Bad luck? Read this

[thespaceinvader]

It'd take time, but you could revert your version to the old sprites without OOS.

You shouldn't, though. Speaking as someone who's spent several months working on the new ones, it would be a great shame to see them go to waste - you'll get used to them very quickly, and they are SO much better than the old ones.

[Lastmerlin]

@ Dave: I can't see, that computer generated random numbers are such a big problem. By the way, its not that easy to prove, that a dice is fair as well. Of course Catans has sometimes frustrating luck as well. But at the end, good luck and bad luck usually occur on the same size (a few ressource cards). That is what makes it easy to recognize good luck as well as bad luck.
You could introduce to Catan an extra rule that is, you have to throw two extra dice and if they show 6-6 you loose all cities. The game still has an expected value and everything above is good luck, below is bad luck. Nevertheless this would be very frustrating.

More mathematical: Consider two lotteries:
1) 99.99% chance to loose 10$, 0.01% chance to win 100000$
2) 99.99 chance to win 10 $, 0.01% chance to loose 100000$

Millions of people play number one, but nobody will play number two, although EV is (almost) zero in both cases.

This is why most games use type one distributions. For example getting loot from slain monsters in Diablo like games: Usually you find nothing useful (which is below EV because you could have found something), but occasionally you get something really good. In my opinion its a matter of distribution, if luck is experienced as a bonus or a punishment.

Of course this is exaggerates and extremely simplified. But its interesting to see, that the one counterexample involves a yeti and the fact that an own unit did _not_ die (again good luck is essentially, that bad things do not happen). This is a really extremely rare special case. If you consider scenario bosses: Usually you make a well planned attack there and end up with the {99%: attacks works out, 1%: bad things happen} sort of distribution again.

[multilis]

From chat on during recent game:

Garison: sorry about my luck
x: can't be helped nature of this game
Garison: someone should program a balancing mechanism for the luck
Garison: make it 5x more difficult to have 20% over then 10% over"
x: they did, made patch for wesnoth, but will never ever make it into mainline game as option
x: developers don't like idea, even as option, mods lock threads if they mention idea as *might* start a flame war [Edit: I wasn't accurate here in that mods lock only *some* threads quicky that suggest detailed improvements]
Garison: well boo then
Garison: why not attempt to fix the most annoying part of wesnoth
x: yup, but we can whine, going to post this chat thread in forum
Garison: even for the winners
x: yes, very annoying when I get good luck
Garison: its strange
Garison: but luck is what unbalances a well designed system...

[Gambit]

Garison: make it 5x more difficult to have 20% over then 10% over

But then it isn't 20% is it?

It seems to me that what people who dislike luck want should create is an addon where every unit's HP and strikes gets multiplied by 100. Then defense controls how many strikes will hit with very little variance.

[thespaceinvader]

Oh WAH.

NOONE has ever demonstrated that the game is not balanced, except by their own opinion. IN a battle of opinions, ours wins, based on two facts:

1: we develop the game for ourselves, not for them, or anyone else. If other people happen to like it, so much the better.

2: we are satisfied thanks to years of play and development that the game IS balanced, and the RNG IS fair.

Want it different, do it yourself. Or download Sauron's mod. Or play LessLuck era. The existence of those last two, and their recommendation in many of the luck complaint threads, and their continual lack of popularity, also suggests that the luck whines are a vocal minority, rather than the silent majority.

We lock threads because they develop into flame fests. Every so often, I'll let a thread alone, in the hope that people will act mature. VERY occasionally, they actually do. You have a chance to surprise me - go ahead and do so.

[Noy]

No, I dont want to propose a change of the system. What I want is:
- Please realisize that those people complaining about are not all stupid, bad at maths and incapable of working with probabilities. I have noticed that there is a mildly arrogant attitude towards such complaints. (btw, please excuse if *arrogant* is a too offensive choice, I am no native speaker). I guess that most of these are not idiots, but they cant explain properly, what their real problem is.

I think you've got a very mistaken impression. We don't believe that most of these individuals are any of those things. I've noted in the past that some of the most vehement dissenters are actually have a very good background in science and math. I would argue that for some individuals is that this is actually the source of their disagreement over our game design; they see the random aspects don't believe its a skill to manage probabilities in this fashion. Consequently they have seized on it as an argument.

- Realize that Wesnoth just not suits a significant share of potential players. I wont make an estimate here, but I showed it to several people (all of them with good mathematical and analytical abilities) and most replied: The luck factor is frustrating. I think I understood the reason, but I still dont enjoy playing campaigns. Knowledge does not help here. It's a matter of personality whether you like to play the second type lottery. It is perfectly acceptable if you concentrate on those players only - but please dont call the others stupid and be annoyed if they show up on the forum occasionally. Perhaps just tell them that Wesnoth is not the right game for them - in contrast to other games this is not recognized that easily.

Uh, We've said this a number of times.

There is a consensus among Developers around the gameplay model and RNG. Its not like we don't understand the implications of the decisions we have made. Some people believe it to be unfair, we disagree. We don't believe adding a "less luck option" is to the benefit to the product we produce. RNG is conceived as a core part of gameplay, which will not change. Nevertheless certain segments of the playing community disagree and continue to do so. To some degree I wish they took your advice and understand that maybe this game isn't for them. Call us ignorant, but its our choice to make.

- Encourage those complainers to play multiplayer instead of campaigns. Most of the points I made apply to campaings only. For example in 1 vs 1 there are big good events, like a lucky leaderkill.

Most of those people have played; some of them are actually quite good at the game.

[Ferrous]

Forgive me if I am repeating an argument previously made, but I do believe that while perception of ability (the Dunning-Kruger effect) is a main source of complaint, there is a statistical one as well.

According to the probabilities present, if a unit A has a 50% chance of hitting unit B, then on average, unit A will hit unit B as often as unit A will miss unit B, right?

Wrong.

The above statistical argument is true and only true if unit B has infinite hitpoints where the experiment could be carried on indefinitely. However, unit B has a finite number of hit points so we are unlikely to see long strings of hits because unit B will be dead before A can continue hitting. As a result, we DO in fact see longer strings of misses-in-a-row than we see hits-in-a-row (in a unit vs. unit basis) because units typically die before we can see the full extent of statistical probabilities.

[artisticdude]

This has become yet another of *those* threads.

This has been raised time and time again. You can't say that someone stole from you if you have no proof. But if you have a video of him sneaking into your home and stealing $1,000.00 from your lower desk drawer, you've got solid evidence. The same applies to the Wesnoth RNG. Can you prove the RNG is messed up/unfair by examples in replays, not just by saying you think it is? No one has managed to do that yet. Until someone validly proves the RNG is wrong, the RNG will be considered balanced. I personally have never had a problem with it. And like TSI pointed out above: if you don't like it, feel free to change it. That's what 'open source' means, just to clarify it in case someone doesn't know.

Why am I even posting here... this will probably get locked soon anyway...

[Noy]

This has become yet another of *those* threads.

I don't think "this is one of those threads," actually. If it was we would have locked it long ago. Instead we are discussing more perceptions as well as psychology of this issue, which is pretty different and an interesting discussion.

[hiro hito]

I don't want flame fest.

But when you say:

NOONE has ever demonstrated that the game is not balanced

I must say that all unit's update and map's update all along game's versions don't prove that the game is (or was) balanced !
But well, everything must evolve!

I think it has been easy for luck complainers to say that RNG was not fair. I stay convinced that RNG is fair but it's just not appropriate to multiplayer's games.

Yes we can download Sauron's mod: but is it working on Mac System, without compil things or code stuff? if yes how?

Yes we can play Less luck era: I wish see it more on server, but has it the same forum impact that all new era/faction have? is it maintain as it should be like all this UNBALANCED era/faction? I don't think so...

Addon server is here to make everyone do their own stuff even if the game is less balanced and sometimes even less funny.... That 's a good thing.

It looks like that make "luck" system update is far complicated than a simple add-on....

So why not allow players to download their own wesnoth version (with Sauron mod i.e.) from the main site page? Why not open new sections on the forum for all these versions and keep away some forum wars between default version and customs versions?....

I think that it will be far more interesting for developpers to try to reach the perfection of the fight system which is the foundation of the game, otherwise why make so such efforts in unit's improvements or map's improvements while we can do so many unbalanced things?

As an old active player, I can say that majority of my games were the subject of luck (from my part, from opponent's side and even from old top players' part(yes I SWEAR )), majority of ladder comments and all RNG/luck recurrent threads on forum and if we substract all players who play unbalanced things, show that it's not a minority of players who is concerned by the strangely fight system ... I rarely play games with so much critics about their "core" system. If i was developper I think i will tend to resolve that part of my game: target one good thing rather than many worse things...

Regards.

[Velensk]

Or at least it wasn't turning into one of those threads.

[thespaceinvader]

So why not allow players to download their own wesnoth version (with Sauron mod i.e.) from the main site page? Why not open new sections on the forum for all these versions and keep away some forum wars between default version and customs versions?....

- Realize that Wesnoth just not suits a significant share of potential players. I wont make an estimate here, but I showed it to several people (all of them with good mathematical and analytical abilities) and most replied: The luck factor is frustrating. I think I understood the reason, but I still dont enjoy playing campaigns. Knowledge does not help here. It's a matter of personality whether you like to play the second type lottery. It is perfectly acceptable if you concentrate on those players only - but please dont call the others stupid and be annoyed if they show up on the forum occasionally. Perhaps just tell them that Wesnoth is not the right game for them - in contrast to other games this is not recognized that easily.

Uh, We've said this a number of times.

There is a consensus among Developers around the gameplay model and RNG. Its not like we don't understand the implications of the decisions we have made. Some people believe it to be unfair, we disagree. We don't believe adding a "less luck option" is to the benefit to the product we produce. RNG is conceived as a core part of gameplay, which will not change. Nevertheless certain segments of the playing community disagree and continue to do so. To some degree I wish they took your advice and understand that maybe this game isn't for them. Call us ignorant, but its our choice to make.

[/quote]
RTTP.

[ihatewesnoth]

If any developer is going to pretend that the odds have not been artificially stacked against the player, he must think that we're all a bunch of dimwitted trolls. Stacking the combat odds (% to hit) only reveals that the AI sucks, so the AI is incapable of playing against even an easy player at even odds. It's just really, really sad state of affairs. With the exception of the combat odds being so obviously perverted, the rest of the game is so beautiful, awesome graphics, amazing fan work, everything is so great... so why, devs, why do you have to stink it up by mucking up the combat engine?

EDIT: and having played strategy games since junior high, which was 25 years ago, don't tell me the "bad luck" (more like stacked luck) is due to my poor tactical/strategic choices. I've been playing Squad Leader for decades, played 3rd Reich, Drang Nach Osten, and countless games where luck was the factor that made play enjoyable, but not the deciding factor of the game. But honestly, luck IS a major factor (for the AI) in Wesnoth, and it's spoiling the enjoyability of the game. And let's not all pretend that when 6 mages attack a single orcish warrior and only score 2-3 hits total, and the in the orc's turn it hits both times, that this is normal. Because rather than indicating that the player has made poor decisions, it only reveals that the AI sucks, and then rewards itself by landing all the hits it needs to stop a well-executed attack with a horseshoe-up-the-ass kind of stacked luck.

[Unnheulu]

If any developer is going to pretend that the odds have not been artificially stacked against the player, he must think that we're all a bunch of dimwitted trolls. Stacking the combat odds (% to hit) only reveals that the AI sucks, so the AI is incapable of playing against even an easy player at even odds. It's just really, really sad state of affairs. With the exception of the combat odds being so obviously perverted, the rest of the game is so beautiful, awesome graphics, amazing fan work, everything is so great... so why, devs, why do you have to stink it up by mucking up the combat engine?

Any proof of that? Any handy snippets? Can't wait to see them!

[Gambit]

If any developer is going to pretend that the odds have not been artificially stacked against the player, he must think that we're all a bunch of dimwitted trolls.

What about the hundreds of players and dozens of people who have actually looked at the source code that also know that the difficulty has absolutely nothing to do with the RNG?
I expect an answer to the above.

Did you even read what I posted in your last thread? Seriously, go look under the hood for yourself. It's open source! You can go look for this supposed cheating. And if/when you find it, cut/paste the questionable code here.