Why do people quit playing?

[Caphriel]

Ah, StarCraft... It's fun, but better click-speed can trump a superior strategy

I quit playing when I don't have anyone to play with (so, I keep quitting and coming back, over and over again.) Why are all the games weird survival scenarios? Where are all the normal games of Wesnoth?

[anakayub]

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.

Sigh. Everyone can have off days, as well as everyone can have days full of brilliance (even without knowing it).

Seriously, there are many good players in Wesnoth who don't play as frequently as people like Gallifax, nani etc, but are just as good, e.g. Mabuse, Wintermute, Dragonking (based on my observations of their playing time). Why is that? It's because they have understood the game very well at the basic level. Saying that you only play 1 per week sounds like a very weak excuse for not beating good players. Playing time only sharpens your skills, but the skills themselves are made up from adapting your thoughts to play the game effectively, which doesn't necessarily have to be from playing very frequently, but taking the maximum of lessons from any experience, whether it's the rare game played or the observed game. Not being a good player means that you're not good enough to cast doubts onto the core principles of the game and debate the relevance of the system. It's sorta like the hobo patient with primary syphilis telling the doc that the doc has no clue about his illness when it's so obvious to the doc (I'm not in the mood to think of a better analogy, sorry). In short, you lack credibility to claim fault in the system. Sorry for being a bit harsh.

EDIT: Ooh, very tempting bait, but I'll pass.

[Fosprey]

When you say that playing one game per week is a weak excuse you lost all credibility to me, end of story. It's the most irrational sentence i read in all the thread and probably in all the forums.

PD:even if i would beat everyone, i won't cast doubts on the system because devs don't care, several times i asked what would happen if i happen to beat everyone, the answer was N O T H I N G, so , don't imply that my skill level is the reason i can't cast doubt about the game system. Because if doing so would cause a profund impact on game development , i would be working right on on getting no less than 50% chances against any player, and in three months i would be right on the spot.

[Noy]

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.

No offense, this is exactly the sort of discussion I expected. Using the dictionary to define what is strategy shows an almost superficial understanding of the concept's deeper meaning. Its exactly like using dictionary.com to define the word freedom; does it really define the underlying philosophical discussions about positive and negative liberty?

You can argue that I'm being elitist here, but you're the one who wants to discuss the nuts and bolts about what strategy is, so I'm going to tell you exactly why you're wrong by discussing the development concepts around strategy. In reality, Strategy is a far more strictly defined term than these prior examples when we start using it as a specialist language. Lets start with your first definition; (because its a better definition of the two)

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

Notice right off the bat this term says nothing about your opponent and his disposition, which kinda shows how limited it is. However more important is that even this definition suggests there is far more to strategy than just planning and directing operations. Its interesting it uses the word science or art, because that refers to a debate that was once prevalent, now less so. The following is a passage from Carl Von Clausewitz, probably the finest strategic thinker who ever lived;

In short, absolute, so-called mathematical factors never find a firm basis in military calculations. From the very start there is an interplay of possibilities, probabilities good luck and bad that weaves its way throughout the length and breadth of the tapestry. In the whole range of human activities, war most closely resembles a game of cards.(Pg 86 from Vom Kreig)

So as this term makes clear, core to the term Strategy is dealing with the uncertainty of war, in particular two different types; Uncertainty in your own ability to employ the mean of war, and uncertainty in your opponent's behavior. This dual uncertainty has been recognized ever since people started thinking about strategy. Sun Tzu's The Art of War from 600BC states;

2.To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our
own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy
is provided by the enemy himself.

Now we get to the point where Starcraft fails; it lops off half of that whole part of strategic thinking; uncertainty in your own actions. As someone pointed out, much of this is replaced by your ability to click faster, or as we all know APM. It just simplifies it out of the game, which makes it a less strategic thinking game. How fast you click can determine how you win; thats not a strategic skill at all. By using random element with limits, Wesnoth is truer to the actual definition of strategy than Starcraft is. Its not different unless you just want to play around in the layman's terminology. However even you cited the military definition, so you're kinda wrong.

[Fosprey]

Noy, you are stating the the first is the better of the two definitions, but they aren't two different definitions of the same meaning, but two different meaning of the same word. So you are talking about only one meaning, that i think , is the least relevant in wesnoth, if wesnoth wants to be a war simulation , it's so way off.
and i never read anywhere that wesnoth wants to be that, a war simulation.

[Noy]

Noy, you are stating the the first is the better of the two definitions, but they aren't two different definitions of the same meaning, but two different meaning of the same word. So you are talking about only one meaning, that i think , is the least relevant in wesnoth, if wesnoth wants to be a war simulation , it's so way off.
and i never read anywhere that wesnoth wants to be that, a war simulation.

You know what Fosprey, I've been really patient with you, trying to explain it out fully, yet I don't feel you're really being fair in this conversation. I explained very clearly why randomness is a good thing; it tests people ability to develop the full range of skills needed for strategic thinking. It doesn't have to be perfectly realistic to do so, which is what wesnoth isn't. But it still is what makes it interesting for alot of players particularly the top ones like gallifax, jb, wintermute, big papi, dragonking, ect. You don't like it, fine, great. As I said before wesnoth might not be the game for you. But it has real value, which is why it likely won't ever be changed.

Also, your response about not playing enough smacks me and probably everybody else as sour grapes on your part. Anakayub is one of the most thoughtful people on here and Turin doesn't really say anything unless he means it, if they go and say that its a weak excuse, I'm pretty sure you should maybe look within and start thinking what sort of image you're projecting.

[Fosprey]

ok i will stop here, this is my last answer because this will go nowhere.

1. you people already projected an image to me, wich i don't like, so basically i don't care what image you have of me.

2. If proving i can become the best player around will have a huge impact on the game development , plz call me.

My work on this particular thread has ended.

[Jozrael]

First I'll weigh in my 2 cents on randomness belonging in Wesnoth.

Basically, there is no 'perfect game' that measures your ability as a gamer. There are FPS, which measure STRICTLY your hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and that's about it. Very little mental thought going into the game, about the entirety of the strategy in FPS lies in teamwork. Yes, there is strategy in FPS Noy. A different sort =o.

Wesnoth, however, is an entirely different type of game. In my opinion, the crucial skill it tests is adaptability. True pro games of Wesnoth take flipping eons, and this is because each player makes carefully calculated risks. If there is a major push they can take with a 75% chance of ending favorably for them, or a series of minor dances that they think they can work out beneficially, maybe an extra hit or 2, an extra position, a couple pieces of gold, they'll probably take the latter. Pros don't just go 'This has better than even odds of winning the game for me, lets HIT IT." Because 25% of the time, disaster strikes, and you just gambled away your winnings.

Ahem.

Wesnoth measures your adaptability. Removing randomness from the game would hurt Wesnoth IMMEASURABLY. Much of wesnoth's worth as a game comes from this unique measure of skill. Without it...it becomes a pale reflection of chess. Determinism doesn't really belong in Wesnoth, in my opinion. However, if you think it does, they are creating a mod with deterministic results for people like you who are adamant in believing that it would make for a better game. No need to go beat everyone, just wait patiently while they work on this mod.

Caphriel: This is tru that a significantly higher APM can trump superior strategy. This is because StarCraft measures yet another set of gamer skills. It mixes the mental with the physical. However, I would wager that those with a higher APM than you also have superior strategy. For instance, I have an APM of roughly 80-90 when I play melee. This is pathetically low, I'm not even qualified to register for ICCup. Doesn't mean I can't have fun with my UMS friends tho with the odd game of melee here and there. Now, let me ask you first off what race you are, and what your standard BO is vs terran. (I'm a T player). For instance, if you're Z, do u go 12 hatch into muta, try a fast pool? Do u double main hatch or FE?

These are all basic, basic strategems in StarCraft. Strategy in StarCraft has a lot to do with build orders. So, if you want, we can discourse a bit about some SC strategy, and even better, I'd like to play with you if you don't mind.

Just for fun, of course. I haven't melee'd in a week or two at least.

Also I could provide a hack for you that removes several UI constraints that may make the game much more entertaining for you. Obviously, you shouldn't use it in general practice on bnet unless you're of the 'hacker' mentality. But for just for fun games, I find Oblivion is a nice way to improve a casual experience of StarCraft with friends.

Ok, on to Noy.

I was just using the dictionary to define my position because I'm rather bad at that :\. I'm much better at playing devil's advocate or forcing other people to think more deeply about their own positions. When it comes to backing up my own, I need practice. You come to this discussion far more better prepared than I, but here goes =).

StarCraft isn't attempting to perfectly emulate real life, just like Wesnoth isn't. They are both war games, but they deal with the concept very differently. StarCraft is an RTS, not a strategy game: this means that there are equal parts real-time (read: your ability to PLAY the game) and strategy (read: your decisions via macro, base management, unit production, etc). Wesnoth is ENTIRELY strategy in a much purer form, of Turn-Based Strategy.

Core to WESNOTHS strategy is this randomness, as you so well backed up with your quotes. StarCraft chooses NOT to emulate this aspect of war because it would complicate the game too much and introduce arguments similar to the ones on these forums, which it does not require. Wesnoth without randomness would be a pretty fail game compared to what it is now. Randomness is its ESSENCE.

StarCraft replaced this essence with another skill entirely, that of the physical. So I suppose I'm not arguing so much with you: Wesnoth is a purer form of strategy. You said that starcraft lacked strategy at all, and that is really what I take offense to. A GREAT deal of strategy is in the game, but in a different form, a different facet. StarCraft sacrifices part of the importance of strategy to include other aspects in its game, and personally I find them more engaging, tho I like Wesnoth as well.

I concede the point that Wesnoth has a definition of strategy closer to...the Platonic ideal, I suppose.

[Soliton]

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.

It would gain you credibility. Something you lose evertime you make your statement about how simple it is to master wesnoth while you haven't.

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

Clearly. No chess player has ever beaten a player above his level. (Or would you actually call that luck? I would infact...)

PD:even if i would beat everyone, i won't cast doubts on the system because devs don't care, several times i asked what would happen if i happen to beat everyone, the answer was N O T H I N G, so , don't imply that my skill level is the reason i can't cast doubt about the game system. Because if doing so would cause a profund impact on game development , i would be working right on on getting no less than 50% chances against any player, and in three months i would be right on the spot.

You honestly expect an answer that guarantees you what future development will happen in an open source project? Would you like it signed in blood?

Who do you think decides about balancing and gameplay changes people that say they can master wesnoth in 3 month or those that actually have?

[Doc Paterson]

It's sorta like the hobo patient with primary syphilis telling the doc that the doc has no clue about his illness when it's so obvious to the doc

Ah, the parallels.

[ElvenKing]

Core to WESNOTHS strategy is this randomness, as you so well backed up with your quotes. StarCraft chooses NOT to emulate this aspect of war because it would complicate the game too much and introduce arguments similar to the ones on these forums, which it does not require. Wesnoth without randomness would be a pretty fail game compared to what it is now. Randomness is its ESSENCE.

Couldn't have said it any better myself, to take out the randomness you would have to change the entire game system and then it would no longer be wesnoth.

[Fosprey]

You honestly expect an answer that guarantees you what future development will happen in an open source project? Would you like it signed in blood?

Something like that would be nice

Who do you think decides about balancing and gameplay changes people that say they can master wesnoth in 3 month or those that actually have?

none of them.

[Trau]

If I may kindly be allowed to engage in satire for a minute:

I can be fit enough to climb Mt. Everest, popular enough to be president, talented enough to be a Hollywood actor, and knowledgeable enough to find the cure to cancer in a single week.

... I just don't because I don't see why I need to prove it to you goons.

[Sapient]

You honestly expect an answer that guarantees you what future development will happen in an open source project? Would you like it signed in blood?

Something like that would be nice

Who do you think decides about balancing and gameplay changes people that say they can master wesnoth in 3 month or those that actually have?

none of them.

Ok, now you're just trolling. Cut it out.

To clarify: if you're not willing to respond to a thoughtful and intelligent rebuttal by Soliton with anything more meaningful than this drivel, then don't bother posting in the thread anymore at all.

The moderators are starting to tire of this behavior.

(Clipping one or two lines irrelevant lines out of context and attacking it like a straw man is an annoying habit too, by the way)

[Fosprey]

Ok now you are just attacking me by no reason.
you are saying i'm trolling when i'm not.
My answers were complete, meaningfull and as much as neccesary.
If you people are starting to get tired of people that think differnt than you, then just say it, but please, don't offend me trying to make me look stupid and worst of all degenerating what i'm doing, you say i'm trolling when i'm not, you say that i say two irrelevant lines?, ATTACKING?
really, you are just inventing stuff, i really can see why things are how they are, i saw it in other threads with other people, you just make out stuff of people to make them look stupid just because they don't think like you.
All of you are taking a very shamefull action and i think that against such attitude and action i better take a step back before you find and reason to get me banned just because you find i don't think like you, and worst i open a debate that ends you with no way to answer. Don't worry i step back, i just ask please you don't answer this, because i know you people want to have the last word, so, please don't make me questions, becuase i can't answer, because i can see if i make an answer i risk to be banned and i don't want to.
Show a little good attitude and don't direct another word to me, i won't "shake" your world anymore i will just limit myself to technical discusions about the game in other sections of the forums.