Why do people quit playing?

[Iguanna]

Hi, I didn't read the whole thread, just wanted to spend 10 min and give some feedback:

I found out about Wesnoth recently, but lost interest quickly after just a couple of days playing campaigns. The reason I lost interest is because I find the hit/miss style combat frustrating. This is made worse by the fact that the only way to get advanced units is by them getting experience. The damage done is too inconsistent resulting in enemies being killed when I just want them softened up, or missed completely when on 2 hp and the new knight is going for the kill. If it didn't matter which particular unit got the kill I wouldn't be bothered, but it does matter, and is frustrating. I would probably keep playing as the other parts of the game are fun if it was setup where units did damage within a range eg 10-20, so there was at least some consistency.

The simplicity of Wesnoth compared to HOMM appeals to me, and I imagine multiplayer could be a lot of fun if fighting was not so hit and miss.

Some other things:
- Not being able to see what a unit could become in the help was a bit annoying. Once I worked out that units evolve, I wanted to see what a swordsman could become vs say an archer, but couldn't. Took 2 campaigns before I realized you could turn a horseman into something that can do healing. IMO if there is no option to make all units visible in the help, all possible future units for each one in the game should be shown.
- Would be good if there was a shortcut to units.wesnoth.org installed with the game, and in the in game help. Took me 1/2 an hour or searching just to find unit info.
- You can't search the forums unless you create an account and log in. I prefer the inbuilt PHPBB search I've seen in most other forums, but the google is ok - except for the fact you have no way of searching as a guest. It looks like an unsearchable forum, so I don't know how many people give up looking for info upon seeing that, or cant be bothered creating an account in the hopes that some search function will magically become available (which it did thankfully).
- Might be worth explicitly saying in the help/wiki that multiple healers don't increase the amount a unit is healed. I got this idea after seeing 2 healers working on the same guy (or that's what I thought I saw anyway). Even after reading help on healing I was confused why the 2nd healer was only working on half the troops. Lol, I got to thinking maybe elf healers only work on elves, and humans on humans so had one of each running around for a while keeping the 2 races together... Finally worked it out after searching forums etc. and reading help word for word. This also was a bit frustrating too - stupid healer just standing there doing nothing next to the guy on half health, but in this case I got the wrong idea somehow. If it happened to me it probably happens to others too.

[Trau]

I don't know how to say this without sounding like a flame, but...

Well, frankly, the Wesnoth community is repulsive, and I use that word in the strictest sense, in that it discourages people from wanting to join or participate, instead of being "bad."

To start, the multiplayer community is really full of snooty elitists and griefers. I could guess the former is due to Wesnoth's presentation of itself as a highly strategic/intellectual game, so people tend to think their being better at Wesnoth makes them smarter than others. The latter is because anonymity is so extremely easy to come by on the multiplayer server, since there is nothing to make one handle you play with special (no levels, no ladder scores, no custom anything for anyone), so you can be a complete [censored] with one name and simply change your name if you are becoming infamous.

And then there's the development community being highly repulsive, which I would assert isn't necessarily bad. You can't easily contribute to the game, which is something that would give players a sense of attachment to it. And I'm not saying the devs are mean evil tyrants, but from a newer contributer's perspective, it's simply hard to get into the developement process. You can draw a portrait and be told over and over again that your style doesn't fit with Wesnoth, but of course, you barely know what the "Wesnoth style" is since the devs have been here much longer than you have and take many things for granted as common knowledge that you don't even begin to comprehend. You can suggest something that seems perfectly rational, but obviously, unknown to you, the forum has heard that idea a thousand times and came up with a thousand reasons that it's stupid. You could try to tweak game balance... but that would require "replays of good players" as proof, and before you can become a good player to tweak game balance... you have to have the patience to practice this game in the first place!

On the other hand, I would invite you to think of why Wesnoth's constant player loss is even a bad thing. The multiplayer server doesn't seem starved of participants at any time. The development of the game is chugging forward at a faster rate than most commercial games. And when you get down to it, can't we appreciate a game that's all about the fun and doesn't resort to some hook to keep you playing until you're miserable, sick, and burnt out of it? I mean... it's free, it's not like you're not getting your money's worth.

[anakayub]

And then there's the development community being highly repulsive, which I would assert isn't necessarily bad. You can't easily contribute to the game, which is something that would give players a sense of attachment to it. And I'm not saying the devs are mean evil tyrants, but from a newer contributer's perspective, it's simply hard to get into the developement process. You can draw a portrait and be told over and over again that your style doesn't fit with Wesnoth, but of course, you barely know what the "Wesnoth style" is since the devs have been here much longer than you have and take many things for granted as common knowledge that you don't even begin to comprehend. You can suggest something that seems perfectly rational, but obviously, unknown to you, the forum has heard that idea a thousand times and came up with a thousand reasons that it's stupid. You could try to tweak game balance... but that would require "replays of good players" as proof, and before you can become a good player to tweak game balance... you have to have the patience to practice this game in the first place!

As a person not involved at all in Wesnoth development, I believe that the onus is on the newcomers to be up to par (not exactly, but I think people would know what I mean) with the developers/artists etc first before suggesting/contributing anything. Even though it's nice, it's not the developers' obligation to help the new people, it's the new people who have to understand the quality required of them first. It is certainly tiring when history repeats itself over and over again; the workflow of contributions/development of Wesnoth is very important to maintain its commercial-level of quality, and you can't just simply allow anything from the new people without following strict guidelines. For example, how many people do not read/follow what is posted in the stickied FPI thread?

To start, the multiplayer community is really full of snooty elitists and griefers. I could guess the former is due to Wesnoth's presentation of itself as a highly strategic/intellectual game, so people tend to think their being better at Wesnoth makes them smarter than others. The latter is because anonymity is so extremely easy to come by on the multiplayer server, since there is nothing to make one handle you play with special (no levels, no ladder scores, no custom anything for anyone), so you can be a complete [censored] with one name and simply change your name if you are becoming infamous.

I think this applies more to noobs rather than the more mature players. And changing names don't do any good considering what the server can do.

[Trau]

I'm not saying the Wesnoth developement community should change... just explaining that people don't grow attached to Wesnoth because they can't (for the very good reasons anakayub stated) contribute.

As for the multiplayer community, I believe we can only speculate as to why it's so bad... but what's this about the server? O_o

[Weeksy]

MP community is one of the few reasons I stick with wesnoth. It's fairly small, newbies generally leave or wisen up quick enough, and the different ways a player can go (survivals, WML-heavy stuff like High Seas, 1v1s, 2v2/3v3s, Isar games... the list can go on and on. It's fascinating.

[Lorbi]

To start, the multiplayer community is really full of snooty elitists and griefers. I could guess the former is due to Wesnoth's presentation of itself as a highly strategic/intellectual game, so people tend to think their being better at Wesnoth makes them smarter than others. The latter is because anonymity is so extremely easy to come by on the multiplayer server, since there is nothing to make one handle you play with special (no levels, no ladder scores, no custom anything for anyone), so you can be a complete [censored] with one name and simply change your name if you are becoming infamous.

I think this applies more to noobs rather than the more mature players. And changing names don't do any good considering what the server can do.

But it is true that a lot of the "mature" players tend to be a bit elitist. I do remember not just one of them stating things like: "i never play with or against guys i don't know to be decent players". even here in the forums you can find things like that. i am not saying that they are all alike but most good players refuse to get into contact with "noobs". I am not the best player but at least i play wensoth for long enough to not beiung a "noob" and i find it quiet hard to get any good players to play with me. with some exceptitions.

[Mr_Evil]

I am not the best player but at least i play wensoth for long enough to not beiung a "noob" and i find it quiet hard to get any good players to play with me. with some exceptitions.

Yes. Even some players use password on theyr games to find players who would play to end of entire game as long as ur last unit falls. Users who use password are trying to get good peaople to play whit them & usually it keeps away stup** noobs to. But usually i have to remake because only serveal poeple joins or ( 1/4 needed etc...).
Only whay heheee... Wesnoth Tournament.

[DDR]

I entered the community one or two years ago, after I heard of it from a friend. I had not trouble on the multi-player server, and no real issue with any of the community. For artists, I suggest contributing to the UMCs to start, and posting your work in the forums to get feedback. Most of the UMCs will take any type of art they can get, as long as it looks nice. I was stupid, people were polite, and I play with noobs, cause that's how you get nice players.

Some areas of the forum are, IMHO, rather suffocating, the ideas subforum being one.

[Cainen]

It's the RNG coupled with the hit method, period. The percentages are consistently too low, and the only way to levy them is through maneuvering the opponents into bad terrain(and they can do this to you, too!), using magic(which is still only a flat 70% chance to hit), or using a unit with Marksman(which is 60% at worst).

It doesn't matter if you think they're misinformed or wrong. It's the reason why a lot of people frown upon Wesnoth, and every person I've ever managed to get to play Wesnoth has complained about precisely this issue. Why do you insist on drawing attention to the fact that lots of people stop playing Wesnoth while ignoring that this is the root of most peoples' problems with the game in the first place? I'm considerably off from the norm with regards to averages(recently rolled 20d20 about three times - the averages came out to 6, 7, and 4), so I have a reason to complain about it, too. I don't play Wesnoth competitively precisely because of the RNG, and I've lost several games to people who were less experienced planners and less experienced with the game. Wasn't my fault - you can't deal with missing repeatedly and getting hit repeatedly when math says this is too uncommon to happen normally.

And comparing it to X-COM? Completely justified. X-COM had tons of ways to curb the RNG, hundreds of original tricks you could pull, and lots of relatively original strategies that were feasible. Wesnoth? You have THREE ways to deal with the RNG, none of which are even remotely consistent enough to rely upon. They're not comparing the quality of the games - that's pretty one-sided - they're comparing how the games carry their respective brand of strategy. Wesnoth comes out looking pretty poor in comparison, and it doesn't take as much as you seem to think it does to fix it.

[Big Papi]

It's the RNG coupled with the hit method, period.

I've lost several games to people who were less experienced planners and less experienced with the game. Wasn't my fault -

This owl is the biggest lucker ever then. RNG didn't give any less experienced players a win....

[hiro hito]

It's the RNG coupled with the hit method, period.

I've lost several games to people who were less experienced planners and less experienced with the game. Wasn't my fault -

This owl is the biggest lucker ever then. RNG didn't give any less experienced players a win....

I don't think this is the good exemple as a proof... if one day you know who is this player maybe you should say that his statistics are normal... especially when you look at his main opponents....

Maybe takes the others statistics players like Gallifax in exemple, and ask if he lost his matches only because he made mistakes....

[Gallifax]

Hell yes I lost a lot of games due to bad luck . Its about awfully 1 % of the games I lost;)


Most of my games I loose because I played that game bad and met a well playing opponent. Simple as that.



Why do people quit? Hm well course of life. Some think they allways loose to luck, some just aren't patient enough to get better, others have no challenge anymore after winning TOC. Some get a life , a family:)


And some who you think have gone return. Anyway luck is not a matter why peope quit, nothing lasts forever...


Regards Gallifax

[Cainen]

And again, you're proving my point. People are more likely to remember failures than successes because failure stings more than the good feeling success gives. It's quite possible to fail miserably because of luck, and you're trying to brush off the fact that this can happen - and calling the people who do it stupid at the same time.

Why does this community consistently do this? Luck CAN be a factor, and an abnormally huge one given that the hit percentages tend towards a flip of the coin. You're just ignoring that fact.

[Noy]

Honestly Cainen, I'd respond but I've responded on this before again, and again, and again. Something tells me I will have to several times more before this thread is locked or peters out.

Nobody here disagrees with you that luck isn't a factor. The top players would all agree with you as the fact. Actually, to be a good player you must be able to understand that and to take it into account. What they and I take issue is your last statement. What proof do you have that the game can be determined by a "coin toss?" Its just a hyperbolic smokescreen that people, like yourself, have bring up time and again without really thinking about the subject deeply. Its also a diminution of the people, like Owlface, and galifax who have worked hard to better their skill at this game by claiming "they were lucky, alot"

I'm just going to repost the same response as I did before, since you don't seem interested enough to read through the thread or search the forum for answers;

see above.

To all other ppl who want to say I made this mod because I were losing because I am a bad player - for your information - it was already written here, waste no time and place in this thread. Go throwing dices and call it strategy game.

Okay here is where I disagree. There are players who are very skilled at this game. As sapient pointed out the game is deterministic already, just with a random element, which you scale. Now there are players who win on a constant basis... not because they are lucky, but because they are skilled at strategy.

Where I disagree with you is your assertion that Random elements are not realistic. Actually they are, and really "strategy" is about minimizing how uncertainty can affect military operations. Combat is never straight forward. Units are often delayed due to unusally strong resistance, or may crush an enemy faster than anticipated. If we look today at the revolution in military affairs, its not about increadibly powerful new weapons or advances in destructive technologies, rather its the application of information technologies into warfighting in order to reduce the fog of war, IE "the random elements" in conflict.

All the top tacticians in the world have to deal with "random elements" and often do so by putting themselves into a place where they can minimize luck's effects on their position. During the first Gulf War, Colin Powell when asked why did he deploy five carriers quipped "because I couldn't deploy six" That is because conventional military's strategy towards dealing with uncertainty is by brining to bear overwhelming force. Military victories today are deterministic only because so much weaponry is expended that there is no way one could lose. This is what is behind the US military's Maneuver and firepower based doctrine.

In this game, I would argue that the best players actually take luck into account. They try to set up situations where they can minimize the influence of luck in a game. That often means ensuring that one posessess overwhelming power at a decisive point of contact. Interestingly enough I've found that 3-1 ratios of force (which is a standard in Military thought) roughly correspond a winning fomula when one side attacks another. Decisive power changes from unit to unit (because of different resistances on the part of the defender) and I find it has interesting results.

The random element in the game brings with it realism. As combat in Wesnoth is a simulation, there is no real way that we can simulate exactly what happens in combat. We can't have real elves and humans slugging it out, so we use randomness to give us a simulation of combat, within an overly deterministic model. Removing randomness is actually in itself unrealistic, and in some ways reduces the strategic realism of a game. The US army can't bank on killing 1 insurgent for every 40 rifle shots, so why should the game be 1 orc for 2 attacking archers? the world ain't that perfect, and neither should the game.

[Cainen]

Nobody here disagrees with you that luck isn't a factor. The top players would all agree with you as the fact. Actually, to be a good player you must be able to understand that and to take it into account.

And it's virtually impossible for me to win when I take it into account, as my luck is considerably worse than the average person's. My averages speak for themselves.

What they and I take issue is your last statement. What proof do you have that the game can be determined by a "coin toss?"

...A 50% chance to-hit is virtually a coin toss. Read what I said again.

Its just a hyperbolic smokescreen that people, like yourself, have bring up time and again without really thinking about the subject deeply.

No, it isn't. I understand how the game should work perfectly, and since I have lots of experience from other strategy games it shouldn't be hard to apply it here. I -can't-, because my bad luck with RNGs makes the game unplayable.

I do just fine with X-COM on any difficulty. Considering that that game has a lot of depth and more to learn, what makes you think I'm necessarily at fault here?

Its also a diminution of the people, like Owlface, and galifax who have worked hard to better their skill at this game by claiming "they were lucky, alot"

...

Okay, then. Do you SERIOUSLY want to claim that losing a game on three-in-a-hundred odds that I had to take to be in the best situation is not losing a game due to unluckiness? What about odds that are worse than that, since I've lost on considerably better ones? I never said Wesnoth didn't require skill - I said that it's possible to lose on luck, and as far as I'm concerned that's unacceptable in a strategy game. This effects me a lot more than it does you, as I tend to get drastically lower averages than other people with the same RNG.

Let's put it this way. A casual strategy gamer picks up Wesnoth, and immediately notices the hit percentages. He loses, because he's unable to compensate for them due to any number of factors(including lack of experience, likely). He calls it a problem with the game.

Is he wrong? No. The game has hit percentages that are considerably lower than all but the worst 'strategy' games, and there aren't many ways to curb it. Your response to this is that "HE'S NOT EXPERIENCED ENOUGH", and considering how you seem to want to garner the casual crowd yet completely ignore them when they show you WHY this game will never break through to them, he's perfectly justified in thinking you're a bunch of jerks.

Is he right? No. The average person should be able to compensate for the luck factor. I can't, so I want it gone. Period. Most people will be apt to blame it on luck, and they have a reason to.

Where I disagree with you is your assertion that Random elements are not realistic. Actually they are

Irrelevant. The hit method cheapens the game for some people, and Wesnoth is a game about fantasy races fighting other fantasy races. It doesn't matter if the game is realistic, and it would probably be better without that realism.

, and really "strategy" is about minimizing how uncertainty can affect military operations.

...

NO. Do you know what happened to battleships when they were engaged by carriers?

They LOST. Period. End of story. Battleships could not win a fight against a carrier, as carriers could engage them from a range that the battleship couldn't deal with.

You're suggesting that this shouldn't be the case.

Combat is never straight forward. Units are often delayed due to unusally strong resistance, or may crush an enemy faster than anticipated.

1) This is a video game.

2) What makes you think a guy is a worse planner if he loses on a particularly unlucky streak? This can still happen even with 90% chances, but it's far more likely to happen with 60% chances.

All the top tacticians in the world have to deal with "random elements" and often do so by putting themselves into a place where they can minimize luck's effects on their position.

WESNOTH IS A VIDEO GAME. And guess what? Your troops might not do what you tell them in the real world if you're a general. Why not add THAT in, if you're going to add more than the basic premise in?

During the first Gulf War, Colin Powell when asked why did he deploy five carriers quipped "because I couldn't deploy six" That is because conventional military's strategy towards dealing with uncertainty is by brining to bear overwhelming force. Military victories today are deterministic only because so much weaponry is expended that there is no way one could lose.

Overwhelming firepower, superior tactical training, superior armaments in general, better trained troops. There's more to it than that.

In this game, I would argue that the best players actually take luck into account.

Okay. And what if one of the best players loses because of an unlucky streak? Are they bad at Wesnoth as a result? You're smartest playing by the averages. Not playing by them means you're going to fail, and fail spectacularly, and you're still going to have problems to work out by playing by the averages.

They try to set up situations where they can minimize the influence of luck in a game.

And how do you expect to do that when the only things that do it set your percentages to 60%+ or a flat 70%? 30% is not a small miss percentage.

The random element in the game brings with it realism.

It. Does. Not. Matter.

As combat in Wesnoth is a simulation, there is no real way that we can simulate exactly what happens in combat.

Of course you can't. But you know what's completely unrealistic? A well-trained cavalry force losing to a smaller legionnaire force due to random incompetence out of NOWHERE.

We can't have real elves and humans slugging it out, so we use randomness to give us a simulation of combat, within an overly deterministic model.

I have no comment at this point. You don't seem like you're going to even bother listening.

Removing randomness is actually in itself unrealistic, and in some ways reduces the strategic realism of a game.

The average person doesn't CARE about realism in a strategy game. And Wesnoth is hardly realistic as-is.

The US army can't bank on killing 1 insurgent for every 40 rifle shots, so why should the game be 1 orc for 2 attacking archers?

Because with your model, it might be 2 orcs for 1 archer, or even 3. If you think a strategy game should include the aspect of "ONOES I'M LOSING BECAUSE MY TROOPS ARE MORONS", I don't know what to say to you.

the world ain't that perfect, and neither should the game.

Why not apply this to chess, then? Your arguments are terrible.