Endless discussion about luck and other unsavory things

[CarryOn]

Just to repeat myself, and to elaborate:

when I use S/R, I do it to compensate for the huge chance,
and indeed I lose units, about half of em' or more.
(only having recruited about 10 units)

I would say if the dmg always was given when you attacked, but
modified by attack type, terrain and what else that could affect it.
In that way making sure a hit occurs, to count with... Strategy.

Instead of now you have chance, where a possible miss happens quite often for a 'strategy' game, this factor makes me call it not a strategy game, a chance game would be better.
it's not like when you play chess and you by strategy calculate how to best defeat on of the opponents pieces, you would miss an attack.
(if we applied hit/miss based attack system)
Would make up to be quite a different game of chess, than we're used to.

[Wintermute]

I would say if the dmg always was given when you attacked, but
modified by attack type, terrain and what else that could affect it.
In that way making sure a hit occurs, to count with... Strategy.

If you look at attack damage from a statistical point of view (which if you want to play Wesnoth well, you should IMO), then what you are describing is exactly what happens now (given "enough" repeated events i.e. attacks). Over the course of many, many games, if a player uses resources strategically, and/or employs superior tactics to an opponent, that player will win more games than his/her opponent.

Your arguement seems (to me) to be that it is statistically possible that a very poor player can defeat a very srong player, given that - as you say- there is a large random element to the game. However, as I said, if you play online against the very difficult human opponents, your "chance" of winning is largely determined by your moves. If this is not strategy, then please tell me what is.

I do also enjoy games that have less randomness, so if you have any examples of any good turn-based strategy or tactical (computer) games that have little chance involved, please let me know![/i]

[Ken_Oh]

Right, the randomness of the game is generally amplified on small maps and dimished on large maps. It kind of seems nuts to me that people in the Multiplayer forum come up with smaller and smaller maps, like it's a contest. I'm really only interesting in medium to large maps, with the larger I play vs. AI like they were short campaigns.

[Zhukov]

Right, the randomness of the game is generally amplified on small maps and dimished on large maps. It kind of seems nuts to me that people in the Multiplayer forum come up with smaller and smaller maps, like it's a contest. I'm really only interesting in medium to large maps, with the larger I play vs. AI like they were short campaigns.

My thoughts exactly. I have a major grudge against tiny maps, especially those so-called 'rumble' maps.

[CarryOn]

When writing this post I can't remember who said it, but the person said that I should try to play against other human players.

So far I actually only have played it as an offline game, and it is from that point of view I am speaking.

And as I mentioned in an earlier post, it does'nt matter with great skill
if you run short of units cause of huge chance in game, and off course lack of gold.

BTW: to the guy with the last post on the 1st page of posts,
I love to play poker, when I play poker.

[turin]

My thoughts exactly. I have a major grudge against tiny maps, especially those so-called 'rumble' maps.

Rumble maps can't really be compared with other small maps. There's a HUGE difference between playing on 20x20 map with 2 players and playing on a 20x20 map (or less, if there's a bunch of hexes blocked off by cave wall) with 6 players...

[Flametrooper]

Rumble maps are fun, in their own way. You've got to be in a rumble-ish mood; if you're not, and are looking for careful, well-thought-out strategy, play a large map.

Anyway, let's re-rail this topic, since randomness discussions get locked and rants about map sizes belong in Multiplayer Dev...

Would like to add one thing, that has served me well in the past, specifically large parts of TROW and HttT: Use horsies. Charge them at your enemy to break up his line, because AI has a tendency to recruit a lot at the start and then quickly run out of gold. Breaking and surviving his first line are key to this, and Horsemen are good at it. Send them up before the rest of your units arrive(maybe 1-2 turns before depending on what your main forcde consits of and how the "quick" trait has been distributed; never more than 3 turns though, as the enemy can recover by this time), break the line and cause chaos, and while they're recovering, bring in your low-level or about-to-advance units to easily finish them off for XP.

[YbeRn00b]

I will sometimes do this when I am about to kill a boss. This is because the bosses in the game can sometimes be deadly. When fighting them with an equally deadly unit, it is more like a crap shoot and less like a fight.

I do the same, and I don't feel especially bad about it. Havng to replay the whole map when the victory is just a dice-roll away makes no sense. Although, I usually play mp and slowly begins to love the "x-factor" randomness gives the game.

Right, the randomness of the game is generally amplified on small maps and dimished on large maps. It kind of seems nuts to me that people in the Multiplayer forum come up with smaller and smaller maps, like it's a contest.

True. I wish for some good, medium sized 2v2 and 1v1 maps. There are some, but not too many. Should probably try to make one myself

If two equal strategist play, and have equal power at the beginning ( as well as terrain), of course it will be chance game.

Witch game won't? Most will, even rts like warcraft. Avoid too small maps, may penalize the starting player a few gold, and you will have a fight where strategy is what really matters. Also, what differs the really good players from the true masters, is the ability to adapt and learn during each game, equal skill and power at the beginning of a game is no promise of a chance game. At last, the ability to exploit the fact that this game includes a bunch of small chances might be one of the most important skills. This means seeing what might work as much as seeing what should work. While what "should work"usually is expected of the enemy, you should look for the strange moves that can really change the game. Wait until later in your turn to retreat the 3hp griffon if your thunderer has a 30% chance of bringing the enemy king to 10hp. Usually, the more "equal" a war is, the more impact will something unexpected have. The trix is doing so without risking to loose it all. Knowing to retreat the griffon is an easy one, knowing to refine or even cancel moves that was pretty obvious earlier the same turn takes many, many games to master. But let's use these chances for what they are worth! The most easy way to start learning this is to make sure you do the most risky moves and battles first each turn. This way you might have a backup if it goes wrong. Later you should allow yourselves to try some of what "might work". Killing a powerful, well defended unit "might" look impossible, but if your HI actually hits on both 2x40% it will sure be worth it to risk another unit to kill it off. Good luck!

[CarryOn]

The high chance in the game is what I dislike, not that chance exist in the game itself, but having 4 attacks and a chance to hit on 70%, and all the attacks miss, seems to be more a curse than bad luck!

...and similar weird events of high chance makes me value it as a chance game, rather than a strategy game!

[Zhukov]

My thoughts exactly. I have a major grudge against tiny maps, especially those so-called 'rumble' maps.

Rumble maps can't really be compared with other small maps. There's a HUGE difference between playing on 20x20 map with 2 players and playing on a 20x20 map (or less, if there's a bunch of hexes blocked off by cave wall) with 6 players...

What I meant was, I dislike small maps (though don't mind playing them) and detest rumble maps.

[unsung]

What I meant was, I dislike small maps (though don't mind playing them) and detest rumble maps.

I can see why- I like small maps made for six peopl ethat aren't rumble maps quite a bit though- I can take some time to think, reather than acting on instinct to keep things rolling like on the larger ones-
BTW using a laviniaan unit in a rumble is very satisfying-people aren't sure what to do against a steadfast unit with slow attacks and resistances.

[Wintermute]

The high chance in the game is what I dislike, not that chance exist in the game itself, but having 4 attacks and a chance to hit on 70%, and all the attacks miss, seems to be more a curse than bad luck!

...and similar weird events of high chance makes me value it as a chance game, rather than a strategy game!

Seriously now, either I am misunderstanding you completely, or you are talking gibberish! If you know what the words curse and luck mean, then I have no choice but to assume that you are making an attempt to anger other rational people by saying things that are blatantly untrue.

The probability of 4 (out of 4) magical attacks missing is:
0.3*0.3*0.3*0.3 = 0.0081,
or slightly less then one percent. This means that a knowledgeable person would expect that about 1 out of every 123 such attacks would result in the quadruple miss that you have experienced.

You seem to be implying that your mage should never miss, which is, to use the technical term, poppycock. If you were playing a campaign, and you made 15 such attacks per scenario, your mage would miss, on average mind you, about once in 8 scenarios.

Wesnoth can be a frustrating game when all of your units miss on the same turn. I like to view this as an added challange (it's a feature, not a bug!): can I overcome the bad luck I suffered on a given turn?

If you really don't like that aspect of the game, then I doubt that any amount of saving and loading will garner you an enjoyable play experience. My advice: Go online. Watch some of the developers play, and learn the tricks of the trade. There is also a replay archive that has examples of some very good players in action. If you still don't like the game, then go play Massive Assault, or some other less risky game.

[Thrawn]

The high chance in the game is what I dislike, not that chance exist in the game itself, but having 4 attacks and a chance to hit on 70%, and all the attacks miss, seems to be more a curse than bad luck!

...and similar weird events of high chance makes me value it as a chance game, rather than a strategy game!

Seriously now, either I am misunderstanding you completely, or you are talking gibberish! If you know what the words curse and luck mean, then I have no choice but to assume that you are making an attempt to anger other rational people by saying things that are blatantly untrue.

The probability of 4 (out of 4) magical attacks missing is:
0.3*0.3*0.3*0.3 = 0.0081,
or slightly less then one percent. This means that a knowledgeable person would expect that about 1 out of every 123 such attacks would result in the quadruple miss that you have experienced.

You seem to be implying that your mage should never miss, which is, to use the technical term, poppycock. If you were playing a campaign, and you made 15 such attacks per scenario, your mage would miss, on average mind you, about once in 8 scenarios.

Wesnoth can be a frustrating game when all of your units miss on the same turn. I like to view this as an added challange (it's a feature, not a bug!): can I overcome the bad luck I suffered on a given turn?

If you really don't like that aspect of the game, then I doubt that any amount of saving and loading will garner you an enjoyable play experience. My advice: Go online. Watch some of the developers play, and learn the tricks of the trade. There is also a replay archive that has examples of some very good players in action. If you still don't like the game, then go play Massive Assault, or some other less risky game.

Wintermute:there is a more relevent equasion, but can't recall now... and don't be negative.

Carryon: the luck factor can suck...get use to it, and pray that it happens to the other team as well. Also, it can work out in your favor. I say this a lot, but it evens out, so just deal, and use luck as the reason you lsot

[Wintermute]

Wintermute:there is a more relevent equasion, but can't recall now

It has been a while since I've studied statistics, but I don't see the problem with my equation. Maybe I am missing something simple. If there is a more relavent one, I would be happy to see it.

...and don't be negative.

Could you please phrase that a little more positively?

Just kidding, of course.

[Tropico]

Seriously, who cares about any of this? Maybe the game IS a chance game. Maybe it IS a strategy game. And what you call it means what? Nothing. It's still a damn fine, fun, addictive game.

CarryOn talks like he wants other people to go, "Oh my god he's RIGHT, it IS a chance game. WHAT A DISASTER THIS IS." Huh? Nobody cares.

There are games with less chance than Wesnoth, and there are games with more chance than Wesnoth. And? We play Wesnoth.