Reducing the luck in multiplayer.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » July 8th, 2005, 9:16 pm

Everyone wants to do it, but no-one knows how to do it without messing up tons of other stuff.

I have an idea. What if we increase default gold? Lots of people just go with the default, so increasing it would increase the gold used in lots of MP games. And if we do, the luck of killing a single unit will be less, and thus the luck-caused frustration in general. I suggest 150 gold. (I have lots of fun playing at 150 anyway.)

CBaoth · Post by **CBaoth** » July 8th, 2005, 9:33 pm

i dunno i like 100 gold and il like the amount of luck in the game now ... but hey playing 150 or even 200 is fun too

Tippsey · Post by **Tippsey** » July 8th, 2005, 9:42 pm

I duno sure luck is annoying some of the time but it;s awesome at other times. Every game has luck involved yet we complain less about those. Risk is luck based, monopoly is luck based hell anywhere dice are involved so is luck, and oh layoff the everyone.

Post by **Dave** » July 8th, 2005, 9:55 pm

I think the thing that compensates for luck is that a game doesn't typically take that long to play. That means you can have multiple games, and even if someone 'gets lucky' and beats you in one game, they won't be able to do that every game.

Increasing default gold will increase the number of units one can purchase, and thus increase the time a game takes, and as such I think any benefit it provides in reducing luck in an individual game would be offset by the fewer games one could play.

David

Post by **Dragonking** » July 9th, 2005, 8:13 am

I must say - whaen you play 5h game, and luck ruin it, I'm starting to think "hey, isn't that stupid??"...
I think solution would be implementing something (if it is possible), which would prevent from "super-bad-luck" - like 3 units with 4 swings which can't hit unit with 1hp and 70% def. Because with "nrmal" bad/good luck people still can play.

Cuyo Quiz · Post by **Cuyo Quiz** » July 9th, 2005, 3:12 pm

We have multiple propositions for that, including the fatigue idea and my idea about sorrounding.

So...keep brainstorming.

Tippsey · Post by **Tippsey** » July 9th, 2005, 6:02 pm

Dragonking if we eliminate super bad luck then super good luck msut be eliminated as well, as hitting 4-4 times or 5-5 times would be called as unfair to be kept around by the oposition when they see there units slaughtered.

Gafgarion · Post by **Gafgarion** » July 9th, 2005, 6:56 pm

Tippsey wrote:Dragonking if we eliminate super bad luck then super good luck msut be eliminated as well, as hitting 4-4 times or 5-5 times would be called as unfair to be kept around by the oposition when they see there units slaughtered.

Tippsey has a good point. Remember, in MP your "good luck" is someone else's "bad luck".

Post by **Dave** » July 9th, 2005, 10:28 pm

Cuyo Quiz wrote:We have multiple propositions for that, including the fatigue idea and my idea about sorrounding.

As far as I can tell, these ideas both advantage a side with more units against a side with less.

I think this could increase the importance of luck in many situations, since as soon as you get 1-2 units down, your situation will become hopeless.

iKe · Post by **iKe** » July 10th, 2005, 3:24 pm

i went a game where my dwarve could not hit a wose with three attacks.. my dwarve was on a mountain meaning 30% chance for the wose to hit me while the wose was on grassland.. My fighter attacked the wose.. and missed.. and the wose retaleated hitting me twice.. it was day time... sigh.. next turn around the wose attacked me instead of me attacking it.. and hit twice.. again... -.-;;;... gg fighter...

luck.. is very annoying in this game..

its funny.. but warcraft also works on luck.. but i dont' notice games that i play on warcraft having luck... the reason.. it isn't focused on luck..

i love the style of the game... and i dont' want it to become another warcraft (though i'd love that.. ... lol).. i like the style.. hate the luck..

MRhe · Post by **MRhe** » July 10th, 2005, 6:52 pm

There are several things wrong with your proposal, EP.

For one, not everyone wants to reduce the luck in MP. Please don't make sweeping generalizations that simply favor your personal preference. I personally think the luck factor is fine.

Secondly, your proposal does nothing to address the chance in the game; all it does is raise the default gold for each side. The luck factor would remain exactly the same. As it is you can easily raise the starting gold, so I fail to see why you think this is a necessary change.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » July 10th, 2005, 7:56 pm

MRhe wrote:There are several things wrong with your proposal, EP.
...

I don't think you understand my point. I'm not referring to the results of individual combats; I'm referring to the overall effect of luck on the whole game. I don't like win/losing a game purely because the luck went one way or another. My proposal would indeed change this.

NightBlade · Post by **NightBlade** » July 11th, 2005, 3:13 am

wow when i came back wesnoth 0.9.3 is out!!? man i must have missed alot, need to do some catch up.

MRhe · Post by **MRhe** » July 11th, 2005, 4:32 am

EP:

You're right; I don't understand your point.

As it is, you can easily adjust the settings to 150 per side, and I fail to see how giving each side 1.5 more starting gold would offset the luck component in the game.

Again, I think this comes down to a simple personal preference: either 1) those who realize and appreciate the vagaries of random chance within the combat system or 2) those who feel the luck factor is too prevalent and want a less chance-dependent system.

Whether one belongs to group 1 or 2 is wholly up to the player, and his opinions as such are perfectly reasonable. These opinions most definitely do control the course of BfW's development, insasmuch as those with the authority/power to make the appropriate changes can do whatever they please (and being but a grateful player and advocate I can only stand on the sidelines and comment) but it is, IMHO, neither appropriate nor reasonable to appeal to the "BfW Community" under the assumed auspices of that group to garner momentum for a change which to my mind is at worst a personal preference of yours, and at best an extremely divisive topic upon which much debate remains to be hashed out.

Post by **ott** » July 11th, 2005, 8:31 am

EP makes a reasonable point. +50gp at the start of the game allows 2-4 additional units per side. With the same income per turn, this is just a constant number of additional units, so I don't really agree with Dave that it would make the game much longer. What really drags games out are zillions of villages and a high setting of income per village, which means an endless stream of recruited units.

Having a few "extra" units to start with may make mistakes less crucial in the beginning of the game, when a mistake by one side together with a bit of luck for the other can completely swing the outcome of the game.

Generalizing horribly, a different way to see this is that 100gp is about enough for 6 units. This gives one 2 formations of 3 units, since one usually needs around 3 units to kill an enemy unit. So 100 gold starts the game with two combat groups, and it takes a bit of time to build up additional groups. This leads to a game where both sides are fairly exposed in the beginning, and luck can play a large role in determining the outcome of the game. In contrast, 150 gold allows 3 formations. This makes for a different game, one which perhaps is less prone to luck in the crucial establishment phase, and one which perhaps allows different strategies to the 2-group initial setup.