Why do people quit playing?

General feedback and discussion of the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
Wesnothian
Posts: 47
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 3:04 am
Location: Netherlands

Post by Wesnothian » May 1st, 2008, 12:32 am

Velensk wrote:As far as imagineing luck in effect:

I ussualy see unit on unit battles as several hundred on several hundred. For me the attacks are just a abstracted way of representing how lethal a combat was for either side, in terms of moral as well as fatalities. Under certain conditions, or with certain luck, or bravery, though you would lose men, you would not lose relativly many and your moral would be almost completly uneffected (you take no hits) or varying degrees of such. Certain units are more likely to be completly ineffective at breaking their enemies, or very effective (low stikes high damage)

example: the orcish hordes crashes against the line of stout defenders who hold their ground and repel the orcs after a few minutes of intense fighting, with limited loses the line prepares for a new attack with renewed hope. ;:; or ;:; the orcish hordes smash headlong into the defenders who sway under the press of their charge and break scattering into a lose mob that gets cut down by the rampage. Both of these sound quite plauable.
Now elves are skilled and are thus less likely to be completly ineffective in their attack or defence, unless so weak that they are not as strong or as aggressive so they are far less likely to be completly devistating. If you try to put elves in place of orcs in the example I gave it does not sound right.

I also like to see it that way for ranged combat. If the archers are attacking then they have pulled into range to send a volly of arrows at their enemies ranks. On the other hand if the melee unit is attacking, either they've gotten the drop on the archers or they have survived the previouse turn long enough to engage them directly.

This image also explains defences better, it makes little sense that dwarves suddenly become unhittable because they are standing in a moutain, however when you think about a regement of dwarves each one of them invetrate moutaineers, having the equipment, and the experiance to utilize every aspect of the moutains to make themselves hard to break, then it makes sense. Same with elves. For elusives like footpads it makes sense that it is harder to bring down your force on forces who know how to avoid advisaries (their high def), and that being unarmored they will get hurt more if you do manage to engage them (negitive resistances), and that they won't be able to take to many hits to their moral being unorganised (low hp)

There are logical inconsistancies, many of them infact, but this is the way I prefer to imagine it. I find if funner to play my battles on a grand scale dispite the tactical lvl reasoning, even if my opponent is thinking of an RPG style skirmish. There are logical inconsistancies with both views (for example the rebelion against queen ashivere overthrew her castle with an amasing large army of 60ish people!), but I prefer the grander scale and thus tend to see it that way.
Wow..

Couldn't have said it any better.
We share the same imaginations. :lol2:
And then, Dave said "Let there be light." And there was light.

Trau
Posts: 119
Joined: October 21st, 2007, 7:34 pm

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Trau » May 1st, 2008, 12:44 am

I've never seen the luck factor as a reason for why people quit the game. It might be a very good reason for many people to not start to play the game, but... I mean, it's not really like a bait and switch situation here.

Just my 2 cents.

Cainen
Posts: 6
Joined: April 30th, 2008, 7:23 am

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Cainen » May 1st, 2008, 12:45 am

anakayub wrote:Ugh, you're telling us that developers should spend time making an option changing the very core single principle of Wesnoth? That's like telling that pawns in chess should move diagonally and capture horizontally. Chess doesn't change its game for people who don't like it.
Gothic Chess. Other chess variants. I'd say it does. Besides, are you not familiar with tabletop game homebrewing?
anakayub wrote:If you don't like it due to its core principles, you don't have to play it. Find some game that suits your principles of gaming.
The games that suit those are unbelievably few and far between.
anakayub wrote:Developer time is better spent improving the game as it is, not making Wesnoth B. That is unless you are willing to work on it.
Wesnoth B? Given the proper implementation(which is why I said devs can disagree with it - noone wants to work on something they disagree with), it'd be an on-off switch in the game creation screen, and would hardly change or ruin the game for people who prefer it randomized.
anakayub wrote:Come on, you know the rules around here: no assertions without proof. Show us the replays where RNG screwed you the game more than your own mistakes.
The last time I played Wesnoth's multiplayer was early 2007. I've long since formatted at least four times.
Weeksy wrote:Playing poorly gets you into situations where you can let luck screw you over. If you play so that getting unlucky in a few places won't lose you the game, then luck won't screw you over. If you don't, and you get unlucky, it's not really luck that's hitting you, it's the fact that you played yourself into a position where you could get unlucky. If you choose to gamble, you're putting yourself at risk to lose.
There's a problem with your assertation - due to the nature of Wesnoth's hit percentages, EVERY attack can become a gamble. 60% is not reliable. It's to what degree you have to gamble, really. You have no guaranteed hits, period, and by proxy you -can- lose due to the RNG and nothing else.
Sapient wrote:So the fact that the game includes randomness which evens out over time makes the game not even close to worth your time?
Gambler's fallacy. Rolls do not affect other rolls - they neither have to average out nor come to the dice's median. Unless you've specifically coded in something to do just that, this is -not- the case. Just because I roll a 30 on a percentile dice doesn't mean that I have to roll a 70 to balance it out.
Sapient wrote:Then posting in a game forum about a game that you profess to be a waste of time is an even WORSE waste of time.
I want to like Wesnoth. I can't, and you know why. If it wasn't for just that issue, it'd be fine - why let something that might be fun go to waste? It's literally the only problem I have with it, and it's crushingly bad.
Sapient wrote:Cainen, as far as I am concerned you are an outright troll and just flame-baiting.
A troll? Why? Because I disagree with your vision? That's not being a troll at all. This is strictly on-topic, and my statements are quite applicable; it's THE reason a lot of people don't play Wesnoth for more than a few games.
Trau wrote:I've never seen the luck factor as a reason for why people quit the game. It might be a very good reason for many people to not start to play the game, but... I mean, it's not really like a bait and switch situation here.
In contrast - it is singlehandedly THE reason everyone I know has not played Wesnoth more than just a little bit.

User avatar
Mist
Inactive Developer
Posts: 753
Joined: February 15th, 2007, 8:44 am
Location: Milton Keynes, UK

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Mist » May 1st, 2008, 12:55 am

Shame. But he has been warned. That would conclude this thread of the discussion.
Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep.
Disorder.

User avatar
Sapient
Inactive Developer
Posts: 4453
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 7:41 am
Contact:

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Sapient » May 1st, 2008, 12:56 am

Cainen wrote:
Sapient wrote:So the fact that the game includes randomness which evens out over time makes the game not even close to worth your time?
Gambler's fallacy. Rolls do not affect other rolls - they neither have to average out nor come to the dice's median. Unless you've specifically coded in something to do just that, this is -not- the case. Just because I roll a 30 on a percentile dice doesn't mean that I have to roll a 70 to balance it out.
Flip a coin once and you will be either *far* over EV or *far* under EV. Flip a coin a hundred times and you will be very close to EV. I hope you really can understand that. And please don't lecture me on the gambler's fallacy... your grasp of strategy and randomness in the game is horrible.
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/User:Sapient... "Looks like your skills saved us again. Uh, well at least, they saved Soarin's apple pie."

Trau
Posts: 119
Joined: October 21st, 2007, 7:34 pm

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Trau » May 1st, 2008, 12:59 am

Cainen wrote: In contrast - it is singlehandedly THE reason everyone I know has not played Wesnoth more than just a little bit.
If they haven't even familiarized themselves with the way randomness works in this game, I would count them as not even having started.

But whatever you want, it's semantics. :wink:

User avatar
anakayub
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 518
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 12:44 pm
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by anakayub » May 1st, 2008, 1:07 am

Cainen,

Your problem is that you're dwelling with what you don't like about Wesnoth. You don't like Wesnoth for what it is, the developers are not going to change, nor do they need to. However, we do respect your right to not agree with Wesnoth and thus you can go find some other game. If you don't like randomness, fine; don't go forcing on the developers to change the game to have to follow you. It is so unfortunate that what suits you is so difficult to find. Wesnoth is made of what it is as well as what it is not - making options to change the core concept of the game is just utterly unreasonable for developers to spend their time.
Take a breath.

Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Noy » May 1st, 2008, 3:26 am

Well I guess I don't have to respond to his posts.
Fosprey wrote:The real problem is that ther is no evidence that you will accept as a prof that the game is luck based.
But i would accept an evidence , put someone you think is good against me and if he beats me ten times out of ten, then i accept there is no luck involved. I;m a mediocre player. Of course i've beat everyone active and decent at least once and most of the time i played less than 10 games, i beated them because i was lucky. i offer you to prove us that the game is not luck based.

You also talk about some good players, where is the evidence they are good? the last tournament was played long time ago in an old version, the only evidence right now is the ladder, they are not there, i can't know if they are good or not, to me they are not, they have no evidence to support them
I don't think any of the top players here deny this game has a large random element, or that it is not a core part of the game. If they did they would not be good players. The difference between you and them is how they handle it. No I'm not saying they have a higher tolerance for luck, though that might be part of it. Instead its how they design and implement their strategies in a game to deal with the randomness element is what defines the best players. Thats in essence one of the, if not THE core skills in this game. The skill is to place your forces in a position where you have a high probability to win. And if things do not go your way, to minimize the negative consequences. Designing redundancies and contingencies, assessing and reassessing on the fly are critical elements to this. One needs to have a good understanding of probability and ability to understand how variations in randomness will effect your plan to win at this game. All of us can point to the games we've lost due to luck, and you're right, what is lucky and unlucky is a matter of perspective. However I'd say most of the top players are more astute to just say its "luck," they're able to pick apart their game and see where they may have played a turn better.

Finally the skill which I'm outlining here is a core part of strategic thinking. People think strategy is all about how simply moving units around and besting another player. Yet at its core, it isn't, its about dealing with uncertainty. Thats why the best strategy games have significant random elements, to create uncertainty. Panzer General (with Fantasy general), Steel Panthers, Atomic's V for Victory series, are the best examples. Most of the games people cite as "good strategy games" actually aren't strategy games at all. Chess is not a good "strategy game" neither is X-Com, starcraft or most RTS. They have their own strategy elements, but not games that require good understandings of probabilities and their effects on planning. Its one of the best aspects of wesnoth, which is why randomness has not changed over the years of the project.
Last edited by Noy on May 1st, 2008, 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Tightening up the use of the word Uncertainty and Random
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.

Jozrael
Posts: 1034
Joined: June 2nd, 2006, 1:39 pm
Location: NJ, USA.

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Jozrael » May 1st, 2008, 4:25 am

I highly disagree with you claiming StarCraft doesn't involve strategy: it is up to its neck in it.

Just because its a different TYPE of strategical overview doesn't mean its not strategy.

And its strategy has almost nothing to do with with the 70% hit chance on low-high ground or cover shots, the ONLY piece of randomness in the game.

I can discourse further on this if you wish.

Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Noy » May 1st, 2008, 5:57 am

Jozrael wrote:I highly disagree with you claiming StarCraft doesn't involve strategy: it is up to its neck in it.

Just because its a different TYPE of strategical overview doesn't mean its not strategy.

And its strategy has almost nothing to do with with the 70% hit chance on low-high ground or cover shots, the ONLY piece of randomness in the game.

I can discourse further on this if you wish.
You can call it what you want, its still not close to the true definition of strategy. Yeah it has aspects of strategy (which some people call strategy), its fun in its own right, (after playing it for years I would know,) but Starcraft does not test a critical set of skills required for the formation of effective strategic thought. By itself, playing against another player with multiple units only deals with one aspect strategy, particularly devising responses to other players strategies. But without that randomness element which creates the uncertainty in a player's implementation, it isn't close to the core of what strategy is.

When it comes down to it, what you have is an incomplete understanding of what strategy means, which has been perpetuated within modern discourse. People who didn't understand the underlying definition of strategy mislabeled the term.

While I might sound nitpicky, my underlying point is to show how wesnoth's use of randomness adds something into the game which is quite valuable, not to be despised by some.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.

Jozrael
Posts: 1034
Joined: June 2nd, 2006, 1:39 pm
Location: NJ, USA.

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Jozrael » May 1st, 2008, 10:28 am

K, lets debate this.

Here is my definition of strategy, quoted nigh directly from dictionary.com.

Strategy: the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.

Strategy: skillful use of a stratagem; a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result.

Alright, I pretty much agree with that. Lemme phrase it in SC terms.

When I say strategy in terms of StarCraft, I mean an overall plan for the game. Let's say its TvP and you're Boxer (Read: insane) and go for a bio rush (marines with late meds). This is your strategy, also known as your build order. Through a multitude of ingame decisions, Boxer implements this plan and directs his troops to victory. This seems to follow pretty much to a t what the dictionary definition of strategy is. His opponent may be doing a standard PvT build, or he may be doing his own off-the-wall strategy, maybe proxy gate (which would get oh-so-owned by a bio build XD).

Now, in terms of WESNOTH, a different game, strategy has the same definition, but a different meaning. Because the importance of a 'build order' is far less and much more importance is placed on tactics, the strategy of Wesnoth is really in preparing for and reacting to the random number generator. Because of the simplicity of the game, without the RNG Wesnoth's value would be greatly decreased. A core component of the game is this randomness, and I understand that. Its the foundation of Wesnothian strategy. I don't argue this at all.

What I argue is that since StarCraft does not include this device, it is not automatic disclusion from the term strategic, nor is it a 'lesser' form of strategy. Its just different.

Gallifax
Posts: 131
Joined: October 23rd, 2006, 5:36 pm
Location: Who cares?

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Gallifax » May 1st, 2008, 4:44 pm

Noy wrote:

I don't think any of the top players here deny this game has a large random element, or that it is not a core part of the game. If they did they would not be good players. The difference between you and them is how they handle it. No I'm not saying they have a higher tolerance for luck, though that might be part of it. Instead its how they design and implement their strategies in a game to deal with the randomness element is what defines the best players. Thats in essence one of the, if not THE core skills in this game. The skill is to place your forces in a position where you have a high probability to win. And if things do not go your way, to minimize the negative consequences. Designing redundancies and contingencies, assessing and reassessing on the fly are critical elements to this. One needs to have a good understanding of probability and ability to understand how variations in randomness will effect your plan to win at this game. All of us can point to the games we've lost due to luck, and you're right, what is lucky and unlucky is a matter of perspective. However I'd say most of the top players are more astute to just say its "luck," they're able to pick apart their game and see where they may have played a turn better.

Finally the skill which I'm outlining here is a core part of strategic thinking. People think strategy is all about how simply moving units around and besting another player. Yet at its core, it isn't, its about dealing with uncertainty. Thats why the best strategy games have significant random elements, to create uncertainty. Panzer General (with Fantasy general), Steel Panthers, Atomic's V for Victory series, are the best examples. Most of the games people cite as "good strategy games" actually aren't strategy games at all. Chess is not a good "strategy game" neither is X-Com, starcraft or most RTS. They have their own strategy elements, but not games that require good understandings of probabilities and their effects on planning. Its one of the best aspects of wesnoth, which is why randomness has not changed over the years of the project.

Heh I find these threads so irrelevant ,that I allways regret a bit when Doc drags me into it:P


Doesnt mean I have a strong opinion about it. I could usually say a lot about it. Thank god Noy safed my precious time. I couldnt have said it any better than him.

And thats why I love wesnoth, its one of a few strategy games really requiring a lot of skill to master.

And to all the ones who are unhappy with bfw as it is: What is the point of changing the game after your likes? Would not be the true challenge to master it how it is? If you ask me, good players accept a challenge instead of... well sounds hard , but its running away what you do;)

Fosprey
Posts: 252
Joined: January 25th, 2008, 8:13 am

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Fosprey » May 1st, 2008, 5:40 pm

A challenge to master? It's an easy game to master, so no. AS i said, luck is the least of my problems with the game.

User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by turin » May 1st, 2008, 6:47 pm

I'm trying not to have this come off as a personal attack, and it's not intended to be, but -
Fosprey wrote:A challenge to master? It's an easy game to master, so no.
If this is the case, why aren't you #1 in the MP rankings?

I tend to think you (and people, in general) only think it's easy to master because you have not, in fact, mastered it, you've just gotten good enough at it to win against anyone at your level or below, and to win occasionally against someone above your level.
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm

Fosprey
Posts: 252
Joined: January 25th, 2008, 8:13 am

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Fosprey » May 1st, 2008, 7:08 pm

because i play like 1 game per week because i get awfully boring playing the game?
i could prove that i can master the game if it would worth it's salt. But what if i do? will it change anything on this debate? will devs suddenly change their minds? of course not, and i don't want to waste my time.
So instead of mastering the game i'm working on a mod.

If you say that mastering the game would gain any benefit for me in this debate, then in three months i will beat everyone most of the time (not always because the luck thing is there) or getting on 50% against players that mastered it too. But that takes time, three months is low to master a game, but too much to waste my time if it have no porpouse.

PD:i'm glad you know i can beat people above my level , ocassionaly, why that happens? yes, luck.

Post Reply