## Alternate attack workings

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Ken_Oh
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2176
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

### Alternate attack workings

We've seen people ask for a "less random" game before. I'm not going to totally advocate that, but you know how much it sucks when your Grand Knight charges, only to miss with both of his attacks. So, I'm going to just give an idea that puts the idea of a "less random game" into effect, just as food for thought. If I was going to code a game, then I would use a system like this (OK, I -am- coding a game and it uses this principle...).

As an example, take the values from an Elvish Fighter's melee: 5 damage - 4 attacks

The damage range is 0-20, with possible damages of 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20. If the chance to hit is 50%, then the most probable damage is 10, with 5 and 15 a little less probable; 0 and 20 are less probable still. If the chance to hit is more or less, the probabilities change, either making the higher or lower end more likely and the mean less likely.

Consider if the attacks vs. damage were flipped, as to keep the same max damage but having more of a damage spread: 4 damage - 5 attacks

The damage range is still 0-20, but with possible damages of 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20.

The difference is the bell curve looks smoother. You're less likely to have a great hit but also less likely to a crappier hit.

What if you change the spread even more? 2 damage - 10 hits

If so, you'd be a ton less likely to miss all of your hits. You'd practically be guarranteed some damage.

I'm not saying "CHANGE THIS NOW" but just putting it out to consider. If/when I actually get moving on the undead campaign that I'm thinking about, I'll weigh the pros and cons and consider doing something like it.

Pros:
-a "less random" game
-less frustrating, guarranteed -some- damage when you attack
-but is still somewhat random.
-the to-hit percent points you to an average damage rather than an average times you'll hit that given round.

Cons:
-games would take longer because of more attacking time
-totally messes with the resistance system in Wesnoth (you couldn't be able to do the 2 damage - 10 hits extreme for all units)
-because of the above resistance system, you'd probably want to double all the stats (hp, healing, poison, damage, attacks-per-round, everything) so 20% resistance can actually mean something
-because of the above, a little of the KISS philosophy is lost.

Again, great game. Keep on rolling!
Duke Guillermo
Posts: 127
Joined: October 25th, 2005, 9:32 pm
Part of the advantage of some weapons (notably the thunderstick) is the fact that they have only one attack. The entire point of the thunderstick is to shoot (no flame wars please) the target before a reply. If the 18 damage were divided 9 ways then the entire purpose is lost.

I am not against this idea, but you'd have to think of what to do for situations like that described above.
In summation, you're wrong.
Ken_Oh
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2176
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Right, you'd want to keep things proportional. The Thunderstick 18 dmg - 1 atk compares to the Dwarven melee 6 dmg - 3 atks, and thus effects things like flipping a coin rather than having a chance at doing average damage. Theoretically the damage should average out over a several turns, but we know that isn't always the case.

Anyway, if you wanted to change the Dwarven melee to something like 2 dmg - 9 atks, you wouldn't do the same with the Thunderstick, but rather have a shot (cluster of shots, like birdshot rather than buckshot) of 6 dmg - 3 atks.

Again, to get better divisibility, you'd want to double all values, which creates the biggest problem for the idea.
Sauron
Posts: 221
Joined: January 11th, 2006, 8:51 am
Contact:

### I see what you mean, but...

the case with Wesnoth is what you pointed. The average (expected) damage might never be met. Now I add my point to it:
we are not lucky at the begining of the game - say we lose 2 units while enemy does not. On small map - which I prefer to targe - it is disaster. The enemy gains advantage - can prepare massed attacks on my single unit. EVEN if he misses now the same amount of attacks I did - still he had more units and EXPECTED damage is higher - he is more likely to deal more damage. He has more units to take position of my killed unit. What I say - the advantage TENDS to CUMULATE.
So some games, that started with bad luck - are decided immediately.

The situation can be partially held (as I do on my maps) through narrowing front line - in the case it is easy to produce a hard-to flank line of defense, to cover healing units - and to put attacker in weak terrain - causing him get more dmg - to reduce effect of sudden advantage after unlucky 2 me turn.
Wide maps, that allow no pasage-blocking - usually end up with flanikng and slaughter, just after gaining advantage of 1-2 units.
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois
Ken oh: I think everyone is aware of the statistical differences between units and your proposed changes.

Anyway, although I agree that sometimes the randomness of the game can be frustrating when it goes against you, it is also a relief when it goes your way and you are rewarded even more for good strategy and allowing yourself the opportunity for luck to help you.

If you play the game in a way that utilizes luck (instead of ignoring it or hating it) then I think you will find it really isn't a problem at all, but rather an exciting feature that makes Wesnoth non-deterministic. I enjoy that, as do the developers. If they did not they wouldn't have created the game in such a fashion.
Thrawn
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2047
Joined: June 2nd, 2005, 11:37 am
Location: bridge of SSD Chimera

### Re: I see what you mean, but...

Sauron wrote:the case with Wesnoth is what you pointed. The average (expected) damage might never be met. Now I add my point to it:
we are not lucky at the begining of the game - say we lose 2 units while enemy does not. On small map - which I prefer to targe - it is disaster. The enemy gains advantage - can prepare massed attacks on my single unit. EVEN if he misses now the same amount of attacks I did - still he had more units and EXPECTED damage is higher - he is more likely to deal more damage. He has more units to take position of my killed unit. What I say - the advantage TENDS to CUMULATE.
So some games, that started with bad luck - are decided immediately.
ZOMG, the enemy gain gain an advantage through luck?! inconcievable! Thats just not fair is it?

oh, wait...the same thing may happen in your favor the next time around.
Whining about probability wins no points. Expect then that the enemy has this advantage before he kills unit, and compensate.

The reason units are like that is so that you have that type of chance--which is why cuttlefish have a bunch of attacks--to make them more fearsome.

Oh, and if yo want o implament this in the game, you can just do it yourself.
...please remember that "IT'S" ALWAYS MEANS "IT IS" and "ITS" IS WHAT YOU USE TO INDICATE POSSESSION BY "IT".--scott

this goes for they're/their/there as well
Ken_Oh
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2176
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

### Re: I see what you mean, but...

Far from whining, I think Sauron brings up a very relevent point. I don't quite have the grasp on this game that I would need to make such a judgement, but I've seen it in a lot of other games. It's quite possible that some tries at a scenario are doomed from the start due to bad luck. While this does keep the player "playing in a way that utilizes luck," as JW noted, it is a little unfair. This doesn't mean the game is crap, as Nethack does this all the time. Some tries at Nethack are simply unbeatable, but that game is single player and structured way differently Wesnoth.
Thrawn wrote:Oh, and if yo want o implament this in the game, you can just do it yourself.
Right, I hope you read what I wrote before posting, because I mentioned that.
Sauron
Posts: 221
Joined: January 11th, 2006, 8:51 am
Contact:

### Re: I see what you mean, but...

Thrawn wrote:
Sauron wrote:...
ZOMG, the enemy gain gain an advantage through luck?! inconcievable! Thats just not fair is it?

oh, wait...the same thing may happen in your favor the next time around.
Whining about probability wins no points. Expect then that the enemy has this advantage before he kills unit, and compensate.
...
you completely missed the point. My observation is CUMULATION of advantage - that results from initial luck. It means that even, if later on your luck comes to normal - you're handicaped with initial loss. After gaining advantage the BAD LUCK required to bring back BALANCE must be larger.
I put it simple. We have 2 red grunts and 2 blue grunts. Red attacks, misses 2 attacks of each grunt, still it gets damage from say 2 hits. Now blue strikes, all his attacks are in, takes NO damage. U are left with 1 grunt. Now tell me, HOW MANY ATTACKS OF RED NEED TO HIT, TO ELIMINATE THE ADVANTAGE BLUE GAINED, AND HOW MANY ATTACKS OF BLUE MUST MISS?

LOL
Last edited by Sauron on February 10th, 2006, 5:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

### Re: I see what you mean, but...

Ken Oh wrote:I've seen it in a lot of other games. It's quite possible that some tries at a scenario are doomed from the start due to bad luck. While this does keep the player "playing in a way that utilizes luck," as JW noted, it is a little unfair.
Just as many times that you are doomed there will be times where you are ensured victory. Therefore the luck is actually fair. Randomness in it's concept is fair.

The question is when you receive your good and bad luck. Do you only get your bad luck against similar strength opponents, making you lose games you could have won, and only get your good luck against weaker opponents in games that you should win anyway? If so, well, you're just unlucky! There really isn't anything that can be done to alter this "meta-luck" unless you drastically alter the way Wesnoth is played. I, for one, would be against any such change.

-edit-
Sauron wrote:I put it simple. We have 2 red grunts and 2 blue grunts. Red attacks, misses 2 attacks of each grunt, still it gets damage from say 2 hits. Now blue strikes, all his attacks are in, takes NO damage. U are left with 1 grunt. Now tell me, HOW MANY ATTACKS OF RED NEED TO HIT, TO ELIMINATE THE ADVANTEGE BLUE GAINED, AND HOW MANY ATTACKS OF BLUE MUST MISS?

LOL
Sauron, please tone it down for my sake. Lots of bold CAPITAL letters hurt my eyes.
Sauron
Posts: 221
Joined: January 11th, 2006, 8:51 am
Contact:

### Re: I see what you mean, but...

JW wrote: Sauron, please tone it down for my sake. Lots of bold CAPITAL letters hurt my eyes.
LOL, better pick on the font than beat my arguments.

I just want to make sure nobody misses this important part of my reply. No idea how to achieve this without USUAL means, wnich are bold and capitals (I hate colour)

LOL
Last edited by Sauron on February 10th, 2006, 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kristjan
Hmm. If you want less random game when don't recruit units with 2 or 1 attack (poor northerners). I don't agree with grand knight example (charge is random; make it 1 attack only; make it similar to thunderer; then you miss it will make you scream).
Sauron
Posts: 221
Joined: January 11th, 2006, 8:51 am
Contact:
Kristjan wrote:Hmm. If you want less random game when don't recruit units with 2 or 1 attack (poor northerners). I don't agree with grand knight example (charge is random; make it 1 attack only; make it similar to thunderer; then you miss it will make you scream).
It was JUST EXAMPLE, see ----> EXAMPLE <--------

EXAMPLES are to make it easier to understand something.

HOWGH
Thrawn
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2047
Joined: June 2nd, 2005, 11:37 am
Location: bridge of SSD Chimera

### Re: I see what you mean, but...

Sauron wrote:
Thrawn wrote: ZOMG, the enemy gain gain an advantage through luck?! inconcievable! Thats just not fair is it?

oh, wait...the same thing may happen in your favor the next time around.
Whining about probability wins no points. Expect then that the enemy has this advantage before he kills unit, and compensate.
...
you completely missed the point. My observation is CUMULATION of advantage - that results from initial luck. It means that even, if later on your luck comes to normal - you're handicaped with initial loss. After gaining advantage the BAD LUCK required to bring back BALANCE must be larger.
I put it simple. We have 2 red grunts and 2 blue grunts. Red attacks, misses 2 attacks of each grunt, still it gets damage from say 2 hits. Now blue strikes, all his attacks are in, takes NO damage. U are left with 1 grunt. Now tell me, HOW MANY ATTACKS OF RED NEED TO HIT, TO ELIMINATE THE ADVANTEGE BLUE GAINED, AND HOW MANY ATTACKS OF BLUE MUST MISS?

LOL
1) so your enemy wins due to luck--good for them, it may happen to you next game, and then you win (which is what I said). suck it up, you can't always win--in real life a cmpetetor will get lucky at the start, and get ahead of you, okay, it makes it more interesting.
2)you would need 4 strikes to hit, and get hit none--the same that happened to him. but if you have only 24 gold (enough to hire 2 units, you're screwed anyways) On a small map, this can be annoying, but in a larger, longer game chances are you will get extremely lucky (one game I played a thief reamined unhit so much it became a rouge with inly one kill, while a wolfrider lasted 5 or so turns when triple teamed.
3) You missed my main point, which was that the reason it is like this is for the exact reasons stated for why it needed improvement, because a 40% chance with x-y attack isn't always .4xy, but rather 40 percent for each attack to hit, which is far less. AAGR, the stronger an attack, the less actual swings, because it makes it more fair. expect to be unlucky, and plan accordingly
4)putting LOL at the end of an argumentative post is wasteful, because unless you laghing at me or yourself, it has no relevence.

...please remember that "IT'S" ALWAYS MEANS "IT IS" and "ITS" IS WHAT YOU USE TO INDICATE POSSESSION BY "IT".--scott

this goes for they're/their/there as well
Sauron
Posts: 221
Joined: January 11th, 2006, 8:51 am
Contact:

### Re: I see what you mean, but...

Thrawn wrote:1) so your enemy wins due to luck--good for them, it may happen to you next game, and then you win (which is what I said). suck it up, you can't always win--in real life a cmpetetor will get lucky at the start, and get ahead of you, okay, it makes it more interesting.
or finished before it started
Thrawn wrote: 2)you would need 4 strikes to hit, and get hit none--the same that happened to him.
you need to deal full damage for 2 rounds receiving 0 of 8 attacks (read twice pls) compared to your 4 missed hits and receiving of 2 counterstrikes
Thrawn wrote: 3) You missed my main point, which was that the reason it is like this is for the exact reasons stated for why it needed improvement, because a 40% chance with x-y attack isn't always .4xy, but rather 40 percent for each attack to hit, which is far less. AAGR, the stronger an attack, the less actual swings, because it makes it more fair. expect to be unlucky, and plan accordingly
I try hard, but can't see in it an argument for balancing role of randomness. Neither can I apply it to my observation of CUMULATING advantage.

No ending LOL this time
Sapient
Inactive Developer
Posts: 4453
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 7:41 am
Contact:

### cumulating advantage: not the problem

I think your problem is not cumulating advantage, but cumulating advantage in the context of small encounters. On a small map with a small amount of starting gold, the luck of the first skirmish may very well sway the entire outcome. However, on a large map with large amounts of gold, your initial luck becomes less and less significant (and your strategic choices are more and more significant) in determining who will gain the upper hand. The problem? Takes more time to play.

Cumulating advantage makes sense. The army with the most gold, units, and villages should be most likely to win. So if you see that there is no hope for your army, you can either:

1) hold it out, enjoying little bits of revenge here and there, and learning how to play defensive

2) or if your partner agrees it is hopeless you may wish to offer resignation.

3) or if your allies are already defeated and you want to throw in the towel, maybe just go Kamikazee with your leader so at least the opponent has the satisfaction of completing the game and getting a couple of level-ups.

(Whatever you do, don't just leave without saying anything... I hate it when that happens.)

Oh and... good luck! I like to play small maps too; I'm a risk-taker.
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/User:Sapient... "Looks like your skills saved us again. Uh, well at least, they saved Soarin's apple pie."