new player frustrated about losing leveled units

[Noy]

Hi everyone! I'm a first time poster here, but I have read the forums extensively prior to this in a futile effort to avoid sounding like a dummy.

And yet after reading all that, including the sticky at the top, you go and suggest altering randomness.

People keep it on track here... any more suggestions about altering randomness and this thread gets locked, like all the others.

[Thrawn]

The main reason why is because (as you pointed out) it's not clear that it's a battalion on battalion or a unit on a unit. Also, if that happened to all attacks, it would become quite boring, as most attacks would be the same, and the attacking a unit would take twice as long, regardless of the speed setting

[doofus-01]

It seems to me that each character in the game actually represents a battalion of indeterminate size. While I have not seen such a thing expressly stated by a game designer, I have seen it stated by many others and not refuted. Also, it only makes sense that the fate of the kingdom of Wesnoth does not rest solely in the hands of 30 guys fighting 30 other guys.

It hasn't been refuted, but it doesn't mean it is the case. If it's left up to the player to decide, isn't that fine? I, for one, do see them as individuals and not battalions. To each their own.

(And any more than 30 guys fighting 30 other guys would get too slow. Try Northern Rebirth.)

[thespaceinvader]

Like the scale of the map, I always saw that aspect as very variable. In some cases, particularly inside houses and caves, it seems like single units. In others (wide-scale fights across entire cities and big battlefields) it seems like battalions. It's not a directly descriptive game, it's slightly symbolic. Kind of like chess. Only a lot less symbolic than chess...

[Hierbo]

Hi everyone! I'm a first time poster here, but I have read the forums extensively prior to this in a futile effort to avoid sounding like a dummy.

And yet after reading all that, including the sticky at the top, you go and suggest altering randomness.

People keep it on track here... any more suggestions about altering randomness and this thread gets locked, like all the others.

Isn't this thread specifically about that? I read through lots of threads and this one is titled appropriately. I don't think they would let a thread like this exist if it really gets under their skin that badly. I read that sticky and didn't find the current points to be addressed in it.

I think that most of game developers realize that there is constantly a new crop of players with their own set of questions and concerns. No matter how many times these topics get rehashed, people are still going to want to put in their 2 cents. Testament to that is the fact that these forums exist. If a new user has a fresh perspective on a topic that was "put to bed" a year prior, there is certainly no harm in bringing it back up, so long as those new users do their due diligence with reading the old posts, as I have.

It seems to me that each character in the game actually represents a battalion of indeterminate size. While I have not seen such a thing expressly stated by a game designer, I have seen it stated by many others and not refuted. Also, it only makes sense that the fate of the kingdom of Wesnoth does not rest solely in the hands of 30 guys fighting 30 other guys.

It hasn't been refuted, but it doesn't mean it is the case. If it's left up to the player to decide, isn't that fine? I, for one, do see them as individuals and not battalions. To each their own.

(And any more than 30 guys fighting 30 other guys would get too slow. Try Northern Rebirth.)

I'm sure there are limitations that make it not feasible to have dramatically more units than are currently in place. That wasn't really what I meant, however. I didn't mean that I think that there need to be more units on the battle field to make the fight more representative of what is supposed to actually be happening in the story. I was simply making an observation that these units must represent at least several soldiers.

If the units really are supposed to be just a single person, then I guess I have missed the point. I can see how one skilled person could perfectly deflect all the blows of another. I don't see how that is possible if they represent a battalion of any size, though.

[Noy]

And yet after reading all that, including the sticky at the top, you go and suggest altering randomness.

People keep it on track here... any more suggestions about altering randomness and this thread gets locked, like all the others.

Isn't this thread specifically about that? I read through lots of threads and this one is titled appropriately. I don't think they would let a thread like this exist if it really gets under their skin that badly.

I think that most of game developers realize that there is constantly a new crop of players with their own set of questions and concerns. No matter how many times these topics get rehashed, people are still going to want to put in their 2 cents. Testament to that is the fact that these forums exist.

No this thread isn't about that, its about how to deal with luck. And yes this topic is one we've talked enough about and really don't want to rehash over and over and over. Consequently we expect new players to read the FPI threads before they post, which, the very first point, clearly states;

There should be a 'deterministic', 'non random' mode
Background: some people, apparently frustrated at losing their units in random battles, feel that there should be a non-random way of playing the game.
Result: the developers feel that randomness is a large part of the game, and that taking the randomness out of the game would be somewhat akin to taking the randomness out of most card games.

Its even posted at the very top of this forum in a locked thread.

[Hierbo]

And yet after reading all that, including the sticky at the top, you go and suggest altering randomness.

People keep it on track here... any more suggestions about altering randomness and this thread gets locked, like all the others.

Isn't this thread specifically about that? I read through lots of threads and this one is titled appropriately. I don't think they would let a thread like this exist if it really gets under their skin that badly.

I think that most of game developers realize that there is constantly a new crop of players with their own set of questions and concerns. No matter how many times these topics get rehashed, people are still going to want to put in their 2 cents. Testament to that is the fact that these forums exist.

No this thread isn't about that, its about how to deal with luck. And yes this topic is one we've talked enough about and really don't want to rehash over and over and over. Consequently we expect new players to read the FPI threads before they post, which, the very first point, clearly states;

There should be a 'deterministic', 'non random' mode
Background: some people, apparently frustrated at losing their units in random battles, feel that there should be a non-random way of playing the game.
Result: the developers feel that randomness is a large part of the game, and that taking the randomness out of the game would be somewhat akin to taking the randomness out of most card games.

Its even posted at the very top of this forum in a locked thread.

Well then the thread is badly named, as demonstrated by several other posts about this topic in here.

In response to your other comments: I have read all of those posts and more, and fail to see what they have to do with my assertion; at no point did I suggest determinism, and in fact, I stated I didn't want it.

In the time you have spent scolding me, this discussion could already have been over. I'm sorry for you if you are tired of hearing similar posts. I don't feel as though you even read mine, however.

Since I can see that its futile to try to start any kind of reasoned discussion on the primary topic of my interest, I suppose I will leave the forums with this: Thanks for the game; no thanks for the attitude.

[Thrawn]

Your primary topic of interest was, if I recall correctly, that you should have more strikes for less damage. That is basically an attempt to make the game more deterministic. It doesn't really matter if you didn't use that term--what you wanted was there to be less chance of luck ruining something--it's the same concept.

You tried reasoning using a realism argument. However, as said long ago, "If gameplay requires it, they could live on Venus." Realism is trumped by gameplay, especially as anyone can make a fluff reason it happens the way it does. (For example, perhaps if you miss every time, it's not that the arrows don't hit the other troops, but rather they are deflected by armor, do only superficial damage, etc)

From a gameplay side, by increasing the number of strikes and decreasing damage, you make all the units less distinct. Now the thunderer, with his 18-1 is a 6-3, or maybe even 2-9. That doesn't fit the idea of the unit, and could easily also be the attack of any other unit that used to deal around 18 damage. It also trivializes the time of day aspect, and at the same time breaks it depending on which end you're on.

[Noy]

Well then the thread is badly named, as demonstrated by several other posts about this topic in here.

In response to your other comments: I have read all of those posts and more, and fail to see what they have to do with my assertion; at no point did I suggest determinism, and in fact, I stated I didn't want it.

In the time you have spent scolding me, this discussion could already have been over. I'm sorry for you if you are tired of hearing similar posts. I don't feel as though you even read mine, however.

Since I can see that its futile to try to start any kind of reasoned discussion on the primary topic of my interest, I suppose I will leave the forums with this: Thanks for the game; no thanks for the attitude.

I should say that I didn't full read yours, and maybe I should have, so my apologies. However thrawn is right that its what we consider an RNG related issue. Its one we've seen before too, though I can't seem to find the actual thread right now. The main issue with this suggestion is that it affects the balance. Status attacks like slow and poison become far more effective.

On a wider level, the current system over the length of a game provides much of what you're asking for anyway. Games are played over hundreds or even thousands of strikes, which gives that leveling which increasing the number of hits provide.

And I do have sympathy for your realism argument (I appreciate realism) but I think one has to realize wesnoth is an abstraction and shouldn't be considered with complete reality in mind.

Again, I should have read it more carefully (sorry), but its already a suggestion we;ve discussed and rejected.

[Cataphract]

^ Very much agreed.

Luck is the challenge of this game. It is the bane that players must overcome in any campaign, not the actual computer AI itself, in my opinion. If luck had less of a role in the game, the campaigns would be ridiculously easy.

Luck can't be a "challenge," because challenges are things that you can overcome. You may be able to win despite bad luck, but you'll never actually be able to "overcome," that is to say improve and reverse, your luck.

[Zachron]

True, but managing the odds, thus mitigating luck is a large portion of the strategy.

[krotop]

Luck can't be a "challenge," because challenges are things that you can overcome. You may be able to win despite bad luck, but you'll never actually be able to "overcome," that is to say improve and reverse, your luck.

It wasn't "luck" in the literal sense, but a reference to risk assessment and the frustration that can come from really bad luck. It's obvious for everyone that you can't do anything to influence the incorruptible lady fortune.

[hiro hito]

^ Very much agreed.

Luck is the challenge of this game. It is the bane that players must overcome in any campaign, not the actual computer AI itself, in my opinion. If luck had less of a role in the game, the campaigns would be ridiculously easy.

Luck can't be a "challenge," because challenges are things that you can overcome. You may be able to win despite bad luck, but you'll never actually be able to "overcome," that is to say improve and reverse, your luck.

If you take into account the actual AI, yes it's far more funny to deal with luck than with real move strategy.

If AI was better player and luck was less important (or a bit more controlled), I think that the game should be far more funny than it is....

[Jarkko]

...and luck was less important (or a bit more controlled), I think that the game should be far more funny than it is....

After that the "Bane of Wesnoth" would be it's predictability instead of luck. It sure might seem good at first to be able to "control" the opponent to a certain extent... but what about after you've played with same schemes over 9000 times?

In my opinion it would have a serious impact on replay value, because every new game you begin would be just yet another victory in your ever-growing pile of victories... You just perform the same schemes, you've done all the time.

Luck, in this issue, basically ensures, that not every game will be the same and it teaches the player, that they won't be able to control all the aspects.

Basically those, who find luck system troubling might actually be troubled by the fact, that they have no control over certain events. In that event they reflect their trouble to an external, innocent third party without realizing, that their reaction might have been caused by something in themselves and their behaviour. This is called "Psychological projection".

[hiro hito]

...and luck was less important (or a bit more controlled), I think that the game should be far more funny than it is....

After that the "Bane of Wesnoth" would be it's predictability instead of luck. It sure might seem good at first to be able to "control" the opponent to a certain extent... but what about after you've played with same schemes over 9000 times?

In my opinion it would have a serious impact on replay value, because every new game you begin would be just yet another victory in your ever-growing pile of victories... You just perform the same schemes, you've done all the time.

Complety agree with you and that's why I prefer play Mutiplayer matches than campains!

Luck, in this issue, basically ensures, that not every game will be the same and it teaches the player, that they won't be able to control all the aspects.

Basically those, who find luck system troubling might actually be troubled by the fact, that they have no control over certain events.

Opponent's strategy is a certain event that i prefer to deal with and i have more satifaction with my victory when I know that my strategy was better. Thus i know that my victory is not due to a random factor.