Revelation about maths, statistics, and people complaining

[JW]

If you understand the mechanics behind and still don't enjoy the luck aspect it's still simple: Wesnoth is not the right game for you.

Hence why I stopped playing the game however long ago.

There should still be a statement by the "Wesnoth team" about what to expect from luck. I'd do it for them but I still don't think they understand what I'm getting at and I'd like for them to learn.

[ilor]

There should still be a statement by the "Wesnoth team" about what to expect from luck.

what statement, "we would like to remind players that 99% is not 100% and thus it is not guaranteed that a 4-attacks mage will always hit at least once"? The probablity of hitting is clearly displayed ingame, and it's just that.

[JW]

There should still be a statement by the "Wesnoth team" about what to expect from luck.

what statement, "we would like to remind players that 99% is not 100% and thus it is not guaranteed that a 4-attacks mage will always hit at least once"? The probablity of hitting is clearly displayed ingame, and it's just that.

I clearly outlined what I thought they should say earlier somewhere. I'm not going to repost it simply because you haven't read it.

[Wintermute]

anyone who has taken a basic statistics or finite math course (or a few others) should have a working understanding of probability and expected value. I think to play the game well, both of those need to be understood by the player. Now, there are lots of younger players (or players who didn't/weren't required to take math in college) who may not have been exposed to one or both of things ideas in any kind of formal way - and some of those players might be frustrated by their lack of understanding what is and is not a realistic and plausible outcome. I think that this was glowing fish's original point.

So should we put a "warning" or what have you somewhere in the information about the game? Maybe that is not a bad idea. Of course it wouldn't be "this game is ruled by luck" or whatever, because we certainly do not agree with that. But maybe noting in the description of the game, or it's features, the great attack dialog displaying the probabilities of all outcomes, or the fact that we track expected value over the course of the game, would help players like me to decide that we really want to give Wesnoth a try (I long for the attack dialog now when I play tabletop games!). Likewise it may help people like JW, who know what they want in a game, to decide that any game that cares enough to track EV is probably not for them.

Or maybe it wouldn't change a thing. *shrug*

[JW]

Or maybe it wouldn't change a thing. *shrug*

Only one way to find out I s'pose.

[JW]

So should we put a "warning" or what have you somewhere in the information about the game? Maybe that is not a bad idea. Of course it wouldn't be "this game is ruled by luck" or whatever, because we certainly do not agree with that. But maybe noting in the description of the game, or it's features, the great attack dialog displaying the probabilities of all outcomes, or the fact that we track expected value over the course of the game, would help players like me to decide that we really want to give Wesnoth a try (I long for the attack dialog now when I play tabletop games!). Likewise it may help people like JW, who know what they want in a game, to decide that any game that cares enough to track EV is probably not for them.

I would also like to thank you Wintermute for the serious consideration of the proposal I made earlier to try to help, instead of simply writing it off as blasphemy against the RNG.

[Glowing Fish]

to decide that any game that cares enough to track EV

Electoral votes?

But that is why I go to fivethirtyeight.com

Which is actually where I originally realized that people don't like math.

[Wintermute]

to decide that any game that cares enough to track EV

Electoral votes?

But that is why I go to fivethirtyeight.com

Which is actually where I originally realized that people don't like math.

Hehe, great site.

[Jetrel]

A lot of people go so far as to think that the RNG actually favors the AI! Many others don't have so obviously incorrect beliefs, but otherwise don't understand the concepts very well.

This may be exacerbated by the fact that in a number of games other than wesnoth, it actually does! You would know better than I, but IIRC, civilization was such an example - luck favor was weighted according to difficulty. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I know it has been so in a number of games, and the fact that it is, and that there's clear precedent for it out there, is what makes players jump to that conclusion (also the "ascribe to malice"* tendency).

The reason for this is simple - given a choice of actually writing a great AI (incredibly hard), versus just slanting the luck against the player (incredibly easy), a lot of developers, especially those facing commercial time constraints, chose the easy way out.

So should we put a "warning" or what have you somewhere in the information about the game? Maybe that is not a bad idea. Of course it wouldn't be "this game is ruled by luck" or whatever, because we certainly do not agree with that. But maybe noting in the description of the game, or it's features, the great attack dialog displaying the probabilities of all outcomes, or the fact that we track expected value over the course of the game, would help players like me to decide that we really want to give Wesnoth a try (I long for the attack dialog now when I play tabletop games!). Likewise it may help people like JW, who know what they want in a game, to decide that any game that cares enough to track EV is probably not for them.

Emphasis mine. A good thing for the tutorial.

That dialogue box is probably the single most powerful factor that has helped to reveal most of the "non-intuitive outcomes" to me. Some of them very non-intuitive, such as whether an ulf is a good match against X or not (it's surprising how often attacking non-melee-focused troops with an ulf can be suicidal).



* offtopic, but people often, in the real world, unreasonably jump to believing in conspiracy theories all the time. For example, believing that a buggy MS operating system was the cause of deliberate insertion of flaws to maintain a revenue stream, rather than just failed software engineering. In almost all cases, it is incorrect to ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.

[Dave]

This may be exacerbated by the fact that in a number of games other than wesnoth, it actually does! You would know better than I, but IIRC, civilization was such an example - luck favor was weighted according to difficulty. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I actually am not aware of any widely played computer games where this happens. I would say that doing this is generally terrible game design, especially since there are so many easier ways to make things difficult that aren't frustrating for players.

Civilization, Civilization 3, and Civilization 4 do not do this. I haven't played Civilization 2 enough to say for sure, but I doubt it does it either. The Civilization games make things difficult for the player by making the AI start with various extra units (workers, settlers, military units), by giving the AI discounts on production and research costs, by allowing the AI to see through fog of war, and by allowing the AI cheap or free upgrades.

One caveat to this: IIRC, in some versions of Civ on easier difficulty levels the player would actually get a combat advantage against barbarian units. On the difficult levels, this would decrease to no advantage. There may have been versions where this turned into a disadvantage on the very hardest level. I'm not sure about this though. In any case, barbarians are relatively minor.

David

[Yogibear]

I think one of the most common misunderstandings about statistics is the fact, that people expect it to even out the chances for sure. Instead, there is one of the most important laws of statistics:

"The outcome of a statistical roll does not rely on previous outcomes. The probability is always the same."

And this is probably, what many people who do not understand the mathematics behind it perceive as being "unfair". Even if the mage hit 0/3 (which they understand can happen statistically, although not often), the archer following it can't simply do the same, no?

No, it can do, and the probability for it is the same, wether the mage hit or missed all three strikes before.

This is the mini-level scale. The same goes for a higher level, let's say a whole game. "If i start with bad luck, it surely has to even out during the game if only i hold out long enough, no?"

No, it does not. It can stay that way or even get worse. The crucial word here is "surely". You can't be sure of anything because we are talking about statistics here.

[JW]

A lot of people also don't expect that their skill will be sabotaged by a game's design.

Some would actually call such a system poorly designed.

If you want to talk about the randomness in Civ, for example, there are ways to mitigate this randomness, such as calling for peace. Not engaging in warfare at all (which I find can be an extremely fun challenge in Civ3). Obtaining a better science system to obtain better units. Allying with other forces to team up gainst any opponents.....

If you want to argue that randomness is essential in a war game, then I would argue that Civ is a better one. Not only does it have your randomness involved (with more ways to control the outcome by the way), but it also takes into account far more features such as scientific research, transportation lines, morale of your citizens, etc, etc. It essentially adds a lot of elements that can be understood easily into the equation of war and still utilizes randomness to control the rest.

Surprisngly (or not), I find Civ 3 to be incredibly fun.

Then again I only play Civ 3 as a single player game as well. It would probably be a great gamble to play it in MP - just like Wesnoth.

[Velensk]

If you've truely decided that you don't like the game anymore then look a your situation on these forums. You come back here to say that we should have a statement of what we want of the RNG (which we have), and to say that the reason that the game is never changed is that the people who would want it changed just leave, and so the game never is. So as a result you seem to have decided that you don't want to leave, but you don't like the game, so you sit around here and bother us.

'The game sabotages your skill', heh, That is why some players will just constantly win? They do lose sometimes, but anyone who can't bear to take loses has problems. I know that you know that the better player will win far more often than not. It's not compeditive the same way or to the same extent that starcraft is, fine, but it has it's own compeditivness that extends to the war, rather than the battle.

[JW]

Sorry to "bother" you Velensk. I was under the impression that luck threads in general were "bothersome." If I am wrong then please by all means, please devs, ignore me and lock multiple future threads on the issue. I'm trying to communicate why the problem exists and how to fix it. If that's "bothersome" to you Velensk then perhaps I misjudged your character.

[torangan]

Where is there even a problem with this? The game doesn't suit some players because of luck. So what? It was never intended to appeal to everyone. Developers tend to be slightly realistic.
It doesn't suit you, <insert name list>? Tough luck, choose another game and be happy that you didn't have to pay money for Wesnoth before finding out that it's not as great as you thought. Or fork the project, use one the mods existing... But DON'T even TRY to change the official version into something without luck. It won't work.