Draft for luck explanation and expectations announcement

[JW]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[JW]

Feel free to post any and all comments regarding the effectiveness, preciseness, and correctness of this proposed announcement. Even if all you have to say is "I think this is a good idea," please post that.

[Dave]

I'm afraid that I don't agree with almost anything in the text of this proposed announcement.

The perceived benefits you list concerning our combat system don't cover any of the major benefits that have been designed into the game. I have covered these benefits in my "Rationale" post on luck in Wesnoth, and elsewhere.

Any game which has any amount of randomness may result in a player playing better and still losing. I think this is obvious to any reasonable person and does not need repeating or any emphasis.

I do not think Wesnoth's level of randomness is particularly different to many other games in the TBS and wargame traditions.

I think that Wesnoth is a great place for players focused on demonstrating skill in the kinds of skills that Wesnoth tests: probablistic analysis, discipline in the face of uncertainty, and tactical planning.

I do not think that any kind of announcement like this is necessary. Wesnoth is a free download, and people can download it, try it, and see if they like it. I doubt anyone would bother reading some abstract statement about Wesnoth's gameplay before downloading it, and if they did I don't think it would impart any particular insights to them.

David

[JW]

And that is why you get frustrated people posting about how "luck ruins the game." Also, if you could post specifically what is incorrect instead of blanket statements, that would awesomely helpful as well.

*Yogi Bear: deleted (potentially provocating)*

[Doc Paterson]

The consequences of using this system of randomness are both beneficial and detrimental.

It being also detrimental is your opinion. I don't think that the development team would want to sign their names to a statement like that.

Detriments:
1) Randomness may determine the outcome of the game regardless of how well played it was by the loser.

It's this "determine" that I hate, and it crops up again and again in all of these threads. How can one say that luck decided the whole thing, when it was only a piece of the outcome? It is surely not more important than the creativity of the moves, recruiting choices, strategic/tactical choices, etc. etc. I think that people who say these things have a very narrow view of what successful strategies are....There just aren't that many options in their view of high-level wesnoth strategy. If that's your view, fine, but I can't see why the dev community would, as a whole, endorse this statement.

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

They had control over most of the factors though. When you say something like this, you take every other component of the game for granted (seeing it like "Well this was the only right thing to do here....")- you assume that every other choice conformed to some notion of the perfect way to do things. Let's imagine that "luck" exerts a 10 percent influence over the outcome of a given game. Are we really going to say that the other factors and choices were so obvious and straightforward as to let that one other piece (the luck piece) decide? That movement, recruiting, forethought, etc. were not much, much larger pieces of that end result? It's a matter of perspective I suppose, and I personally dislike it when people are so quick to brush every other component of a result aside and pin it all on localized RNG deviations.

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.

(emphasis mine)

Yes, most of the community is generally focused on enjoying the gaming experience for the experience itself, but that does not mean that this is, as you said, "because of the influence of luck." Everything else there I just disagree with.....You've heard my reasoning before.

* * * * *

This may not be too relevant right now, and maybe I'm reading you wrong, but the above seems to suggest that a terrible or mediocre player can occasionally beat a really good player.
Have you really ever lost to a player that was much worse than you? Maybe I'm crazy, but I can't remember* that ever happening to me, in any of the thousands of games I've played.....When I've lost, the reasons have usually been pretty clear to me, both during and after the game.

(Do we have to resurrect Project O.W.L.F.A.C.E.? )

*If it has, it's so infrequent as to render it absent from my memory.

* * * * *

Anyways, you know I have no issue with you as a person, so don't take this in the wrong way. It just so happens that our beliefs about this game and the role that luck plays in it are quite different.

[Dave]

And that is why you get frustrated people posting about how "luck ruins the game."

What is why? I think we'll always get people like that for one reason or another. I think we get far less than the number of people who complain about luck in the Civilization series.

Also, if you could post specifically what is incorrect instead of blanket statements, that would awesomely helpful as well.

I thought I was fairly specific, and don't feel like I made any "blanket statements". Perhaps about the benefits of the combat system Wesnoth uses, but I really feel like I've gone over this many times already. Anyhow, I don't really have anything more to add.

David

[Jozrael]

Despite somewhat agreeing with you about Wesnoth's suitability to current modern expectations of a competitive game, I think this missive is entirely in the wrong direction.

[JW]

The consequences of using this system of randomness are both beneficial and detrimental.

It being also detrimental is your opinion. I don't think that the development team would want to sign their names to a statement like that.

Well that's the whole point Doc. Luck has effects that some people see as beneficial while others see themas a detriment. Obviously if you don't care about the benefits it's only detrimental. Obviously if you don't care about the detriments thenitis only beneficial. The point is to inform the player of all of the consequences and let them decide what they believe it to be.

Detriments:
1) Randomness may determine the outcome of the game regardless of how well played it was by the loser.

It's this "determine" that I hate, and it crops up again and again in all of these threads. How can one say that luck decided the whole thing, when it was only a piece of the outcome? It is surely not more important than the creativity of the moves, recruiting choices, strategic/tactical choices, etc. etc. I think that people who say these things have a very narrow view of what successful strategies are....There just aren't that many options in their view of high-level wesnoth strategy. If that's your view, fine, but I can't see why the dev community would, as a whole, endorse this statement.

I didn't say it was more important, but surely you've played a game to the best of your ability and still lost becacuse the attacks went dramatically against you. This is the situation I am referencing. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen, and at least one of your fellow MP devs has admitted as much. In fact, he estimated it happens around 5% of the time. I could try to find the quotes if necessary.

Also, I could add a sentence or phrase in there to indicate that the situation does not happen frequently, though it does occur. I think such an addition would help the announcement's clarity.

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

They had control over most of the factors though. When you say something like this, you take every other component of the game for granted (seeing it like "Well this was the only right thing to do here....")- you assume that every other choice conformed to some notion of the perfect way to do things. Let's imagine that "luck" exerts a 10 percent influence over the outcome of a given game. Are we really going to say that the other factors and choices were so obvious and straightforward as to let that one other piece (the luck piece) decide? That movement, recruiting, forethought, etc. were not much, much larger pieces of that end result? It's a matter of perspective I suppose, and I personally dislike it when people are so quick to brush every other component of a result aside and pin it all on localized RNG deviations.

Again, I think you're stretching my statements past where they intend to go. Could you perhaps ropose a more accurate statement then?

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.

(emphasis mine)

Yes, most of the community is generally focused on enjoying the gaming experience for the experience itself, but that does not mean that this is, as you said, "because of the influence of luck." Everything else there I just disagree with.....You've heard my reasoning before.

Could you please either link to that reasoning or reproduce it here? I will do the same for any requests you make of me.

This may not be too relevant right now, and maybe I'm reading you wrong, but the above seems to suggest that a terrible or mediocre player can occasionally beat a really good player.
Have you really ever lost to a player that was much worse than you? Maybe I'm crazy, but I can't remember* that ever happening to me, in any of the thousands of games I've played.....When I've lost, the reasons have usually been pretty clear to me, both during and after the game.

(Do we have to resurrect Project O.W.L.F.A.C.E.? )

*If it has, it's so infrequent as to render it absent from my memory.

Doc, surely you know that I, and most others of our skill, played with players close to our caliber because we knew them. I cannot speak for you, so I won't, but I remember very distinctly players that wouldn't play with anyone outside of a small circle of good players. Because of this games with very underskilled players was very infrequent, so of course I cannot remember a time where that specifically occurred. I do remember times where I lost to a player I was clearly better than (though the gap was not enormous), and his victory was a great deal because of luck. God help me if you ask for replays though.

Anyways, you know I have no issue with you as a person, so don't take this in the wrong way. It just so happens that our beliefs about this game and the role that luck plays in it are quite different.

I know Doc. Dare I say that I've enjoyed the times we had together?! I'm glad that you've been one of the people here who has calmly explained your difference of opinion with me in a non-offensive manner. You and other people who are just as understanding are the reason I keep trying instead of just writing off the whole community as stubborn and close-minded. Disagreeing is one thing, but not understanding and not trying to understand is another. I am glad that you've been a person who tries to understand, even if he disagrees.

[JW]

Despite somewhat agreeing with you about Wesnoth's suitability to current modern expectations of a competitive game, I think this missive is entirely in the wrong direction.

What would you change? Is it the tone, the specifics? This was a very rushed draft that merely attempted to address issues I mentioned previously. I thought it was a good attempt, but please tell me specifically what you would change.

[JW]

Let me try address your post again as I hope you will address my posts again in a similar manner.

I'm afraid that I don't agree with almost anything in the text of this proposed announcement.

So what do you agree with?

The perceived benefits you list concerning our combat system don't cover any of the major benefits that have been designed into the game. I have covered these benefits in my "Rationale" post on luck in Wesnoth, and elsewhere.

If you could reproduce what these benefits are in this thread I will do the same for requests you make of me.

Any game which has any amount of randomness may result in a player playing better and still losing. I think this is obvious to any reasonable person and does not need repeating or any emphasis.

So you agree that it's a fact yet don't want it stated? Do yu think it will create any harm? Isn't it obvious to any reasonable person that posting copyrighted materials or inappropriate content on these forums is prohibited, yet isn't it listed in the forum rules?

I do not think Wesnoth's level of randomness is particularly different to many other games in the TBS and wargame traditions.

I guess I would ask what games you are comparing it to?

I think that Wesnoth is a great place for players focused on demonstrating skill in the kinds of skills that Wesnoth tests: probablistic analysis, discipline in the face of uncertainty, and tactical planning.

I mentioned some of those atributes in the section that talks about skill, but I could go more in depth in that section.

I do not think that any kind of announcement like this is necessary. Wesnoth is a free download, and people can download it, try it, and see if they like it. I doubt anyone would bother reading some abstract statement about Wesnoth's gameplay before downloading it, and if they did I don't think it would impart any particular insights to them.

Then I guess why make any announcements? Why have the FPI? Why do anything for the community? I mean really, if that is your attitude, what is the point? Why did you make your thread about luck?

I would also argue that people would read an announcement on the home page of the game more often than a sticky thread 9+ pages long between multiple others in the User's forum of the Wesnoth website.

[Max]

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.

both sentences are obviously true, but i still think you're missing an important point, let me try to explain:

i guess everybody agrees that chess is a very deterministic game - but does it differ much in terms of luck from wesnoth? here's why i think i doesn't:

there's the Elo rating system which is the base of a really solid ranking system. players with 2600 elo points are playing in a different league than someone with 2200. still the latter has a 10% chance to win a game.

that's why in tournaments they usually play a series of games to determine the winner. or have a look at sports - what about e.g. soccer? when a team wins the world cup - would you say it has been the best team? i'd rather say there's a whole bunch of luck involved.

if you'd completely remove all "undeterministic" elements from wesnoth i really doubt that the better player would always win. i'm sure it would also follow this pattern. so a player that is "twice as good" would win e.g. 7 out of 10 games.

and my question to you: do you think that having luck in wesnoth would change this dramatically?


btw.: i'm well aware that playing on a really small map with just a bunch of units makes luck a significant factor...

[JW]

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.

both sentences are obviously true, but i still think you're missing an important point, let me try to explain:

i guess everybody agrees that chess is a very deterministic game - but does it differ much in terms of luck from wesnoth? here's why i think i doesn't:

there's the Elo rating system which is the base of a really solid ranking system. players with 2600 elo points are playing in a different league than someone with 2200. still the latter has a 10% chance to win a game.

Chess players completely determine their own fate, unlike Wesnoth. I don't see how any relevant comparison can be made. Chess is all about preparation and tactical/positional analysis, not luck.
A player can only lose through a defect in their game - not through luck.

that's why in tournaments they usually play a series of games to determine the winner. or have a look at sports - what about e.g. soccer? when a team wins the world cup - would you say it has been the best team? i'd rather say there's a whole bunch of luck involved.

To address the sports issue, I discussed this in another thread but will reproduce some of my reasoning here: sports are not about luck. Luck in sports is a shorthand for talking about how players react in real-time to the complicated situations before them. It's easier to talk about luck sometimes than to discuss all the factors involved in players' decision making. Whoever wins a game on any particular day was the best team that day. The largest part of of sports is improving your consistency to perform at a high level so that you will not have bad games (ala Rex Grossman in American football). I could go more in depth, but I think it is more appropriate just to stick to talking about video games.

if you'd completely remove all "undeterministic" elements from wesnoth i really doubt that the better player would always win. i'm sure it would also follow this pattern. so a player that is "twice as good" would win e.g. 7 out of 10 games.

I don't know what you mean by this. Could you perhaps clarify?

and my question to you: do you think that having luck in wesnoth would change this dramatically?

There is luck in Wesnoth....I am not arguing to remove luck either...I don't know what you're saying at all here.

btw.: i'm well aware that playing on a really small map with just a bunch of units makes luck a significant factor...

I agree.

[Max]

Luck in sports is a shorthand for talking about how players react in real-time to the complicated situations before them. It's easier to talk about luck sometimes than to discuss all the factors involved in players' decision making. Whoever wins a game on any particular day was the best team that day.

sorry, i'll stick to soccer again - what it all comes down to is a couple of shots to the goal. the better team has a better chance to get more of these opportunities. let's say a game wouldn't last for 1½ hours, but 100. one team might be a bit stronger (but still not a real underdog) it's highly unlikely that the better team would win every single 1½ hours segment. but you still insist that the better team always wins. you call it deterministic (and in some way rightly so^^) - i call it luck. to really know which team is better you'd have to have them play dozens of games (and there's still a very small chance that the winning team was just lucky)

if you'd completely remove all "undeterministic" elements from wesnoth i really doubt that the better player would always win. i'm sure it would also follow this pattern. so a player that is "twice as good" would win e.g. 7 out of 10 games.

I don't know what you mean by this. Could you perhaps clarify?

let's say wesnoth had a similar rating scheme as in chess (and luck was removed). player A has a rating of 100, player B has 120. you wouldn't really expect that player B always wins? he would win the majority of the games played (depending on the difference in the ratings).

why do chess tournaments between players with similar rankings so often end e.g 3½:2½ and not 5:0? in some games one player makes apparent errors but usually it's caused by a sequence of events that turn out to be good or bad decisions. deciding for a certain move in chess usually is based on the best guess - and as long as you can't calculate everything right through to the end this involves a certain amount of uncertainty (which again i call luck)

and my question to you: do you think that having luck in wesnoth would change this dramatically?

There is luck in Wesnoth....I am not arguing to remove luck either...I don't know what you're saying at all here.

i know you're not^^

i'll try to rephrase that question:
i assume here that you agree with my arguments above (which i don't know) and i try to resume with the example from above - if player A with the better rating has a 80% chance to win the game (in an "unluckyfied" version) how much do you think that luck would level this? my guess would be it wouldn't change much, but you could argue that the luck factor is significant (and lowers player A's chances to e.g. 60%).

[JW]

sorry, i'll stick to soccer again - what it all comes down to is a couple of shots to the goal. the better team has a better chance to get more of these opportunities. let's say a game wouldn't last for 1½ hours, but 100. one team might be a bit stronger (but still not a real underdog) it's highly unlikely that the better team would win every single 1½ hours segment. but you still insist that the better team always wins. you call it deterministic (and in some way rightly so^^) - i call it luck. to really know which team is better you'd have to have them play dozens of games (and there's still a very small chance that the winning team was just lucky)

I think I am having a problem communicating my complex perception of how sports work and how luck is perceived in them. To be honest it is a unique perspective that is probably hard to grasp. Of course, I believe it to be accurate though.

Sports are not deterministic, but the team that wins is the better team that day. This is all determined by a complex combination of players' decisions based on their preparation, focus, skill, attitude, teamwork, etc, etc. Going in it would be very hard for anyone to accurately know all of these factors, and it would be harder to predict other people's decisions based on those factors. Because of this outside observers rely on statistics to describe what they see, and talk about luck. The reality (in my opinion) is that players still control everything in the game based on their decisions. Just because they cannot control the decisions of the other players does not mean it is random. It is just as random as having a 11v11 game of starcraft (with whatever luck exists removed). It may be "unpredictable," but that does not make it "random." I hope my view is somewhat clear....

let's say wesnoth had a similar rating scheme as in chess (and luck was removed). player A has a rating of 100, player B has 120. you wouldn't really expect that player B always wins? he would win the majority of the games played (depending on the difference in the ratings).

Well, chess is theoretically always a draw until someone makes the first mistake. With Wesnoth I don't know if the same would apply. It really would be a different game, so I cannot postulate as to what would happen.

why do chess tournaments between players with similar rankings so often end e.g 3½:2½ and not 5:0? in some games one player makes apparent errors but usually it's caused by a sequence of events that turn out to be good or bad decisions. deciding for a certain move in chess usually is based on the best guess - and as long as you can't calculate everything right through to the end this involves a certain amount of uncertainty (which again i call luck)

But again, chess is entirely deterministic. There really is nothing lucky about it. Given enough time you can map out an entire game, and many grand masters do so for at least the first 8 moves or so. Memorization of openings is one large part of chess. Masters like Kasparov and Karpov have played the same game so many times that they know how to capitalize against any flaw in a chain of predictable moves. A player can only lose if they have a flaw in their game, either in preparation or analysis.

i'll try to rephrase that question:
i assume here that you agree with my arguments above (which i don't know) and i try to resume with the example from above - if player A with the better rating has a 80% chance to win the game (in an "unluckyfied" version) how much do you think that luck would level this? my guess would be it wouldn't change much, but you could argue that the luck factor is significant (and lowers player A's chances to e.g. 60%).

I think that I disagree with your points above, but I will try to address this still: at least one MP dev has admitted that approximately 5% of all games are decided by luck.

If I have answered unsatisfactorily please let me know. I'm getting tired and losing focus myself.

[Max]

i'm getting tired as well - i'll reread the posts tomorrow and see if i can make myself a bit clearer^^