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

[Noy]

You guys seem really insensitive sometimes. Why, whenever luck is discussed, does it turn into "those who are right" v "those who are wrong?" Can't we just have a civilized discussion on the matter?......

You are really one to lecture about being civilized about discussions involving luck.

[zookeeper]

My evaluation on the discussion: waterd103 had a point and he was a noob. Our fair MP experts act like 5-year olds and flame him because he's a noob which of course means that he can't have a point. The point is spelled out again just in case, but our fair Wesnoth gang conveniently sticks their fingers in their ears and runs in circles singing "I'm not listening I'm not listening / noob, noob / learn to play / I'm not listening I'm not listening". waterd103 doesn't answer all the relevant questions asked of him and continues being a noob, and our fair MP gang continues to ignore, respond to or acknowledge the points made and run in circles singing which waterd103 then sees as a sign that the MP gang doesn't see or understand them, and starts over. Repeat. Soon afterwards, everyone can state with good conscience that the discussion isn't going anywhere.

[Doc Paterson]

waterd103 had a point and he was a noob. Our fair MP experts act like 5-year olds and flame him because he's a noob which of course means that he can't have a point.

Don't act as though the magnitude of luck (in his eyes) wasn't the core issue here. If someone came on here and said, "I think about 1-5 percent of games become very difficult to win because of luck," most of us would agree with him and things would end there.

You cannot boil this argument down to, "He believes in luck and you don't;" that's oversimplifying to suit your own slant on the matter. You've tried to make the same point in multiple threads, looking to reduce these arguments to "you don't believe in luck, and you do; you have a point, and you're overreacting." This completely misses the core of the arguments.

I'll say it again, the neverending debate (coincidentally, almost always between decent or proud players and great or humble players) is about magnitudes- It's about ratios of influence applied to the outcome of a game. You want to strip all of that away and make it about the existence of luck, which no one denies. I realize that you have an axe to grind in regards to the MP Devs(for whatever reason- It seems as though you'd like them to debate the same issues to death on a daily basis), but your support of black-and-white reductionism is just a waste of everyone's time.

[Wintermute]

I think this thread should be locked - before my computer catches fire.

[Noy]

waterd103 had a point and he was a noob. Our fair MP experts act like 5-year olds and flame him because he's a noob which of course means that he can't have a point.

Don't act as though the magnitude of luck (in his eyes) wasn't the core issue here. If someone came on here and said, "I think about 1-5 percent of games become very difficult to win because of luck," most of us would agree with him and things would end there.

You cannot boil this argument down to, "He believes in luck and you don't;" that's oversimplifying to suit your own slant on the matter. You've tried to make the same point in multiple threads, looking to reduce these arguments to "you don't believe in luck, and you do; you have a point, and you're overreacting." This completely misses the core of the arguments.

I'll say it again, the neverending debate (coincidentally, almost always between decent or proud players and great or humble players) is about magnitudes- It's about ratios of influence applied to the outcome of a game. You want to strip all of that away and make it about the existence of luck, which no one denies. I realize that you have an axe to grind in regards to the MP Devs(for whatever reason- It seems as though you'd like them to debate the same issues to death on a daily basis), but your support of black-and-white reductionism is just a waste of everyone's time.

This pretty well sums up my point. I have never denied that chance is a central part of the game or that there are times when it ruins a game. If anything I think playing well in wesnoth requires an acknowledgement of that fact, and learning to take probabilities into account. Thats one aspect of the game. The other is learning strategies, like flanks, feints, the nature of Time of day ect. You have to be good at both to excel at the game.

I think thats why alot of us take offense to the notion that this game is determined by luck. Its like saying the skills we have developed are not actually skills, but based on luck. To be honest though, when you get up here you gain a new appreciation of how the game is played, and how chance plays into that.

I think its summed up by my favorite line in the Movie Rounders, when the main character defends poker players:

Why does this still seem like gambling to you? I mean, why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker EVERY SINGLE YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas? It's a skill game, Jo

My version of it would be, why is it always the same four players who win the 1v1s games, are they the luckiest people on the server?

[Agent Jack Bauer]

You guys seem really insensitive sometimes. Why, whenever luck is discussed, does it turn into "those who are right" v "those who are wrong?" Can't we just have a civilized discussion on the matter?......


.....wow.....

ps, just as an aside, I never save my replays where luck is highly involved because I think they are bad examples of games. When they come in the future I will try to remember to save them.

Stand down, Curtis! Holster your weapon!

[Doc Paterson]

Don't act as though the magnitude of luck (in his eyes) wasn't the core issue here. If someone came on here and said, "I think about 1-5 percent of games become very difficult to win because of luck," most of us would agree with him and things would end there.

You cannot boil this argument down to, "He believes in luck and you don't;" that's oversimplifying to suit your own slant on the matter. You've tried to make the same point in multiple threads, looking to reduce these arguments to "you don't believe in luck, and you do; you have a point, and you're overreacting." This completely misses the core of the arguments.

I'll say it again, the neverending debate (coincidentally, almost always between decent or proud players and great or humble players) is about magnitudes- It's about ratios of influence applied to the outcome of a game. You want to strip all of that away and make it about the existence of luck, which no one denies. I realize that you have an axe to grind in regards to the MP Devs(for whatever reason- It seems as though you'd like them to debate the same issues to death on a daily basis), but your support of black-and-white reductionism is just a waste of everyone's time.

This pretty well sums up my point. I have never denied that chance is a central part of the game or that there are times when it ruins a game. If anything I think playing well in wesnoth requires an acknowledgement of that fact, and learning to take probabilities into account. Thats one aspect of the game. The other is learning strategies, like flanks, feints, the nature of Time of day ect. You have to be good at both to excel at the game.

I think thats why alot of us take offense to the notion that this game is determined by luck. Its like saying the skills we have developed are not actually skills, but based on luck. To be honest though, when you get up here you gain a new appreciation of how the game is played, and how chance plays into that.

I think its summed up by my favorite line in the Movie Rounders, when the main character defends poker players:

Why does this still seem like gambling to you? I mean, why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker EVERY SINGLE YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas? It's a skill game, Jo

My version of it would be, why is it always the same four players who win the 1v1s games, are they the luckiest people on the server?

It's funny- Waterd is a "professional" poker player, so I used this exact same example when talking with him via PM. He didn't feel like responding to that particular point.

[JW]

You guys seem really insensitive sometimes. Why, whenever luck is discussed, does it turn into "those who are right" v "those who are wrong?" Can't we just have a civilized discussion on the matter?......

You are really one to lecture about being civilized about discussions involving luck.

Don't you even dare come swinging your sword at me Noy. Zookeeper and I have pretty much* been the only civil posters in this thread.

I'm not attacking anybody when I say that both sides should be more civil in this discussion. I don't understand why it is that some people feel the need to push everyone away who might have a different perspective from them. If everyone had the same perspective on everything, nothing would ever be learned!!

*(the only 2 I remember without going back through every post again)

[Noy]

Don't you even dare come swinging your sword at me Noy. Zookeeper and I have pretty much* been the only civil posters in this thread.

Sorry JW, my memory goes a bit further than "this thread"

[JW]

I think its summed up by my favorite line in the Movie Rounders, when the main character defends poker players:

Why does this still seem like gambling to you? I mean, why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker EVERY SINGLE YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas? It's a skill game, Jo

My version of it would be, why is it always the same four players who win the 1v1s games, are they the luckiest people on the server?

IMO the problem some people have with the luck factor in Wesnoth is similar to the problem some people have with poker: luck plays a large enough factor that those with the best skill will not always win. The quote from Rounders is extremely oversimplified. Take a look at these results:
2006
2005
2000s winners
If you look at the final tables for the last 7 years, only Dan Harrington has made the final table twice, and he won neither event. So, out of the last 63 finals table players, there has been 1 repeat. 1/63 = 1.59%.

Poker is also fundamentally different from Wesnoth in its application of luck. In poker you are not forced to see every hand through to the end. In fact, if you don't like your starting hand you may not need to invest any of your chips at all. In Wesnoth every game must be played through to its conclusion. Wesnoth is also primarily a 1v1 or 2v2 team game. Poker is a massive FFA, usually a 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 at every table. In Poker you can wait until you receive a lucky hand to play, and know that you have an advantage going in. In Wesnoth you have ToD that might seem like a similar principle, but that is determined on a predictable schedule that your opponent can plan against.

If this isn't enough, there is the concept of the bluff in Poker. There is no equivalent to this strategy in Wesnoth. Feints are not the same as a bluff: feints show a threat that is meant to distract an opponent from another threat. Bluffs are a lie about the strength of your position used to intimidate someone to surrender a hand.

In Poker you can have "the nuts", or the absolute best hand possible; you're unbeatable. You can have this as early as the "flop". There is no such situation in Wesnoth. Also in poker you can have a 0% chance to win the hand, but still emerge the victor through the bluff. There is no equivalent of this in Wesnoth.

Both games require a mix of luck and skill. The amount of luck and skill necessary in both games is still in debate (at least in this thread), but I think that I've shown that your movie quote support for your argument on Wesnoth is not applicable.

[JW]

Don't you even dare come swinging your sword at me Noy. Zookeeper and I have pretty much* been the only civil posters in this thread.

Sorry JW, my memory goes a bit further than "this thread"

"Congratulations."

[Noy]

I think its summed up by my favorite line in the Movie Rounders, when the main character defends poker players:
My version of it would be, why is it always the same four players who win the 1v1s games, are they the luckiest people on the server?

IMO the problem some people have with the luck factor in Wesnoth is similar to the problem some people have with poker: luck plays a large enough factor that those with the best skill will not always win. The quote from Rounders is extremely oversimplified. Take a look at these results:
2006
2005
2000s winners
If you look at the final tables for the last 7 years, only Dan Harrington has made the final table twice, and he won neither event. So, out of the last 63 finals table players, there has been 1 repeat. 1/63 = 1.59%.

Poker is also fundamentally different from Wesnoth in its application of luck. In poker you are not forced to see every hand through to the end. In fact, if you don't like your starting hand you may not need to invest any of your chips at all. In Wesnoth every game must be played through to its conclusion. Wesnoth is also primarily a 1v1 or 2v2 team game. Poker is a massive FFA, usually a 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 at every table. In Poker you can wait until you receive a lucky hand to play, and know that you have an advantage going in. In Wesnoth you have ToD that might seem like a similar principle, but that is determined on a predictable schedule that your opponent can plan against.

If this isn't enough, there is the concept of the bluff in Poker. There is no equivalent to this strategy in Wesnoth. Feints are not the same as a bluff: feints show a threat that is meant to distract an opponent from another threat. Bluffs are a lie about the strength of your position used to intimidate someone to surrender a hand.

In Poker you can have "the nuts", or the absolute best hand possible; you're unbeatable. You can have this as early as the "flop". There is no such situation in Wesnoth. Also in poker you can have a 0% chance to win the hand, but still emerge the victor through the bluff. There is no equivalent of this in Wesnoth.

Both games require a mix of luck and skill. The amount of luck and skill necessary in both games is still in debate (at least in this thread), but I think that I've shown that your movie quote support for your argument on Wesnoth is not applicable.

Not really. All you've done is shown that the outcome of chance is played out in a different fashion (which is pretty obvious), yet you did nothing to knock down my assertion that one of the keys to both games is luck manangement. Actually you agreed with it.
At its core though you can't deny that you are dealt a cards of a random selection, and based on probabilities you plan a strategy. You then, using skills of probability management, create an appropriate strategy. Still chance management is a key skill in both games.

Actually, all you've done is re-inforced my point. It is clear that the influence of chance is fundamentally lower in Wesnoth than Cards, by what you showed as the outcome of the last three tournaments.

Thanks JW.

[jb]

This thread really needs to go away.

Some people believe in The Force (Jedi), others (Han Solo) believe in luck.

The point is it's an abstact thing that some people see and some don't. No sense continuing this war. Let some walk the path of enlightment, and let others complain.

[Eleazar]

i think everything useful has already been said.

and since this is technically FPI, i lock.