Draft for luck explanation and expectations announcement

[JW]

what i would really like to talk about:
remember my example with the imaginary wesnoth ratings (player A has 120, player B 100 ---> A wins 8 out of 10 matches)
how much influence does luck in wesnoth have over the outcome of a match?

we don't really know how much luck changes this probability. maybe it's not even significant enough to talk about?

One of the MP devs has stated that luck determines the outcome of games in Wesnoth about 5% of the time.

[Dave]

what i would really like to talk about:
remember my example with the imaginary wesnoth ratings (player A has 120, player B 100 ---> A wins 8 out of 10 matches)
how much influence does luck in wesnoth have over the outcome of a match?

we don't really know how much luck changes this probability. maybe it's not even significant enough to talk about?

One of the MP devs has stated that luck determines the outcome of games in Wesnoth about 5% of the time.

If this is so, then you only need a best-of-3 series to get the right winner 99.5% of the time, and a best-of-5 series to get the right winner more than 99.9% of the time.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me for a competitive game.

David

[Yogibear]

[moderate]
@Dave, JW:
If you both still feel inclined to do so, please settle the disputes i deleted via PM. I wrote a couple of times "deleted...and for other reasons". I can elaborate on those reasons if you are interested but they take some time to describe and they definitely do not belong in here. If you still want me to explain let me know.
[/moderate]

[thread topic]
IMHO, sports analogies are at least very difficult and carry a lot of caveats with them. I am not sure if they get us along well here.
[/thread topic]

[JW]

[moderate]
@Dave, JW:
If you both still feel inclined to do so, please settle the disputes i deleted via PM. I wrote a couple of times "deleted...and for other reasons". I can elaborate on those reasons if you are interested but they take some time to describe and they definitely do not belong in here. If you still want me to explain let me know.
[/moderate]

[thread topic]
IMHO, sports analogies are at least very difficult and carry a lot of caveats with them. I am not sure if they get us along well here.
[/thread topic]

Thank you Yogi.

I will begin work on a second draft shortly. If anyone has any further suggestions before it is written, please share them now.

[mrmoose]

my only suggestion JW is try to keep ur biase or anyone elses biases out of it just make it a general statement instead of about personal beliefs. hope what im saying is coming off the right way.

[MDG]

I will begin work on a second draft shortly. If anyone has any further suggestions before it is written, please share them now.

Battle for Wesnoth is a turn based strategy game with some RPG elements. Both single player and online multi player are available.

In order to truly enjoy Battle for Wesnoth one of the core skillsets is flexible planning, anticipation of probable outcomes, and tactical adaptability in the face of uncertainity. Some elements of the game are determined by the random number generator (specifically whether you hit enemy units or not) which is a core game design principle intended to bring a degree of uncertainity into the game. Patience, good understanding of probabilities and a willingness to adjust tactics throughout any encounter are all required in order to get the most out of the game.

The uncertainity in the game makes it popular with some players and unpopular with others. If a TBS game with elements of randomness present in the core game play does not appeal then, Battle for Wesnoth may not suit your game playing preferences.

The following highlights some important consequences of this style of game play:-

1) Randomness ensures that the same game will never be played twice. Replayability is higher as a result.
2) Randomness allows players of different skill levels to play a game where the outcome may not be determined solely on the basis of different skill levels. The underdog always has a chance of wininng although better players with a firm grasp of the principles involved and a willingness to be self-critical and adapt tactics on the fly will generally win more often.
3) Randomness may sometimes influence the outcome of the game regardless of how well played it was by whomever lost. Nevertheless, losses are more often the result of not yet understanding and/or mastering all the subtleties of the game.
4) Because of this, occasionally, skilled players may lose to less skilled players as a result of the random element. This can usually be confirmed by more experienced players if requested in the online forum or on the multi player server (replays required).

There is an unofficial ladder system for Battle for Wesnoth multi player, and tournaments are also held on the multi player side of the game. Although competitive, with the commonly acknowledged better players normally contesting the latter stages, there is also an emphasis on just enjoying the game and it is not the view that either the ladder or the tournaments necessarily determine the skill level of the individual players to the point of true personal rankings. Nor is this desired.

Regardless of the possible influence of uncertainity in some games, Battle for Wesnoth does require skill in order to be a successful player over time. The thoughtful recruitment and placing of units takes time to master, and the ability to have contingency plans and adapt for unexpected outcomes is considered a skill in its own right.

So if Wesnoth sounds like a game that you may enjoy, we hope you download it and, if you wish to, let us know what you think! We welcome any and all feedback regarding the game and player's impressions of the game play.

[Max]

2) Randomness allows players of different skill levels to play a game where the outcome may not be determined solely on the basis of different skill levels. The underdog always has a chance of wininng although better players with a firm grasp of the principles involved and a willingness to be self-critical and adapt tactics on the fly will generally win more often.

when i was looking for turn based games on wikipedia and had read this statement i really doubt if i still had downloaded the game.

i think this is misleading...

[MDG]

Okay. In order to move things along, why wouldn't you have downloaded it? I.e. which part of the statement would have put you off. How could it be phrased differently? Also, in what way is it misleading? Which parts? Again what would you change about the phrasing?

What about the rest? Do you view this as better/worse/same as the initial draft statement?

[ADmiral-N]

I feel compelled to point out something about all these sports analogies. To me, the amount of luck involved with any of the sports examples so far is largely irrelevant, as these games actually serve to primarily entertain the audience, not the players. Most people who like to watch soccer don't play it themselves. In a system like this, more luck is often actually better because the audience likes uncertainty. The players will likely not care as much because they play the game only to gain fame and admiration from their peers (and, in the case of international top players of popular sports, lots of money). Of course, nobody likes to feel helpless in any game, but issues like that are far out of focus in sports when compared to computer games, where the players are the actual "target audience". That is, in popular sports, it is the audience which is supposed to have "fun" while in basically any game accessible to the general masses, the players must get all of this "fun".

About the announcement draft:
I believe you're simply making it sound too negative. That way it will never be put on the front page
You need to bundle the information/warnings with encouraging and inviting phrases which focus on the positive aspects of the game. For example, describe Wesnoth as "a game of strategy and risk assessment", tell the player that they're taking command over huge fantasy armies and "with some strategic thinking and some luck, victory shall be yours!" or something along these lines Perhaps devote an entire paragraph to Multiplayer (in order to separate it from the originally intended concept of a single player game) where you point out how the friendly, enthusiastically modding community likes to "play for fun" and show off their UMC on the official server and, even though Wesnoth was not designed as an environment for players to compete against each other, there is an unofficial ladder system in place for those who want to try regardless.

[Max]

Okay. In order to move things along, why wouldn't you have downloaded it? I.e. which part of the statement would have put you off. How could it be phrased differently? Also, in what way is it misleading? Which parts? Again what would you change about the phrasing?

What about the rest? Do you view this as better/worse/same as the initial draft statement?

1. this isn't meant to replace any description of wesnoth, JW thought it as an announcement similar to some "new version available" entry (hope i got that right). i'm not convinced that this is the right place for it - the wiki might be more appropriate...

2. why put anything like this on the front page? it sounds like a scary package insert. the front page is meant to convince people to download wesnoth, not drive them away. i mean this even sounds like the makers of this game feel guilty. that's like a car salesman that talks half the time of the engines noise and that some might find it distracting/disturbing (although it's a non issue for most of the car owners - as i think is true for the majority of wesnoth players, luck is just an integral part of the game).

about the specific phrase i've replied to: it suggests that the amount of luck involved is so big that beginners are able to beat pros on a regular basis. and as long as we're not talking about 15x15 minimaps this just isn't true...

[Wintermute]

I've been a bit under the weather the past few days (read: not posting much), but here is my initial reaction. First, I largely agree with what Dave has written, and as far as I know that seems to be largely what the rest of the development team thinks as well. I would add to that that after reading this draft my reaction is: why post this? It is somewhat abstract, and I personally feel not a very accurate description of Wesnoth. If I read this statement and then played the game I think I would be quite surprised, as I think the statement makes a mountain out of molehill when talking about ideas that TBS gamers interested in a fantasy wargame basically take for granted. And Wesnoth is pretty clearly described as those, IMHO.

Wesnoth is both a game of skill and a game of luck.

The way Wesnoth utilizes luck to determine the outcome of each game is unique to itself. The random chance to hit, never being 0% or 100%, creates it so that the outcome of any battle in Wesnoth is always unknown. Even the best laid plans by a Wesnoth master may be thwarted by the random number generator (RNG); alternatively a player may succeed in the most unlikely of attacks.

Well, of course it is a game of skill and "luck". though I think that a more accurate term than "luck" would be risk-management. You touch on that idea when talking about gambling games, but lumping Wesnoth into "gambling games" (which include both things like poker which has some similarities, and slots which really don't) is not as good a description as "a game of managed risk". With respect to the paragraph about how randomness works, I think that it doesn't really sound like the very common "chance to hit" idea that Wesnoth and many other games use. It almost sounds like we are doing something crazy, like a D&D THACO system. "hey guys, you'll love/hate our random combat system that is really unique". Perhaps a more accurate and succinct wording would be: "The chance for an attacking unit to hit another unit in Wesnoth is determined by the defensive quality of the terrain that the defender is in". Personally, I think that gives the player much more information.

This is both the draw and the repellant of the game for most players.

A don't agree with this assertion. I wonder on what basis it is being made? It is certainly not a draw and a repellent for me, and I am not sure I see how it is for "most players" either. I could be wrong, but it seems unjustified (I.E. not proved) at the moment.

The consequences of using this system of randomness are both beneficial and detrimental. Please read those effects listed below so that you can decide whether Wesnoth is the perfect game for you; a game that will satisfy some of your gaming desires; or is not the game for you:

Benefits:
1) Randomnes ensures that the same game will never be played twice.
2) Randomness allows players of different skill levels to play a game where the outcome may not be determined solely on that difference.

Detriments:
1) Randomness may determine the outcome of the game regardless of how well played it was by the loser.
2) Because of this, skilled players may lose to less skilled players for reasons outside of either's control.

In terms of finding out if Wesnoth is the perfect game for me? Well, I have been playing games for a long time. I like games. I know a fair bit about randomness too. I don't really see how reading that list would allow me to tell much (anything?) about how much I will like/not like Wesnoth.

With regard to the actual list: I don't really see that it is possible to such a list. Different players would put different things as "benefits" or "detriments" I think, and many/most of those do not really have a lot to do with why things work the way they do. I certainly wouldn't claim "benefit #2" as such. Detriments 1&2 seem (to me) to be to thinly veiled restatements of "benefit" #2.

I don't want to oversimplify the issue (and perhaps I am wrong): but randomness on several levels (cth, traits, etc) was simply a design choice. Given that the goal (as I understand it of course) was to make a simple to play wargame with reasonable flexibility, replayability and strategic depth, I don't know if it is possible to have a game that doesn't use randomness. I can't think of any games in Wesnoth's genre that don't use randomness in at least the ballpark of Wesnoth does. I think in order to get away from randomness, games tend to do things that make them more like Diplomacy. A great game, but combat has been abstracted substantially compared to Wesnoth's tactical depth.

Because of the influence of luck, Wesnoth's multiplayer (MP) community is generally focused on enjoying the gaming experience for the experience itself; players focused on winning and demonstrating skill will generally find Wesnoth to be a poor outlet for those urges. There is an unofficial laddder system for Wesnoth players, and tournaments are occassionally held, but these are mainly for entertainment purposes and do not necessarily determine who the most skilled Wesnoth players are.

I don't agree with this statement at all. I am a very competitive person, and I play games to win. I find Wesnoth to be a wonderful outlet for my "urge to win" - I win a lot! In fact, I find it such a great outlet for my competitive nature that I don't play nearly as many other games as I used to. Wesnoth is, in my mind, far better than most of them. Of course, I lose a lot too. But I lose sometimes in any game I play. Quite often to players that I don't consider to be superior.

In terms of tournaments and the ladder, I am not aware of anyone organizing such things to claim that they absolutely decide the best player. Many players don't play in them. The format could make a difference. Playing a small number of games does not give statistical significance to the results. These and other reasons seem obvious enough (at least to me) that no such claims are even thought about? The very title, "Tournament of Champions" seems pretty tongue in cheek to me. If we want to claim anything about the ToC or ladder players, it is that the top "few" (however many is debatable) players in each are probably pretty good. I think that this has been clearly born out by the results of the ladder and of the 3 ToC so far. The players that are near the top (or say, semifinalists) are all good players. Isn't this pretty much true of any competitive bracket system? I think the general audience for Wesnoth is smart enough to realize this from their own real world experiences.

Regardless of the influence of luck in games, Wesnoth does require skill to be successful over time. The thoughtful recruitment and placing of units takes time to master, and the ability to have contingency plans and adaptability for unexpected outcomes can be considered a skill in its own right.

So if Wesnoth sounds like a game that you may enjoy, please download it and tell us what you think! We welcome any and all feedback regarding the game and player's impressions of its unique system of luck.

Again, I don't see the value in telling prospective players this. The information is already in the FAQ (which we assume players would read if they wanted quick info I think?), and there is another assertion that Wesnoth's use of randomness is unique, which I feel is actually providing the player with disinformation. If I were told that a game had a "unique system of luck" I am not sure what I would think about it, exactly, but I certainly wouldn't come to the conclusion that unit's chance to hit is based on the their target's use of defensive terrain. That seems to be more of a fundamental of gaming (and I daresay real life?) than anything unique.

[krotop]

2) Randomness allows players of different skill levels to play a game where the outcome may not be determined solely on the basis of different skill levels. The underdog always has a chance of wininng although better players with a firm grasp of the principles involved and a willingness to be self-critical and adapt tactics on the fly will generally win more often.

You can get rid of that word, the latter will inevitably win more often if the number of games is high enough.
Also, "always has a chance" could be replace by "still has a chance" which sounds a bit less optimistic for the underdog. The chances for a newcomer to beat a veteran on 1vs1 are close to nil.

3) Randomness may sometimes influence the outcome of the game regardless of how well played it was by whomever lost. Nevertheless, losses are more often the result of not yet understanding and/or mastering all the subtleties of the game.
4) Because of this, occasionally, skilled players may lose to less skilled players as a result of the random element. This can usually be confirmed by more experienced players if requested in the online forum or on the multi player server (replays required).

There is an unofficial ladder system for Battle for Wesnoth multi player, and tournaments are also held on the multi player side of the game. Although competitive, with the commonly acknowledged better players normally contesting the latter stages, there is also an emphasis on just enjoying the game and it is not the view that either the ladder or the tournaments necessarily determine the skill level of the individual players to the point of true personal rankings. Nor is this desired.

Regardless of the possible influence of uncertainity in some games, Battle for Wesnoth does require skill in order to be a successful player over time. The thoughtful recruitment and placing of units takes time to master, and the ability to have contingency plans and adapt for unexpected outcomes is considered a skill in its own right.

Just my 2cents : remove all of this for the main page and just have a sentence in the lines of "This does not elude Battle for Wesnoth from having a very competitive multiplayer experience." with a link to the competitive gaming wiki page.

The point of this part is to give a clearer view of the position of the community toward luck, and is ok at doing it in my humble opinion. But for a 30 seconds reader, that will probably look redundant with 2). Eventually, what you have said here could help to elaborate a bit the wiki page on competitive games, since the complaints come from people seeking for competitivity at some degree.

Also, the general thing is not as appealing as the current one, more focusing on the single player mode, and not necessarily for competition seeking players, single player being the original concept of the game as far as I understood.

Edit : Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't think this is a bad writing. But, in my opinion again, the problem comes from the objective of this write-up : this is too much focusing on warning the player about luck, and not enough of what they could just enjoy for the fun of it, like the great campaigns, meeting with a nice community, the themes and factions, the arts and so on.

[8877]

I support the idea of a warning message!

*Yogi Bear: deleted (politically inappropriate, potentially annoying)
Please don't take this personally, normally we don't have reservations about this kind of humour (i found it funny, too). However, this topic has unfortunately become a very sensitive issue meanwhile.
*

[TheMasterOfBattle]

LOL!

Hehe, that would be nice to see in-game. I assume you intend it to be seen as the game is loading 8877?

I don't see it making it into the game though. :-\

[5dPZ]

2) Because of this, skilled players may lose to less skilled players for reasons outside of either's control.

I have played Wesnoth since 1.0.2. Here's what I feel about luck in Wesnoth:

The importance of luck is inversely proportional to the difference of the two players' skill level.

That is, if the oppornent is a fresh newbie, I can afford a -30% dealt, +30% receive and still win the game. In case, since the skill level difference is so big, the luck factor doesn't really matter anymore.

However, if my oppornent is as good as me (aka, his moves are almost identical to what I predict he would do), then luck is probably THE most important deciding factor of the outcome of the match.

A less likely game would be huge overall lucky player. For example, if I play a reasonably good player with drake who gets a +20% damage overall in 10 turns, there is almost no way of saving the game from the drakes if the map is small.

sometimes, sole statistics, (aka, +10% dmg inflict) is not as important as surviving a "sure" kill, or lucky strike which a dying unit level up at <30% chance, or an almost-level up units die at 10% chance. All these can turn a game and some are irreversible if the match is really close.