Wikipedia page on wesnoth

[Gambit]

If someone does finally come up with a decent way of mentioning that some people dislike luck (without smearing moderators and the game's design philosophy through the mud), I hope someone else will be adding a section with an explanation of the luck and praise from third parties.

[Kymille]

In order for complaints about the RNG to be worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, they need to be in other sources. People appearing on the wesnoth forum is not a significant event worthy of being included in wikipedia. You'll notice someone put a warning there already.

Is there a Time Magazine article on the problems with randomness? Perhaps an article in the Guardian on the UK Wesnoth audience abandoning the game after a 10% event? A PC World column? A criticism in a book of video game reviews? A column by George Will citing it as the end of American Exceptionalism? Anything?

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Even doing that would be a bad thing and intruding upon the article's neutrality. All you'd have to do is mention that the game uses random rolls. You can't even mention the arguments against it, because there's nothing to cite, really.

[Zarel]

People who dislike luck in wesnoth, and music in mad maestro are a drop in the bucket.

You'll turn off a bunch of people. Anything other than "Very very few people who play Wesnoth dislike the amount of luck involved." would be a massive overstatement. And to say "very very few"... well that just isn't even worth mentioning at that point it's so tiny.

Well, yes, because most of the people who don't like it generally don't play it. I think a sizable proportion of players who don't play people who don't play don't play because of the luck mechanic.

Also, did you get a new freaking IP address OP? It's back even after the 3RR ban -_-

Ha! Semi-protected. That'll stop him.

I stubbed a "Reception" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =353089539

Even if wiki pages do that those are written from players. Its not like any commercial game's creators will put on any page (wiki or not) any drawbacks themselves. So why would that be expected from a free game about something especially when its not even considered a drawback except from some users?

Anyway my main point against something like this is that no matter how well it will be phrased it could "scare" away some players that may not have a problem with the system like it is giving them the impression that rng has a much greater effect on the game from what it actually has. And since the game is free i see no harm in some people downloading the game and then uninstalling it compared to some people not downloading it at all when a portion of them would have liked the game.

If you think that mentioning a core gameplay mechanic will scare away players no matter how well it's phrased, well, that says more about your insecurity towards how good of a game Wesnoth is than anything else.

Even doing that would be a bad thing and intruding upon the article's neutrality. All you'd have to do is mention that the game uses random rolls. You can't even mention the arguments against it, because there's nothing to cite, really.

This. Stop painting mentioning that the game relies on luck as criticism.

[TheHouseJackBuilt]

If you think that mentioning a core gameplay mechanic will scare away players no matter how well it's phrased, well, that says more about your insecurity towards how good of a game Wesnoth is than anything else.

I didnt even know i could feel insecure about how good a game i m playing is.

Yes imo writing in pages that describe the game "luck-based" "relies on luck" "RNG-based" "randomness" or something similar can drive some players away. Also i think that some (even very few) from those players would have enjoyed the game. It wouldnt even matter how good or bad wesnoth is in those cases since those players wont even test the game.

This. Stop painting mentioning that the game relies on luck as criticism.

If u are talking about me i didnt. My original post in this thread was directed to OP and his whole attitude not ur post. And saying that wesnoth relies on luck even if its true its kinda misleading especially in campaigns where i ve never seen any great luck difference at the end of a campaign in statistics. Probably in multiplayer too to some extend although i dont play that often to be certain about the exact luck involvment. From what i ve played its rarely a deciding factor although in the "top matches" where there would be less mistakes luck probably plays a bigger part.

[Zarel]

People who dislike luck in wesnoth, and music in mad maestro are a drop in the bucket.

Also: If this is true, why is the only locked sticky in the Users' Forum a justification for this specific gameplay mechanic?

I added a mention of the luck system on the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =353102997

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

The game is NOT luck-based, it merely relies on an RNG to determine change to hit, something that a LOT of games already do anyway. Honestly, I've never understoood why that was a complaint anyway. We must simply attract a lot of non-gamers due to the very nice price tag (as in Wesnoth is free)

[Sangel]

Well, I certainly see no problem in mentioning luck amongst the game mechanics. After all, it's one of many elements that a player has to consider when formulating their strategy, along with terrain, resistances, retaliation, etc, etc. It's merely a matter of proper placement - singling it out comes across as kind of awkward.

If there's a review out there that criticizes the role of luck in Wesnoth, that's something that could go under "reception". But we'd probably want a more fully fleshed out "reception" section before taking that approach, encompassing a wide range of general and specific reaction.

The general idea is to make sure that Wikipedia's NPOV is properly respected. Rushing to edit after an argument in the forums is generally not a sound way to accomplish that.

[Pentarctagon]

Honestly, I've never understoood why that was a complaint anyway.

its probably when, say, someone misses a dwarf on flat 8 times in a row or something like that. is it a possible outcome? yes. is it annoying as hell? also yes. the people that have a hard time dealing with this annoyance then complain about it.

[lmelior]

I'm surprised that I can't find any reviews for 1.6 or later from notable sources, especially with the release of the iphone version. Note that the GameTunnel and Phoronix reviews are for an old version, too.

[Gambit]

I wonder what the precedant is on re-reviewing ever evolving games like Wesnoth.
How many other games with as much acclaim have been through ongoing upgrades for so long?

[lmelior]

I wonder what the precedant is on re-reviewing ever evolving games like Wesnoth.
How many other games with as much acclaim have been through ongoing upgrades for so long?

I just checked and Phoronix reviewed Nexuiz 2.4 and Nexuiz 2.5 at least, maybe earlier versions too.

Maybe we can badger some sites to review (or re-review) 1.8.

P. S. Whoa, I totally just noticed that 1.8.0 was tagged 6 days ago. What have I been doing this past week?!?

[Zarel]

I wonder what the precedant is on re-reviewing ever evolving games like Wesnoth.
How many other games with as much acclaim have been through ongoing upgrades for so long?

The games most notable sites review are all proprietary games, so practically none.

Note that the GameTunnel and Phoronix reviews are for an old version, too.

I know. They were the only notable ones I could find.