I haven't seen a formal analysis, but I can tell you for sure that it is highly skill-based until everyone plays optimally at the game. Then it becomes luck-based.
Best example was a tournament for Settlers. In the early stages one player dominated each table. But in one of the last stages it was only the top players. The game ended with one person getting their 10th VP and everyone else at the table had their 10th VP in their hands.
Yeah completely agree with you. What do you think would be a good thought process between modelling skill and luck in game. I guess you have to create a skill attribute that can affect particular parts of game play in a simulation and then run simulations and compare outcomes with skill vs outcomes with chance.You would then create a cap on skill? Alternatively, can skill be capped by innate features of the game? I guess i'm wondering if its possible to model this without building in the conclusion a priori? I guess this means you have to make sure your model is actually representative of the game and the outcomes and not building in attributes that are only present in the model but not the real game. Just sort of thinking out loud here.
Best example was a tournament for Settlers. In the early stages one player dominated each table. But in one of the last stages it was only the top players. The game ended with one person getting their 10th VP and everyone else at the table had their 10th VP in their hands.