Unfair/random fighting
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
mandreiana
- Posts: 1
- Joined: May 13th, 2005, 12:27 pm
Unfair/random fighting
Hi,
first let me thank for Wesnoth, it's _the_ turn-based open-source strategy game.
The only think I don't like about it it's randomness of attacks. Sometimes an attacking unit will provoke
no damage, but will get hit both times by the adversary unit (even with terrain modifiers favoring attacking unit). This appears to suck and here's a concrete example:
with heavy infantry unit in a village, I attacked an orc enemy. My infantry unit made no damage from both hits, but enemy made from both his hits (2x3 points). And I was in the village, he was in the plain field!
From previous experience, I saved the game just before hitting. I loaded the save and attacked again, this time my infantry made 2x13 damage units (!!), in the same conditions as previous attack.
Could you please made the attack results more predictable and fair? Like in Heroes of Might and Magic for example.
Thanks!
first let me thank for Wesnoth, it's _the_ turn-based open-source strategy game.
The only think I don't like about it it's randomness of attacks. Sometimes an attacking unit will provoke
no damage, but will get hit both times by the adversary unit (even with terrain modifiers favoring attacking unit). This appears to suck and here's a concrete example:
with heavy infantry unit in a village, I attacked an orc enemy. My infantry unit made no damage from both hits, but enemy made from both his hits (2x3 points). And I was in the village, he was in the plain field!
From previous experience, I saved the game just before hitting. I loaded the save and attacked again, this time my infantry made 2x13 damage units (!!), in the same conditions as previous attack.
Could you please made the attack results more predictable and fair? Like in Heroes of Might and Magic for example.
Thanks!
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
Missing twice with a HI and being hit twice by an Orc grunt is NOTHING. There's a 6% chance of that happening, so that kind of luck should happen on average once every 17 attacks. I assume you've attacked 17 times!
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
The one that annoyed me the other day was when my red mage (in a village) missed a ghost 4 times (0.87% chance), while the ghost hit 3 times (6.4%) for a total of 0.05%. Of course, that's just 5 in 10000, and I'm sure I've done 2000 attacks. 
That said, I wouldn't change it. Someone suggested an option to have guaranteed damage, but it would change the dynamic of the game pretty dramatically.
That said, I wouldn't change it. Someone suggested an option to have guaranteed damage, but it would change the dynamic of the game pretty dramatically.
Solution: effect of missed attacks?
The problem is that in Wesnoth you can turn the odds in your favor in many ways (fight in daylight vs chaotic units, use leadership, healers, about-to-level units, use holy weapons against undead, etc.), but there is no way to increase your chances of hitting/avoiding hits. Well actually there are two exceptions, magic attacks and marksman (I think a third one was introduced recently for elves), but apart from that the devs hold to "The chance to hit is taken entirely from the defender's defensive rating in the terrain it is in" as a holy mantra.
Most people who complain about Wesnoth complain about that, it seems. Personally I think Wesnoth is a great game, and also that you have to make some design choices to give a game its personal flavor. Actually the thing that annoys me most is not the randomness, its rather that there's nothing more to look forward to when units have reached their maximum level.
Anyways maybe we could envision a change to the system that would alleviate the effect of this terrain-based hit system without removing it from the game: the idea would be to have each attack have some effect even if it misses. After all even if you can avoid an attack it still puts psychological pressure, or maybe you are slightly wounded, but not enough to reflect it in the hit points. And it builds up. So one way of reflecting this would be to add a fatigue or morale level to units (that recovers a bit each turn), so that if they get ganged-up on and attacked too much in a small amount of time, they will break and act as if they were under the effect of a "negative leadership". This way, even when you hit a bad luck streak, the sheer number of attacks would eventually have an effect, instead of leaving the enemy without a scratch.
Of course there are other factors to take into consideration, but the idea is to have each attack have some effect even if it misses. Maybe someone can find a better way of doing this than what I'm proposing here.
Most people who complain about Wesnoth complain about that, it seems. Personally I think Wesnoth is a great game, and also that you have to make some design choices to give a game its personal flavor. Actually the thing that annoys me most is not the randomness, its rather that there's nothing more to look forward to when units have reached their maximum level.
Anyways maybe we could envision a change to the system that would alleviate the effect of this terrain-based hit system without removing it from the game: the idea would be to have each attack have some effect even if it misses. After all even if you can avoid an attack it still puts psychological pressure, or maybe you are slightly wounded, but not enough to reflect it in the hit points. And it builds up. So one way of reflecting this would be to add a fatigue or morale level to units (that recovers a bit each turn), so that if they get ganged-up on and attacked too much in a small amount of time, they will break and act as if they were under the effect of a "negative leadership". This way, even when you hit a bad luck streak, the sheer number of attacks would eventually have an effect, instead of leaving the enemy without a scratch.
Of course there are other factors to take into consideration, but the idea is to have each attack have some effect even if it misses. Maybe someone can find a better way of doing this than what I'm proposing here.
A somewhat less major (though codewise I'm not sure that's the case) change would be the following:
Keep track of deviation from average for both sides. Change the "random" numbers to keep the deviation within a certain range. The advantage of this is that it doesn't affect players' thinking as much as deterministic mode would, nor does it require the player to learn new rules. It is also entirely balanced automatically. It takes away from both sides evenly, no matter what faction/etc. The only problem I could think of is higher predictability.
Keep track of deviation from average for both sides. Change the "random" numbers to keep the deviation within a certain range. The advantage of this is that it doesn't affect players' thinking as much as deterministic mode would, nor does it require the player to learn new rules. It is also entirely balanced automatically. It takes away from both sides evenly, no matter what faction/etc. The only problem I could think of is higher predictability.
2B |! 2B = 3F
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
After a good deal of thought and annoyance, I think that it would be a good idea to make this an option for the scenario designer. While I really don't like it in general, for some maps like the Isle of Anduin and my very small Tactics Island map, luck is a very major factor, for which a counter is really necessary.ryn wrote:A somewhat less major (though codewise I'm not sure that's the case) change would be the following:
Keep track of deviation from average for both sides. Change the "random" numbers to keep the deviation within a certain range. The advantage of this is that it doesn't affect players' thinking as much as deterministic mode would, nor does it require the player to learn new rules. It is also entirely balanced automatically. It takes away from both sides evenly, no matter what faction/etc. The only problem I could think of is higher predictability.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
An MP scenario is still a scenario...ryn wrote:Well, if implemented I agree that it should be given to the scenario designers, but what about MP?
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
If this is made a per-scenario option, then maybe make as other option to have no randomness at all. So there would be 3 options:
- like now (i like a lot how it works, since in the long run, it evens out.. sometimes you lose unfair, but just as often you win unfair - like in reality)
- keep track of deviation, as suggested by gabba [edit]and ryn (I'm not good at statistics, so no idea how it would even work)
- remove randomness (it would completely change the game for sure - but still, I'd like to try it out. probably it would get a bit chess-like)
- like now (i like a lot how it works, since in the long run, it evens out.. sometimes you lose unfair, but just as often you win unfair - like in reality)
- keep track of deviation, as suggested by gabba [edit]and ryn (I'm not good at statistics, so no idea how it would even work)
- remove randomness (it would completely change the game for sure - but still, I'd like to try it out. probably it would get a bit chess-like)
I don't really like that option, because then 50% chance is not really what it says. When things are supposed to be random I want them to be random, if not, it's like cheating. On the other hand if units have a visible fatigue rating that increases for every attack they suffer, it's a transparent system and you know how things works. It's pretty intuitive for players, too.ryn wrote:A somewhat less major (though codewise I'm not sure that's the case) change would be the following:
Keep track of deviation from average for both sides. Change the "random" numbers to keep the deviation within a certain range. The advantage of this is that it doesn't affect players' thinking as much as deterministic mode would, nor does it require the player to learn new rules. It is also entirely balanced automatically. It takes away from both sides evenly, no matter what faction/etc. The only problem I could think of is higher predictability.
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
Not in an individual combat, though. If you just charged with fifteen horsemen on the other side of the map, and they all missed, and no other attacks had been made, then you could practically *rely* on your Cuttlefish hitting all ten times against the enemy leader, an Elvish Marksman in forest.ryn wrote:Things aren't random anyway - the game uses a pseudo random number generator. Besides, it will be %50 on average. Even more closely %50, in fact.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
You're talking about with ryn's suggestion, right?Elvish Pillager wrote:Not in an individual combat, though. If you just charged with fifteen horsemen on the other side of the map, and they all missed, and no other attacks had been made, then you could practically *rely* on your Cuttlefish hitting all ten times against the enemy leader, an Elvish Marksman in forest.