There's one thing we really hate of this game.

[CIB]

Would it be possible to make a kind of slider that will set the "degree" of randomness that the user could set in his game?
With only current (default) state being "official" and supported/tested?

http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... mod+random

It is possible and has been done. I don't think it is good for the "official branch", having it be an alternative version of Wesnoth is just fine, but you need the people for it(someone who updates the engine itself, people who make eras/scenarios for it, players).

[Cruk Chawbunkle]

denying that is stupid.
The game could IMPROVE, advance, but if it keeps being to random, it will never happen.
i'm a profesional gamer, and would never focus that much time to a game that depends too much on luck

Sure youse a perfessional gamer. And my pappy was a cabbage patch kid, born right in that there garden behind my cabin.

Ya'll should learn how to play before talkin smack, boy.

[Noy]

You think that strategy and tactics is about beating an opponent through superior skill. Thats a very superficial way of looking at it. The key aspect of strategy is not the application of tactics, but it is how you respond to unpredicatability.

...

Sometimes unpredictability ruins things, and its how you deal with it that is a skill.

You imply that the "people who dislike too much randomness" are complaining about the fact that a single fight (for example) can go completely awry due to the RNG. Then you counter this by saying that the point is how you deal with it when that happens. However, this isn't the main point AFAIK: the point is that no matter how well you deal with a situation where you get a single case of insanely back luck, it's completely dependant on the RNG whether your failsafe plans work or not. The problem is not that your engineers fail to show up, it's more like the situation where your engineers fail to show up, all your artillery shells are duds, all your rifles jam, half of your men spontaneously get a heart attack and finally you just miss all your other shots until you're out of ammo. And that's something you can't deal with, no matter how much skill you have, which is the main point of the "too much randomness" problem.

Yeah, okay why don't you give me the probabilities of that? Maybe one in a billion? Possibilities of missing 6 hits out of 8 hits on a unit with 50% defence is 1.5% Out of a game that might have well over 200 attacks, that isn't surprising, and yet its always what people seem to remember and complain about. Exaggerate all you want, but wesnoth is based on probabilities, which it usually follows, not acts of god from above.

[Noy]

You can lose by luck in this game even by having a better strategy than your opponent , period, denying that is stupid.
The game could IMPROVE, advance, but if it keeps being to random, it will never happen.
i'm a profesional gamer, and would never focus that much time to a game that depends too much on luck

Funny, because other professional gamers, AKA Military Operational commanders use wargames that have plenty of randomness. And in their case the consequences are not whether or not you have an emo sunday afternoon after being pwned saturday evening in counterstrike, but the lives of thousands of men on a battlefield.

You don't get it, and I don't expect you to. You fail to understand that the best players here win most of the time. To be honest, I think you are probably a poor or mediocre player with an inflated sense of self esteem (as referenced by your professional gamer statement) and can't handle the fact that you don't have skill to win at this game so you blame randomness.

[Doc Paterson]

it's more like the situation where your engineers fail to show up, all your artillery shells are duds, all your rifles jam, half of your men spontaneously get a heart attack and finally you just miss all your other shots until you're out of ammo. And that's something you can't deal with, no matter how much skill you have, which is the main point of the "too much randomness" problem.

Yeah, okay why don't you give me the probabilities of that? Maybe one in a billion? Possibilities of missing 6 hits out of 8 hits on a unit with 50% defence is 1.5% Out of a game that might have well over 200 attacks, that isn't surprising, and yet its always what people seem to remember and complain about. Exaggerate all you want, but wesnoth is based on probabilities, which it usually follows, not acts of god from above.

True indeed; People who talk about such scenarios can almost never produce replays- If they do, it never holds up under scrutiny (in other words, it's full of strategic mistakes on their part.)

[torangan]

i'm a profesional gamer, and would never focus that much time to a game that depends too much on luck

Well, then you belong into exactly the group of players we do NOT want to please. Sorry. There's no persistant name service and ranking on the MP servers because Wesnoth is a game where we don't want power gaming. It's intended to be a fun game for the whole family.
Try to win against a player like Noy and you'll notice that you can very well reach a point where you're just about indefeatable for casual gamers. If luck goes extremely to your side you could win against a much stronger player - yes. But that's exactly what keeps the game interesting. In many online games you can only survive if you train hard, learn all the tactics and follow them very close. In Wesnoth there's always the luck factor and a larger room for creative ideas. You can play daring and put a weak force as blocker on high def terrain and simply hope that it'll stop the enemy long enough for you to reach your goal.

Don't forget: since Wesnoth is open source it'd be rather easy to cheat compared to other games. It's just that it doesn't really gain you anything so we've got little problems with cheaters.

[waterd103]

Funny, because other professional gamers, AKA Military Operational commanders use wargames that have plenty of randomness.

They are NOT professional gamers, in fact, they are operational commanders, that's their proffesion, not GAMER.
I;m not sure about the following but it seems they try to TRAIN for their jobs not play.

And in their case the consequences are not whether or not you have an emo sunday afternoon after being pwned saturday evening in counterstrike, but the lives of thousands of men on a battlefield.

Sorry i don't understand any of this, could you explain it better to me? what are you talking about?

You don't get it, and I don't expect you to. You fail to understand that the best players here win most of the time.

I don't fail to understand anything, i don't care if the best players win MOST of the time. Someone has to win most of the time, so statically it will be the best players.
Still i don't care of the best players win a lot more times than the other players, i'm interested in the result reflecting who played better in the game.

To be honest, I think you are probably a poor or mediocre player with an inflated sense of self esteem (as referenced by your professional gamer statement) and can't handle the fact that you don't have skill to win at this game so you blame randomness.

If you think i'm poor or mediocre player it's irrelevant. If telling you my profesion to explain you my argument, seems to you like "an inflated sense of self esteem" maybe this conversation is pointless because between my lack of english and your vision of how things work, this communication won't work out.
Maybe the fact that even if i don't have skill i can win anyway could be my problem anyway.

[waterd103]

Well, then you belong into exactly the group of players we do NOTwant to please. Sorry. There's no persistant name service and ranking on the MP servers because Wesnoth is a game where we don't want power gaming. It's intended to be a fun game for the whole family.
Try to win against a player like Noy and you'll notice that you can very well reach a point where you're just about indefeatable for casual gamers. If luck goes extremely to your side you could win against a much stronger player - yes. But that's exactly what keeps the game interesting. In many online games you can only survive if you train hard, learn all the tactics and follow them very close. In Wesnoth there's always the luck factor and a larger room for creative ideas. You can play daring and put a weak force as blocker on high def terrain and simply hope that it'll stop the enemy long enough for you to reach your goal
Don't forget: since Wesnoth is open source it'd be rather easy to cheat compared to other games. It's just that it doesn't really gain you anything so we've got little problems with cheaters.

Well you explained it rather well, still what i say still true, power gamers, and profesional gamers, would not keep the atention on the game. But as you say maybe that's the objective, too bad and too sad in my opinion becaue the game has a lot of potentional.

[Noy]

Funny, because other professional gamers, AKA Military Operational commanders use wargames that have plenty of randomness.

They are NOT professional gamers, in fact, they are operational commanders, that's their proffesion, not GAMER.
I;m not sure about the following but it seems they try to TRAIN for their jobs not play.

Umm by definition a "professional gamer" would have to train for his job as well. And they play "games" in the same way. Its not that the games are designed to be a exact simulation of command in war, but to introduce them to strategic thinking. How are the needs of an operational commander to win, different for you?

Here's a game that simulates modern combat for you. I can think of a dozen off the top of my head.
http://www.battlefront.com/products/tac ... cops4.html

And in their case the consequences are not whether or not you have an emo sunday afternoon after being pwned saturday evening in counterstrike, but the lives of thousands of men on a battlefield.

Sorry i don't understand any of this, could you explain it better to me? what are you talking about?

Its a joke, one that obviously you don't get.

You don't get it, and I don't expect you to. You fail to understand that the best players here win most of the time.

I don't fail to understand anything, i don't care if the best players win MOST of the time. Someone has to win most of the time, so statically it will be the best players.
Still i don't care of the best players win a lot more times than the other players, i'm interested in the result reflecting who played better in the game.

Your argument rests on the fallacy that you play a perfect game or that luck wholly determined the outcome. That is certainly not the case, it isn't for anybody. You are creating some sort of theoretical idea that because luck didn't go your way in one instance, that you lost the game. In reality though a better player would not put him or herself in a position where luck determined the outcome of their game so readily.

If you posted a replay we could probably pick it apart showing where you made mistakes (fairly common ones) that one of us could exploit.

To be honest, I think you are probably a poor or mediocre player with an inflated sense of self esteem (as referenced by your professional gamer statement) and can't handle the fact that you don't have skill to win at this game so you blame randomness.

If you think i'm poor or mediocre player it's irrelevant. If telling you my profesion to explain you my argument, seems to you like "an inflated sense of self esteem" maybe this conversation is pointless because between my lack of english and your vision of how things work, this communication won't work out.
Maybe the fact that even if i don't have skill i can win anyway could be my problem anyway.

Incorrect. First off, you fail to realize that many of us probably have played just as much games of you in our lives, or have a good understanding of what is going on. Wargaming is in MY profession. I doubt its within yours. And that DOES matter, because I would never get into such an argument with someone who is actually familiar with wargaming.

Your skill level in this game DOES matter, because it shows your ability to understand how to play. Most of the top players here do not believe luck influences the outcome of the game in the ways you say. Someone with Skill will win at wesnoth far more times than someone who does not. You can disagree with that all you want, but really, thats the truth. I have the statistics and evidence to prove that. Do you? Where is your evidence?

[zookeeper]

Yeah, okay why don't you give me the probabilities of that? Maybe one in a billion? Possibilities of missing 6 hits out of 8 hits on a unit with 50% defence is 1.5% Out of a game that might have well over 200 attacks, that isn't surprising, and yet its always what people seem to remember and complain about. Exaggerate all you want, but wesnoth is based on probabilities, which it usually follows, not acts of god from above.

True indeed; People who talk about such scenarios can almost never produce replays- If they do, it never holds up under scrutiny (in other words, it's full of strategic mistakes on their part.)

Well, excessive luck ruining games has happened to Noy at least, so perhaps he can provide some replays?

Though I can honestly say that excessive luck has ruined some games for me, in reality, chance is what makes this game far more realistic and enjoyable for myself and everybody else.

I don't really see what you guys keep going on about.

[Dave]

So perhaps someone who wants to complain about the game's random elements should more precisely quantify exactly how badly they think it affects the game?

What percentage of games, for instance, do people think they outplay their opponents and yet lose due to bad luck? Does it happen 1% of the time? 5% of the time? 10%? 20%? 50%?

Personally, in a multiplayer game vs a human opponent, I can't remember a time when I thought I played clearly better than my opponent, and yet lost. I won't deny that it might happen from time to time, but I don't think it's happened to me.

There are certainly times when I've played a chancy strategy and then played the price for it with a loss (and other times I've played a gambit and it has paid off). But this is certainly part of what Wesnoth is all about: taking calculated risks.

David

[Radament]

What percentage of games, for instance, do people think they outplay their opponents and yet lose due to bad luck? Does it happen 1% of the time? 5% of the time? 10%? 20%? 50%?

Personally, in a multiplayer game vs a human opponent, I can't remember a time when I thought I played clearly better than my opponent, and yet lost. I won't deny that it might happen from time to time, but I don't think it's happened to me.

David

I'd say it's way below 1%, depending on the map. An early bad streak of luck on Isar's cross will put you down for good, but on slightly larger maps with more tactical depth it all evens out.

I remember this game on Clash where my opponent hit me around 12-13 times in a row, on the first dusk, and I'm talking about troll whelps smacking elvish archers in forests. My army was crippled, but somehow i managed to win, with appropriate timing and tactics it can be done.

Anyway, this discussion is really a waste of time, isn't it. We could as well discuss if oranges should be blue.

[Wintermute]

We could as well discuss if oranges should be blue.

Clearly, they should.

[Cruk Chawbunkle]

We could as well discuss if oranges should be blue.

Clearly, they should.

Ya mean they ain't already?

[waterd103]

Funny, because other professional gamers, AKA Military Operational commanders use wargames that have plenty of randomness.

They are NOT professional gamers, in fact, they are operational commanders, that's their proffesion, not GAMER.
I;m not sure about the following but it seems they try to TRAIN for their jobs not play.[/quote]
Umm by definition a "professional gamer" would have to train for his job as well. And they play "games" in the same way. Its not that the games are designed to be a exact simulation of command in war, but to introduce them to strategic thinking. How are the needs of an operational commander to win, different for you? [/quote]
"In sports, a professional is someone who participates for money. The opposite is amateur, meaning a person that does not play for money, but in an academic (e.g. college football) or other private setting. The term "professional" is commonly used incorrectly, as the distinction simply refers to how the athlete is funded, and not necessarily to what competitions he engages in or what results he achieves." Wikipedia source
They are professional but not profesional gamers, they don't live of playing games, they play games to train for their profession, wich is not the same. He needs to get better at their profession, they need to learn how luck afect it's job and deal with it.
My need if i'm playing for the money is to win, no matter what the rules are. Still it doesn't mean i wouldn't prefer different rules.

I don't fail to understand anything, i don't care if the best players win MOST of the time. Someone has to win most of the time, so statically it will be the best players.
Still i don't care of the best players win a lot more times than the other players, i'm interested in the result reflecting who played better in the game.

Your argument rests on the fallacy that you play a perfect game or that luck wholly determined the outcome. That is certainly not the case, it isn't for anybody. You are creating some sort of theoretical idea that because luck didn't go your way in one instance, that you lost the game. In reality though a better player would not put him or herself in a position where luck determined the outcome of their game so readily.

I fall to see how can you not put yourself in a position where luck determined the outcome in the game when the luck is much and you are facing an almost equally skilled player than you. When skills are closed, every inch counter, but the luck eat those inches alive.

If you think i'm poor or mediocre player it's irrelevant. If telling you my profesion to explain you my argument, seems to you like "an inflated sense of self esteem" maybe this conversation is pointless because between my lack of english and your vision of how things work, this communication won't work out.
Maybe the fact that even if i don't have skill i can win anyway could be my problem anyway.

Incorrect. First off, you fail to realize that many of us probably have played just as much games of you in our lives, or have a good understanding of what is going on. Wargaming is in MY profession. I doubt its within yours. And that DOES matter, because I would never get into such an argument with someone who is actually familiar with wargaming.

Your skill level in this game DOES matter, because it shows your ability to understand how to play. Most of the top players here do not believe luck influences the outcome of the game in the ways you say. Someone with Skill will win at wesnoth far more times than someone who does not. You can disagree with that all you want, but really, thats the truth. I have the statistics and evidence to prove that. Do you? Where is your evidence?

I doubt almost anyone here played as many games as i did, i have 24 years old and playing games is what i do, i play games since 14 something like 6-10 hours each day, the variation depending on several factors that are not an issue here. Nobody has so much time to play games, unless that it's profession. Still, the time it's not that relevant, but how you invest that time. S it really doesn't matter if i had played a lot less than that. Knowledge isn't proportional to time invested.
i'm not sure what is war gaming, but no, it's not my profession.
I'm talking about competitive games, since i lack of knowledge of wargaming then you shouldn't talk with me, i;m not interested in wargaming, wargaming is the simulation of real military operations, i couldn't care less about that. And definiltiy wesnoth is not a wargame, so i don't think that skill is THAT relevant to wesnoth.

how i play or don't play it's irrelevant, i[m talking about game design here and the effects game design have on the game.
My statment were "Luck drives out power games and professional gamers" And as someone has already stated the designers don't want to atract this kind of gamers, so if that's the case, if the game has luck or not is irrelevant for the porpouse of my statment.

Finally i don;t care if one player wins FAR MORE TIME than the worst, i want the result of the game reflect what happend in the game.