On luck in games

[Sore Loser]

This will be for games in general, but also relating to Civ. I hope it's not inappropriate here, tell me if it is and I'll pack my bags.

1) What is luck?

I define luck as the outcome of an event beyond your control (fully or partially) which favours you. For example, tipping a hut is about luck. You can affect the outcome by taking precautions against barbarians beforehand, but in the end it's still about luck.

In a game of pool, any shot that doesn't work as you intended to and favours you anyway is also defined as luck. Let's say you planned on making the 7 and getting position for the 8 without hitting the 9. Your speed and course goes all wrong so you hit the 9, but you end up with a good position on the 8 anyway. Luck is also when lugging away at a ball and watching it ricochet out of the hole and into the one across the table.

But luck is also when you make a chess move without being able to grasp the full implications of it. If you make a great move without knowing why it's great, then you got lucky.

2) Should the impact of luck be diminished in games?

Luck doesn't add much to my gaming experience directly; but it does add unpredictability, which is a must for me. If everything is predictable, as in chess, then I usually run away screaming. Starcraft is a good compromise: The impact of luck is minor, but things like the hidden map and the vast amount of options at your opponent's disposal serves to keep the game unpredictable. Luck is rarely an important factor in Starcraft (barring risky opening gambits like extreme Zerg rushes or extreme bad luck at locating your opponent), which is one reason why it stayed enjoyable for me while I played it.

Other players will argue that they need the thrill of luck in order to stay hooked. I acknowledge their right to that opinion, but I've never really understood it. As I see it, anything that rewards indiscriminate of playing quality just generates frustration, not thrill. And I can honestly say that I'm not much happier when winning a game to luck than when losing due to bad luck.

3) "But the better player always wins in the end"

I've had many heated discussions starting with another guy saying this. He's right, of course, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm not (just) talking about justice, I'm talking about game enjoyment. I see games as fierce competition. It's about trying to win. I believe strongly in sportsmanship, as I also believe it's about having fun. Having fun at the expense of your opponent doesn't exist in my book. Lately I've realized that my slow style of play in pool tends to bore my opponents, so I'm trying to speed up in order to keep the game enjoyable for both of us.

Enough of my ramblings now, I'm getting incoherent. Please comment if you have any thoughts about the issue...

[VetLegion]

There is chance, and it can mean good luck or bad luck.

In civ genre, the issue of randomness has been polished through various reincarnations of the games.

Civ I had huts and random events (floods, earthquakes..)

Civ II kept huts but eliminated random events (most)

Civ II Multiplayer is mostly played with huts (even duels) and barbarian activity (another random factor) depends on agreement.

So if you are creating a theory about perfect dosage of randomness, multiplayer games especially may provide a clue as to what players like and what they don't.

And as you say, even eliminating as much dice throwing from the game mechanics as possible can't negate the fact that actions of the player who plays against you are for all that you know - completely random

[Sore Loser]

In my book, there is a difference between randomness and actual luck. I define luck as randomness with a major impact on the outcome of whatever is in question. I know this is not entirely consistent with the traditional meaning of the word, but that's just to explain what I mean.

Example: In Civ 2 the starting position can have a major impact on your progress. Supposedly, the game tries to regulate the value of the starting position with #s of techs and settlers, but it doesn't really work. But let's assume that you play a map designed by a human who has made sure that all starting positions are more or less equal. You then pick a Civ at random and go from there. There still is the problem with starting techs and settlers, but that can be cancelled with the editor.

Another good example of how to minimize luck while keeping an aspect of unpredictability is the push-out rule in 9-ball: On the first shot after the break, the player at the table can call "push" and then make any shot that by definition is legal (unless you sink the white). The other player can then continue or give the turn back to the first player. This way, either you get a better position than what you started out with, or your opponent gets a very difficult shot. If the player playing push is talented, then the two options will be equally undesirable, meaning that the randomness has not affected the impact of the game significantly.

"So if you are creating a theory about perfect dosage of randomness, multiplayer games especially may provide a clue as to what players like and what they don't."

My observations thus far is that most players don't feel very strongly about it, in fact most seem to accept a significant amount of luck in games. I've often heard it said that it gives them a sense of thrill.

"And as you say, even eliminating as much dice throwing from the game mechanics as possible can't negate the fact that actions of the player who plays against you are for all that you know - completely random"

Players actions generally belong to the skill department IMO. While a player can luck into doing something brilliant without knowing why it is, you can offset the uncertainty of not knowing what he'll do by planning for as many scenarios as possible. A good chess player will predict the best move an opponent can make in any given situation and then play according to that knowledge. If the opponent makes a worse move then you should benefit from it. If your plan only works based on your analysis of the opponent's best move, and a move that was sub-par in your analysis can topple your strategy then that sub-par move wasn't sub-par.

In Starcraft, you cannot know the actions of your opponent. Even with total scouting capability, you know what he's doing now but you don't know what he's doing next. Even so, you should weigh all his options and decide which is the most dangerous, then prepare for that. This way there is still some degree of uncertainty (even luck) involved, but as long as it can be minimized through player efforts then it's alright by me.

[pg]

you don't happen to play quakeworld do you?

erm, i think i understand what you are saying. obviously you must be a very competitive player to be worried about 'luck'. wouldn't it be fairly easy to minimize luck in civ but removing goody huts, random events, and playing on standardized maps(etc)? of course this would be wildly different than how civ is now.

[Sore Loser]

Originally posted by pg
you don't happen to play quakeworld do you?

Nope. I usually go by the nick of Catwalk, recently I've changed to sore_and_homicidal_loser. Unfortunately, it didn't fit here.

erm, i think i understand what you are saying. obviously you must be a very competitive player to be worried about 'luck'. wouldn't it be fairly easy to minimize luck in civ but removing goody huts, random events, and playing on standardized maps(etc)? of course this would be wildly different than how civ is now.

I am very competitive whenever I play something, but I don't see that as a necessary contrast to giving high priorities to game enjoyment. Which is the main reason why I feel so strongly about luck, it tends to diminish my gaming experience.

As for Civ, I don't think the luck factor is bad at all. The main problem is with the starting position. The maps wouldn't have to be standardised (as this would remove the unpredictability element which is also needed), but they should be "fair" IMO. I think the best way of doing this is to even out the difference in value of the different terrain types, and make sure that each starting position has exactly two specials nearby. I've made my own patch for Civ 2, I'll post it sometime for comments.

[Asmodean]

Chance is acceptable to me in strategy games, as a means of securing replayability. This means that is a certain event happen only a number of times, and not every time, and, even better, the outcome of said event would be slightly different each time. Then chance is okay to me. What I don't like is if chance (call it random events, dice roll, or whatever) exists in a game, only to make the game either easier or harder for the player.

By this I mean, that I don't like to be robbed of, say, 75% of my cash, only by chance. SMAC does this, and I absolutely hate it. There is no logical explanation for why it happens, and it is totally beyond my control. Not a good idea, in my book.

But on the other hand, I wouldn't like to be handed an unfair advantage, only by chance. Small advantages/disadvantages are okay. Such as popping a goody hut. I like that. But random events that totally alter the balance of a game. I would much rather do without them.

Asmodean

Oh, and Sore Loser: Wait untill you are a warlord before you post in the Off Topic forums. They can be rather hard on settlers in there

[Inverse Icarus]

simply put, if every swordsman beat a spearmen and took 1 damage doing it, the game would be extremely boring and straight foward. it would boil down to only production.

for example, behold this scene at a civ lan party we held last summer. my friend Will was the french, and had gotten boxed in early on by my friend Jeff (the zulu). Jeff refused to trade knowledge with Will, and declared that anyone entering his land was an act of war, so Will was getting screwed majorly.

so he started building his best offensive unit, chariots. he swarmed Zimbabwe with about 8 of them, and in the middle of one of the battles he jumps up and screams "POKE HIM! YEAH THATS IT! POKE HIM WITH YOUR POINTY STICK! YEAH! WHAT NOW YOU ZULU F*CKERS!? ZIMBABWE AINT SO BAD NOW HUNH?"

come on, thats hillarious.

[Asmodean]

Yeah...that's hilarious.

But I'm all for random chance in combat. Allthough I feel that in Civ3 it is perhaps too easy to lose to a weaker unit.

What I'm against is random events that totally cripple you without a reasonable explanation.

Asmodean

[Sore Loser]

Thanks for the warning Asmodean, but I'll manage. I posted a LOT on the Utopia forums, and they were a lot less polite than here, so I'm pretty much used to being shot down.

Uber, your scenario is the reason why I try to distinguish between luck and unpredictability. Obviously luck leads to unpredictability, but it doesn't have to go the other way around. The Civ 2 combat system works well enough. The outcome isn't certain, but reliable enough that you still feel rewarded for playing skillfully.

Asmodean, hvor bor du?

[Asmodean]

Jeg bor i Brobjergparken i Egå. Hvad med dig?

We should probably keep this in English though. Foreign languages are kind of frowned upon around here.

Asmodean

[DarkCloud]

norsk y dansk are very similar

god dag fellow Scandinavians

[Asmodean]

Hej med you, DC

How går det?


Asmodean

[Inverse Icarus]

if i see i god damned finn pop up in this thread i'm declaring it a conspiracy.