Alternate attack workings

[Sauron]

Oh and... good luck! I like to play small maps too; I'm a risk-taker.

Nice U understand my argumentation. Sad u do not agree. I wish everyone EQUAL LUCK

[JW]

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

You should know that it took a LOT of effort not to retort with some harsh reply to your self-humiliating childishness. Perhaps if you actually read my opinions in this thread you would realise that I wasn't interested in "beating your arguments," and that that edit to my post was a polite way of saying this:

CAPITAL BOLD TEXT IS REALLY ANNOYING TO EVERYONE. Please use bold with discretion to emphasize key phrases and terms, not entire sentences or paragraphs.

That being said, I really want to show you what you're saying under a microscope now, basically because I 'm really beginning to agree with Turin. So let me begin:

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.

^Key phrases in bold.
You prefer small maps. On such maps randomness will play a bigger factor as there are fewer outlets for randomness to approach normalcy if it begins skewed. You are in part to blame for your own situation.
You argue that opponents that start with good luck are more likely to deal more damage, though if they receive their fair share of bad luck it will balance out into an even game. Your short-sightedness blinds you to this fact.
You say that the advantage gained through luck tends to cumulate, but what you fail to mention is that most games tend to not have massive luck streaks at the outset.
If you think anything is decided until your leader is killed then you don't know the nature of battle. The only thing that is determined by a unit being killed is that that unit is dead. 1 loss may set you back dramatically but you can always fight back. You can always quit if you fail to see the point of progressing; but better yet, why don't you play it out trying to win and perhaps turn a losing situation into a winning one through superior strategy, or maybe even perhaps just by holding out until luck goes back in your favor? The fact that you think so much of the game relies outside of your own power hints to your personailty.

If you want to belittle me some more, well, that's your choice. Know that all that does is make you look ignorant.

[Thrawn]

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[/quote]
full damage two rounds=4 strikes
get hit none=recieving 0 out of 8 hits against you

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

...Neither can I apply it to my observation of CUMULATING advantage.[/quote]
IIRC. Ken Oh started this post on his idea--I am responding to that

No ending LOL this time

[Sauron]

1. no self-humiliating
2. no childishness
3. all that makes = you're outta subject - to humiliate me, which is nasty eristic tactics

^Key phrases in bold.
You prefer small maps. On such maps randomness will play a bigger factor as there are fewer outlets for randomness to approach normalcy if it begins skewed. You are in part to blame for your own situation.
You argue that opponents that start with good luck are more likely to deal more damage, though if they receive their fair share of bad luck it will balance out into an even game. Your short-sightedness blinds you to this fact.

I am sorry - my argument was - to bring balance MORE bad luck is needed to the opponent, than bad luck that appeaared to you earlier. Seems you need 2 read again, so I politely give you right quote, with all letters as u like it (no sarcasm)

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?

see now?

You say that the advantage gained through luck tends to cumulate, but what you fail to mention is that most games tend to not have massive luck streaks at the outset.

I can't agree - played plenty that had.

If you think anything is decided until your leader is killed then you don't know the nature of battle. The only thing that is determined by a unit being killed is that that unit is dead. 1 loss may set you back dramatically but you can always fight back. (...) The fact that you think so much of the game relies outside of your own power hints to your personailty.

NOW it is LOLx10. Yes, my childhood was sad, I was sexually abused by parents, mr Freud.

If you want to belittle me some more, well, that's your choice. Know that all that does is make you look ignorant.

Seems you argue without reading and understanding my point, which makes you biger ignorant than me.

[Sauron]

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

full damage two rounds=4 strikes
get hit none=recieving 0 out of 8 hits against you
(....)

See? definitly NOT the same what happened to him. You mised 4, he must miss 8.

[JW]

NOW it is LOLx10. Yes, my childhood was sad, I was sexually abused by parents, mr Freud.

If you want to belittle me some more, well, that's your choice. Know that all that does is make you look ignorant.

Seems you argue without reading and understanding my point, which makes you biger ignorant than me.

That's the kind of statement I was talking about. Keep LOLing until you've proven yourself right.

ps, I am a psych major, so calling me Mr. Freud isn't really an insult. I actually have knowledge of how the human mind works.

pps, I understand your point but the fact remains that your point is invalid with a simple fact: luck is ditributed evenly among players. You get bad luck as often as you get good luck. Therefore it is fair.

[Sauron]

pps, I understand your point but the fact remains that your point is invalid with a simple fact: luck is ditributed evenly among players. You get bad luck as often as you get good luck. Therefore it is fair.

My last answer to any of your posts in this thread - pls read the post just above yours. Try to understand. Equal spread in later rounds does not eliminate initially gained advantage. Point.

[Becephalus]

Sauron you guys are talking past each other.

I agree with you initial bad luck can be catastrophic especially on small maps. LUCKILY it does not happen that often, and as JW pointed out, it occurs for all players equally.

[Mustelid]

LUCKILY it does not happen that often, and as JW pointed out, it occurs for all players equally.

Actually, a basic understanding of how randomness works will make it clear that this isn't true - given a sufficiently large population of players and complete randomness, the total luck of each will fit along a bell-curve. So you'd have a (very small) minority of players who have a lot of lucky breaks, and a similarly small minority with a lot of unlucky breaks. That's just how randomness works.

I've wondered how Wesnoth (or, for that matter, any game heavily reliant on random elements) would work if there was a handicap system. Every time a player failed a statistically likely roll, they'd get a proportional (and very tiny) bonus to their other rolls, and vice versa. This'd skew the bell-curve heavily towards the centre.

Of course, this is a purely speculative idea - it'd be horribly counter to KISS. Also it'd lead to silly situations:
ELVEN CAPTAIN: Sir, we've had rotten luck all day. We're all cut to pieces, and it seems as if our archers can't hit a thing.
ELVEN MARSHALL: Excellent! Lots of karma accumulated. Everyone out of the woods and charge through that swamp!

Plus, y'know, if you don't like heavily luck-reliant strategies, you have in-game control over this. Nobody's forcing you to recruit Trolls, Horsemen and Thunderguards.

[scott]

It might be unreasonable to expect the game's luck model to be fair on small maps.

In the examples given with # of attacks vs damage, you increase the smoothness of the luck when the # is higher. With a low #, the granularity is so large that you either have an awesome attack or a completely bad attack. There's really nothing you can do about it. The granularity in a low # of attacks can be exploited but not eliminated.

By analogy, playing on a small map with a small number of units introduces a level of granularity that guarantees that the battle is either completely awesome or completely bad.

If the game's luck model does not scale down well to small maps, I recommend you change the map to fit the game rather than change the whole game to fit the map.

[Dacyn]

We have 2 red grunts and 2 blue grunts.

actually, with all-melee attacks, I doubt there is a difference. If you have two grunts vs. two archers, then whoever gets the first kill wins... because he controls the range of two thirds of the attacks each round. In melee vs. melee, this is useless...

[Sapient]

Not totally useless... you can land blows first (possibly determining who dies first, not to mention reducing damage taken on a successful kill), and your damage taken will be spread among two units, further reducing the chance you lose one of them.

[Sauron]

My respect, Mustelid:

Also it'd lead to silly situations:
ELVEN CAPTAIN: Sir, we've had rotten luck all day. We're all cut to pieces, and it seems as if our archers can't hit a thing.
ELVEN MARSHALL: Excellent! Lots of karma accumulated. Everyone out of the woods and charge through that swamp!

Plus, y'know, if you don't like heavily luck-reliant strategies, you have in-game control over this. Nobody's forcing you to recruit Trolls, Horsemen and Thunderguards.

I was thinking of the same "tuning up luck" - luckily you answered me b4 I decided 2 post. I try 2 play independent of luck - sometimes impossible.

Still I was not trying to complain - just drawing attention to some balancement problem I noticed.

[Ken_Oh]

Holy flamewar, Batman.

First off...

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.

No, on the whole, over 1000s of games, it's fair, but within an individual game, luck can be the -sole- deciding factor of who wins.

Again, having some luck is fine, but if I wanted a game that's mostly luck, then I'd just flip a coin with a friend rather than go through all this strategizing that, in the end, might not make a difference.

This conversation has already taken place here:

http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7614

OK, I saw this before but didn't realize he was talking about quadrupling the number of attacks. I thought he meant damage, which wouldn't change things at all.

Dave is exactly right when he argues for difference in units damage-attacks (such as a unit with a 12-1 versus one with 3-4). Any attempt to make the game less random would make those opposite types of units less different. Yet, that might not be a horrible thing. Quadrupling everything is probably a bit too much. I think doubling everything but damage would take the edge off just enough that luck, good or bad, isn't unbearable. It would be a lot less like flipping a coin to decide the outcome of the game.

Anyway, I'm pretty set on making a campaign and if someone could answer this question, I'd be most obliged.

If I wanted to impliment this type of modification for my campaign, would I just have to make copies of the existing units? For example, I'd make a Walking_Corpse[CampaignAbreviation].cfg and change the stuff inside that I want, right? The real concern is if I would need permission to mess around with those units like that and if anyone would be ticked off if I did so.

Thanks!

[Darth Fool]

Anyway, I'm pretty set on making a campaign and if someone could answer this question, I'd be most obliged.

If I wanted to impliment this type of modification for my campaign, would I just have to make copies of the existing units? For example, I'd make a Walking_Corpse[CampaignAbreviation].cfg and change the stuff inside that I want, right? The real concern is if I would need permission to mess around with those units like that and if anyone would be ticked off if I did so.

Thanks!

The beauty of Open Source strikes again. You are free to make your own units based on the existing units. The one, almost laughable caveat, is that since the original units are all released under the GNU Public License(GPL), if you were to distribute new units derived from existing units, they too would need to be released under the GPL. Note that campaigns and eras on the official server are required to be licensed under the GPL, so if you are planning on uploading your campaign there for general distribution, this is not a big problem.