Not just "more random"

[Shinobody]

Why not just add 1/7000 chance that unit you recruit will be "shiny" version that has exactly the same stats, but alternate color palette?

[Insinuator]

See, now there is a good idea! It satisfies the craving for "randomness" while preserving gameplay balance.

[jumpgate]

Mountains would be avoided even more than they are now

Well, what *sane* player would keep his units away from mountains just because he is "afraid" of a 1/1000 chance event?
And as for now, I don't think mountains are generally avoided by players; on the contrary, they are often used as natural strongholds due to the high defense rate most unit types get in there.

[TheEmptyLord]

First of all let me point out that you are obviously free to do whatever you want in any of your creations and you can play the game any way you want. That said I think this is a pretty bad idea.

First of all, given the fact that you obviously don't mind reloading (presumably either when you play with bad tactics or get unlucky, if it is the second case: "Man, you sure enjoy that randomness") it seems kind of odd that you would bring this up. I assume than in any case where this 1/1000 chance happens against you, you plan to reload(Could be wrong ). Or, at least, any time when a unit one hits your leader or one of your heros. Sure, you can argue that the scenario is so rare you will probably never need to worry about it. The problem is that if the scenario is that rare, what is the point in it existing at all? Just so you can feel good about finishing a powerful enemy off with a weak unit while pretending you aren't cheating?

This is the Ideas index, so I obviously don't have any problem with you posting the idea, I just think it is pointless and ruins the spirit of the game. (As well as encourages reloading for SP). This said, I want to clarify that the game is great as it is, and I'm not one of those people who hates the randomness Wesnoth has. It needs that level of randomness. What it doesn't need is an extremely random feature that hugely alters (breaks) the game's normal progression of play.

Midnight_Carnival:

please read a post (however long, boring or waffling) before trying to rebut it, it just makes you look silly.

Just really glad people are seeing that it was more about being able to almost count on it not happening, thus not determining strategy, but sometimes against all odds thwarting it.

Seems like you didn't take your own advice, at least offhand.


jumpgate:

They're still very similar in that nobody would ever take either of two into account when planning their strategies.

Really? You never take into account an enemy hitting 4/4 times? Happens all the time to me, I sure as hell take it into account. Guess our strategies for this game completely differs...I tend to think about what could happen in a scenario if things don't go my way rather than just hoping for the best. I guess that's why you like the random 1/1000 and I don't. In your mind you think "I could get lucky and kill this unit in one hit" in my mind I think "this random cheap unit could kill any of my units instantly if the RNG decides in it's favor".

Anyhow, this came out a bit more negative than I intended. No offense meant, if you really don't like what I wrote then feel free to ignore it. If you disagree with what I wrote, please feel free to respond to it.

[Midnight_Carnival]

Heh-heh what was I rebutting there please?

I do not plan to simply reload when something dies, that would be boring. This might seem strange to some, but when I play Wesnoth, I don't enjoy the game more when I win or less when I don't I did not propose this to make it easier for me to win.

What is the purpose of it if it is rare? ~to make the game more interesting (at least as far as I'm concerned) by adding a small (but not negligeble) element of uncertainty. "oh, sure, it's only a goblin, what the worst that can happen? I have mathematics on my side I am invinci.....AAAARGH!"

You can't make Wesnoth "realistic" and keep it Wesnoth, but since there are only so many units in vanilla Wesnoth, and since by now we know their strengths, weaknesses and stats, this would be a way to add more 'new' elements without changing the game drastically. I contend that it does not "alter or break" the game play, but adds a new dimension (which would be easy to disable, you could even code in a little tick box if you like!) your analytical algorythms will still work and can still use them, but you will have to add to them for a "perfect" strategy. Intelligent people shouldn't have a problem recalibrating.

-here is something I have noticed:
point made for and against the proposal are hinged on a single unit (obviously not the same) which could win or cost you the battle.
Computers don't have 'favorite' units, many humans do develop ...attachment to a unit they command (seldom related to the unit's abilities). This is because people went to a lot of trouble to make the units "cute" or give them character. The proposition at once increases the charm of the units and discourages "strategy" which pins the victory on a single unit every time.

[TheEmptyLord]

The point isn't that strategy is pinned on a single unit, it is that as a good player you have to consider all of your options. Adding in a very rare chance for any inconsequential unit to be able to kill any unit you have (In some cases a very good unit that is blocking wounded units. A unit that would be impossible for the enemy to kill in any other circumstances.) would make all strategies and plans subject to a random chance of being useless. Not because the player isn't good enough, or the enemy is too good, but because this one time the RNG rolled against them and it was 100% unpredictable. What makes a good strategy now is a balance of good tactical moves and an understanding of what can go wrong, how likely it is to go wrong, and how you can fix it. Adding such a huge game changing roll means that at all times you have to consider being hit for 7x the damage of each of those thunderers. Incredibly rare, sure, but if you aren't the type of person to reload are you going to restart the campaign when your Dwarf Stalwart leader (at full health and on a mountain) dies? When you are a great player and there was no possibility of it normally?

Sure, if this went mainline(which it won't) you could change the code and disable it for yourself. Unless you are using default in multiplayer...And you have to ask yourself this: What does this add? More fun? Not imo. Being forced to reload a game because a 1/1000 chance happened, or being forced to restart the campaign if you don't want to reload...It just doesn't seem to have any appeal. It is also against KISS, most players won't notice this roll until after a long time of play and it may totally screw up their gameplay. Simple rules, complex strategies. (And of course there is the issue with units having more strikes being more likely to get one of these to pop which could be unbalanced).

Again, feel free to create an add-on with this as a feature if you think anyone will be interested in playing it. It would be a very bad idea for Mainline though.

[Insinuator]

Computers don't have 'favorite' units

Wrong. They are called leaders. Losing one usually loses you the game. Doesn't matter whether you're an NPC or a human. Just a game mechanic. NPCs even have special code embedded to instruct them to protect their leaders to avoid such a possibility.

But leaders aren't the only lynch pin units. Scenarios are incredibly diverse and a strategy is not necessarily a "bad" one if it depends on one such unit. With the current system, it is possible to use ZoC and manage risk so as to be quite effective with spearhead formations or bottlenecking. Your proposed "critical hit" would force more defensive and slower play. Not only would this make MP more boring and less attractive to those who are truly skilled at playing the game, it could strain or break current turn limit settings on SP scenarios.

The proposition at once increases the charm of the units and discourages "strategy" which pins the victory on a single unit every time.

With all due respect, who are you to discourage another person's strategy and force them to play the way you like? Why impose something that limits potential strategies? I think more is better, for it leads to more creative gameplay.

[Midnight_Carnival]

Ok, I was using 'favorite' in a different sense to the way you are, I was speaking about a personal or emotional attachment to a fictitious being, something I'm pretty damn sure a computer is incapable of... mind you my computer's a little out of date...
the computer will protect the units it is programmed to, to the degree to which it has been programmed. The computer doesn't care that the footpad just killed a Troll Warrior.

With all due respect back, I can not force anyone to change their strategy, this you will know: I do however think that there are many things one can get out of playing Wesnoth which might be useful skills to cultivate in 'real life'

• -it can be readilly observed that outside Wesnoth, frequently, the best laid plans are in fact subject to random chance. While I can see that what you are saying could be equated to my views on games such as the Sims (why would you want to play a computer game in which you have to do the laundry and take out the trash?!) you will observe by the popularity of such games that people have differing views on such things.
  
  Whatever you say, even 7x damage is not instantly fatal in all circumstances, as previously stated, a unit which does 1 damage will now only do 7.
  
  Forgive me for suggesting this, but I see things as follows - motivation: if it's not to do with what's going on upstairs, you can bet that one of the 7 deadly sins is motivating people's actions. In this case I suspect a lot of the violent objection to my idea is motivated by pride. "why should I be forced to reload? I am beyond such things! I have played x number of games and never reloaded once!"
  Nobody's forcing anyone to reload. Nobody's forcing anyone to plan things "better" - nobody forces you to eat things other than candy either, it just doesn't always work out so well
  If someone thinks its boring to have to worry about their units despite the stats saying the unit is safe, so be it.
  
  I will continue my attempts to turn a simple text-based strategy game written in Python into a risk-like game written in Python, which I plan to use as the basis for a Wesnoth mod (like the Rom series in Wesnoth), after or during which I will have worked out how to make the fluke shot or critical hit a reality and add it as a mod (see, nobody's forcing anyone). If your views constitute those of the majority of Wesnoth players then it will stay a mod, otherwise I could politely suggest you start rethinking your strategy

[Insinuator]

In this case I suspect a lot of the violent objection to my idea is motivated by pride.

Hmmm. So you're deciding what the motives of your critics are now? That's certainly convenient.

[TheEmptyLord]

Hmmm. So you're deciding what the motives of your critics are now? That's certainly convenient.

^^^

I can't really see how pride could be effecting my opinion on the subject. I don't like the idea because I think it is stupid and goes against many of the basic principles of the game. That is not to say I think it is a bad idea for you to spend a little time creating a mod with this feature, it is just my opinion (specifically on whether this should ever be implemented in mainline).

Whatever you say, even 7x damage is not instantly fatal in all circumstances, as previously stated, a unit which does 1 damage will now only do 7.

I never said 7x damage would kill in all circumstances (though in all circumstances is greatly alters the perceived possibilities since generally battles aren't 1v1). To point out what I think is wrong with this idea I am not saying that every time is happens it is fatal, simply that it IS occasionally or, in this case, often fatal. I mean seriously, how often do you fight a unit that does 1 damage to you? Even a poacher doing 3-2 could suddenly hit 21 with one of those strikes. And a spearman with 7-3 could hit 49 with one of those strikes.

[Coffee]

Because I haven't seen it raised yet, I just want to add that a random 7x damage increase would unbalance the game in favor of factions with cheaper (hence, more) units.

[Midnight_Carnival]

Because I haven't seen it raised yet, I just want to add that a random 7x damage increase would unbalance the game in favor of factions with cheaper (hence, more) units.

How fitting, my only weakness is coffee and the one point I feel really could be worth considering came from Coffee

It might unbalance it slightly, yes, but not all the time, remember that each attack (or counter attack) has only 1/1000 chance of doing HUGE damage, with odds like that there is comparatively little difference in the chances of a saurian skirmisher getting the fluke shot vs a troll warrior. Having more units might increase your chances of getting it, but it would also make for more clumsy game play and you should consider that you can't choose when the attack happens - most of the critics talk about the unit making the attack getting the fluke shot - chances are you wouldn't see it for years and then after you have forgotten all about it, your dwarf beserker would get it against a poisoned dark adept with only 1hp

[DranKof]

I see there are concerns that this would make keeping vital units alive more difficult. This could probably be addressed by making it 3x damage instead of 7x damage (Wesnoth is already pretty flukey, as is). Additionally, the chance of throwing a fluke shot/critical hit could be scripted to be ignored (and be a regular hit) if the attacking or defending unit(s) is/are units that can recruit (i.e. leaders).

Regarding concerns of cheaper, many-united factions getting an advantage...I'm not sure I'd ever be a good enough player to learn to take advantage of this, and I would enjoy it if someone else did. (Level 0 zombie fluke rush!!)

My only concern with this idea, as is, is the fact that ... 1/1000 ... that'd be like twice a game? Yet, more frequent, and it really might bother people. To me, this idea sounds more like an Easter egg to throw in with another idea, but it is kinda fun.

[Midnight_Carnival]

500 zombies in your base are a bad thing regardless of whether there are fluke shots or not!

Yah! chicken! ok, have it 3x damage, or fluke damage = damage x (L +1) where L repersents the level of the unit. I just prefer 7X it has more gravitas! Also the saving crucial units could work

[Insinuator]

Yah! chicken! ok, have it 3x damage, or fluke damage = damage x (L +1) where L repersents the level of the unit. I just prefer 7X it has more gravitas! Also the saving crucial units could work

See, now there is a much more reasonable idea. I wouldn't mind seeing that in an add-on.