Save time - the DIY luck thread post

[Mipe]

I see how much the user feedback is respected here.

[DEATH_is_undead]

I see how much the user feedback is respected here.

This is a fool's statement, assuming its going against it. Wesnoth was developed over many years, in fact, the forums started in 2004. Waaaay before you joined.

In fact, Dave personally sent me this after I asked him a few questions:

Wesnoth 1.0 was released in late 2005. This was a little more than two years after development first started, in mid 2003.

He also responded whenever I asked him anything else. Your opinion is valued here, its just that the game has been developed so long that anything given 10 minutes thought is irrelevant, and has probably been stated before.

[JW]

I see how much the user feedback is respected here.

Your opinion is valued here, its just that the game has been developed so long that anything given 10 minutes thought is irrelevant, and has probably been stated before.

It's pretty clear though that this thread is just to mock anyone that disagrees with how luck is utilized in this game.

[DEATH_is_undead]

Your opinion is valued here, its just that the game has been developed so long that anything given 10 minutes thought is irrelevant, and has probably been stated before.

It's pretty clear though that this thread is just to mock anyone that disagrees with how luck is utilized in this game.

Obviously, who else would choose Father Christmas?

Eh, I never really did this, did I?
Dear

[ ] Dave
[ ] The developers
[ ] Forum Regulars
[ ] The Wesnoth Community
[ ] Morons
[X] Retards
[ ] Father Christmas

I wish to complain about the luck system because:

[ ] It's not realistic
[ ] It's counterintuitive
[ ] I think it means the better player doesn't always win
[X] It allows for ridiculous outcomes such as peasants killing liches in single combat, it's true, honest
[ ] I keep losing because of luck, because when I play I know I'm always the better player
[ ] It ruins single-player mode because obsessive players can just reload until they get their preferred outcomes

My evidence to back up my argument is:

[ ] A careful analysis of the existing arguments, and some new point I feel haven't been raised before
[X] A replay where I believe one player played better but lost
[X] A replay where my vampire-bat spam ought to have won
[ ] A long essay about realism, even though there are just as good arguments the other way round
[X] A detailed statistical analysis, and I've almost got a GCSE in Maths so I know exactly what I'm on about.
[X] A long list of sweeping generalisations
[X] It's the responsibility of the devs to present the evidence to me. And no, I refuse to waste three clicks to read any on the numerous threads explaining things before
[X] Evidence? Back up arguments? Don't be stupid

I am supported by:

[ ] I'm speaking for myself
[ ] The other people posting on the forum saying the same thing
[ ] The silent majority of Wesnoth players
[ ] A secret syndicate of the best Wesnoth players around, so secret, in fact, I won't tell you who they are
[X] My personal cult of ninjas
My preferred system would be:

[ ] Development of the accuracy era
[ ] A luck offsetting system
[X] A "deck of cards" system
[X] Some confusing proposal that would actually put more luck into the game, but that's okay, because I can then complain some more
[X] Any system, as long as it allows me to win every time, because I'm such a good player

I demand

[ ] The devs include an option for less luck
[ ] The devs change the system and forces the noisy minority who like the game as it is to do it my way
[ ] Wesnoth is changed into a clone of the proprietary game I want to play really, except I don't want to pay for it, or make any contribution towards developing it
[ ] The devs resign immediately, revoke the GPL, and sell the game to Microsoft and the wise benevolent Steve Ballmer. And get rid of those pesky Linux users
[ ] That the devs give me some advice on how to create a mod that enables me to play the game the way I want, the same way they give advice to UMC developers who are willing to put in their own work, which I can do under GPL, and then [Now, now, this is just getting silly.]
[X] Food.... FOOD!


Yours sincerely
Death Is Undead

[JW]

It's pretty clear though that this thread is just to mock anyone that disagrees with how luck is utilized in this game.

Obviously

So then why is such an openly troll/flaming thread left open, and even stickied?

[MDG]

It seems more a tongue in cheek dig at the more foolish, ill-thought out anti-rng posts/topics, not necessarily everyone. You've seen enough rng-hating topics to know how ridiculously inept many of the [censored] arguments spammed up on this have been. Chris NS merely lampooned them, he couldn't have done so if the opportunity hadn't been handed over on a plate by some of those complaining. The RNG topics approached with a bit more maturity and intelligence have tended to be left open for at least a while and have attracted input from developers (even if it's not what some people wanted to hear). The latter are probably not the target of this satirical topic.

[Baufo]

I see how much the user feedback is respected here.

Why should we respect it? Keep in mind that this game is developed by volunteers in their free time who are under no obligation to spend their free time on what you would like them to spend it on.

Besides, I have not yet seen you posting any feedback. All you do is to complain that you find the AI too slow and that you don't like one of the fundamental game principles. What do you expect us to do? Just turn 1337 hax on and pull a faster AI out of our wizard hat? Change the luck system we like, just because you don't? If you don't like the luck then you will either have to move along and find yourself a different game or write a mod that changes the system in a way you enjoy it.

[Barsoom]

Pretty much honestly.

CROSS ALL THE BOXES THAT APPLY

Dear

[ ] Dave
[ ] The developers
[80%] Forum Regulars
[ ] The Wesnoth Community
[ ] Morons
[ ] Retards
[20%] Father Christmas

I wish to complain about the luck system because:

[ ] It's not realistic
[ ] It's counterintuitive
[ ] I think it means the better player doesn't always win
[ ] It allows for ridiculous outcomes such as peasants killing liches in single combat, it's true, honest
[90%] I keep losing because of luck, because when I play I know I'm always the better player
[10% but that won't deter me] It ruins single-player mode because obsessive players can just reload until they get their preferred outcomes

My evidence to back up my argument is:

[40%] A careful analysis of the existing arguments, and some new point I feel haven't been raised before
[ ] A replay where I believe one player played better but lost
[ ] A replay where my vampire-bat spam ought to have won
[60%] A long essay about realism, even though there are just as good arguments the other way round
[ ] A detailed statistical analysis, and I've almost got a GCSE in Maths so I know exactly what I'm on about.
[ ] A long list of sweeping generalisations
[ ] It's the responsibility of the devs to present the evidence to me. And no, I refuse to waste three clicks to read any on the numerous threads explaining things before
[ ] Evidence? Back up arguments? Don't be stupid

I am supported by:

[70%] I'm speaking for myself
[30%] The other people posting on the forum saying the same thing
[ ] The silent majority of Wesnoth players
[ ] A secret syndicate of the best Wesnoth players around, so secret, in fact, I won't tell you who they are

My preferred system would be:

[17.6%] Development of the accuracy era
[17.6%] A luck offsetting system
[ ] A "deck of cards" system
[35.2%] Some confusing proposal that would actually put more luck into the game, but that's okay, because I can then complain some more
[A number that doesn't add up] Any system, as long as it allows me to win every time, because I'm such a good player

I demand

[ ] The devs include an option for less luck
[ ] The devs change the system and forces the noisy minority who like the game as it is to do it my way
[ ] Wesnoth is changed into a clone of the proprietary game I want to play really, except I don't want to pay for it, or make any contribution towards developing it
[ ] The devs resign immediately, revoke the GPL, and sell the game to Microsoft and the wise benevolent Steve Ballmer. And get rid of those pesky Linux users
[ ] That the devs give me some advice on how to create a mod that enables me to play the game the way I want, the same way they give advice to UMC developers who are willing to put in their own work, which I can do under GPL, and then [Now, now, this is just getting silly.]

Yours sincerely


____________________________________________________

[Tonepoet]

Dear

[•] Dave
[•] The developers
[•] Forum Regulars
[•] The Wesnoth Community
[ ] Morons
[ ] Retards
[ ] Father Christmas

I wish to complain about the luck system because:

[ ] It's not realistic
[ ] It's counterintuitive
[•] I think it means the better player doesn't always win
[ ] It allows for ridiculous outcomes such as peasants killing liches in single combat, it's true, honest
[•] I keep losing because of luck, because when I play I know I'm always the better player
[•] It ruins single-player mode because obsessive players can just reload until they get their preferred outcomes

My evidence to back up my argument is:

[•] A careful analysis of the existing arguments, and some new point I feel haven't been raised before
[•] A replay where I believe one player played better but lost
[ ] A replay where my vampire-bat spam ought to have won
[ ] A long essay about realism, even though there are just as good arguments the other way round
[•] A detailed statistical analysis, and I've almost got a GCSE in Maths so I know exactly what I'm on about.
[ ] A long list of sweeping generalisations
[ ] It's the responsibility of the devs to present the evidence to me. And no, I refuse to waste three clicks to read any on the numerous threads explaining things before
[ ] Evidence? Back up arguments? Don't be stupid

I am supported by:

[ ] I'm speaking for myself
[•] The other people posting on the forum saying the same thing
[•] The silent majority of Wesnoth players
[•] A secret syndicate of the best Wesnoth players around, so secret, in fact, I won't tell you who they are

My preferred system would be:

[ ] Development of the accuracy era
[ ] A luck offsetting system
[ ] A "deck of cards" system
[•] Some confusing proposal that would actually put more luck into the game, but that's okay, because I can then complain some more
[ ] Any system, as long as it allows me to win every time, because I'm such a good player

I demand

[ ] The devs include an option for less luck
[ ] The devs change the system and forces the noisy minority who like the game as it is to do it my way
[ ] Wesnoth is changed into a clone of the proprietary game I want to play really, except I don't want to pay for it, or make any contribution towards developing it
[•] The devs resign immediately, revoke the GPL, and sell the game to Apple Inc. and the wise benevolent Steve Jobs. And get rid of those pesky Windows users
[ ] That the devs give me some advice on how to create a mod that enables me to play the game the way I want, the same way they give advice to UMC developers who are willing to put in their own work, which I can do under GPL, and then [Now, now, this is just getting silly.]

Yours sincerely


I. Al Mostdiditz

[Gwilendiel]

It's pretty clear though that this thread is just to mock anyone that disagrees with how luck is utilized in this game.

Heh.
I know this is an older post, but I just have to comment... sorry!

Anyway, I don't think that is apparent at all...

What should be clear however, is that the thread is not mocking those who disagree, only those who disagree and then expect the devs to actually change how it works when they have basically stated that they already have looked at it and will not change how luck works currently... unless they find a good reason to do so.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing or having an opinion, people just need to learn the difference between having an opinion and trying to use that opinion to actually influence other people (and then getting upset when it doesn't work)

[Frezycus]

I see how much the user feedback is respected here.

Why should we respect it? Keep in mind that this game is developed by volunteers in their free time who are under no obligation to spend their free time on what you would like them to spend it on.

Hello there.

Actually yes you should feedbacks from users. That's because when they give any feedback, that means they value and care about the game these volunteers are developing. Complaints is a different story, though.

[Turuk]

Actually yes you should feedbacks from users. That's because when they give any feedback, that means they value and care about the game these volunteers are developing. Complaints is a different story, though

Indeed, but the developers are aware of that. First, you would have to educate some users on the differences between the two so that they can see that their "feedback" is really just a complaint.

[grrr]

OK, I'll bite: How are complaints not (or:not part of the of the) feedback?

Heck, I'd go so far to state that even the worst rant in history might just as well contain the most valuable feedback ever received!

Oh, and also: Technically seen you probably start influencing others with your opinion as soon as you don't keep it for yourself.

[JW]

OK, I'll bite: How are complaints not (or:not part of the of the) feedback?

I agree. Complaints might sometimes be less well thought out and presented than praise, but then again sometimes praise is just as ridiculous.

There is also a difference between respectfully choosing to and not follow particular feedback and disrespecting people for it.

'Critique' posts can be disrespectful themselves, but is it wise to drop to that level in return? Doesn't that make you just like the people you aren't listening to?

Also, not listening to critiques increases the chances of turning into a less powerful version of 'W'....

[Gwilendiel]

OK, I'll bite: How are complaints not (or:not part of the of the) feedback?

Heck, I'd go so far to state that even the worst rant in history might just as well contain the most valuable feedback ever received!

Oh, and also: Technically seen you probably start influencing others with your opinion as soon as you don't keep it for yourself.

There are several points here.

1. Being intelligent. Some times what you are trying to say can get lost in how it is said.

2. Knowing that opinion is just that. You can say it, that's fine. But when it comes to actually changing game mechanics, you are wanting your opinion to take precedence over everybody else who happens to be opposed to it (which might happen to be the devs) Who's opinion has more value? Which brings me to number 3:

3. Since one person doesn't necessarily have more 'right' to change something in their own self interest (especially when it is over the 'majority' of an already established community) you must go beyond mere opinion and back it up with actual objective fact. Actual. Not just what you as an individual perceive as 'fact' (because everybody has bias to some degree anyway, most people will act in their own interest)

In other words, if a person comes along and complains about luck, and they give the same reasons that have been given 1000 times before, they have done a pointless action which leads to the annoyance of those who have heard it those 1000 times and already said no.

It is pointless because it is not new and therefore ineffective, and annoying because people do it anyway when they should know better (but they are being selfish and just wanting to be 'heard' no matter what effect it has on those around them)