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

General feedback and discussion of the game.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Locked
Imp
Posts: 317
Joined: January 8th, 2007, 10:56 am

Post by Imp »

Taurus wrote:
zookeeper wrote: Your argument doesn't make any sense, for obvious reasons.
With all respect zookeeper, I beg to differ. I agree with F8 Binds in that the luck factor has a very important role in real life war - and that Wesnoth reflects this.
I have to agree with Zookeeper here. The argument he quoted did not make any sense. It didn't flow, he didn't explain himself. I don't see how he got from sentence 2 to sentence 3 to sentence 4.

However, from his later posts I can now see what he was trying to say. To be fair to Zookeeper, you must admit this was in no way clear in the quote.
Magister
Posts: 7
Joined: March 22nd, 2007, 9:06 am

Post by Magister »

Doc Paterson wrote:
Will single matches ever tell you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if you're better than your friend, or if your friend is better than you? No; that's just not the kind of game that Wesnoth is.
It's not a strategy game? I believed so.

Purpose of a single game is not to tell me if i'm cooler than my opponent but if, in this specific game, i used a better strategy than my opponent.
If in the middle of the game i get to break is defence line by an amazing series of lucky rolls, i definately can't say if my strategy was good.....
Magister
Posts: 7
Joined: March 22nd, 2007, 9:06 am

Post by Magister »

F8 Binds... wrote:My opinion on "randomness".

Think of WAR. Real-life, people ....
In this context I really don't care about real life wars.

I've download an exagon strategy fantasy game, not a mathematical simulator of model of real life systems. I may care real life topics when i play, say, capitalism, surely not when i play a game where "wose heal 8 hp without the help of the magic of a druid because it can regenerate". I do like fantasy strategy game, i don't necessarily like real life simulation game (even if there are some that i may like). I surely don't like pure dice game.

This is not a pure dice game and this is why i like it. But i would prefere it more strategic and a bit less "chancy" (without making it a chess variant, obviously).
waterd103
Posts: 74
Joined: March 20th, 2007, 9:31 am

Post by waterd103 »

i think it would be better if instead of miss and hit it always hit doing more or less damage, or two damages one if did a full hit and one if not.
it's very sad when you attack with two units to one that has only 1 hp left and both miss all their attacks
Taurus
Inactive Developer
Posts: 674
Joined: May 4th, 2005, 8:16 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Taurus »

JW wrote:
Tux2B wrote:Luck is the only thing that can explain the fact that someone is shot down at a long distance whereas the soldier who is one meter away from him isn't. And that's only the most obvious example.
That's not luck, that's aim, trajectory, bullet speed, where the bullet hit, health and will of the target.....

I don't see that as being random at all....
Sure, but when you roll a pair of dice - the number they land on depends on their original starting position in your hand, the force at which you cast them, the precice amount of friction between the dice and your skin as they leave your hand, their trajectory as they leave your hand, the angle at which they land, the air preassure and humidity in the room, the friction between the dice and the table and so on and so forth. Not to make an issue of this but I am sure you understand what I am getting at. I guess if we wanted to get really philosophical we could say that there is no such thing as "luck".
zookeeper wrote:Yes. Just like Wesnoth could reflect the luck factor by randomly making you lose. Realism alone is not a valid base for an argument, for obvious reasons.


As it has been pointed out before - luck in itself doesen't usually win games. Like Wintermute points out - you have to play it into your stratagy. But I myself have yet to see the day were a game - or a series of games especially - was won strictly on the basis of luck alone. If there are two players of pretty much exactally the same skill level, then sure - luck may often determine the outcome - but in the cases like that, I feel that the luck factor makes it more interesting.

And perhaps using realism as an argument for luck isn't the strongest argrument in the world - but hey, it works for me. Anyhow, the as Konrad pointed out, this topic isn't about the benifits of realism, but about the benifits of luck. To me, the luck factor makes the game much more dymanc, unpredictable, gives more replay value, and just keeps you on edge. That real life battle is the same way is just an added bonus for me :-)
Creater of the campaign, "Northern Rebirth"

Compleater of the campaign, "Son of the Black Eye"
Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Post by Velensk »

I like dice or equivilant mechanics as long as it dose not becom all the game is about. I find that games that are too predictable become like chess. I also think things should be fairly predictable so you can tell how things will likely turn out.

The luck factor in wesnoth is a little greater than what I generaly like however I am not going to complain because everything else is exactly the sort of thing I like. A streak of bad luck can be game breaking, a long streak of bad luck can be game ruining (see my post in the multiplayer archive for an example). However I don't think that these individual matches ruin the game as a whole. Luck matches are the most annoying/frustrating however things tend to balance out. Most games I play end within 30 points of EV.
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Post by Noy »

Magister wrote:
F8 Binds... wrote:My opinion on "randomness".

Think of WAR. Real-life, people ....
In this context I really don't care about real life wars.

I've download an exagon strategy fantasy game, not a mathematical simulator of model of real life systems. I may care real life topics when i play, say, capitalism, surely not when i play a game where "wose heal 8 hp without the help of the magic of a druid because it can regenerate". I do like fantasy strategy game, i don't necessarily like real life simulation game (even if there are some that i may like). I surely don't like pure dice game.

This is not a pure dice game and this is why i like it. But i would prefere it more strategic and a bit less "chancy" (without making it a chess variant, obviously).
See this is where I disagree, wholeheartedly, and your response shows your lack of understanding about these issues.

Wesnoth is a game is about strategy, REAL strategy. I don't disagree that Chess requires strategy, however its a poor cousin, and does not require the same level of strategic thinking as such. Both ARE intended as wargames, however Chess is a primitive form of representation of war in comparison to Wesnoth. 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. Clausewitz calls it the fog of war, Sun Tzu describes it in a more indirect way, but the key thesis of his book is to how deal with it. Tactics really is the ability for a leader to look at a situation, assess it and make a decision within a broad framework of your strategy. Unpredictability and chance is not something that is against Strategy, rather it is the essence of it, something that a real strategist must embrace and understand.

To the people who think that "this game is too influence by luck" I completely disagree. In strategy you never send one man against one man and expect victory. You could never predict that. the outcome of roughly equal opponents on a battlefield hinges on so many variables that we must use abstraction to simulate its outcome because we could never game for them. Thus if you cannot readily predict the outcome of a battle as a commander, what do you do? You apply overwhelming firepower to a critical place to ensure victory. A practical model of this is called the 3 to 1 rule. To destroy one unit, you need to send three. Its a pretty fast rule. It works in wesnoth most of the time.

Sometimes unpredictability ruins things, and its how you deal with it that is a skill. I used this example once:
If you were a US army Major participating an attack on the Rhine fortressess in 1944, and your company of engineers didn't show up (which was a 2.7% chance... because they were down the road) you don't go "Oh shxt" and then complain the rest of the day about how your engineers didn't show up (or you could but you'd probably get relieved). You make a command decision based on your new situation, maybe how to attack the hardened emplacements without engineers.
So how you deal with these situations is the real crux of strategy.Working with probabilities is actually a skill, one the best players and strategists manipulate to their adavantage. I use what I call the 30% rule. In planning my attacks I expect the EV to swing 30% against me at any one time. Therefore I usually have contingency plans or build in excessive redundancy in order to ensure success. If it doesn't go well, then I may discontinue the attack, or commit more resources. I and most people consider that real strategy, taking imagination and real multidimentional thinking, rather than the more sterile mathamatical thinking required for chess. This game is an art, not a science, and some people can paint some beautiful portraits.

I'm sorry to say that its not going to change. I and most people enjoy the game how it is. 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. You might not understand or agree with that, but that is the way I see wargaming. To me wesnoth is far more an interesting game because of it.
torangan
Retired Developer
Posts: 1365
Joined: March 27th, 2004, 12:25 am
Location: Germany

Post by torangan »

The ever ressurecting topics. I've got only 2 things to say about it.

1. It's a game. You're supposed to have fun playing it all the time not only when you win.
2. A large amount of luck is a key design priniciple of Wesnoth. Reduce it significantly and you've created a different game.
WesCamp-i18n - Translations for User Campaigns:
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesCamp

Translators for all languages required: contact me. No geek skills required!
Taurus
Inactive Developer
Posts: 674
Joined: May 4th, 2005, 8:16 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Taurus »

Noy wrote: See this is where I disagree, wholeheartedly, and your response shows your lack of understanding about these issues.

Wesnoth is a game is about strategy, REAL strategy. I don't disagree that Chess requires strategy, however its a poor cousin, and does not require the same level of strategic thinking as such. Both ARE intended as wargames, however Chess is a primitive form of representation of war in comparison to Wesnoth. 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. Clausewitz calls it the fog of war, Sun Tzu describes it in a more indirect way, but the key thesis of his book is to how deal with it. Tactics really is the ability for a leader to look at a situation, assess it and make a decision within a broad framework of your strategy. Unpredictability and chance is not something that is against Strategy, rather it is the essence of it, something that a real strategist must embrace and understand.

To the people who think that "this game is too influence by luck" I completely disagree. In strategy you never send one man against one man and expect victory. You could never predict that. the outcome of roughly equal opponents on a battlefield hinges on so many variables that we must use abstraction to simulate its outcome because we could never game for them. Thus if you cannot readily predict the outcome of a battle as a commander, what do you do? You apply overwhelming firepower to a critical place to ensure victory. A practical model of this is called the 3 to 1 rule. To destroy one unit, you need to send three. Its a pretty fast rule. It works in wesnoth most of the time.

Sometimes unpredictability ruins things, and its how you deal with it that is a skill. I used this example once:
If you were a US army Major participating an attack on the Rhine fortressess in 1944, and your company of engineers didn't show up (which was a 2.7% chance... because they were down the road) you don't go "Oh shxt" and then complain the rest of the day about how your engineers didn't show up (or you could but you'd probably get relieved). You make a command decision based on your new situation, maybe how to attack the hardened emplacements without engineers.
So how you deal with these situations is the real crux of strategy.Working with probabilities is actually a skill, one the best players and strategists manipulate to their adavantage. I use what I call the 30% rule. In planning my attacks I expect the EV to swing 30% against me at any one time. Therefore I usually have contingency plans or build in excessive redundancy in order to ensure success. If it doesn't go well, then I may discontinue the attack, or commit more resources. I and most people consider that real strategy, taking imagination and real multidimentional thinking, rather than the more sterile mathamatical thinking required for chess. This game is an art, not a science, and some people can paint some beautiful portraits.

I'm sorry to say that its not going to change. I and most people enjoy the game how it is. 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. You might not understand or agree with that, but that is the way I see wargaming. To me wesnoth is far more an interesting game because of it.
Thank you Noy. I couldn't aggree more :-)
Creater of the campaign, "Northern Rebirth"

Compleater of the campaign, "Son of the Black Eye"
User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Post by irrevenant »

I agree with Noy re: adaptability being a part of strategy, but I would add that the primary goal of Wesnoth is not to be an accurate war simulator. The primary goal of Wesnoth is to be a fun game.

War is not a fun game, so analogies with real war are a bit of a furfy IMO.
waterd103
Posts: 74
Joined: March 20th, 2007, 9:31 am

Post by waterd103 »

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
User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

Noy wrote: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. No matter how good strategies one has, someone ultimately has to press those "ok" buttons in the attack dialogs, leave the rest to the RNG and hope for the best. You cannot counter that fact by saying that you should prepare for different outcomes. Preparing for different outcomes helps only if those failsafe plans work (or the failsafe plans for them, or the failsafe plans for those failsafe plans, etc...), which is again decided only by the RNG.

Now, I don't claim that many of the "people who dislike too much randomness" couldn't get over most of their frustrations by playing better and thus reduce the situations where they think they lost just because they got screwed by the RNG by about 90%. This is probably true.

I'm fine with having Wesnoth be as it is myself. I would also like a more predictable or even a deterministic Wesnothish game. Wesnoth is a game where ultimately the RNG alone can screw you over, even if that's rare, and there's no harm in acknowledging that. Some people will not like that, and if their rationale is that they don't like the influence of the RNG, then that's ok, even if they could learn to minimize the number of times that happens.

People probably wouldn't argue for changing Wesnoth to be less random (or including an option for that) nearly as much if they felt like we actually understand their point of view instead of just giving answers like "play better" which they see as unrelated to their problems. If people feel like no one is neither right or wrong and it's just a matter of taste, people won't bother to push their opinions much either way.
CIB
Code Contributor
Posts: 625
Joined: November 24th, 2006, 11:26 pm

Post by CIB »

Wesnoth is open source, you can always edit the RNG.. Someone has actually done that, but noone seems to be interested <.<
User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

This can all probably be drawn from my previous post, but anyway...
waterd103 wrote:You can lose by luck in this game even by having a better strategy than your opponent , period, denying that is stupid.
Agreed.
waterd103 wrote:The game could IMPROVE, advance, but if it keeps being to random, it will never happen.
I don't think Wesnoth needs to advance or evolve much. It could improve, but a change such as reducing randomness would be a really big one, big enough to warrant putting it in some other (perhaps a yet unmade one), which could be designed to be either less random or deterministic from the beginning.
waterd103 wrote:i'm a profesional gamer, and would never focus that much time to a game that depends too much on luck
Exactly, being a professional gamer probably has something to do with it. IMHO Wesnoth probably is the kind of game skilled but still a bit casual gamers enjoy the most; you certainly need a lot of skill to be able to play well, but winning or losing shouldn't be too important. A professional gamer probably gets his kicks more from winning specifically than a casual gamer (who gets his kicks more from just playing no matter how it goes), which can lead to annoyance in games where there's a strong random factor involved.
freddf
Posts: 17
Joined: March 20th, 2007, 9:03 am

Post by freddf »

zookeeper wrote: People probably wouldn't argue for changing Wesnoth to be less random (or including an option for that) nearly as much if they felt like we actually understand their point of view instead of just giving answers like "play better"
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?
Locked