Luck rant [split from Luck in Wesnoth: Rationale]

[MDG]

@JW, You seem to be making some assumptions about Noy's lack of comment on your earlier post. It's possible he read it, agreed with the substance of it (some rng threads are caused by confusion over the levels and nature of competitiveness), decided no point in further commenting. There are others posting in the thread that Noy may well have been primarily addressing.

Only Noy can say..

It just seemed you took it a little personally from your post.

Anyway,

Just to sum up my points (some made by others that I am using):

1) Wesnoth uses luck like gambling games do
2) Because of this Wesnoth is not like other competitive games
3) Wesnoth gives the impression that it tries to be a competitive game
4) Confusion arises and people are upset when the luck is not how they expected
5) People post
6) Generally people get their panties in a bunch

3) Implies deception, which I don't think is the case. As both Noy, and then Jozrael, have pointed out, it is competitive, the problem is many have different views on what that means.
4) People need to be more responsible for their own expectations. However, something in the wiki or the forums may help provide guidance on this. Which is the point you're making and I agree.
6) rotflmao

[Wintermute]

JW: I am just going to tell you right now that I am not going to respond to any of your other points (I have nothing "nice" to say, so I will not say anything at all), but I only mention this to avoid your accusing me of not reading them, as you are so fond of doing. I have read them. You make some good interesting points. Anyway, I think this exchange is quite illuminating:

For four world cups I've watched the New Zealand All Blacks never won the Webb Ellis trophy, despite consistantly having the most dominant team in the world. Dan Marino was probably one of the greatest QBs in NFL history. Under his guidance the Miami Dolphins entered the playoffs 10 times. Yet Marino and the Dolphins never won a Superbowl though, despite being playing some of the most exciting football in NFL history. Its not fair is it? Does that mean we should change Rugby, Football or any other game to make it "more fair?" Does it make them any less competitive? Of course not, because that is the nature of the game, it is what you hone your skills on.

Your anaology to sports is off, Noy. Not only are all actors making conscious, non-random decisions that directly affect what happens, but your specific example with Dan Marino is worse because one man does not control the outcome of a game in football. Surely if you know anything about American football you would know that.

Now, I would like to direct your attention to a great On Point interview (that you can listen to here) with physicist Leonard Mladinow talking about how randomness rules our lives. It is easy to follow, and it is quite a bit better than just typing opinions back and forth. The part I would like to focus and elaborate on is where he talks about sports teams playing 7 game series to decide which team is the best. The reality of this is exactly as Noy points out (don't you read his posts in context? ), that good teams lose all the time to worse teams. But just so you don't have to take the word of Leonard Mladinow (or Noy) on the matter, I'd like to break down the math a little bit.

[math]
The example is given that Team A is favored over Team B at 55% to 45%. Playing a best out of 7 game series, the underdog (team B) still would end up winning the series about 40% of the time. The probability of team A winning the series is given by:
C(7,4)(.55^4)(.45^3) + C(7,5)(.55^5)(.45^2) + C(7,6)(.55^6)(.45^1) + C(7,7)(.55^7)(.45^0) = 0.2918+0.2140+0.0872+0.0152 = 0.6082.
Thus Team A wins about 61% of the time, and Team B wins about 39% of the time.

Well, 55% to 45% is still a coin flip maybe? what about 60% to 40% chances for Team A and Team B? Team A would win about 71% of the time in that case, so Team B still has a 29% chance of winning the world series, or whatever sport you are talking about. The clear takeaway message here is that a 7 game series is still not very good at determining the winner between two closely matched teams.
[/math]

JW: I really fail to see how your argument is somehow more valid when talking about Football, where we play single elimination playoffs and then ONE GAME to determine the winner. In the first example, in order to ensure that Team A wins the series 95% of the time, 269 games would need to be played. That's a lot of super bowls! Now the question that strikes me here, is should we not play football as a competitive sport? It seems clear that A LOT of the time the winner of the super bowl was not the best team in the field. Well, I think the game is fun. Perhaps made more so by the competitive structure of the NFL, but also made pretty ruthless. I don't think I would try to play in the NFL for fun, personally. I would play Wesnoth (which, gasp, is somewhat competitive though not ruthlessly so).

I would also like to point out that rating systems in general (say, Elo) are predictive by nature. The rating system assigns probabilities to the outcomes of player A vs player B, and then the results are scored accordingly. If an upset occurs, there will be a bigger change in the rating for a bigger upset. I hope the connection is clear: just because there are or are not so-called "random" elements involved in a game does not fundamentally change the concept of ratings and competitiveness. I do agree with Fosprey so far as the popularity is concerned, and I again point to TripleA as a close parallel here. "competitive" TripleA is much more popular using their "low luck" mod than it is with the traditional dice model. Personally, I beleive that that popularity is not so much to do with the low luck version being more strategic, but rather that many players are uncomfortable with and/or do not really understand probabilities very well - so they are more comfortable playing with "low luck".

Final two points:
1) I think that there are lots of very strong opinions out there that "sound right" that are not supported or perhaps even contradicted (such as as above) by the facts. Lets be careful when discussing this to keep opinion separated from fact.
2) It is my opinion that many of the complaints about randomness (Fosprey a notable exception I think) seem to be mired with various levels of ignorance about how statistics works, or perhaps how to interpert probabilties in a useful manner. I think that it is safe to say that the players who win a lot of games of Wesnoth have some knowledge (or great instincts) about the nature of probability that many (NOT ALL) of the anti-RNG crowd do not fully understand. And I can imagine that this leads to a lot of frustration - some of which is directed at the RNG.

Well, thanks for listening, tune in next week!

[JW]

Perhaps there is a miscommunication in using the terms "gambling" and "competitive" to describe the different types of games. The term "competitive" has more than one meaning and is therefore probably inappropriate to use to precisely describe the points I am trying to make. Surely people can understand me however, as is evidenced by several people agereing with me here who had not seen my perspective previously.

To make things more precise though, I'll try to come up with a better term. Nothing comes to me at the moment, but clearly anything can be 'competitive,' even headbanging. Of course, when we think of the word competition we don't think of headbanging, do we?

The dichotomy of games of "skill" and "luck" would not work either, because most games use a little of both. I think the term "gambling" is appropriate to describe Wesnoth because of its reliance on luck, though it does involve the use of skill as well, as most popular gambling games do (at least card games).

Most games of skill that have essentially no luck are sports, or athletic competitions: football, archery, foot races, and the like. This may very well be why the term e-sport has come about: these games determine skill on such a precise level with no, or almost no, reliance on luck.

Personally though, I hate the term e-sport, though it is pretty close to the concept I'm speaking of.

I would write more, but I think it's clearer what I'm getting at now, and my professor is actually speaking about the cases we read now (instead of rambling about various historical facts tangentially related to our subject metter), so I have to pay attention. If people want to brainstorm a term that's fine, or e-sport could do I suppose....is there a middle ground?

edit: this was written before Wintermute's post. I will address it later.

[JW]

Wintermute, any athlete will tell you that if they lose a game it is because of their own failures as a team. Copping out to luck is the coward's excuse. Have you played many sports in your life? I have - and some at a very high standard of competition (though not professional). "Luck" in sports is usually the combination of many other factors, that I can't get into at the moment, which are completely controlled by human decision.

Also, if you truly think luck determines your life then I'm sorry. Other people's choices and your own, for good or bad, are not random. Weather is 'random' but is controlled by the laws of physics.

Also, I am well versed in statistics, having a minor in mathematics and having taken research psychology as my major in college. I am not one of the uneducated.

You and I disagree on many deep levels, so I wish you the best of "luck" in your life.

[hiro hito]

@Wintermute and Noy:

all analogies with real world(life) is not necessary, IMHO. Because we are talking about a game in cyber world....

We just lift up a problem which is: is the RNG (this)RNG really fit the game?
What is so funny to hope for a good(or bad) RNG while we are doing some (good) strategic moves with (the best) recruit we can do? When you see all your tactic being screwed (or levelup) just by a computer...

I say that random is necessary but why, sometimes, is there some huge difference of luck between 2 sides and there is nothing to do against it? that is the issue...

Is there any way to decrease the luck/unluck?....
Edit: maybe a new fog of war can altered it by creating some "real" surprise and bring up a new strategic plan.....

[SkeleRanger]

Also, if you truly think luck determines your life then I'm sorry. Other people's choices and your own, for good or bad, are not random. Weather is 'random' but is controlled by the laws of physics.

By your standards there is no such thing as randomness or luck in any way. As was stated before, even a computer's RNG is predicable, you just have to know all the variables. Weather is determined by the laws of physics which theoretically could be completely predictable. However from one person's point of view it would appear random. All the RNG does is simulate the "random" outcome without simulating all the variables.

Taking your analogy in sports, the outcome is technically decided by individual players making split second decisions. However the coach has no control over the players and so from his perspective the events could be "random". "Luck" may apply to individual players as well. When a coach or player may make really stupid play or move but due to several other variables the event has a positive outcome(they score).

[JW]

Also, if you truly think luck determines your life then I'm sorry. Other people's choices and your own, for good or bad, are not random. Weather is 'random' but is controlled by the laws of physics.

By your standards there is no such thing as randomness or luck in any way. As was stated before, even a computer's RNG is predicable, you just have to know all the variables. Weather is determined by the laws of physics which theoretically could be completely predictable. However from one person's point of view it would appear random. All the RNG does is simulate the "random" outcome without simulating all the variables.

You're right. The one sentence about about the weather was wrong.

[mrmoose]

Now the question that strikes me here, is should we not play football as a competitive sport? It seems clear that A LOT of the time the winner of the super bowl was not the best team in the field.

Wintermute, any athlete will tell you that if they lose a game it is because of their own failures as a team. Copping out to luck is the coward's excuse. Have you played many sports in your life? I have - and some at a very high standard of competition (though not professional). "Luck" in sports is usually the combination of many other factors, that I can't get into at the moment, which are completely controlled by human decision.

JW my question to u is did u watch the super bowl last year? the patriots absolutly dominated the regular season and the rest of the playoffs up till the last quarter of the superbowl. i think we can agree they were the best team last year without a doubt and if u dont agree it wont be to hard to find evidence to prove that. hell just look at there record thats evidence enough. yet who won the super bowl? do u remember how that game ended? eli manning threw a hail mary down the field and miraculously his reciver caught the ball look back at that play and tell me that wasnt luck.

[JW]

JW my question to u is did u watch the super bowl last year? the patriots absolutly dominated the regular season and the rest of the playoffs up till the last quarter of the superbowl. i think we can agree they were the best team last year without a doubt and if u dont agree it wont be to hard to find evidence to prove that. hell just look at there record thats evidence enough. yet who won the super bowl? do u remember how that game ended? eli manning threw a hail mary down the field and miraculously his reciver caught the ball look back at that play and tell me that wasnt luck.

With sports, whoever is the best team on that day is the winner. A large part of sports is getting the consistency to be good on a reuglar basis. This is controllable. Do you remember Rex Grossman of the Bears? Horrible some days, amazing on others. Because of this he is no longer the starting quarterback. Yes he's good, but he's also bad. Overall he is below average because of this inconsistency. With football it is harder to align all players to play their best at any particular time because so many different people are involved. People do not play at 100% of their capabilities for various reasons:
1) motivation (think Randy Moss)
2) lack of knowledge (think Plaxico Burress when he spiked the ball on a live play as a rookie)
3) lack of focus (extremely common)
4) injury (perhaps the most common)

Specifcally referencing last years SB: Tom Brady was hurt (4), the Giants were extremely motivated (1), and many other factors that I'd have to re examine the entire scenario to pick up on.

Again though, these are all controllable factors - though they are hard to control all at the same time. The point remains that luck isn't the word that should be used with regard to sports.

edit: also, ty for reminding me to get a Giants SB hat. I've been meaning to get one for a while for exactly the reasons I mentioned above: their ability to control 1-4.

edit2: I should also add (5) lack of preparation.

[mrmoose]

i would agree with u on the aspect of other factors being involved besides luck but i believe luck is still a contributing factor. looking at a more broader category i will give u an example of what i mean. look at the business world can we not agree that at times the person with the most qualifications is sometimes not chosen for the job? is luck not involved with gaining promotions ex: granted there are many aspect that go into this i still believe luck is a factor in life. im in class right now so if i am not fully explaining my case i can try to explain later in the afternoon when i am home just trying to post a quick reply:

[JW]

i would agree with u on the aspect of other factors being involved besides luck but i believe luck is still a contributing factor. looking at a more broader category i will give u an example of what i mean. look at the business world can we not agree that at times the person with the most qualifications is sometimes not chosen for the job? is luck not involved with gaining promotions ex: granted there are many aspect that go into this i still believe luck is a factor in life. im in class right now so if i am not fully explaining my case i can try to explain later in the afternoon when i am home just trying to post a quick reply:

That's cool, I have to go soon myself. I'm also less versed in business, so my replies will be far less educated than on pure statistics, video games, or sports.

As for promotions, etc, I would say personal biases or thoughts, even company politics, probably play a role in those decisions.

[mrmoose]

i would agree with u on the aspect of other factors being involved besides luck but i believe luck is still a contributing factor. looking at a more broader category i will give u an example of what i mean. look at the business world can we not agree that at times the person with the most qualifications is sometimes not chosen for the job? is luck not involved with gaining promotions ex: granted there are many aspect that go into this i still believe luck is a factor in life. im in class right now so if i am not fully explaining my case i can try to explain later in the afternoon when i am home just trying to post a quick reply:

That's cool, I have to go soon myself. I'm also less versed in business, so my replies will be far less educated than on pure statistics, video games, or sports.

As for promotions, etc, I would say personal biases or thoughts, even company politics, probably play a role in those decisions.

yes i agree it plays a part but u are missing my point luck still plays a role in this. u are suggesting luck plays no factor in life which i strongly disagree with im not suggesting that ur points dont make sense im just stating luck still plays a role *sorry running out the door to my next class i will reply more on this later if needbe*

[Ethnar]

yes i agree it plays a part but u are missing my point luck still plays a role in this. u are suggesting luck plays no factor in life which i strongly disagree with im not suggesting that ur points dont make sense im just stating luck still plays a role *sorry running out the door to my next class i will reply more on this later if i have to*

This conversation is getting so deep and you didn't even specify what is this "luck". Moose, think about it and you'll notice there's no such thing (technically) as luck. What we call luck or misfortune is just a result of numerous aspects affecting the event.

In real life - we can specify more or less all the aspects affecting football match. However, with this number of players it's hard to track everyone on the field. Also - you might not have enough knowledge about players (tiredness, stress etc.) to understand everything. All of this can be narrowed to one thing - human factor. And as is - football (and any other such game) is not a random game.

As for RNGs - there are no real factors we can take into account. We get a number that isn't (in concept) based on anything related to the game. Thus, it's quite inaccurate to seek similarities here.

[hiro hito]

As for RNGs - there are no real factors we can take into account. We get a number that isn't (in concept) based on anything related to the game. Thus, it's quite inaccurate to seek similarities here.

thank you.....

[mrmoose]

perhaps i shall delve into another example. im sure we all know the casino game slot machines. . a slot machine is run on a virtual reel each stop on the actual reel may correspond to more than one stop on the virtual reel. Simply put, the odds of hitting a particular image on the actual reel depend on how many virtual stops correspond to the actual stop.
In a typical weighted slot machine, the top jackpot stop (the one with the highest-paying jackpot image) for each reel corresponds to only one virtual stop. This means that the chance of hitting the jackpot image on one reel is 1 in 64. If all of the reels are set up the same way, the chances of hitting the jackpot image on all three reels is 1 in 643, or 262,144. For machines with a bigger jackpot, the virtual reel may have many more stops. This decreases the odds of winning that jackpot considerably.

granted there are ways of raising ur odds. slot machines are run on a variable ratio which is described in a dictonary as "a schedule of reinforcement where a response is reinforced after an unpredictable number of responses." This schedule creates a high steady rate of responding. u will notice most high leveled gamblers go to the machines which are losing the most u may wonder why is that? the reason is simple the more and more a machine is losing the higher chance u have of hitting the big jackpot. but that doestn mean there isnt a huge luck factor. explain to me how putting ur coin into a slot machine and pulling the lever involves any amounts of skill?
anyawys this is all for now i will formulate my ideas more later when i am home from school