There's one thing we really hate of this game.

General feedback and discussion of the game.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Locked
Tux2B
Posts: 1217
Joined: March 29th, 2005, 8:18 pm
Location: Toulouse (South of France)
Contact:

Post by Tux2B »

Luck is the only thing that can explain the fact that someone is shot down at a long distance whereas the soldier who is one meter away from him isn't. And that's only the most obvious example.
"There are two kind of campaign strategies : the good and the bad ones. The good ones almost always fail because of unforeseen consequences that make the bad ones succeed." -- Napoleon
User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW »

Tux2B wrote:Luck is the only thing that can explain the fact that someone is shot down at a long distance whereas the soldier who is one meter away from him isn't. And that's only the most obvious example.
That's not luck, that's aim, trajectory, bullet speed, where the bullet hit, health and will of the target.....

I don't see that as being random at all....
User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

Taurus wrote:
zookeeper wrote: Your argument doesn't make any sense, for obvious reasons.
With all respect zookeeper, I beg to differ. I agree with F8 Binds in that the luck factor has a very important role in real life war - and that Wesnoth reflects this.
Yes. Just like Wesnoth could reflect the luck factor by randomly making you lose. Realism alone is not a valid base for an argument, for obvious reasons.
Taurus wrote:Sure, this is a game - but to me anyway, the more the battle aspect of it reflects real life, the more fun it is.
Then you probably wouldn't mind if the abovementioned example was implemented, since it'd reflect real life too.

However, no one argues that there shouldn't be randomness. The only arguments "against randomness" are arguments against having whether you win or lose be decided randomly (I'm pretty sure of this, even though I don't think anyone says it out loud this way). You can have plenty of randomness in a game even if the results of a particular decisive action (like combat) wouldn't be random. Imagine a deterministic game, which you spend hours playing through using skill. The final boss of the game would be a dice roll, with the chance of success being determined by how well you played so far. By playing perfectly you could reduce the odds of losing to 1%, and playing a mediocre game would give you odds of 50%. If you fail the roll, you get "game over" and you lose. If you succeed, you win the game. Fun? Hardly. Why?
User avatar
F8 Binds...
Saurian Cartographer
Posts: 622
Joined: November 26th, 2006, 3:13 pm
Location: Mid-Western United States

Post by F8 Binds... »

I think throwing the argument of reality is biased. We compare everything we know about to things in the real world. After all, wesnoth, as a game, is in the real world, though it depicts another time in another place. Why not compare things to reality? My example was simple- there are many variables in war, as there are in wesnoth, though EVEN MORE. There is:


WAR
-weather
-morale
-ability to supply your troops
-technology available at hand
-amount of population available to use as troops
-public's feeling about the war
-location of battles

WESNOTH
-defense
-traits
-enemy player you're facing: how skilled he is

There are probably many more. I don't see where you're coming from- reality is only a bad argument when refering to balancing units/factions and maps. When talking 'bout luck, It's alright to make historical references.
zookeeper wrote: Imagine a deterministic game, which you spend hours playing through using skill. The final boss of the game would be a dice roll, with the chance of success being determined by how well you played so far. By playing perfectly you could reduce the odds of losing to 1%, and playing a mediocre game would give you odds of 50%. If you fail the roll, you get "game over" and you lose. If you succeed, you win the game. Fun? Hardly. Why?
you wouldn't actually fight the boss. like a story without a climax.
Proud creator of 4p- Underworld. Fascinated by Multiplayer design and balance.
I am the lone revenant of the n3t clan.
Beholder
Posts: 169
Joined: January 30th, 2007, 4:20 am

Post by Beholder »

More then liking or not liking the "luck" factor, I don't know how to manage the luck element.

Let say I have a Slayer on a Village, with several weakened Orc units behind and 6 Drakes near, at day... I can kill him with the first Drake and have a field day on the other orcs units, or can failt to kill him at all.

I am not saying to nerf Slayer defense, or make him weaker, but high defense / low HP units sometimes make or break a match. A wounded Slayer is the best speed bump ever.

P.S. Algurs usually can't kill a full Slayer at day... and got wounded on the process.
User avatar
Konrad II
Posts: 296
Joined: December 21st, 2004, 1:03 am

Post by Konrad II »

F8 Binds... wrote:I think throwing the argument of reality is biased. We compare everything we know about to things in the real world. After all, wesnoth, as a game, is in the real world, though it depicts another time in another place. Why not compare things to reality? My example was simple- there are many variables in war, as there are in wesnoth, though EVEN MORE. There is:


WAR
-weather
-morale
-ability to supply your troops
-technology available at hand
-amount of population available to use as troops
-public's feeling about the war
-location of battles

WESNOTH
-defense
-traits
-enemy player you're facing: how skilled he is

There are probably many more. I don't see where you're coming from- reality is only a bad argument when refering to balancing units/factions and maps. When talking 'bout luck, It's alright to make historical references.
zookeeper wrote: Imagine a deterministic game, which you spend hours playing through using skill. The final boss of the game would be a dice roll, with the chance of success being determined by how well you played so far. By playing perfectly you could reduce the odds of losing to 1%, and playing a mediocre game would give you odds of 50%. If you fail the roll, you get "game over" and you lose. If you succeed, you win the game. Fun? Hardly. Why?
you wouldn't actually fight the boss. like a story without a climax.
Zookeeper has got a very good point, which is :
Zookeeper wrote:Realism alone is not a valid base for an argument, for obvious reasons.
Honest, you won't solve much by saying "Real life!11". In this thread, at least.
http://giantitp.com

"I have 8 forums, soon to be 7!" - Troy
User avatar
F8 Binds...
Saurian Cartographer
Posts: 622
Joined: November 26th, 2006, 3:13 pm
Location: Mid-Western United States

Post by F8 Binds... »

try fighters? a strong one will do 13-3, and under leadership like 17 damage or so EVERY HIT. now sure, you could miss all hits, but then you could use more than one fighter. Or you could use clashers, they take little damage back from a slayer and have 4 strikes- one is almost guaranteed. You really can't control luck- you manage it.

EDIT: If you will notice in the first place, it was merely a comparison with variables uncontrollable in wesnoth and war. No means to start a war which I could draw more similarities between war and wesnoth. I just decided to state my opinion and defend it with my casual stubbornness, which I am doing now. The only statement I can find against using reality in wesnoth is, "wesnoth isn't reality!" and really wesnoth is in reality. wesnoth is developed in reality. people play it in reality. and saying, "wesnoth isn't reality!" is just about as bad as saying this popular statement in the lobby or in-game:

LUCKY!

hope I made a point here.
Proud creator of 4p- Underworld. Fascinated by Multiplayer design and balance.
I am the lone revenant of the n3t clan.
User avatar
Konrad II
Posts: 296
Joined: December 21st, 2004, 1:03 am

Post by Konrad II »

F8 Binds... wrote:try fighters? a strong one will do 13-3, and under leadership like 17 damage or so EVERY HIT. now sure, you could miss all hits, but then you could use more than one fighter. Or you could use clashers, they take little damage back from a slayer and have 4 strikes- one is almost guaranteed. You really can't control luck- you manage it.

EDIT: If you will notice in the first place, it was merely a comparison with variables uncontrollable in wesnoth and war. No means to start a war which I could draw more similarities between war and wesnoth. I just decided to state my opinion and defend it with my casual stubbornness, which I am doing now. The only statement I can find against using reality in wesnoth is, "wesnoth isn't reality!" and really wesnoth is in reality. wesnoth is developed in reality. people play it in reality. and saying, "wesnoth isn't reality!" is just about as bad as saying this popular statement in the lobby or in-game:

LUCKY!

hope I made a point here.
Sorry, you didn't - the point is, who cares if there's luck IRL? If your only point is that Wesnoth is realistic with luck, then it is a very weak one. All I know is, nobody cares if there's luck IRL, what we care about, and as I said in a previous post, is luck in Wesnoth, and not senseless IRL - Wesnoth comparisons that have nothing to do with the story

You'll also notice this thread doesn't have the question "is there a point in using reality in Wesnoth" as its title, but is about the luck factor in Wesnoth.

You can use "reality - Wesnoth" statements, but they'll be useless and offtopic. (at least in this thread)

[mass edits] :D
http://giantitp.com

"I have 8 forums, soon to be 7!" - Troy
User avatar
Wintermute
Inactive Developer
Posts: 840
Joined: March 23rd, 2006, 10:28 pm
Location: On IRC as "happygrue" at: #wesnoth-mp

Post by Wintermute »

JW wrote:I don't understand how luck plays a factor in real life war....
Perhaps luck is not the most accurate word, but from the commander's chair, there are many factors that are beyond your control. You can give orders, but not all of them will be followed in the way you intend, or have the desired result, etc. You can make assumptions, but battlefield information will always be imperfect. The moral of your army can only be measured in vague terms, and so on.

I view luck (dice or whatever) in strategy games as a - very simplistic - way of boiling all that stuff that you, the commander, have little or no control over into concrete game-terms.

Instead of a massively complicated (anyone played Star Fleet Battles? :D ) combat/movement/moral/LoS/whatever combat system, we have some random numbers that introduce a dose of uncertainty into the battle plan.

One could argue that less uncertainty implies more strategy, but I don't think that it's that simple. Wesnoth is very much a game of calculated risk. Is it worth the risk to weaken your position to take a village? How about to have a good chance to kill a unit AND take a village? What are the likely consequences of not killing that unit? And so on. It's all about weighing risks - much like poker. Clearly poker is a game that involves a lot of luck, but the fact that there are some people that can make a living playing it indicates that luck is not what makes players win consistently. Rather, it's factoring that randomness into your overall strategy.

I think that this is what the "real war has luck" crowd are hinting at.
"I just started playing this game a few days ago, and I already see some balance issues."
User avatar
F8 Binds...
Saurian Cartographer
Posts: 622
Joined: November 26th, 2006, 3:13 pm
Location: Mid-Western United States

Post by F8 Binds... »

you stubborn (sorry, this is edited out myself) my point is that luck in wesnoth MAKES IT REALISTIC, NOT THAT LUCK IS THERE SO IT IS REALISTIC! Realistic does not always mean "real". It also means "that makes sense". so what i was saying is that "the luck factor in wesnoth makes sense." I was merely stating that I like the luck factor in wesnoth how it is. Now is my point made clear to you? Or will you try to pit your bronze sword against my iron shield? I really want to say more, but morals make me keep them away from this forum.
Proud creator of 4p- Underworld. Fascinated by Multiplayer design and balance.
I am the lone revenant of the n3t clan.
jeremywosborne

Math

Post by jeremywosborne »

Maybe I missed it in an earlier post, but has anyone laid out the examples with a probability based argument?

For example, my favorite is when I get too sucked into playing HttT scenarios and I simply send Delfador on a rampage, assuming he'll kill everything. Bleary eyed and doped on caffeine, I assume, "Sure, he's got a 70% chance to hit. He'll kill that troll rock lobber, even though he needs 4 hits to do so."

Sure, 24% chance to kill the rock lobber means I'll kill him in almost a one in four try.

5 retries later I kill the rock lobber.

Oh wait, forgot about the retaliation of the nearby orcs.

15 more retries later I decide to calm down, drink another cup of vanilla tea and send Delfador out with a bit of a retinue.

My point: Chance (notice I'm trying to leave the word luck out of the argument) is just that, chance. If you've ever lost money gambling in real life when you've been counting cards at a single deck blackjack table (like I have, like a lot of money, yuck) you'll know what I mean. Sometimes you win, and sometimes that pesky Goblin Impaler will go home with 4 drake skulls on his pike.
User avatar
Konrad II
Posts: 296
Joined: December 21st, 2004, 1:03 am

Post by Konrad II »

F8 Binds... wrote:you stubborn (sorry, this is edited out myself) my point is that luck in wesnoth MAKES IT REALISTIC, NOT THAT LUCK IS THERE SO IT IS REALISTIC! Realistic does not always mean "real". It also means "that makes sense". so what i was saying is that "the luck factor in wesnoth makes sense." I was merely stating that I like the luck factor in wesnoth how it is. Now is my point made clear to you? Or will you try to pit your bronze sword against my iron shield? I really want to say more, but morals make me keep them away from this forum.
Well now you used caps, you scared me.

All you did was compare Wesnoth to Real life(War), saying that it makes sense that there's luck in Wesnoth because there in Real life, and that you laugh at noobs who say you won because of luck, and you laugh because they in fact "lack some common sense."

Anyway, I haven't seen you use the world "realistic" a single time.


You just keep saying you've got a point when you say that there is luck IRL and in Wesnoth, and that it is then realistic to have luck in Wesnoth because there is IRL.

And imho, you will not defend luck in Wesnoth any well by using such weak arguments.
I don't think we should care so much about reality when we've got elves, orcs, drakes and undeads fighting each other in a fantasy world in a fantasy game, and I conclude that using such arguments is pointless.

There are much more valid points to defend Wesnoth not being deterministic(or however you spell it) than a "it makes sense because RL has luck too" point.

I would be grateful if you could try not being agressive, too.
I probably repeated myself anyway, sorry, I'm not used to argue like this.
http://giantitp.com

"I have 8 forums, soon to be 7!" - Troy
User avatar
F8 Binds...
Saurian Cartographer
Posts: 622
Joined: November 26th, 2006, 3:13 pm
Location: Mid-Western United States

Post by F8 Binds... »

trust me, I'm usually nice to be around. DID I SCARE YOU? :P

i like things to be realistic= that's why i like wesnothian luck as it is. i was using war as an example, and it happened to be in real life.

EDIT: I think another point I was getting at is people who play wesnoth and believe they are losing because of bad luck, or maybe bad luck is hurting them but not killing them, if I were to word it such. My original post was so jumbled I had a hard time making a sensible argument from it: sorry all. 'forgive me please'.
Proud creator of 4p- Underworld. Fascinated by Multiplayer design and balance.
I am the lone revenant of the n3t clan.
User avatar
Cruk Chawbunkle
Posts: 9
Joined: March 22nd, 2007, 10:01 pm
Location: Alabamy

Post by Cruk Chawbunkle »

F8 Binds... wrote:trust me, I'm usually nice to be around. DID I SCARE YOU? :P

i like things to be realistic= that's why i like wesnothian luck as it is. i was using war as an example, and it happened to be in real life.

EDIT: I think another point I was getting at is people who play wesnoth and believe they are losing because of bad luck, or maybe bad luck is hurting them but not killing them, if I were to word it such. My original post was so jumbled I had a hard time making a sensible argument from it: sorry all. 'forgive me please'.
Well I don't forgive ya, cuz you was right about everything. Konrad jes got hisself blinded by science.
Ya'll can't step to this.
waterd103
Posts: 74
Joined: March 20th, 2007, 9:31 am

Post by waterd103 »

there is a mod to play more deterministic games why nobody is talking about it?
Locked