Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 278

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: When you win, it's because you were better - would be nice

  1.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #221
    Art Director Arnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    319
    Of Note: RoA Does get puncture if she doesn't move. It's late game where I've hit enemies for 11 damage at Rank 1 and been hit for 8 before. With Rank 3 it's insta kill late game.

  2. #222
    R3 being 6 damage minimum anyway makes R3 plenty potent enough to kill most people. I killed a full armor provoker (18+2 from nearby raiders.) by punting him with an SRM into it. That was funny.

  3. #223
    Member Leartes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Aachen - Germany
    Posts
    92
    I will ignore the rest of the discussion because I think it boils down to personal preference. Imo a game where players have winpercentage unequal 0 or 1 is much more desirable than clear cut better player always wins. It is better for new player and it makes high level play more interesting as well. If you want to find out who is the true best player you can always make tournaments with a lot of matches and possibly bo3/bo5 double eliminiation/swiss or similar. Salvaging a bad game to a 20% win chance requires high skill in many situations. I think the option to turn it around to 100% is overkill and the option to have a guaranteed loss is bad as well. 20% is much more nuanced as with different skill levels it could well be 10% or 30% and therefore preferable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haeso View Post
    I too can look at the 5x5 area around a SS and determine the rough probability of each square having the RoA in it - but that doesn't change I cannot know and it is still a guessing game. Does this not make sense?
    Now here the fun starts. Assume you want to play perfect. You assign a probability to every square. Then you compute the probability for all path that they succeed. Then you discount cost (e.g. you need wp for some path or you put yourself in worth positions if you get trapped on them). Now you can compute an optimal path that has the lowest cost.
    Your opponent can do the same for you. If you valuations are equal he will adjust his probabilities to trap the path you are most likely to take. If your valuations differ the resulting outcome will not be optimal in the sense that the player with the worse valuation becomes exploitable. This is standard poker strategy btw. Now assume both players have set on a probability distribution. They have to pick one move out of the many. In a 5x5 square there are most likely only a handful of true options with probability > 0%. Now both players must load random.org and make a random choice. (Humans are bad rng-generators. If you don't use a good rng source you are exploitable if you play the same player several times - which is likely in the top competitive level).
    This is good play and highly dependent on your valuation skills, your opponents valuation skills and both players skill to estimate the expected valuation of the opponent. Sure you are not 100% save. But if you edge out 1% winrate by being better at this stuff, then it is only fair that you get this 1% more wins. Your opponent might complain on the forums that it is not fair, but in the end he was worse and deserved to lose more often.

    This is no chess concept, though I have used it in playing go. It is standard in a ton of competitive games for a reason. It is good for new players, it is good for spectator sports and it doesn't decide the outcome of big events like tournaments.

  4. #224
    You're ignoring my point again Leartes. The majority of RoAs do not land against me. That's not the issue, Win rate because of it is not my point. I don't know how to explain this any simpler but I'll give it one more go.

    It is the possibility to possibility to luck their way into a win one in ten games against me. I'm pretty sure this isn't a spectator sport, furthermore I'd rather it never becomes one. Design choices should never be made for the spectator instead of the player.

    If someone is better than you, you shouldn't have the option to make a bunch of risky plays that will result in you losing a significant portion of the time against them but win rarely. That's my whole point. I've never lost against someone significantly worse than me in chess. The ability to gamble your way to win even if it results in a significant majority of losses for you is just not fun to play against. It completely ignores the depth of strategy the game has to offer and instead beats you over the head with the RNG. I don't even care about my record, I let friends beat me by doing silly things and practicing stupid builds with them just for fun - my problem is it's no fun to lose by someone who isn't playing strategically, I don't care that I'll beat them the majority of my games against them. I don't like that they can win at all by playing in a way that just sidesteps strategy and rolls some dice, it doesn't matter how unfavorable the dice roll to them is.

  5. #225
    Member Leartes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Aachen - Germany
    Posts
    92
    If they can abuse random elements to achieve 10% winrate vs you then you are obviously not as strong as some other guy that can win 100% despite that randomness. If it is impossible for the best player in the world to beat some guys ultra-random-strat regardless of the outcome of all roles, then it is still no problem as long as the winrate is too low to win a tournament.
    You don't win every hand in poker and you don't win every game in a fighter, starcraft or magic. This is no problem as long as you know you will win more often if you are the better player. All these games have huge competitive scenes with large events and prize money. As long as you don't win the event by being lucky it is fine.
    Honestly, when I start a game and someone walks is archer up to me to take a +3wp shot at my warrior (totally legit at 80% or 90% to hit) for 4 strength, then I walk up the the archer and kill it. It is a bad move in general. If it is not bad move, then I fucked up my positioning.
    Same holds true for SS in lategame. If I didn't do something about the archers I played bad/worse than my opponent. Doing nothing, walking back are totally legit vs SS and usually pure win moves. In the super rare case they are not and your opponent has a chance to beat you, then you never had a legit win. You only had a some % number win. You deserve to lose some of those games since he really played well.

    If someone is better than you, you shouldn't have the option to make a bunch of risky plays that will result in you losing a significant portion of the time against them but win rarely. That's my whole point. I've never lost against someone significantly worse than me in chess. The ability to gamble your way to win even if it results in a significant majority of losses for you is just not fun to play against.
    I'm fine with games where the best player vs the worst player is no 100% win. In TBS:F this is not the case. If someone is significantly worse than you are, then you beat him every time. Regardless of luck. He can go high wp % attack on all his moves and hit all of them, you will still win if you are better by a significant margin.

    It is the possibility to possibility to luck their way into a win one in ten games against me. I'm pretty sure this isn't a spectator sport, furthermore I'd rather it never becomes one. Design choices should never be made for the spectator instead of the player.
    There are a couple of streams out there already. Depending how big the game becomes spectators might well be important.

  6. #226
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Upsets occur in real life all the time as well. Even when you have a team that will beat another team, in sports/games/whatever maybe 99/100 times, sometimes it just happens that the stronger team loses that 1/100 time. And it can be any number of factors from the other team "lucking out" to having a surprising and unconventional strategy.

    (This is clear in history as well, in many battles - whatever the reason you give for one side winning or losing, some great reversals/upsets were due to a combination of superior strategy, and luck against overwhelming odds).

    I think it is rather realistic that you can win against a good player a low % of the time using a risky strategy. Otherwise, the game is stale. Why is it stale? Cos even before the match starts, you already know the stronger player will win. There is no chance for the weaker one to pull the game through, no matter the kind of play or choice he makes.
    Last edited by raven2134; 04-08-2013 at 09:55 AM.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Leartes View Post
    If they can abuse random elements to achieve 10% winrate vs you then you are obviously not as strong as some other guy that can win 100% despite that randomness.
    But that's not my point Leartes...

    If it is impossible for the best player in the world to beat some guys ultra-random-strat regardless of the outcome of all roles, then it is still no problem as long as the winrate is too low to win a tournament.
    Why is it not a problem unless it can cause a tournament win? Why is it not a problem if it can cause a win at all that isn't strategic but rolling dice? I don't understand why this is desired.

    You don't win every hand in poker and you don't win every game in a fighter, starcraft or magic. This is no problem as long as you know you will win more often if you are the better player. All these games have huge competitive scenes with large events and prize money. As long as you don't win the event by being lucky it is fine.
    Again, why is the potential to win by rolling the dice instead of playing strategically acceptable as long as the win rate is unfavorable? I do not understand.

    Honestly, when I start a game and someone walks is archer up to me to take a +3wp shot at my warrior (totally legit at 80% or 90% to hit) for 4 strength, then I walk up the the archer and kill it. It is a bad move in general. If it is not bad move, then I fucked up my positioning.
    I'm not arguing against that at all that to allow him to do it without forcing him to be in a position where he'll pay for it is your fault, absolutely right! But just because there's a counter to it doesn't mean it should work that way. Just because something can be beat does not mean it is in a state that it should be in. Otherwise lets go back to starcraft - every strategy could be beat in that game. Even the most blatantly overpowered ones that were over time nerfed could be beaten with the proper counter, yet they were still nerfed. The ability to beat those strategies did not mean they were at an acceptable power level. Keep in mind the win rate using these luck-based strategies is awful and I know that, I simply don't think it's acceptable that you can win at all by doing it, not that you win any meaningful amount by doing it.

    Same holds true for SS in lategame. If I didn't do something about the archers I played bad/worse than my opponent. Doing nothing, walking back are totally legit vs SS and usually pure win moves. In the super rare case they are not and your opponent has a chance to beat you, then you never had a legit win. You only had a some % number win. You deserve to lose some of those games since he really played well.
    Again, this isn't a proper argument. Refer to my last point, just because it can be beaten does not mean it is where it should be as far as balance goes. I don't know how to make that any more salient. It was my job for years to balance the game I was working on, we never had a strategy that could not be countered but by that same token I still needed to weaken some and strengthen others.




    I'm fine with games where the best player vs the worst player is no 100% win. In TBS:F this is not the case. If someone is significantly worse than you are, then you beat him every time. Regardless of luck. He can go high wp % attack on all his moves and hit all of them, you will still win if you are better by a significant margin.
    I'd be willing to bet if you played a large enough sample size someone doing mostly willpower boosted str hits would beat you eventually just by doing a little math. It would be an absolutely atrocious win rate, but he would beat you eventually unless he straight up made errors.



    There are a couple of streams out there already. Depending how big the game becomes spectators might well be important.
    Putting the spectators ahead of your players was the reason for much frustration to the competitive scene of the original broodwar transitioning to SC2. You're making a game not selling advertising space, your goal should be to make the game as enjoyable as it can be to your players - if you can make it entertaining for spectators at the same time? Go ahead and do it. But you shouldn't be hurting your gameplay and players for the sake of the people watching.


    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    Upsets occur in real life all the time as well. Even when you have a team that will beat another team, in sports/games/whatever maybe 99/100 times, sometimes it just happens that the stronger team loses that 1/100 time. And it can be any number of factors from the other team "lucking out" to having a surprising and unconventional strategy.
    One of the things I enjoy about Chess and the majority of my games in Banner Saga is that nothing is surprising. I can see (almost) everything that they can choose to do and it's up to me to make more optimal choices than them. The only thing that will ever continue to be a surprise other than RoA is their opening setup as you cannot know that ahead of time. Though things like SRM first WH second tend to be a tad... transparent. I'm fine with them using a strategy I was unaware of - the first time I saw an SRM was also the first time I saw a WH go after him. I laughed as I lost the game on the second turn. I've never fallen for it again though. But I'm aware of the strategy behind late game RoAs, I'm saying I don't like how it currently works. I love the way RoA works early/mid game, I think it's fantastic. If it were visible it would still be just as good at screwing up fat varl movement options. It's only the late game where you roll some dice to pick a path and usually win but rarely lose because of it I take issue with.

    (This is clear in history as well, in many battles - whatever the reason you give for one side winning or losing, some great reversals/upsets were due to a combination of superior strategy, and luck against overwhelming odds).
    We're not emulating a war here, but yes this is true. Misinformation or just preventing them from learning what you are planning is one of the most powerful tools in a war. In a real war you are not an omniscient being that looks down upon the battlefield and things happen far too quickly to employ an optimal strategy at all times. But this is a turn based game not a war simulator.

    I think it is rather realistic that you can win against a good player a low % of the time using a risky strategy. Otherwise, the game is stale. Why is it stale? Cos even before the match starts, you already know the stronger player will win. There is no chance for the weaker one to pull the game through, no matter the kind of play or choice he makes.
    I'm not sure what you mean by realistic. Realism in the sense of actual combat? The game's decidedly not an accurate depiction of that heh. I disagree that the game would be stale and in turn suggest it's a logical fallacy to state you already know who will win before the match begins unless there is a very large disparity in skill level or power ranks of the teams. The game has too many possible openings/moves for it to become that simple, you aren't giving the depth of the game outside of the random elements nearly enough credit.




    I'm not sure I have anything left to say on this, I believe I've covered everything I can adequately. I've enjoyed the discussion thus far though, for the most part people have their opinions and those are unlikely to change, but I think both sides of the objective argument have been covered thoroughly:

    You can choose to make risky plays and lose most of your games if you rely on it, but rarely you can win. To me this is an undesirable mechanic, to others it is. Nothing more nothing less.
    Last edited by Haeso; 04-08-2013 at 10:53 AM.

  8. #228
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    I disagree that the game would be stale and in turn suggest it's a logical fallacy to state you already know who will win before the match begins unless there is a very large disparity in skill level or power ranks of the teams. The game has too many possible openings/moves for it to become that simple, you aren't giving the depth of the game outside of the random elements nearly enough credit.
    One of the things I enjoy about Chess and the majority of my games in Banner Saga is that nothing is surprising. I can see (almost) everything that they can choose to do and it's up to me to make more optimal choices than them. The only thing that will ever continue to be a surprise other than RoA is their opening setup as you cannot know that ahead of time. Though things like SRM first WH second tend to be a tad... transparent. I'm fine with them using a strategy I was unaware of - the first time I saw an SRM was also the first time I saw a WH go after him. I laughed as I lost the game on the second turn. I've never fallen for it again though. But I'm aware of the strategy behind late game RoAs, I'm saying I don't like how it currently works. I love the way RoA works early/mid game, I think it's fantastic. If it were visible it would still be just as good at screwing up fat varl movement options. It's only the late game where you roll some dice to pick a path and usually win but rarely lose because of it I take issue with.
    So...which is it?

  9.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #229
    Creative Director Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    108
    RoA is my favorite ability in the game. So far this thread has been about how it's unfair in a game like Factions that there is any randomness. Whether RoA adds "randomness" or not, we've said repeatedly that this is all intentional. We literally sat down and made a game that we like. Since then we've made tons of new systems and redesigns based on feedback and we've made balance changes like crazy but we won't be stripping all randomness out of the game. We've designed the randomness to be something you can influence and react to, and not just complete chaos. Just to clarify here: RoA is staying, Bloody Flail is staying and miss chance is staying.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    So...which is it?
    You can't just quote a large block of text and ask a question with limited context. I see three distinct possible things you could be referring to. My suggestion that it's a logical fallacy that total knowledge of the board means you know who will win before the first move is played? Chess obviously shows that's not the case.

    The idea that because the rest of the game is deep means RoA and it's usage late game is irrelevant?

    That the opening setup being unknown is an unknown yet I enjoy it? (The maps are large enough that any opening strategy can be reasonably countered since you know their turn order ahead of time.)

    You'll need to be more specific for a proper reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    RoA is my favorite ability in the game. So far this thread has been about how it's unfair in a game like Factions that there is any randomness. Whether RoA adds "randomness" or not, we've said repeatedly that this is all intentional. We literally sat down and made a game that we like. Since then we've made tons of new systems and redesigns based on feedback and we've made balance changes like crazy but we won't be stripping all randomness out of the game. We've designed the randomness to be something you can influence and react to, and not just complete chaos. Just to clarify here: RoA is staying, Bloody Flail is staying and miss chance is staying.
    It's a fun ability in most cases, and I certainly don't think it's overpowered or anything. As for me I only don't like how it works once the field is empty. I fully expected it to stay, same with flail, I wasn't sure of the team's opinion on willpower adding damage versus adding str to the calculation though. Sounds like that is set as well. Good to know.

    If it was unclear I've never thought any of those abilities were unfair, maybe others have though. I think they'll never give you a good win rate if you rely on them outside of relatively sure chances (80-90% hit rate/preventing a varl attack via blocking only possible path, punting into a trap, etc.) and in those cases I don't mind at all. Indeed in those latter two cases I enjoy RoA a great deal.



    Also, on a similar note I'd like to restate I've never liked everything about a game, even the one I worked on for several years. Despite the little things in this thread that I don't care for I still love the game, I enjoy it even more than chess and I've loved chess since well, as long as I can remember. I recommend the game at every chance I get to friends with my highest praise. Just because I've entertained this discussion for so long doesn't mean I've got anything but love for the game and what you guys have done/are doing.

    I've noticed in the past that expressing a negative about anything tends to give the impression that I dislike the whole when that could not be further from the truth. To that end I genuinely appreciate making the game you want to play bit - I wish I could have done that so believe me I understand that. I'd never want you guys to tailor the game to what I'd prefer over what you guys do, it's your baby as it were not mine and I respect the hell out of that.
    Last edited by Haeso; 04-08-2013 at 11:52 AM.

  11. #231
    Senior Member loveboof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    RoA is my favorite ability in the game. So far this thread has been about how it's unfair in a game like Factions that there is any randomness. Whether RoA adds "randomness" or not, we've said repeatedly that this is all intentional. We literally sat down and made a game that we like. Since then we've made tons of new systems and redesigns based on feedback and we've made balance changes like crazy but we won't be stripping all randomness out of the game. We've designed the randomness to be something you can influence and react to, and not just complete chaos. Just to clarify here: RoA is staying, Bloody Flail is staying and miss chance is staying.
    Thank you! I am so happy to hear this... I was concerned some of you devs might have actually been influenced by the opinions in this thread :P lol

    ___
    Edit:
    @ Haeso, the one thing I still don't understand about your objection is that if there is a 1/4 chance of losing due to RoA, then you are the one making the gamble if you choose not to rest or retreat! You are choosing the risky 75% option (3/4)...

    I know you said it doesn't happen to very often, but in that example scenario both players have decided to gamble! (not just the one using the SS)
    Last edited by loveboof; 04-08-2013 at 01:18 PM.

  12. #232
    Senior Member Kletian999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    258
    Haseo, any negative perception isn't really your fault, you had the bad luck of using a thread created by someone who was angry at the game rather than your own nuanced view. The moderators wouldn't have like a separate thread either.

  13. #233
    Junior Member Impaler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    We literally sat down and made a game that we like.
    Like I said from the start, it's pretty obvious you made a game with a bunch of friends, just sitting down having a good time while throwing random ideas around on how to make the game less stale from your point of view. Does it suck for your friend to be put in a situation where he's very unlikely to win unless you put a 'magic bullet' into the game? Yes, it kinda does, doesn't it? So let's add some chaotic comeback-mechanics to make things more unpredictable! All of a sudden this friend can now put out high-risk moves and every now and then he wins and you all laugh about it. Exciting? Yeah. Did he deserve to win? (Hell no, but don't tell HIM that. I mean it's just for fun, right?)

    Then there's the public release. Now you have people actually competing. It's about life or death on the virtual arenas!
    Now some people are getting frustrated by this mechanic, since every now and then you get effed over by it. And sometimes you win because you exploited these risk-takings, but somehow.. you still don't feel satisfied regardless of whether you won or lost.
    A, admittedly very small, fraction of the games you lost or won didn't come down to any of your human cognition abilities - they were decided by an outside random factor - a Random Number Generator.

    In theory, this influence is so small that it averages out over a significant amount of games, hence the percentual win rates remain correlated to the individuals skill levels. So where's the problem then? As poor Haeso has tried to already convey in multiple ways ad nauseam - the problem is that matches can be decided by the RNG at all. No matter how small the likelihood of it actually happening is.

    It becomes difficult to exactly evaluate how the accumulation of various random effects affect the outcome of different games, but the more you randomize the abilities - the worse it becomes.

    I can understand how elegant and simple this solution (by adding some randomness) looks from your perspective (especially regarding armor). It is true that many other games employ similar features and that uncertainty is a natural part of many sports. Why not let that uncertainty come by not knowing what your opponent is going to do next? If your opponent out-thinks you, or explores a different move tree than you do, then there's some interesting uncertainty going on? Let's surprise each other by clever plays, tactical positioning and sheer calculation strength - instead of letting it come down to a RNG?

    The key here is 'player choice'. The actions we make should decide the games. Ideally I would like to see randomness reduced to a minimum with the end goal of having them completely removed. As it seems, the devs have already set their views in stone, which brings us to the next point:

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    we won't be stripping all randomness out of the game. We've designed the randomness to be something you can influence and react to, and not just complete chaos. Just to clarify here: RoA is staying, Bloody Flail is staying and miss chance is staying.
    While it's true that the randomness per se is manageable to some degree, in terms of side-stepping, avoiding it entirely or even tailoring the position so that the enemy is forced to make low percentage moves etc. The fact remains that once the RNG activates, it is an element we, as players, have absolutely zero control over. Even if we're excellent at making probabilistic estimations - it all comes down to luck in the end. In the larger perspective, this is obviously irrelevant since it's not a consistent strategy, but the fact that you can take a high risk and skew a game's result with the aid of a RNG is just an incredibly boring and uneventful feature to me. It leaves me greatly unsatisfied when I win with it, and greatly disappointed when I lose from it.

    In other words, I don't get the point at all. There should be better solutions. Haven't you had any alternatives that still didn't result in 'stale play'?

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Impaler View Post

    In other words, I don't get the point at all. There should be better solutions. Haven't you had any alternatives that still didn't result in 'stale play'?
    To have the match not random. Every team must have 6 identical units. The same stats. Have two matches every time, were one starts first game and the other starts the next game. The same surrounding every time. Then there is no random wuuuhuuu.

    P.S even though this is like it is it still would be random as chess even can be random at times (both players can be deadlocking but in the end somebody has to end the deadlock and will probably lose, thus random).
    Last edited by hreinnbeno; 04-08-2013 at 06:57 PM.

  15. #235
    Junior Member Impaler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    28
    hreinnbeno: The randomness I'm referring to is the type that isn't dictated by player action, i.e. RNG. So let's try to distinguish between the two.
    Believe it or not, I don't have any trouble accepting the type of randomness that stems from active player choice, i.e. starting positions etc.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Impaler View Post
    As poor Haeso has tried to already convey in multiple ways ad nauseam - the problem is that matches can be decided by the RNG at all.
    If the RNG has no influence on the outcome at all, that's just another way of saying that no amount of randomness is acceptable. That's a matter of opinion and will get us nowhere. Again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Impaler View Post
    Let's surprise each other by clever plays, tactical positioning and sheer calculation strength - instead of letting it come down to a RNG?.
    This is a false dichotomy - plenty of interesting strategy and tactics occur in Factions independent of the RNG. The game has room for both strategy and human-independent luck, as do many other games such as poker or MtG TCG, mentioned previously by others. And while you may disagree, mitigation of risk is a type of strategic play.


    Quote Originally Posted by Impaler View Post
    I don't get the point at all.
    OK I'll bite, on the low-probability chance you're being sincere.

    Deterministic games such as Chess, Go or even StarCraft 2 or Street Fighter involve a lot of pattern recognition and memorization of board positions (and timing) in order for players to be considered skilled, which is fine if you like that sort of thing. However, once a deterministic game is solved, it is solved forever and it is no longer fun. When's the last time you wanted to play a tense round of Tic-Tac-Toe or Connect 4? Very complex systems avoid this by being very difficult to play optimally, so players are (almost) always making non-optimal moves.

    Factions has a moderately complex system but it's far from unmanageable if the player base were to put the effort into solving it (which occurs slowly as we play anyway). Once that happens there would be one best build and one best start - or perhaps a few rock/paper/scissors solution sets - and the game would be done. That is the 'stale play' that non-determinism avoids.

    Furthermore, non-determinism opens up the game to new players more easily because there is less to memorize in order to compete. This is vital since Factions doesn't exactly have the player base of Chess - nor the millennium or so it'd take to obtain it. While a non-deterministic game may not have longevity for you personally, it is better for Factions in the long run.

  17. #237
    Junior Member hovercraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Impaler View Post
    hreinnbeno: The randomness I'm referring to is the type that isn't dictated by player action, i.e. RNG. So let's try to distinguish between the two.
    Believe it or not, I don't have any trouble accepting the type of randomness that stems from active player choice, i.e. starting positions etc.
    Every randomness is dictated by player action - you have control over your positioning, but don't have over your opponents. It's the same with flail, RoA etc. they also come from active player choice you don't have to do it if you don't want to (use flail, walk over RoA) and you don't have control over your opponents actions, like you don't have over his positioning. You don't even have control over the units opponet uses and the map you compete on. You have to adjust to all of it.

    Let's go further - you don't know what your opponent will do next - from your point of there's also element of chance/risk connected to every action, even if not direct. So is really direct randomness here and there that different?

  18. #238
    Junior Member Skaer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Leartes View Post
    Skaer, I just lost my reply to your post. Suffice to say I think your team has no problem at all with randomness and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
    First off, you said that first hit gives a huge advantage. I gave you a counterexample. Thus it is not irrelevant.

    And second, even without having any RNG-based abilities, this team is still a subject to the low chance exertion strikes, which I think is by far the biggest source of randomnes in the game.

  19. #239
    Junior Member Skaer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    I think it is rather realistic that you can win against a good player a low % of the time using a risky strategy.
    What does "realistic" have to do with anything?

    Otherwise, the game is stale. Why is it stale? Cos even before the match starts, you already know the stronger player will win. There is no chance for the weaker one to pull the game through, no matter the kind of play or choice he makes.
    Well, first off, this is a competitive game. Competitive games are where you say "no, I'm better than you and I'll prove it by beating you!". If you instead say "you're better than me" from the start, then indeed, you may as well just give up (although by saying that you already have) and go away.

    And second. However good, any player makes mistakes. And the nature of mistake is that it is unexpected. It's something you wouldn't normaly do. A mistake of a strong player is something that a strong player wouldn't do. It may be something a much weaker player would do. So even if you're playing against a truely stronger player, he may make this mistake, and you may still win by exploiting it.

    But in the core you are right, this is what skill-based games are and what "if you win, it's because you were better" means: if you have skill, you win. If your skill is inferior, you lose. Skill-based. It requires you to try harder, to learn the game, to think. Much more interesting than RNG-based, which barely even requires your presence. Indeed, RNG could just decide the winner even without you doing anything. It makes your effort, your skill, irrelevant. It's like giving a bot your name and having it play for you. Boring.

  20. #240
    Member Leartes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Aachen - Germany
    Posts
    92
    hovercraft: the difference is, that you can account for all possible options. With randomness you end up playing slightly overdefensive if you expect the worst outcome on every move. But honestly, in TBS:F I think you can expect worst random result in every move and play still compete on the highest level.

    The elegant part of the implementation to me is, if you are strong you don't utilize randomness much. If your opponent is strong, he does the same. High variance games only occur between total noobs. And it is fine since they can't read the game anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skaer View Post
    But in the core you are right, this is what skill-based games are and what "if you win, it's because you were better" means: if you have skill, you win. If your skill is inferior, you lose. Skill-based. It requires you to try harder, to learn the game, to think. Much more interesting than RNG-based, which barely even requires your presence. Indeed, RNG could just decide the winner even without you doing anything. It makes your effort, your skill, irrelevant. It's like giving a bot your name and having it play for you. Boring.
    Nice write up, but the fact remains that tbsf is not only rng. Randomness is what makes tbsf greater than chess to me. If you remove it, I could just go play some other deterministic game and start memorizing gamestates. Randomness is another dimension of strategic thinking that combines with all the others to make a greater game. It is not only boring positioning and reading game trees. I have done that for years, I want more than that. Randomness pushes the game from a reading game towards a valuation game. How much do I value this chance, how likely will I succeed if I move there. Can I leave my 2 str unit open to the bloody flail. Or I have two path, one is more dangerous, the other cost me wp. Is he the type of player that traps for the perfect combo or is he the type of player that plays for least exploitive situation? Am I leading, is it in my interest to increase or decrease variance? These are super great strategic considerations and you remove a huge part of the game if you remove that. What remains is another boring turn based game.
    Last edited by Leartes; 04-09-2013 at 02:43 AM.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •