Removing Luck?

[47948201]

No, I don't mean the stat, but that could very well be a side effect.

So for the handful of you that remember my Ragefest submission, you might guess that I'm not a fan of luck elements in games. Every player and enemy, rather than having a certain hit chance percentage, has a guaranteed hit or miss based on their stats.

But what I was wondering was, how practical would this be in a full game? It could make the game pretty imbalanced once you have a unit that dodges everything (but is utterly worthless until then), or if you remove Skill altogether and have every attack guaranteed hit, would that just make the game way too simplistic? Actually, this whole idea could make the game simplistic... So, any ideas on how to handle something like that, if it's even feasible?

(Poll because I can)

Edited June 28, 2013 by 47948201

[deleted35362]

Oh, so you were the one to make that hack, PK? I saw Marky play it, and I thought it was really cool. It kinda reminds me of how in pokemon, attacks that have 100 accuracy have guaranteed hit and it isn't very easy to take that off, but that's a stretched example.

It's really good system in my opinion. Another good reason to play a hack you make (except for the obvious "PK made this hack, so play it")

[Lord Chrom]

I think that luck is an element that shapes your character. It adds depth to how they react when faced with adversity... Sure, not everyone's Vaike is going to be lucky, but when one is, it surely complements his personality. If Vaike isn't lucky, it changes his character into more of a comedic relief, and that's also good. Being unlucky is common trait in this world, and so is being lucky.

I'm sure there are factors beyond our control that permit us to achieve goals, sometimes with little effort. If I were to attribute it to something in the FE world, I would say the RNG would be the factor beyond one's control, like destiny. It seems you don't like destiny, and want to have more control over your characters, so that their fate isn't sealed by a cold hearted computer. However, your method of control would have me get a leveling system like Oblivion, in which I would manually select the attributes I want my character to excel at. And, well, there goes the fun of the Russian Roulette Random Number Generator that we've all come to love (or hate).

I think we should also add DEX, so that the characters can sense their surroundings more, in turn, dodging attacks.

[Mighty Kamina]

I wouldn't like hits to be guaranteed. The relief you feel when your units avoid an attack that would kill them adds to the experience IMO.

[Shengar]

Removing luck and chance factor in a turn based game means that we revert in back into a simple chess.

I don't really like it, even though sometimes my luck got the best of me. It add thrill and random factor which actually makes it

[Anouleth]

Removing luck and chance factor in a turn based game means that we revert in back into a simple chess.

I don't really like it, even though sometimes my luck got the best of me. It add thrill and random factor which actually makes it

Chess isn't simple, though, it's one of the most fantastically complex games ever created, with thousands of potential strategies, despite having simple rules.

It's worth noting that Advance Wars still has luck elements, but much smaller in potential impact. Perhaps something similar could be implemented, where luck still makes a difference, just not the difference between dealing 0%, 100%, and 300% damage.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Anouleth

[Chiki]

Chess is simple compared to Fire Emblem. Fire Emblem involves numbers and growths to a far greater degree than chess, which already make it infinitely more complex than chess.

[Anouleth]

Chess is simple compared to Fire Emblem. Fire Emblem involves numbers and growths to a far greater degree than chess, which already make it infinitely more complex than chess.

Adding more complexity to rules doesn't necessarily make the way the game is played more complex. Chess strategy is more complicated than the strategy that goes into playing Fire Emblem, just as how Go strategy is just as complicated as chess, even though the rules are a lot simpler.

[Redwall]

Most of the math relevant to Fire Emblem (what is an average; central limit theorem; binomial/multinomial distribution) is covered in first-year college classes. In contrast, you can't play chess well without many years of study.

[Chiki]

Adding more complexity to rules doesn't necessarily make the way the game is played more complex. Chess strategy is more complicated than the strategy that goes into playing Fire Emblem, just as how Go strategy is just as complicated as chess, even though the rules are a lot simpler.

Depends on the map. I think a chapter like FE9 23 or FE10 4-4, which has more units and more possible movements, has potentially more complicated strategies.

Most of the math relevant to Fire Emblem (what is an average; central limit theorem; binomial/multinomial distribution) is covered in first-year college classes. In contrast, you can't play chess well without many years of study.

I'm not talking about complexity here in that sense (tough to understand). I agree on that. What I'm trying to say is that there's a higher number of possible movements in Fire Emblem than in chess. For example, what you do every turn can vary due to the stats of your units, weapons, etc.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Chiki

[XeKr]

Single player strategy games like FE : multiplayer strategy games like Chess :: apples : oranges

???

Edited June 28, 2013 by XeKr

[Anouleth]

Single player strategy games like FE : multiplayer strategy games like Chess :: apples : oranges

???

You could consider the possibility of playing chess against a computer. But even the best AIs in the game do not play the game perfectly.

I'm not talking about complexity here in that sense (tough to understand). I agree on that. What I'm trying to say is that there's a higher number of possible movements in Fire Emblem than in chess. For example, what you do every turn can vary due to the stats of your units, weapons, etc.

Suppose that I added a button to Fire Emblem, that when you press it, you instantly win the chapter. Superficially, I have made the game more complex because I have added another option for the player. There are more possible movements, counting pressing that button as a move. But in actuality, the game is less complex because this one move is so much superior to the other moves, that we do not need to consider them.

Regardless, the whole point was that someone claimed that removing luck would make the game "like chess". Since chess is universally popular, easy to learn, impossible to master, has been played for hundreds of years and is considered to be one of the greatest games ever devised, while offering far more strategic depth than any Fire Emblem, I don't see how it's a bad thing to be "like chess".

[Chiki]

But in actuality, the game is less complex because this one move is so much superior to the other moves, that we do not need to consider them.

Complex in the sense of difficulty, yes.

In the sense of the number of possible movements, you've added a crap load (you can choose to press that button whenever you like, after a move, after 5 moves, and all those moves depend on growths, etc.)

[Anouleth]

Complex in the sense of difficulty, yes.

In the sense of the number of possible movements, you've added a crap load (you can choose to press that button whenever you like, after a move, after 5 moves, and all those moves depend on growths, etc.)

It seems to me that being complex in the sense of adding more options is a completely empty and pointless attribute, then, and I didn't really expect anyone to interpret my statements about chess being more complex than Fire Emblem as referring to that kind of complexity.

[Chiki]

It seems to me that being complex in the sense of adding more options is a completely empty and pointless attribute, then, and I didn't really expect anyone to interpret my statements about chess being more complex than Fire Emblem as referring to that kind of complexity.

It's a lot more complex to a computer trying to make decisions. Can you imagine the power that would be required for a supercomputer to play Fire Emblem on the level of an FE player who is as masterful at FE as a chess player who is as masterful at chess, compared to that of the power required for a supercomputer to play chess? I'm guessing a lot more.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Chiki

[Anouleth]

It's a lot more complex to a computer trying to make decisions. Can you imagine the power that would be required for a supercomputer to play Fire Emblem on the level of an FE player who is as masterful at FE as a chess player who is as masterful at chess, compared to that of the power required for a supercomputer to play chess? I'm guessing a lot more.

I doubt it. The reason why chess requires such high computational power is because of the need for advanced planning, 10 or 20 moves ahead. That kind of advance planning doesn't exist in Fire Emblem. Most chapters are over in a matter of a few turns: most choices are easily reversible and don't have any long-term impact, and enemy AI is predictable.

[Chiki]

I doubt it. The reason why chess requires such high computational power is because of the need for advanced planning, 10 or 20 moves ahead. That kind of advance planning doesn't exist in Fire Emblem. Most chapters are over in a matter of a few turns: most choices are easily reversible and don't have any long-term impact, and enemy AI is predictable.

Imagine a computer playing an LTC of FE9. It'd have to plan the entire game out, which is a crapload of moves. Maybe in the thousands?

[Klokinator]

pk's game isn't a hack

get it right people

[Redwall]

I don't understand the comparison. Are you comparing the calculations involved in LTCing a Fire Emblem game (say, FE9) to those performed in a single chess game against, say, an average player?

[dondon151]

oh look, another argument with olwen involving the word "complexity."

[XeKr]

I don't understand the comparison. Are you comparing the calculations involved in LTCing a Fire Emblem game (say, FE9) to those performed in a single chess game against, say, an average player?

But I thought they were both fruit!!!

[Anouleth]

Imagine a computer playing an LTC of FE9. It'd have to plan the entire game out, which is a crapload of moves. Maybe in the thousands?

FE9 doesn't even have a thousand turns worth of game, and on many of those turns you only move one or two units. How many calculations are involved in low-turning one of those piss-easy chapters like Chapter 14 or Chapter 21? Probably not many.

[Chiki]

I don't understand the comparison. Are you comparing the calculations involved in LTCing a Fire Emblem game (say, FE9) to those performed in a single chess game against, say, an average player?

To make the comparison even closer, consider a game of Shadow Dragon on Wifi against two CPUs--both are as good as FE as grandmaster-level CPUs at chess. Now consider all these things:

1) Which weapons to use and forge

2) Which units to train

3) Which units to choose

4) Tactics

5) Long-term strategy

Which one is tougher for the computer, do you think? Chess or FE? I'm not an expert on AI, but I'm going to have to go with FE. There's just a lot more potential choices to make.

I think FE tactics and strategy are a lot more complicated than chess ones, simply because the only difference between the two are things like numbers and weapons. It's really the same idea. The only reason we see chess as far more difficult than FE is because they don't have the same audience, and no one is as devoted to FE as they are to chess. That's my opinion.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Chiki

[PKL]

FE9 doesn't even have a thousand turns worth of game, and on many of those turns you only move one or two units. How many calculations are involved in low-turning one of those piss-easy chapters like Chapter 14 or Chapter 21? Probably not many.

Bolded: What?

Not agreeing with Chiki but I find that chapter one of, if not the worst.

[Redwall]

The mere existence of more options (assuming they exist in FE to begin with) doesn't necessarily demand more computing power; from what I understand, what matters more is how promising the competing options are (see the Wikipedia articles on quiescence searches and the Shannon number). Decision-making in FE largely boils down to quickly killing enemies while not letting your own units die, whereas decision-making in chess is generally more complex (something on which we seem to agree) due to the pieces interacting in non-trivial ways, so for this reason, I think a computer would require more floating-point operations in your chess example than in your Shadow Dragon example (iirc, Shadow Dragon Wi-Fi is just five v. five, no?).