Why do people quit playing?

General feedback and discussion of the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
Jozrael
Posts: 1034
Joined: June 2nd, 2006, 1:39 pm
Location: NJ, USA.

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Jozrael » May 4th, 2008, 4:21 pm

Haha we'll get Klazart in here.

AND LOOK AT THAT PUSH GO! WHAT DO U THINK, MOLETRAP? DO YOU THINK THIS COULD HAVE SWUNG THE BALANCE DECISIVELY IN HIS FAVOR?

OOOH AND ANOTHER VILLAGE FALLS FOR BLUE. I DONT THINK HES GOING TO BE ABLE TO RETAKE IT: THIS COULD SPELL GG FOLKS!

God I love Klazart xD

Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Noy » May 6th, 2008, 5:59 am

Jozrael wrote:First I'll weigh in my 2 cents on randomness belonging in Wesnoth.

Basically, there is no 'perfect game' that measures your ability as a gamer. There are FPS, which measure STRICTLY your hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and that's about it. Very little mental thought going into the game, about the entirety of the strategy in FPS lies in teamwork. Yes, there is strategy in FPS Noy. A different sort =o.
Actually no. Within the military and strategic studies, that is not considered strategy. It is considered tactics, as it deals with the actual employment of men and weapons on the battlefield. Moreover the requirements of tactical leadership and strategic leadership are significantly different.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.

Sombra
Posts: 273
Joined: August 11th, 2006, 6:38 pm

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Sombra » May 6th, 2008, 7:26 am

bert1 wrote:Why I stopped playing....

1v1s: The last three 1v1s I played I didn't enjoy:

Game 1: vs Gallifax, Hamlets, drakes (me) vs Galli (northerners). I got an early kill, was hoping Gallifax would attack me back. He didn't, he retreated and consolidated. I lost the will to carry on, as I knew it would take hours if I played properly. I made an all out attack and lost.

Game 2: As game 1, except on Blitz. Different opponent and factions, but same idea.

Game 3: This time I decided to make sure I had enough time to play properly and really try to win, just like I had seen the pros play in the tournament. It was Den of Onis. Again, I got an early kill. My opponent retreated. I wanted to chase him, but decided that it was the wrong thing to do and I should build on my advantage. I retreated. My poor opponent lost the will to live and said: "This is going to take forever, shall we call it a draw?" I accepted.

All this means is that I don't enjoy 1v1s, or only 1v1s in which my opponent is aggressive. For me, it seemed the patient player, or the player with more free time, wins (all other things being fairly equal). Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you're a patient player with lots of free time. I do wonder, though, when I watched some of the TOC replays, if the players involved really enjoyed some of the marathon games that happened. I'm thinking particularly of Pietro on Hamlets (can't remember his opponent) undead vs loys (I think) where they charged up and down the field turn after turn after turn with no fighting. Eventually his opponent lost patience, broke formation and lost the game.

I tried making a small 1v1 map that would make it impossible to have a long game, but it was hard to balance and I gave up. I might try again.

2v2s: Simply lack of time made me stop. I enjoyed these far more than 1v1s. Of course, they can take a long time too. But there is normally an observer willing to take over a side if you want to leave. And there is more banter. And it is more likely that there is an unbalance in the skill levels, or the tactical habits of the players which means that the game remains dynamic and interesting. Everyone seems to want to get on with it a bit more. Maybe the maps are a bit more dynamic, for some reason. Loris River was my favourite. Also the atmosphere of 2v2s seemed a bit lighter, less gladiatorial than 1v1s.

I still play Isars occasionally.
Quite nicely put. I miss the more dynamic aspects in the game 1vs 1. Yes if you are a top player like DOC perhaps you win the game the moment you see a weakness in the enemies amour to explore or influence the long term flow of the game till the balance moves in your direction... (yes some factions dont work well anymore with the I will sit back and see approach....) Still your strategic options options are limited for an offensive play...there is nearly no way to bluff.., confuse the enemy about your intentions, prepare surprise strikes etc. Even the surprise features like wose hiding in the woods or submerge for skeletons dont work well. You usually know perfectly where the enemy is hiding and what he is doing. Sometimes you are forced to take action. For example in a match including undead or Drakes before these faction simply become to powerful to be stopped in the long run, still Wesnoth 1vs 1 is in the beginning really passive as Bert put it will the enemy make a blunder, will the RNG screw up on my or his move and decide the game?Will we both sit back and try the DOC approach of shaping the long term outcome with muuuuuch patience till the balance is right. Lately I have many many games on 1 v1 which start to heat up slowly around the 15-20 turn....usually ladder games before slowly building up of forces laying traps trying to lure the enemy into an attack etc. Worse what happens if you play these kind of games and with much patience the battle finally starts.. RNG screws up, opponent suddenly leaves, its like uufff hours wasted without return.

Just my point of view

Jozrael
Posts: 1034
Joined: June 2nd, 2006, 1:39 pm
Location: NJ, USA.

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Jozrael » May 6th, 2008, 7:52 am

Noy wrote:Actually no. Within the military and strategic studies, that is not considered strategy. It is considered tactics, as it deals with the actual employment of men and weapons on the battlefield. Moreover the requirements of tactical leadership and strategic leadership are significantly different.
Jozrael wrote:Strategy: the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations[u/].

Strategy: skillful use of a stratagem; a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result.


I think tactics and strategy aren't really entirely separate things: tactics are what you use to implement your strategy. You can't really have one without the other.

Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Noy » May 6th, 2008, 8:40 am

Jozrael wrote: I think tactics and strategy aren't really entirely separate things: tactics are what you use to implement your strategy. You can't really have one without the other.
Did I ever claim otherwise? However just because they are related concepts does not mean they are the same thing though. You can't really use strategic knowledge on a tactical battlefield or vice versa.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.

User avatar
anakayub
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 518
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 12:44 pm
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by anakayub » May 6th, 2008, 8:53 am

From what I understand, strategy in Wesnoth is what you recruit and how you deploy them, reinforcements, gold management, etc.

Tactics refers to how you engage (e.g. order of units, type of units, and the particular hexes), day/night considerations in placement, influence of traits on formations, etc.

Of course you can't do without the other, but they're certainly not the same.

Edit: Noy posted before me.
Take a breath.

Wen Yang
Posts: 34
Joined: May 4th, 2007, 3:22 pm

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Wen Yang » May 8th, 2008, 7:15 am

Unlike what seems to be the majority of people here, My previous strategy game experience before trying wesnoth out is mostly limited to console SRPGs, most of which are turn-based. (I do play starcraft and warcraft occasionally, but at best I'm only average at them).

The first thing that strikes me as noticable in Wesnoth is the difficulty. Simply put, it is MUCH more difficult in comparison to quite a lot of console strategy-RPG games, where more often than not, your units can steamroll their way through the opposition while barely breaking a sweat (Some glaring examples might include Orlandu in Final Fantasy Tactics, the swordmasters in the Fire Emblem series, practically most main units in SRWs, the kind of units who can face a horde of enemies on their own and win easily.)

I think this might also be a reason why some people quit playing: Because they are not getting their uber-units-of-doom to steamroll their way through the opposition in this game, where you need to pay much more attention to strategy then usual.

Personally, the RNG of Wesnoth does not disturb me much. I've played tons of strat games with RNGs before, and I assure you, seeing 5 hits miss at 60-70% is nothing surprising when you've missed 99% shots and get hit on 1% shots.

Do I want the system to change? Hell no. It's this difficulty and having parts of your plan being on the RNG's hands (And a fickle mistress it sure is) is for me part of wesnoth's charm. The difficulty is also a very welcome breath. It's rare for games to be able to put me into situations where I'd go "Oh ****" outside of multiplayer fights (Granted, it's mostly early on when I was still unused to the game's system) :mrgreen: .

And as probably has been said earlier: A good player would take the RNG into account when planning moves. Personally, I generally play with a "Hope for the best, plan for the worst" attitude, and treat practically every unit I got around as expendable. I'd gladly trade in an about-to-level unit or a level 2/3 unit if I deem that I can gain a better advantage by doing that.

just my 0.02$
The first technique is the last. The beginner and the master behaves in the same way. Knowledge is a full circle. - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings.

Oglander
Posts: 12
Joined: April 15th, 2008, 5:08 am
Location: USA

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Oglander » May 8th, 2008, 9:38 pm

In RL, strategic decisions can (and often are) made far away from the battle (sometimes thousands of miles). Tactical decisions are made often closer (or at) the front.

For Instance, the decision to take and occupy a City would probably be considered a Strategic one made by generals. Orders would be passed down and the details of how this was going to be accomplished (Tactics) would be decided by lower ranking officers and often conveyed directly to the battle units "going in".

Often tactics will be more flexible than The strategy that is followed, due to the fluid nature if combat. ie, The City still must be taken, but perhaps tactics will need to be modified due to a strong defense in one area.

hiro hito
Posts: 201
Joined: November 23rd, 2006, 8:00 am

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by hiro hito » May 14th, 2008, 3:53 pm

Here we go again...

I dont blame luck or RNG system but:

*see the match i post:
imo... and (maybe in my opponent opinion too) the game was screwed by luck.
Ok it's the game, RNG system is fair, ect ect.... and that is not what i want to show.

What is bad is that we never know who was the best player... He won because he had a better strategy? (maybe! this guy is good, but the match doesnt show it). I lost the match because i didnt know how to play with unluck? At that point of unluck it is just impossible to continue to play "normally". I mean with 2 players with same skill, it's impossible to play and hope winning.... (except maybe some developpers with high practrice....).

What i am blaming is when few turns are bad, the game is almost over.... There is no way to try another strategy like hide units in Fog of War (see Sombra's idea).... Neither there is no componsate unluck: i mean when unluck appears you say : try to play with if you are good luck will be back.... But when ? when you only have your leader and your last recruit to face an army....

Ok it's my point of view... and maybe not the best, but:

*I played yesterday the same kind of game: my opponent had good turns at the begining, and i didnt make a good start. (it was elves vs undead). I hold the game until the moment where i almost level up 2 of my units.... despite my unluck.... Then my opponent says : "oh i have to leave sorry". The luck was turning in my side .... He was fair enough to say i can report it if i wanted... but i didnt.( it hink the match was not over).

*Today, just before the match i post, i played a drakes vs northenenr on meteor lake. Same start: my opponent kill all my naga (in water) in one assault, while i was trying to kill a glider with 3 of them along the last night.(Glider was safe!)
I hold the game, and it was easier cause my opponent was not that good. Then when i almost find a good way to come back in game, my opponent say: "oh sorry i have to go"..... i asked for a report and he said "yes" so this time i did.

Just to show you what this system do: We can't know who has the best strategy or it make players leave.
Imho, the gab (difference?) of luck is sometimes too big( large?).... and when this gab is too important the game is just over.....

What is funnier? Fight a good opponent and test his strategy with a rational luck (even if it's not realistic...) or just fight and cross fingers and see what happens or just fight noobs? I prefer the first! and i think i am not the only one....

Just to give you some evasive ideas: limit the gap luck ( i sometimes play/see some games with +/-40% or +/-150%). Make the game more with include some option like a new of war (Sombra's idea was fine).

The game is just cool: good design, music, nice world of fantasy and it make us thinking! but sometimes it just leaves a bad tast in the mouth....

-HauntedDream-
Attachments
2p_-_Silverhead_Crossing-Auto-Save15.gz
(31.28 KiB) Downloaded 148 times
"Of course His Majesty is a pacifist. When I told him that to initiate war was a mistake, he agreed.Thus, gradually, he began to lead toward war."-Emperor Shòwa (Enlightened Peace)'s chief cabinet secretary

User avatar
Wintermute
Inactive Developer
Posts: 840
Joined: March 23rd, 2006, 10:28 pm
Location: On IRC as "happygrue" at: #wesnoth-mp

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Wintermute » May 14th, 2008, 5:34 pm

hiro hito wrote:What is bad is that we never know who was the best player... He won because he had a better strategy? (maybe! this guy is good, but the match doesnt show it). I lost the match because i didnt know how to play with unluck? At that point of unluck it is just impossible to continue to play "normally". I mean with 2 players with same skill, it's impossible to play and hope winning.... (except maybe some developpers with high practrice....).
I dissagree. It seems clear to me that red played the opening better. My opinion is that your early attacks were not very good, setting you up to be in a worse position regardless of the outcome. Perhaps if you had had the better luck instead, you might have won that game, but I kind of agree with your opponent that his positon would be ok with average luck.

Perhaps you should look at the replay again turn by turn. I think you might ask yourself some quesitons:

Why did I attack a DF in a castle with two units, one of them melee in the afternoon?
Why did I press that attack into the night? If you look at the number of strikes the luck was very even in the first turns. EV it is not very good measure of what happened in this case because things like the high damage gryphon strikes, a thunderer hitting a fencer on the other side of the map where it had little effect, etc. perhaps gives you an impression that your attack failed because of luck, but IMHO it was just not a good attack. If anything, this game points out the fact that EV is really a very crude measure of luck in Wesnoth, and should be used with caution when making arguements.

After that, it didn't seem like luck was that much of a factor, but rather mistakes. As an example: you left a spear in a village vs. the thunderer. The thunderer could not take the village, but you leave him a 50% target, he takes it and makes it. I don't think you can blame him for trying. :)

I hope this doesn't come off as overly harsh, I just don't think this game was an example that backs up your point. It doesn't mean it still wasn't frustrating though. :wink:
"I just started playing this game a few days ago, and I already see some balance issues."

Jozrael
Posts: 1034
Joined: June 2nd, 2006, 1:39 pm
Location: NJ, USA.

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Jozrael » May 15th, 2008, 3:41 am

Totally offtopic: What's this 'report' you guys are talking about?

hiro hito
Posts: 201
Joined: November 23rd, 2006, 8:00 am

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by hiro hito » May 15th, 2008, 5:38 am

Jozrael wrote:Totally offtopic: What's this 'report' you guys are talking about?

ladder games
"Of course His Majesty is a pacifist. When I told him that to initiate war was a mistake, he agreed.Thus, gradually, he began to lead toward war."-Emperor Shòwa (Enlightened Peace)'s chief cabinet secretary

hiro hito
Posts: 201
Joined: November 23rd, 2006, 8:00 am

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by hiro hito » May 20th, 2008, 8:56 pm

i continue to write in this thread.... i know there are a lot of thread about it but i think this one was important and without sarcasm/forum war....

Just to show you one more game where luck was... unfair?
(I was drakes)

I know what you say about luck and RNG.... but i repeat myself: what to do against big gap of luck in the current fight system?

I know that this match is a counter exemple because i won it. But my opponent was not that good (no offence to him so far :wink: ) but his luck was huge!

I wonder if i would appreciate the same match against a " better" player? and i wonder if this player would appreciated it too?... He would propably win the match very fast.... and without strategical play style.!!!

My EV was around -20% all the game... and never positive...

I havent all the replay where this happens but i could say i play ton of matches like that!...
I wont probably post replay about this subject because i dont have time to do it and to try to make an "understable" post!...

I just wanted to show you that bad side of game. I play less and less but many games are like that and i dont think that 1% or 5% of game were lost because of only luck... And i think that 1%/5% of games are around 0% EV(+/-5%), and it should at least 50% (minimun) of our matches....
Attachments
2p_-_Weldyn_Channel_replay.gz
1.4.2
(31.85 KiB) Downloaded 129 times
"Of course His Majesty is a pacifist. When I told him that to initiate war was a mistake, he agreed.Thus, gradually, he began to lead toward war."-Emperor Shòwa (Enlightened Peace)'s chief cabinet secretary

Wen Yang
Posts: 34
Joined: May 4th, 2007, 3:22 pm

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Wen Yang » May 21st, 2008, 1:25 am

Now, to be honest...

If you call Wesnoth's RNG as bad, then I urge whoever agrees with that to give a try playing MegaMek, an online javascript game made to emulate an old tabletop board game called battletech, and FEEL for yourself just how bad can luck be at times.

Now that I think again, maybe the fact that I've played that game and some other similar games for years made Wesnoth's RNG feel mild to me, maybe because I'm used to RNG being even more fickle and crucial to the game as a whole in comparison to here.

To all those complaining "RNG this" and "RNG that":

The RNG is fair as it gets, as in: Perfectly random. It's just the tendency o fyour mind to emphasize the BAD occurrences more than the good, and that's as far as I'm going to go here seeing how many people already mentioned and explained this, and to do more I'd need to contact my psychology professor anyway.

I'd HATE to see the RNG removed or even made mild in some way, as for me, it is what makes Wesnoth Wesnoth. Remove it and you have yet another variety of complicated chess instead of what I take the game to be, a simulated war game.

To those asking what to do with bad luck:

Live with it. You still got your save/load function for single player matches, abuse it as you will. IF what you claim to be a "Far less skilled" opponent has better luck than you do, then you should still beat him anyway through superior play, which your replay proves already.
The first technique is the last. The beginner and the master behaves in the same way. Knowledge is a full circle. - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings.

User avatar
Sorrow
Posts: 230
Joined: July 25th, 2006, 12:07 am
Contact:

Re: Why do people quit playing?

Post by Sorrow » May 21st, 2008, 2:29 am

hiro hito wrote: My EV was around -20% all the game... and never positive...
Welcome to the club? Thats perfectly winnable... I don't think it matters much till you get into the hundreds off, if your having bad luck just implement some luck minimizing strategies.
I posted 3 luck minimizing strategies around here somewhere. +/- 5% shouldn't even be noticeable for a normal length game, the better you get at the game the less you notice luck/pay attention to EVs.
Let us all measure in milliyards, that way we can all get along.

Replay Archive: http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/Replays

Post Reply