Limiting the influence of luck...

[multilis]

I've found the majority of recent games decided by luck, sometimes it can reduce fun of game.

Luck can take many forms: you have the one side is very lucky especially on important battles (poison, taking village, killing blocker, etc).

You have one side has crazy noob charge for partner. Or perhaps you get lucky and the crazy noob leaves game before he destroys his side too bad.

Or you have game with wild swings of extreme luck more than tactics deciding who is currently leading game.

For me personally, I find both winning and losing due to mainly luck to be less satisfying.

Proposals to reduce effects of luck for those that want that:

More averaging out of luck options: Era with more attacks and less damage per attack (may then need modifications as well so that luck of getting strong units is less decisive). Era or optional game setting (similar to setting for XP to lvl) that adjusts hit points per unit. Undesirable traits for units reduced/eliminated/adjusted (eg strong mage, either make impossible or gets more than 1 bonus to hit if only 1 attack).

On players: perhaps abillity to roughly rate own skill level when joining multiplayer, so that in a 4 player game easier to balance the newbies and perhaps throw in a handicap if needed to help other side if newbie.

[Zerovirus]

This discussion has come up before and has been quickly refuted using both logical and not-so-logical responses from others, including moderators and developers. Expect a 2-10 post discussion and then a speedy lock as the thread disintegrates into near-flaming.

[Aethaeryn]

On players: perhaps abillity to roughly rate own skill level when joining multiplayer, so that in a 4 player game easier to balance the newbies and perhaps throw in a handicap if needed to help other side if newbie.

Self-assessment fails. Everyone will rate themselves as (slightly) above average, even most newbies and some good players. The worst troll n00bs would probably rate themselves as perfect.

[multilis]

For those that want it

If half the players would like luck reduced and half don't, imo good idea to have the choice on a per game basis. (We could always do a survey and if more than 1/3 like a difference room can be made for them, and if more than 2/3 like a difference then perhaps the mainline settings should be tweaked)

On self-assessment, some players do honestly rate themselves, eg newbie would prefer to say newbie and have an experienced player as partner than claim he is expert and thus get noob partner and lose bad.

[Velensk]

One of the things I've noticed over the years I've played is that the better the player becomes at the game, the fewer the number of matches they feel were decided by luck.

[Zarel]

If half the players would like luck reduced and half don't, imo good idea to have the choice on a per game basis. (We could always do a survey and if more than 1/3 like a difference room can be made for them, and if more than 2/3 like a difference then perhaps the mainline settings should be tweaked)

I Repeat: Do Not Listen to Your Users (blog post by Jeff Atwood)

[thespaceinvader]

No. Just no. This will not turn into a huge flame war again.

Perform a search before you post, please. There are endless threads on this topic for your perusal, your suggestions have been made and addressed innumerable times before.

Thank you. That will be all.