Ladder Site Online...

[forbiddian]

Besides, random is only really an advantage if one is well versed with all the factions on that map, and comfortable with all other match-ups as well on aforementioned map....

EXACTLY! I know that you're trying to disagree with me, but this is exactly my point and I couldn't have stated it better. Random ONLY provides an advantage to the extremely skilled players who know all the factions/matchups. For these players, Random is much better, since you don't have to give up information allowing your opponent to counter-recruit, and you don't really suffer any ill-effects.

But for the rest of us, it's terrible to have to pick Random all the time. And yes, it is a big disadvantage if your opponent knows your faction before he has to recruit.

I'd go so far as to say this: If you can't get a huge advantage out of knowing your opponent's faction, then you are a terrible player. The factions are wildly different, have different strengths and weaknesses. I've heard the claim that there's little advantage in knowing your opponent's faction in time to spend the first 100-120 gold (even making the claim that they'd rather have a leadership leader than know their opponent's faction... wtf?), but I really wonder if they're playing the same game I am. The factions are WAY different. The units are WAY different. How can you be a good player but not gain an advantage by having much more information before you spend 100 gold?


But then if you're anything other than an expert who knows every faction, if you choose Random, you run the risk of being stuck in a matchup you don't know (e.g. you could know how to play Orcs ok, but then have no idea how to play Orcs against Drakes). Or worse, a faction you don't know (you might not even know how to play Orcs at all). Or disastrous: a faction you don't like for whatever reason. But if you care about your win/loss ratio, it seems like a better bet to pick random and try your best even at the severe disadvantage than it is to tell your opponent your faction and let him sculpt his opening recruit.

Almost every ladder game is played random vs. random now. Clearly the vast majority of players see that the disadvantage in choosing a faction is greater than the disadvantage of going Random, and therefore they should stomach the risk of getting a bad faction, a bad leader, and an uninteresting or otherwise non-fun matchup just so that their opponent doesn't gain an unfair advantage.

And for the life of me, I have no idea why this game is the ONLY strategy game that demands players make that choice.

[chaoticwanderer]

In regards to the last two posts, non-random players get to pick leaders that fit the map/their playing style, wheras random players don't get that luxury, and also run the risk of getting a sub par leader, say a wose. In a match between two skilled players, if one can utilize their leader in some way, wheras the other can't, he gets an advantage that can help tip an otherwise balanced match.

[Pentarctagon]

however, if one person has a 'good' leader and the other one has a 'bad' leader, then using your leader in combat has it's own set of risks as well.

also, you are only focusing on the random person getting a bad leader. it is quite possible to get a good leader as well. ex: as elves, i will almost always choose the captain as the leader due to it's leadership. however, when facing loyalists, he might also get their leadership unit (can't spell it, sorry ). in that case, he is at a complete advantage by having a good leader AND foreknowledge of their opponent's faction. by having a req that it is either both random or niether random, both sides will at least start off completely even, regardless of what leader that they get.

finally, i think you are underestimating the importance of the initial recruit. the initial recruit is the most units that you will ever recruit at one time and imho is far more important that any slight advantage that a leader could give in battle.

[forbiddian]

In regards to the last two posts, non-random players get to pick leaders that fit the map/their playing style, wheras random players don't get that luxury, and also run the risk of getting a sub par leader, say a wose. In a match between two skilled players, if one can utilize their leader in some way, wheras the other can't, he gets an advantage that can help tip an otherwise balanced match.

You bring up an interesting point, but you're almost certainly wrong.

You see, almost all the ranked games are played Random vs. Random. If it's actually an advantage, as you assert, to choose your own faction/leader, then most players would do it. At the very least, a lot of players would do it. Yet, if you look at the games played, it's clear that players are choosing random factions, and that Random vs. Random represents the lion's share of all ranked matches.

So there's this mountain of evidence that choosing Random is advantageous over choosing a faction, even in the face of all the potential pitfalls of choosing random: You could be stuck with a bad faction, a bad leader, a bad matchup, a faction that doesn't operate well on a map, yadda yadda.

Despite all these pitfalls (the one you chose to bring up is the potential for a bad leader, which I actually think is by far the worst argument, but ok), almost everyone still picks Random.

Why?

Because random still gives you the best chance to win. Despite how terrible it is to be forced to play Random, despite all of those problems, selecting Random still gives you the best chance to win so you're forced to do it. That's why it's a problem and should be addressed.



Again, my suggestion comes right out of Starcraft as well as every other strategy game that I know of:

If you choose a faction, you can request that your opponent do the same. This way, you're not stuck in the unenviable position of rolling the dice on your leader, playing a matchup you're not familiar with or that's difficult on the map or whatevere else, or playing a known faction against an unknown faction.

[nani]

So there's this mountain of evidence that choosing Random is advantageous over choosing a faction

You should know yourself that such a statement based on (even a huge number of) examples is no valuable evidence.
For me it's simple to bring up evidence that you're wrong: counterexample ps7 - iirc he always chooses faction & leader in ladder-matches.
So what are the facts?

1. If you are specialized on certain factions (or "unable" to play others) - maybe just because they represent your preferred play-style (rush, pure counter, mobile army,...) - it's recommended to choose them. (suits for ps7 e.g. choosing drakes with mobility advantage)
2. If you don't care about the faction but tend to like village cleaning leaders like the red mage - it's recommended to choose (by leader). (suits for ps7 e.g. choosing red mage)
3. If you neither care about the faction nor leader since you feel equally skilled or just don't care, it's recommended to go random. (suits for most other players with "they just don't care")

best regards, nani aka leocrotta

p.s.: ... and yes. If 1&2 are false, then 3 brings up the random advantage which serves you most.
p.p.s.: ps7 was just used here to bring up a worthy example.

[forbiddian]

So there's this mountain of evidence that choosing Random is advantageous over choosing a faction

You should know yourself that such a statement based on (even a huge number of) examples is no valuable evidence.

I mean, for example, if I said, "Working out helps you perform better in sports. I know this because all professional athletes work out." You would be in the camp saying, "No. You should know better. That's not evidence. It could just be a coincidence!" I guess I don't understand your position, because if you really believe what I think you do, then you're a schizophrenic.


Here's my debate position: I have to establish that there's a belief that choosing Random is superior. If there's (even an erroneous) a belief that Random is superior, then people will choose Random more often than would otherwise be expected. Also, if there's a belief that Random is superior, then players will force themselves to choose Random, to their own detriment. The act of choosing Random by itself dramatically increases the learning curve of this game, and therefore an alternative should be provided if players believe that playing as a Random against a non-Random opponent provides them with an advantage.

I think I've established all of that by simply stating the fact that most people pick Random. If you'd like a study of everyone's opinions (e.g. a Poll question: "If your only goal is to win the game, do you believe that choosing your faction and leaderat the cost of revealing that information to your opponent is superior to choosing random?"), that would function as additional, supplementary evidence, but when someone picks Random in a real rated game, that person is speaking with his wallet. He's putting rating points on the line.


As for PS7, I had no idea there existed a top-rated player who always selected his civ. I'll try to talk to him or arrange a game, maybe he does it for a challenge, I dunno. But YOU should know that one data point weighed against thousands is not good evidence.

Like how [censored] is that position? "Oh, correlation means nothing, and one outlier means everything." I don't even get how that passed through your brain to the keyboard coherently in English before you went, "Oh, wait, this is [censored]."

I looked into Ps7's games, and it looks like he plays Orc, but I dunno, he's played a few different Civs so maybe he is picking random some of the time. Against 1900+ rated opponents, he's been Orcs twice recently, but then some games are Loyalist vs. Dwarves (note: no Orcs), and then Drakes vs. Undead). I dunno much about him, but maybe he picks random against high rated opponents and then plays fun games against lower rated opponents?.


Incidentally, just so you're clear, I proved that 3 is more important than 1 or 2 (or any other half-assed argument you can think of) to virtually every player by pointing out that most people pick Random. That establishes that whatever reason(s) people have for picking Random, they believe those reasons outweigh the reasons to pick a civ.

I guess by making a list of advantages and showing just one disadvantage, you think that you've proven something. But it's already been established that 3 dwarfs 1 and 2 and a number of other arguments you didn't bother listing in terms of importance.

Like answering the question, "Is it good for your athletic career to work out?"

And then you list cons of working out, "1) Fatigue, 2) Injuries, 3) Time could be spent instead on the mental aspects of the sport" And then you list advantages of working out, "You're better able to perform, physically." And then going like: Well, see, there are three reasons to avoid working out and just one reason to work out. So unless you believe that you want to perform better, physically, then you shouldn't work out.

Through some clever fallacious arguments, you've seemed to suggest that people picking Random are somehow a minority or that it's ONLY in case neither 1 nor 2 apply. But it's all smoke and mirrors.

Everyone will concede that, "Yeah, it's an advantage to pick a civ, because you'll probably be better at one civ than other civs." Everyone will concede that "Yeah, it's an advantage to pick a leader, because some are better than others or better suited to my playstyle." Yet, most everyone still picks Random.

In spite of all of its drawbacks, it's still more important to hide from your opponent your civilization than it is to play the game that you want to play. And that's [censored].


So my question is: Why do all these people pick random if they don't think it's better?

[nani]

Working out helps you perform better in sports. I know this because all professional athletes work out.

That's actually a total different topic with different prerequisites, and actually athletes are no lemmings.
They don't train (=jump off the cliff) because others do, they do it because it's already proved that it helps your body to gain muscles or optimize your movement or whatever. ^^

You would be in the camp saying, "No. You should know better. That's not evidence. It could just be a coincidence!"

I would definetely be in the lemmings-camp saying: "Well, jumping off the cliff occurs to be wrong imho. (-> since there's no proof of it being being right) "

because if you really believe what I think you do, then you're a schizophrenic

Hodor? Are you only aiming at having a quarrel here, instead of really thinking about it? Are you even playing the game?

The act of choosing Random by itself dramatically increases the learning curve of this game

Very true, nevertheless there's no point here, since we're not looking at a life-time learning curve but a match itself.

"Oh, thousands of pieces of evidence means nothing, but one piece of evidence means everything.

Wrongly put. Correct would be: "Thousand views mean nothing, but one view means everything (since it's the right one - which cannot be found here)."
Even if you're alone against thousands you can be the only one who's right.
... yadayadayada

Summing up:

• Calling me schizophrenic was unnecessarily rude imho.
• You believe choosing Random is good since 100:1 ladder-players do it, but there's no evidence. Shouldn't it be more interesting what this 1 player does who's better than 95% of the others ?
• I just wanted to give a counterexample to easily demonstrate that we're not working on evidence here,
  but on views. There's no way to get evidence ever, since there's an endless amount of factors. (like rng, map-preference,...)
• The facts I posted before are just the reasons behind players decision, whether it's right or wrong can only be judged by themselves,
  most players just belong to the "don't care"-category.

Addon-ons, after your edit:

I looked into Ps7's games, and it looks like he plays Orc, but I dunno, he's played a few different Civs so maybe he is picking random some of the time. Against 1900+ rated opponents, he's been Orcs twice recently, but then some games are Loyalist vs. Dwarves (note: no Orcs), and then Drakes vs. Undead). I dunno much about him, but maybe he picks random against high rated opponents and then plays fun games against lower rated opponents?.

He played >20 drake matches at the beginning, then swapped to Loyalits with Red Mage, summing up >40 matches I believe. Haven't seen him play recently.

I guess by making a list of advantages and showing just one disadvantage, you think that you've proven something. (...) Through some clever fallacious arguments, you've seemed to suggest that people picking Random are somehow a minority or that it's ONLY in case neither 1 nor 2 apply. But it's all smoke and mirrors.

The biggest NO I've ever written. You just don't see that I'm only saying (around the corner) that your evidence talking doesn't suit here.
I myself never wanted to proof a thing, just disproving yours.
I never said it's wrong when you say most people pick random. They just don't care at most, get it!

So my question is: Why do all these people pick random if they don't think it's better?

Oh in case you didn't notice: they just don't care at most, maybe they even want to be surprised and maybe they even think random is better (since they mastered all factions).

[Kolbur]

Forbiddian, you are not even considering that people actually like to play random. At least I do and I believe there are many more who think so. It makes scouting more important and you have to deal with the uncertainty at the start so you have to think instead of just realizing your plan against a known faction. This is part of the fun for me. And I actually want to learn how to play all factions in every combination. I consider complexity in games a good thing and I don't see why Wesnoth should imitate other games like Starcraft which i don't care about at all.

Apart from that picking a faction is not always a worse choice than random. By choosing a faction you can make use of known map advantages and optimize your strategies. For example choosing Northerners or Undead at Freelands as player 1 is never a bad idea if you can pull off a nice first attack even if your enemy is able to counter recruit. There are some expert Undead players on the ladder who (almost?) always play like this quite successfully.

[Rigor]

I guess I don't understand your position, because if you really believe what I think you do, then you're a schizophrenic.

now thats too much, who do u think you are ?

when someone picks Random in a real rated game, that person is speaking with his wallet. He's putting rating points on the line.

no is not. its just more challenging. im such a player. i even encourage my opponents to go on after they look like losing. nelson won at turn 40, i dont give a [censored]. i just want an interesting game till the very end.

I don't even get how that passed through your brain to the keyboard coherently in English.

do u suffer from the tourettes syndrom ?

I guess by making a list of advantages and showing just one disadvantage, you think that you've proven something.

you clearly misunderstand what this forum thread is about. he just gave suggestions like u did.

[Pentarctagon]

I guess I don't understand your position, because if you really believe what I think you do, then you're a schizophrenic.

now thats too much, who do u think you are ?

do u suffer from the tourettes syndrom ?

[Rigor]

in fact thats quite funny indeed

medical terms seem to underline your opinion

[Pentarctagon]

meh, i had to go look it up before i knew what it was...

Forbiddian, you are not even considering that people actually like to play random.

and how many people do you think like to play random because they think it gives them an advantage?

Apart from that picking a faction is not always a worse choice than random. By choosing a faction you can make use of known map advantages and optimize your strategies.

and someone that's good at most/all factions can't optimize their strategy for that map because...? they will have at least a couple minutes to look at the map, even more if they are p2.

[chaoticwanderer]

Forbiddian, you are not even considering that people actually like to play random. At least I do and I believe there are many more who think so. It makes scouting more important and you have to deal with the uncertainty at the start so you have to think instead of just realizing your plan against a known faction. This is part of the fun for me. And I actually want to learn how to play all factions in every combination. I consider complexity in games a good thing and I don't see why Wesnoth should imitate other games like Starcraft which i don't care about at all.

Apart from that picking a faction is not always a worse choice than random. By choosing a faction you can make use of known map advantages and optimize your strategies. For example choosing Northerners or Undead at Freelands as player 1 is never a bad idea if you can pull off a nice first attack even if your enemy is able to counter recruit. There are some expert Undead players on the ladder who (almost?) always play like this quite successfully.

Nice point. As nani said, not everyone who picks random does it solely for the adavantage they get, which is getting a little blown out of proportion.

however, if one person has a 'good' leader and the other one has a 'bad' leader, then using your leader in combat has it's own set of risks as well.

also, you are only focusing on the random person getting a bad leader. it is quite possible to get a good leader as well. ex: as elves, i will almost always choose the captain as the leader due to it's leadership. however, when facing loyalists, he might also get their leadership unit (can't spell it, sorry ). in that case, he is at a complete advantage by having a good leader AND foreknowledge of their opponent's faction. by having a req that it is either both random or niether random, both sides will at least start off completely even, regardless of what leader that they get.

finally, i think you are underestimating the importance of the initial recruit. the initial recruit is the most units that you will ever recruit at one time and imho is far more important that any slight advantage that a leader could give in battle.

I'm saying they run the risk of getting a less than optimal leader. A non-random player will always have an optimal leader. In a typical match, there will be 2-4 levels 1s on a front of combat, depending on the map. Being able to utilize a level 2 can give a decisive advantage, since in most matches there aren't a large amount of units in a given area.

Furthermore, the initial recruit for random vs. non-random players is not going to give a significant advantage to players. Let's say I pick random and get Drakes, and am playing against (non-random) undead. My opponent doesn't know who he's playing against, so he's going to have a pretty balanced initial recruit. There's no fail-proof recruit pattern I can choose just based off of him being undead, considering he's going to have a pretty mixed recruit. He's probably going to have a skeleton or two, so I'll bring a burner. Perhaps a skirmisher to help with adepts. I'm going to create a couple scouts regardless of who I'm facing, or if I know their faction. I didn't get any big advantage with my foreknowledge. And over the course of that match the advantage will become less significant anyway, if both sides play well.

You bring up an interesting point, but you're almost certainly wrong.

You see, almost all the ranked games are played Random vs. Random. If it's actually an advantage, as you assert, to choose your own faction/leader, then most players would do it. At the very least, a lot of players would do it. Yet, if you look at the games played, it's clear that players are choosing random factions, and that Random vs. Random represents the lion's share of all ranked matches.

So there's this mountain of evidence that choosing Random is advantageous over choosing a faction, even in the face of all the potential pitfalls of choosing random: You could be stuck with a bad faction, a bad leader, a bad matchup, a faction that doesn't operate well on a map, yadda yadda.

Mountain of evidence? You realize that your 'evidence' is "almost everyone picks random, therefore it's the best choice" right? As earlier mentioned, not everyone is picking random just because of any advantage they might get. Also, a large portion of the players who actually pick random are not making the best choice. They pick random because they know 'the pros' do it, so it's largely a case of monkey-see, monkey-see do. They do okay if the match-up is good, otherwise they get screwed.

And I brought up the leader, because in a previous post you asserted that it's unfair, that in the case of someone who is well versed with all match-ups on a given map, it just makes it even more unfair by giving him more of an advantage; he still doesn't have the luxury of picking a leader, which is a disadvantage he will always have.

[Pentarctagon]

meh. it seems like we have different views on the importance of leaders/initial recruits and it seems highly unlikely that we will find a way to shift each other's viewpoint by talking on the forums.

he still doesn't have the luxury of picking a leader, which is a disadvantage he will always have.

though to be clear, assuming that not choosing your leader is always a disadvantage is entirely false. it just means that you are choosing to run the risk of getting a bad leader in exchange for a better initial recruit.

[chaoticwanderer]

meh. it seems like we have different views on the importance of leaders/initial recruits and it seems highly unlikely that we will find a way to shift each other's viewpoint by talking on the forums.

he still doesn't have the luxury of picking a leader, which is a disadvantage he will always have.

though to be clear, assuming that not choosing your leader is always a disadvantage is entirely false. it just means that you are choosing to run the risk of getting a bad leader in exchange for a better initial recruit.

Well, that's my point. It's a disadvantage in the sense that you can't choose and may get a sub-par leader, while your opponent will always get a good leader.

And to be clear, my defenition of a 'bad' leader does not simply mean the flat-out bad leaders, like the wose. I'm also including leaders that may not the 'best'. For example, having to choose between the Drake Flare and the Drake warrior; depending on the map, one might be superior to the other, and non-random player could use that to his advantage.

But yes, ideally at least, the principle between random vs. non-random is either choosing your leader and giving your opponent a better initial recruit, or keeping your opponent in the dark but not getting to hand-pick your leader. It should be, and I feel it it is, an equal trade-off.