Skilled players don't think the game is too random

[Doc Paterson]

Who exactly are these (expert)players?

As in, what are their names?

not to look far- zookeeper

Okay, well, that's an interesting opinion.

[Dragon Master]

Jesus Christ Sauron, ever heard of manners? You totally ignored my statement, I didn't even criticize your mod, and still you decided to argue. Fleshpeeler even decided to be nice to you, and you attacked him! So far all you've said has further proved my statements about you. a@#h$&%

[Sauron]

Jesus Christ Sauron, ever heard of manners? You totally ignored my statement, I didn't even criticize your mod, and still you decided to argue. Fleshpeeler even decided to be nice to you, and you attacked him! So far all you've said has further proved my statements about you. a@#h$&%

I thanked him for support - in my country it is not considered an attack. You did attack me - using #@@#$@#$ - I retaliated. Normal thing. It seems you do not read too carefully/ do not attempt to understand what you have just read.

I am sad to give another post to the thread - but I can see 4 some ppl it is easier to post than to read/understand what is written by others :/

[Sapient]

This is fast heading towards lockedness.

The posting guidelines are in the user forum for your reading pleasure-- even if you feel that others are ignoring these guidelines, please try to keep them yourself (and let the moderators group handle the rest). Thanks.

[zookeeper]

not to look far- zookeeper

Okay, well, that's an interesting opinion.

Seriously though, guys, I suggest you both just stop flinging that crap around. What the mod is about, what is the reasoning behind it and who likes and who doesn't like it or the whole idea is pretty clear to everyone already. Whether Sauron is a good player or not seems to be the main point of contention here, but it's completely irrelevant to discussion of his mod, so just stop it, both (and please stop it without posting just a bit more about your side of the story, no one's interested in hearing more of it).

[5dPZ]

I think the point is very clear here.

IF a good player plays against a newbie, then good player wins, no matter he's lucky or not (he gets good positioning, retreat wound units, using Zoc etc.)

but if two equal-good players play...i would say luck determine the outcome. because both players know how to defend (formation using terran) and how to attack (when, where, who, how).

Sometimes bad players can win a better player through luck. (for example, in this game i played, my opponent gets a griffon at 1 hp with 18/21 exp, it dodged all attacks (>8 hits) from my 3 units, including a mage, and leveled up to a lv 2, then killed a couple of units, sneak through my army, dmg my leader, manage to survive my counter attack through luck which consist of ranged attacks of my leader and 2 archers with leadership, and killed my leader next turn SINGLE-HANDLY, my army were winning in front line.)

Even though that doesn't happen very often, but I think a determined damage mode should be optional, when two player who knows each other very well (that they are equally good) they can play the game using non-random mode.

[MrGrendel]

IF a good player plays against a newbie, then good player wins, no matter he's lucky or not (he gets good positioning, retreat wound units, using Zoc etc.)

Sometimes bad players can win a better player through luck. (for example, in this game i played, my opponent gets a griffon at 1 hp with 18/21 exp, it dodged all attacks (>8 hits) from my 3 units, including a mage, and leveled up to a lv 2, then killed a couple of units, sneak through my army, dmg my leader, manage to survive my counter attack through luck which consist of ranged attacks of my leader and 2 archers with leadership, and killed my leader next turn SINGLE-HANDLY, my army were winning in front line.)

You do realize you are contradicting yourself?

I'm not really sure what's worse, the poor logic the anti-Sauron people are demonstrating, or the elitist "u r noob lolz" crap they resort to.

[5dPZ]

You do realize you are contradicting yourself?

I'm not really sure what's worse, the poor logic the anti-Sauron people are demonstrating, or the elitist "u r noob lolz" crap they resort to.

well, in that game, we were not different by that much, i was not "good players", and he was not a newbie. so I don't think I contridicted myself

but i can safely say that IF i killed that griffon when it was at 1 life, i would have won that game.

[MrGrendel]

First you said a good player will always win over a lesser player, regardless of luck.

Then you go on to say that a bad player can still win against a good player if he gets lucky.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's a complete contradiction.

[5dPZ]

First you said a good player will always win over a lesser player, regardless of luck.

Then you go on to say that a bad player can still win against a good player if he gets lucky.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's a complete contradiction.

well, let's using diablo as example here.

a lv 60 char will beat a lv 20 one, no matter wut. However, a lv 40, if lucky, might beat lv 60. it's all about the gap between the two.

[MrGrendel]

Ok, you win.

[Doc Paterson]

Seriously though, guys, I suggest you both just stop flinging that crap around. What the mod is about, what is the reasoning behind it and who likes and who doesn't like it or the whole idea is pretty clear to everyone already. Whether Sauron is a good player or not seems to be the main point of contention here, but it's completely irrelevant to discussion of his mod, so just stop it, both (and please stop it without posting just a bit more about your side of the story, no one's interested in hearing more of it).

Zookeeper, this is the thread that was created as a spinoff of the one specifically about the mod, and in this thread (see the title), it's perfectly valid to explore the reasons why the mod was created, as well as the reasons why certain viewpoints will arise.

It's not so simple as "Oh, this guy made a mod that removes the random element. Use it, or don't use it."

He's argued that the core game itself is flawed, and that he knows this because "he's an expert player," and attempts to bolster this with the "other expert players agree with me." This in and of itself is absurd, and/but I can understand how my attacking this particular cornerstone of his reasoning may seem petty or shallow.

Generally, I find that frustrated people like Sauron like to approach things passive-aggressively, then make a big show of others overreacting when they're called out. Do you understand what I'm saying?


* * * * *

5DPZ, my answer for you is similar to something that I once told Zookeeper:

* I don't believe that the concept of "equal players" is a very valid one (nor is it, in it's vagueness, very useful to this discussion), and I also don't think that there exist amoung our good players any two who would, if they played 100 games, have records of 50-50, or even 53-47. My experience tells me that in this regard, accurate and generally clear patterns emerge over time. I do think that there is a level of play, somewhat below the top tier, in which a lot of players have hit a wall so to speak, and level-out into advanced, albeit predictable styles, that might suggest closely similar skill levels.


*(I realize that this "no equal players" is more of an academic question, and could no doubt be debated at great length. The core of what I mean to say here is that I've never encountered any two players for whom I would say "Wow! These two are like Wesnoth-clones! I have NO IDEA who is better!" Accordingly, I've never found the influence of the RNG to blur that distiction so totally that such an evaluation couldn't be made.)

[5dPZ]

I think it would never hurt to have such an option in the game. Similar to fog/no fog, we have luck/no luck.

I know some ppl love fog, some do not. and I am pretty sure that some ppl love randomness, some do not. but we don't get the choice of not having randomness for those who don't like it.

If you like using wose to kill a naga with 2 punches, sure, go ahead and play normal wesnoth. but if you want a game with no probability, the damage out put = total damage * terran modifier (positioning will still be critical), you should get that option.

[MrGrendel]

As someone who's worked in the field of statistical process control, I can tell you that random fluctuations have a great amount of influence on being able to determine any sort of facts. Perhaps to the untrained person, in particular one with an inability to discern between good logic and fallacy, this distinction would be harder to make.

In addition to this, every strategic scenario tends to have a critical point; occasionally more than one, but typically one major breaking point, and some less important ones. Even though the random numbers will balance out over the average of an entire game, the entire game does not have equal weight. This further magnifies the influence of random numbers in a "process" such as Wesnoth.

It's not so simple as "Oh, this guy made a mod that removes the random element. Use it, or don't use it."

You're right, let me fix it.

Oh, this guy made a mod that removes the random element. Use it, or don't use it. And stop [censored] about it, please.

He's argued that the core game itself is flawed, and that he knows this because "he's an expert player," and attempts to bolster this with the "other expert players agree with me." This in and of itself is absurd[...]

"Wah, my e-peen is bigger."

Generally, I find that frustrated people like Sauron like to approach things passive-aggressively, then make a big show of others overreacting when they're called out.

Wrong, Sauron went out and did something about it. And kudos to him.

don't think that there exist amoung our good players any two who would, if they played 100 games, have records of 50-50, or even 53-47.

The majority of them would gravitate between probably 20 and 80 percent wins or losses, meaning that there would be more 50-50s than 100-0s.

[Noy]

I did not want to discuss with ppl, who concentrated on attacking me personally instead of EVEN TRYING the mod and game feeling it gives, but I understand that there is an open-minded part of the community - and these will get confused by the "skilled players"'s offensive offensive .

Ok, now look at yourself you, who consider yourselves "skilled players".
1. Subject of this thread implies all who disagree are not skilled - in terms of learning game mechanics/unit abilities/terrain defense I did my homework really well (half year of playing Wesnoth several times a week gives me right to say so) - and so did many players who disagree with "skilled players"'s opinion on luck.
ergo:
There exist skilled players, who think game is too random (exclude me, I am obviously a pathetic low skilled moron) the title is itself a dirty eristic trick.

Actually I know of none. Seriously, name a "skilled player" who thinks so. Probably the only one that I knew of was Mythological, and he's reversed his mind about it, and now thinks its a bad idea. And don't try to say that I wouldn't know, because the size of the community is small enough, and I'm online most of the time to hear about most "good players." I've tried the mod, and alot of others have, and I've not heard any good impressions.

Now some remarks summing up this thread:
3. Some reading of your posts:

a@#h$&%

I will not discuss at the level you attempt, I yell at noone who posts something reasonable, no matter I agree or not, but I will not accept reducing the discussion to my lack of skill - i am fed up with mantra "you do not like random because you did not learn how to manage it" - it might be satisfactory answer to low-mid level player - but how about veterans who see the things same way as I do?

You are not a veteran. I'm sorry to say that but its the truth. Your experiences with Doc patterson a VERY experienced player (and while he is a passionate, he is quite honest) convinces me that you are not. If you'd like to challenge me directly to disprove that be my guest. I hate saying

We see things like excessive variation of damage, games in which EV is never approached after the damage diverged from it and so on. The elaborate answer of "skilled players"'s is - "wesnoth is like this, we do not want it different". I am playing with some good players, who agree that at the skill level we play - the game is reduced to RNG. I am sorry, chess players see it that way. [so go play chess, stop disturbing our self-content].

Since you're going to brandish your "qualifications" about the nature of strategy games, I'll do it too. I've played this game for 2 years now. I became a dev (along with DK) because I was really experienced at this game, but also because I've played strategy games since I was a child, specifcally wargaming and highly realistic ones at that. In my later years I've participated in wargames in military colleges. My masters degree is in (surprise surpise) Military Strategic studies. I think I have a fairly good grasp of what a "strategy role game are" and how randomness is built into their game mechanics. So why don't you stop telling us how you think it should be and start responding to my points above?

You have not responded the fundamental points I raised above, or provided anything more than absolutely basic qualifications to your statements. You have not addressed my assertions that there is inherent randomness in real warfare and in strategy games, which completely undermine's your point that there is no randomness in "real strategy games" because quite simply there are.

Give me a response instead of carrying on with this ridiculous argument that I've already shown for what it is. I acted with complete civility in my main post in this thread. You have done nothing since to show the same respect, or dignify my response with anything but simple throw away comments that do nothing to actually call into question my fundamental points. Your sanctimonius attitude does not suit you well when you have
clearly not even grasped some of our basic points.

Ah, but many classic games of strategy use dice, such as Risk. Besides, in the real world strategists have to take bad luck into account all the time. Why should a strategy game be any different?

I played dice-rolled strategy games. Damage was usually like 5+2K6 and so on . I call strategy a game with some deterministic element. This allows you to make plans, assuming some damage. Wesnoth allows you to hope you do not miss 4x in a row at 50%. Got it? ["we do not want wesnoth to be like all other strategy games"]

No thats a misrepresentation completely. It is deterministic because you know that you have set percentages of attack. your chances of hitting all four is 1 in 16, having all four miss is also 1 in 16. I can base my strategy around that, and operate accordingly. I also think about the implications of those other outcomes, and make contingency plans accordingly. Most military staff colleges teach that. If "strategy" was so certain, we wouldn't have "contingency planning."

IMHO reducing the randomness also reduce the fun on some units like the Dwarvish Thunderer - It's one of the points that make this unit intesting and unique.

In fact it only makes this unit one of least-reliable units on battlefield. Throw dice, mabye I will not miss this time. The strategy. Pathetic. Gather 5 of them on one enemy's unit. Try to base strategy on result (BEFORE you see the result).

No, you say that its wortless, I say that it far from it.
I purchase thunderers all the time, most other expert players do. If it were "so worthless" why would we do so? How do we win?

I take the nature of its attack into account by creating a doctine for it. I usually only attack units where I get a high chance at hit with the thunderer. THATS how I take probabilities into account.

Nice point! The chance of an unexpected victory increases the fun of the game, even if it comes at the price of accepting the risk of an undeserved defeat.

IMHO undeserved victory is no reason to pride, same as undeserved loss - still undeserved loss makes ppl a bit .... irritated? Strategic games are about deserved loss and deserved victory. That is why they're strategic.

War is quite often not about "deserved losses and victories." Its repleat with examples where armies and tactics that apparently should have amounted to victory, came to disaster and defeat. Most studies afterwards point out the reasons for victory, but all too often these were variables completely unknown to the battlefield commanders at hand.

... the game is deterministic already, just with a random element, which you scale. Now there are players who win on a constant basis... not because they are lucky, but because they are skilled at strategy.

I think either I do not understand - or I cannot scale random element in wesnoth (1.0.2). The deterministic character of game lies in not changed from beginning random seed- but it might confuse someone to think there's deterministic element in game. Unless you cheat and know the sequence - nothing is deterministic. All the thread is about how the method of determining damage influences the role of your intelectual input into game. There are games strategy is beaten badly by RNG.

If its not deterinistic its probalistic. Over time you will have variations than the EV, but you will stay fairly close to it. This game is not "badly beaten" by the RNG as you put it. You're Completely and utterely misrepresenting the problem, because there isn't one. I for one am sick and tired of hearing your inflation of this problem as ruining the game. From everything I've heard here from experienced players, the RNG is just fine, and people, many of whom are also experienced strategy players, find it fits perfectly into place.

Luck makes the game more variable. I can lose horribly because of luck and I can also win because of it... it can make my best laid plans go horribly awry at times (especially when I'm not paying attention) or go massively well (when I take advantage of it). For the most part though I think that luck can have an effect, but usually it isn't as decisive as one would think.

Making game more variable is something else than making game totally unpredictable. In almost every game (of players who make no mistakes - I had so far mabye 10 1v1 games with no mistake made by none of sides) there is a moment luck decides.

No it isn't "completely unpredictable." You don't get it. If it was "completely unpredictable" then people like soliton, DK, Doc pattersonand others would not have impressive win catagories. If this game was about "luck" how in hells name does Soliton have 31 wins and 7 losses the 1v1 ladder against other "skilled players" no less? Dragonking has 14-8 and Pietro 24-13. Explain that, seriously?

Its because the game is probalistic, and we can take it into account, its a skill that you don't get, so you program this out. Things generally happen as they should although randomness is not factored in. Your posts on this topic belie a fundamental disconnect with the reality of the MP wesnoth results.