to be sure.

And such a thing happens all the time. In skill-based games. But it's still verifiable. Just because you or I didn't do it doesn't mean it's not true.

Anyway i'm out. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. If even the literal truth won't change your mind then you're not here for the truth.

[RazzberryMocha]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Milkshake:

Just right now i had a good run with spade suit because i openned spectral boosters and chosed to covert all my cards to a random suit twice, hitting spades both of the time. With the spade chip joker and the spade mult joker

It was the result of one of my decisions yes, but my decision would have meant nothing without the result. If it had hit hearths, would have probably lost faster.

And i also had the egg (+3$ value each rounds) + the joker that gives +mult equal to the value of other jokers.

with that, i found a vampire which i used to carry me to the end of the run.

I was lucky, sure. Was it all luck ? no because i had to give an input to affect the outcome.
But also yes because my inputs would have meant nothing without the right joker at the right moment to carry me from one ante to the other.

But if you want to tell me i'm good at the game then you're welcomed.

The options you are given are random but you adapted, found synergies, and were able to accumulate enough score to beat ante 8. That is skill. On the spade run, if you had hit hearts then you would have played differently, assessing your options drastically differently and would have made different decisions. Maybe you would have tried to pivot towards other jokers or maybe you would try to commit to spades and use tarots to achieve that. Balatro is filled with balanced rng, rng that gives direction or presents a challenge, rng that may give you an obvious solution or a difficult decision on what to make use of. Rng makes up the foundation of the run, your decisions shape it. The mindset that your wins are because of luck is not a mindset that allows you to improve at the game.

[HeraldOfOpera]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Milkshake:

It's much easier to create misinformation than to refute it.

This, at least, is definitely true. The trick here is that weasel words don't make something stop being misinformation. Just another thing you're accusing others of despite you yourself being more guilty of it.

[CMDR Shven]

Sigh. Why is it that everyone who relentlessly claims this game is all RNG always have private profiles or <20 hours of play time? They go on long rants about us "protecting our egos" by making up ♥♥♥♥ about how this game is skill based yet they are in fact the ones who cannot accept the simple truth that they just suck at this game probably.

Milkshake, I DARE you to record a video of yourself playing an allegedly unwinnable run with terrible RNG and I promise you I could point out at least half a dozen instances where you made suboptimal plays that likely spiraled into larger consequences resulting in your loss.

Either that or just admit you don't know what you're talking about and you're arguing for the sake of arguing because your pride can't take that maybe you just aren't good at something.

[Milkshake]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย CMDR Shven:

Sigh. Why is it that everyone who relentlessly claims this game is all RNG always have private profiles or <20 hours of play time? They go on long rants about us "protecting our egos" by making up ♥♥♥♥ about how this game is skill based yet they are in fact the ones who cannot accept the simple truth that they just suck at this game probably.

Milkshake, I DARE you to record a video of yourself playing an allegedly unwinnable run with terrible RNG and I promise you I could point out at least half a dozen instances where you made suboptimal plays that likely spiraled into larger consequences resulting in your loss.

Either that or just admit you don't know what you're talking about and you're arguing for the sake of arguing because your pride can't take that maybe you just aren't good at something.

Now you're trying personnal attack cause the other arguments didn't work.

Ironically, those who argue that it's all about skills are alway the one with hundreds of hours in the game and who comment on tons of subjects on the forum lol
Obviously they will be defensive when someone invalidates their supposed talent they took hundreds of hours to work on. Getting so mad because people someone doesn't tell them how good they are at some RNG card game.
THAT is pride my friend :P

I dare you to upload a video of you playing with your alleged skills and i will point out every single time you had luck in your RNG.

[RazzberryMocha]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Milkshake:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย CMDR Shven:

Sigh. Why is it that everyone who relentlessly claims this game is all RNG always have private profiles or <20 hours of play time? They go on long rants about us "protecting our egos" by making up ♥♥♥♥ about how this game is skill based yet they are in fact the ones who cannot accept the simple truth that they just suck at this game probably.

Milkshake, I DARE you to record a video of yourself playing an allegedly unwinnable run with terrible RNG and I promise you I could point out at least half a dozen instances where you made suboptimal plays that likely spiraled into larger consequences resulting in your loss.

Either that or just admit you don't know what you're talking about and you're arguing for the sake of arguing because your pride can't take that maybe you just aren't good at something.

Now you're trying personnal attack cause the other arguments didn't work.

Ironically, those who argue that it's all about skills are alway the one with hundreds of hours in the game and who comment on tons of subjects on the forum lol
Obviously they will be defensive when someone invalidates their supposed talent they took hundreds of hours to work on. Getting so mad because people someone doesn't tell them how good they are at some RNG card game.
THAT is pride my friend :P

I dare you to upload a video of you playing with your alleged skills and i will point out every single time you had luck in your RNG.

Argument ad hominem fallacy. Also, do you think it's a coincidence that those who have spent the most time in the game, the ones who have beaten the game on the hardest difficulty multiple times, are the ones that also claim the game is skillful?

[kaibarnard]

Anytime someone wins or gets lucky you'll call haxxor

Sorry dude, there's skill, and the best players prove that - you can't accept that, that's on you, I learnt that RNG games the skill is in picking the best path and mitigating the risk and making the best of the options presented

I'm 2/3 way though C++ I've had luck, I've had skill, I've been draw screwed, got greedy and burnt. Got lucky, got unlucky....played some blinders and stinkers....yeh I curse the game when I get no XMult and the run dies....but I bet if I run that seed a few more times I'd see chances I missed

[srn347]

The statement "you're not consistently good, you're consistently lucky" isn't merely false, it's just entirely incoherent. There's no possible world in which such a statement can ever be true. If a player consistently wins the game, they're skilled at the game. The only way more evidence can be presented that the game is skill-based than it already has is if someone were to systematically play (and win) every seed in the game, which isn't possible before the heat death of the universe.

[CMDR Shven]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Milkshake:

Obviously they will be defensive when someone invalidates their supposed talent they took hundreds of hours to work on.

Wat
"He's not really a skilled painter he just spent thousands of hours practicing."

At least now we all know beyond a shadow of a doubt you're either trolling or something far dumber.

[Milkshake]

If you guys were not so determined to misunderstand what people say just to argue your part, maybe you would have noticed that i never claimed it was 100% luck.

I repeated many times that yes, skill is needed, but that those skills cannot give results without luck with the RNG in the process.

For exemple.
I saved money for the shop = skills.
I buy the voucher. I buy it because the voucher (chosen randomly) was good for me.
That's luck allowing me to make the skills relevant.
Trying to reroll the shop. If i get a good joker i was lucky, not talented.

If you don't have skills to enable your luck you will be less lucky yes.
But if you are not lucky, you can reroll multiple time and waste your money.
And if that happens to you, it's not a lack of skills, but a lack of luck.

And everybody knows exactly that feeling, and you know you're not "bad at the game" just because the shop gives you bad stuff.