Reducing the luck in multiplayer.
Moderator: Forum Moderators
- Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
Reducing the luck in multiplayer.
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.)
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.)
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
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
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
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
- Dragonking
- Inactive Developer
- Posts: 591
- Joined: November 6th, 2004, 10:45 am
- Location: Poland
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.
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.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit
We have multiple propositions for that, including the fatigue idea and my idea about sorrounding.
So...keep brainstorming.
So...keep brainstorming.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
Tippsey has a good point. Remember, in MP your "good luck" is someone else's "bad luck".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.
-Gafgarion
"Language is the source of misunderstandings." -Antoine de Saint-ExupéryElvish Pillager wrote:Normal Trolls use clubs, not ostriches.
As far as I can tell, these ideas both advantage a side with more units against a side with less.Cuyo Quiz wrote:We have multiple propositions for that, including the fatigue idea and my idea about sorrounding.
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.
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
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..
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..
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.
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
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
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.MRhe wrote:There are several things wrong with your proposal, EP.
...
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
-
- Posts: 221
- Joined: May 21st, 2005, 1:18 am
- Location: New Zealand
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.
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.
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.
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.
This quote is not attributable to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.