Breaking the Binary Mindset
A reflection on results-oriented thinking in competitive leagues/tournaments
The pictures above represent the end of my latest important game - the semifinal of the Premier League, which is today the most respected online Catan league in the world (If you're here on this substack for the first time, feel free to check out my first post, where I introduce a bit of the current competitive online Catan scene).
Yes, I lost. And the truth is, I don't think I played poorly - quite the opposite. I was blessed with a great initial setup and made deals that would have been fantastic for me. In theory.
Let's go. Before starting this text, I want to reflect a bit on this outcome. These were the initial settlements.
First, I went with 8-5-10. As the first player, I went against my natural tendency to play with a strong ore on the first pick, considering that I might find myself with limited options on the second pick. Next, on the second pick, I chose 3-10-11, securing the side-by-side as the likely longest road in the game. And there begins my game. It was a long game, with much discussion about the table's presentation orbit after orbit. But I highlight here three key moves of mine, which, for me, were perfect:
1- During the initial settlements, I made sure that the other players wouldn’t give blue a coordinated initial 6 (693-6511 for example). Then, when it came my time to settle, I did this:
Initial trade for a 3-hex expansion. When deciding on 3-10-11, it was necessary to stitch a deal with the white player: he would help me with sheep if I handed him my second brick. This would assist me in the settlement. Not that it was difficult to get sheep, but my second brick - and not the first, would be a fair trade to secure a huge expansion, leaving me with ALMOST ALL numbers of the table (except 2, 6, and 12).
2- Still in the first third of the game, I made another excellent deal. I traded a settlement with the blue player for a city. Yes, I managed to receive 2 ores, almost without producing them myself. And thus, I activated my road play with a city setup.
3- At a certain point in the game, the white player started pulling ahead. What was my first impulse? Let's stop him. I used my time to convince the orange player, who had a rough start, to buy development cards instead of focusing on roads. And this, again in theory, would be perfect for me: it would pressure the white player and free me to pursue my strategy of roads + production + 2 flexible harbors.
So why did I lose this game? If I played well and possibly had the best setup, how could I have lost?
This is the final dice:
Yes, I had 8, 5, 9, 4, 10, 3, 11... and what came out? Almost only the 6. With a good dose of 2. Alright, the 4 as well. But for me, it was an extra sheep, not very useful.
No, I don't want to be careless. I don't blame the dice alone. I know that the other players also played very well - after all, they didn't make it to the semifinal of the Premier League for nothing.
But we need to understand what Catan is: a game with a huge luck factor. So great that even the world's best players can hardly achieve win rates above 50% in random games, in the long run (in a game whose average would be 25%, with 4 players at a table).
And why does this understanding matter? This is one of the objectives of the blog: to discuss the future of the competitive scene. We need to understand that Catan is not just a game of skill. And more than that, we need to learn to value not only the result but the process. Because valuing the result is valuing luck.
Valuing good plays, on the other hand, is what will make us flourish as a competitive scene: it's what softens the frustration of defeat and allows us to move forward. Moreover, it's also what gives the viewers and players something to hold onto.
Luck and Skill
How much of Catan is luck, and how much is skill? This question, often debated in competitive circles, will never have a concrete answer. Recently, Bo Peng, the in-person champion of the American championship, wrote in his substack that he believes it's 80% skill, 20% luck. I disagree. But before analyzing this, let's first look at what luck and skill represent in Catan.
Luck: dice - distribution and rolling timing; random development card draws; map distribution; map selection moments;
Skill: logical and probabilistic cognitive knowledge, social skills, pattern memorization, general decision making.
And now, how can we determine how much SKILL matters?
Well, let's look at the available databases and recent experiences. As mentioned in the last post, I don't consider the ranked games on Colonist (the main game platform in the world) as the standard of competitiveness because there is no selection, and the displayed skills in those games are still below the level of competitive leagues. However, it's a broad and diverse competition, with players of different levels, some closer to a professional standard, and others more amateur. If we specifically look at this competition, we notice that rarely does a player exceed a 50% win rate in the medium/long term. And even if we disregard the leveling by ELO ranking - as at the beginning of each season, where this leveling is still imprecise, it is STILL difficult for any player to exceed that mark.
DandyDrew, a former player of Catan Championship League Division One, and now a YouTuber and player of ranked games, recently finished a season in first place, as well as placing multiple alt accounts in high rankings. There is no doubt that DandyDrew is one of the best players in the world - but even for him, this 50% WR mark is difficult to surpass.
So, looking at the highest standard of competition, we have the regular leagues of the King of Catan (Premier League/Proven Competitors League) and the Catan Championship (Division One - D1). In these leagues, the same pattern repeats.
Despite being restricted, it's rare for a player to exceed 40% in the long run. Taking D1 specifically, which has a larger database, let's look at the players:
Md7, a legendary player, until recently had a total WR (across all seasons with more than 500 games) close to 35-38%, the highest historical average in the league.
Rayman, widely considered one of the best players in the world (and in the author's view, the best), also maintained a win rate of 39% in the last 6 months of 2021, with exactly 200 games played.
DandyDrew himself achieved a 41% win rate in 139 games during his final months in the league.
And this one speaking (Shanks1700) reached 40% in about 150 games during a certain period in 2022.
Anyway, my point is this: whether in less or more selective environments, skill will never be strong enough to justify a results-oriented analysis. If the best in the world can't achieve more than a 50% win rate, it's because luck prevails in the game. And in a dynamic with one experienced player and three lower-level players, it's not possible to predict or even estimate with certainty the victory of the best player in isolated matches.
If you're here, you probably play in some of these competitive environments and know what I'm talking about: in one week, you can win 5 games in a row, and in another, lose 5 games in a row to the same people.
And that's where the problem lies.
The Problem of Results-Oriented Thinking
Today, both the Premier League and CCL Division 1 are structured in a playoff model. The best players, after a regular season that takes into account a certain level of consistency, are selected for semifinals and finals - which are played in a single match.
In regional, national, continental, and even world championships, the same pattern is repeated - but in an even more concise format.
The big exception to this format is the ranked models: the Colonist's Elo ranking and the Catan Universe's Elo ranking. However, as seen earlier, these championships are still slightly below the professional competitive level of Catan.
So, there's the major problem equation. Determining finalists and champions in single games, which are extremely luck-dependent.
Well, I'm biased to criticize. I've been a finalist in D1 five times and lost them all ( 5 finals lost, 12 semis lost in 17). I've been quite frustrated.
But I'm not the only one. On the contrary, I see that this current model has frustrated so many of us who, like me, are competitive enthusiasts of our beloved Catan.
For me, this model is what prevents us from growing as competitive communities.
Let me explain: how will we present Catan to an outsider? In semifinal/final games, where a single dice roll can favor a player who made questionable plays? What credibility does that give to someone that we play a strategic game? None.
And more: How many talents are we losing by valuing the result of a single game over the consistency of a month? Yes, I stayed after all the defeats in my consistent seasons. But how many good players didn't have the same patience? And how long will we keep our current players active?
Solutions
Well, for me, the solution is somewhat clear: we must emphasize consistency because that way, we will value the best players, who will serve as examples to new players aiming for future greatness.
And emphasizing consistency requires systems that reward Win-Rate, ELO, and the like. Systems like the Colonist's ranked model, perhaps. Or even some hybrid model.
But more than that, we need to change our binary mindset. The mindset that "if you lost, you made mistakes. If you won, you did things right."
This is Pep Guardiola.
For those not familiar with football, this picture shows the best manager in the world kissing a... silver medal.
Yes, a silver medal. Football/Soccer is also a sport dependent on luck, although to a much lesser degree than Catan.
And for consecutive years, Guardiola lost the Champions League. In 2021, his team ended up as runners-up. And then this gesture happened. For me, it means a lot: Guardiola was heavily criticized by results-oriented media for almost a decade, but he was confident that his work was good.
It's hard for anyone to completely break away from this binary mindset. Guardiola did it.
Can I do it? I don't know, but I will certainly try.
I won't glorify victories, no matter if they are in playoffs or not. Instead, I'll put value in a well-played monopoly, a well-made deal, well-executed micro-decisions in a close game, and intentional collisions to slow down the game.
I strongly believe this is the mindset required for Competitive Catan to thrive. If we don’t push it, we will continue to cyclically value mistakes that occasionally resulted in wins or even deny a well-crafted strategy just because it resulted in a loss. And so will occur the gradual downfall of competitive catan.
How about you, can you also get rid of the binary mindset?
Some thoughts:
Improper focus on win rate:
1/ Win rate is dependent on the skill differential in of games played. In most match making games (colonist.io, lichess, Counterstrike, etc) the servers match you in games based on the their estimate of your skill / rank. When a good player create a new account, they rack up much more wins early on as they rise through the ranks. Depending on how many games people play, the early wins may have more or less weighting in their historical win rate.
2/ It's more accurate to look at win rate across similarly skilled players.
3/ Even in games that are "pure skill", i.e. Chess there is still some randomness (luck). Sickness, emotional state, etc can all play a factor in how well someone's playing in a day. Chess uses Elo ratings where people with the same rating have 50% win rate. A +200 point Elo rating difference equaling ~75% win rate.
4/ Given that Catan is typically played as a 4 person game, 4 people of equal skill should have 25% chance of winning. Thus, an elo rating should reflect a 25% win rate against players with the same Elo.
5/ 50+% win rate is only possible if you only play people with much much lower skill than you. Is this fun?
Yet, results oriented thinking is wrong. Use win rate instead.
1/ In any skill based game, there is always some amount of luck. Even chess.
2/ In analyzing a win in a game, you should be aware of where luck may have been involved, or if you bad play happened to be lucky.
3/ The way around this is to consider looking at the factors and and to look at a series of games, i.e. win rate, to help validate strategies and tactics. AI / computer modeling has typically been a factor in pushing this forward-- see Backgammon, Poker, or Chess.
On the benefits of Tournaments to a community:
1/ Tournaments and competitions are a great way to get people to push the game forward. Some people will strive hard to be the best and find new / innovative strategies. Removing tournaments reduces this incentive and may harm the skill level and the competitive scene.
2/ A solution to diminish the effects of variance is to create tournaments with a series of games[1]. Existing examples this include Chess and Baseball. The question is how many games should you play to determine the winner in a tournament and how much variance should be expected by the community?
3/ Is variance harmful to the community / players? Poker tournaments play relatively few hands but they still thrive. The top players all know and understand that variance is a part of the game, and some of the skill is dealing with their emotions so the avoid making bad emotional plays. FWIW in poker grudge matches, 25k+ hands isn't uncommon, and with poker AI bots, they used 80k+ hands to determine the winner.
[1] Alternatively you could take the Contract Bridge approach where everyone plays the same board, but are only competing with teams in the same position. This means multiple winners in each tournament.