Luck & Chance is important for Turn Based Strategy/Tactics?
Author
Would elements of luck and chance in a Turn Based Strategy/Tactics game make it more popular among the masses?
If the game was all skill, then only a handful of the most skillful would dominate; like chess for example. But if there are minor "luck" elements which give players the illusion of a fighting chance, would more players be attracted to the game?
I see many games with such design. Magic : The Gathering for example, require players to draw cards out of a shuffled deck. Many turn based strategy/tactics have the Critical Hit feature where units have a random chance to do more, sometimes spectacular, damages. Also, damage is often listed in the form of a range : e.g. a soldier might do 5-12 damage per attack.
Yes and no.
Wesnoth has some rather 'extreme' luck values that make single games (e.g. multiplayer) very unbalanced. A string of luck in favor of a single team quickly overwhelms even the best player.
You can't win when your getting hit 2x as often.
That level of luck irritates some people but others like it...
I'd suggest stick with truly minor luck elements. (e.g. Things that won't give more than a 5-10% advantage if luck goes against you)
Just my two cents. Then again, if you have a large quantity of 'events' that are random (e.g. hundreds of attacks)...luck is likely to get balanced out well enough due to the sheer number of 'events'.
Wesnoth has some rather 'extreme' luck values that make single games (e.g. multiplayer) very unbalanced. A string of luck in favor of a single team quickly overwhelms even the best player.
You can't win when your getting hit 2x as often.
That level of luck irritates some people but others like it...
I'd suggest stick with truly minor luck elements. (e.g. Things that won't give more than a 5-10% advantage if luck goes against you)
Just my two cents. Then again, if you have a large quantity of 'events' that are random (e.g. hundreds of attacks)...luck is likely to get balanced out well enough due to the sheer number of 'events'.
Elements of chance tend to extend interest in a game because it takes longer for optimal strategies to be played, and it does tend to promote more variety in played strategies. A corollary of this is that it's effectively harder to balance a deterministic game.
Even in a purely deterministic game, elements of chance can be added through incomplete information, like not being able to see your opponent's setup. Turn-based strategy games are so slow-paced that it probably doesn't matter a great deal though, but I'd always have a reasonable amount of chance-based elements in a game to force players to adapt.
One thing to bear in mind from a business perspective is that it may be hard to legally run competitions with prizes if your game involves luck-based elements (it may be classed as gambling).
Even in a purely deterministic game, elements of chance can be added through incomplete information, like not being able to see your opponent's setup. Turn-based strategy games are so slow-paced that it probably doesn't matter a great deal though, but I'd always have a reasonable amount of chance-based elements in a game to force players to adapt.
One thing to bear in mind from a business perspective is that it may be hard to legally run competitions with prizes if your game involves luck-based elements (it may be classed as gambling).
Quote:Original post by GirsanovThis is why you match players of roughly equal strength against each other. The beginner has no chance against a grandmaster but that doesn't matter as they never face each other.
Would elements of luck and chance in a Turn Based Strategy/Tactics game make it more popular among the masses?
If the game was all skill, then only a handful of the most skillful would dominate; like chess for example.
A lot of the people who get their fun from competing and improving will shun a game if it's too much about luck. This category includes both high-level players who mostly win, and low-level players who have fun despite losing if the match was "fair". Most of the time I am in the latter group.
Quote:But if there are minor "luck" elements which give players the illusion of a fighting chance, would more players be attracted to the game?In a game where players play against each other, it's a basic fact that someone has to lose.
I see many games with such design. Magic : The Gathering for example, require players to draw cards out of a shuffled deck. Many turn based strategy/tactics have the Critical Hit feature where units have a random chance to do more, sometimes spectacular, damages. Also, damage is often listed in the form of a range : e.g. a soldier might do 5-12 damage per attack.
The key attraction of luck is that in a game with no luck, the player loses, no ifs and buts. In the game with luck, it's trivial for the player to dismiss the results of his own mistakes as "bad luck". This makes it easier for many players to leave their egos out of the game, relax and tolerate loss. If these players did not have said excuse "on tap", they would either not be playing, or would have less fun, possibly be more irritable and less fun to play with.
Those last observations outline the reasons why it's sometimes in the interest of competition-minded players to accept some luck in the game: getting larger numbers of opponents, where you might not have any otherwise, and also getting more relaxed and pleasant opponents.
Consider poker; it's very luck-dependent, and sort of dull. The better players would surely want to ditch it for a more deterministic game, if it weren't for the two facts that the presence of luck in the game keeps the worse players coming, *and* (metagame element) winning in the game translates to gaining something IRL.
The best way to implement luck into games, in my opinion, is when the result of the chance forces the players to adapt.
For example, take a Street Fighter-like game. Imagine one character had a move which was called "Discharge", which was like an electric-charged punch. Instead of making it so that there is a 50% chance the move deals an extra 20 damage on infliction, I believe it would be better to make it so that there is a 50% chance the target gets in a state, for the next 5 seconds, where if they are hit successfully, they will be dealt an extra 20 (or more to balance) damage.
Even if the attacking player becomes lucky, they will still have to use their skill for the luck to pay off, and the defending player can use their skill to prevent the pay off.
Also, in poker, even if players get a terrible hand, they can still bluff which can potentially counter reasonably good hands.
For example, take a Street Fighter-like game. Imagine one character had a move which was called "Discharge", which was like an electric-charged punch. Instead of making it so that there is a 50% chance the move deals an extra 20 damage on infliction, I believe it would be better to make it so that there is a 50% chance the target gets in a state, for the next 5 seconds, where if they are hit successfully, they will be dealt an extra 20 (or more to balance) damage.
Even if the attacking player becomes lucky, they will still have to use their skill for the luck to pay off, and the defending player can use their skill to prevent the pay off.
Also, in poker, even if players get a terrible hand, they can still bluff which can potentially counter reasonably good hands.
I absolutely hate random chances in games. Whether it's single player or multiplayer it just seems to take out the strategic aspect of it all because random rolls can just change it all.
I consider myself a good RISK player. I don't play the game *that* often but whenever I play with my regular group of friends the only time I have lost was when all my friends decided to gang up on me before the session (not bragging, I'd probably get my butt kicked online, just trying to put you in context). That being said, I decided to play a match against a friend who had NEVER played and he totally decimated me. The guy had absolutely no strategy to his game but he rolled so damn high that I could do nothing to defend myself.
I am, however, not totally against the system if you allow the player to have an impact on it. For example, if a pincer attack gives the player a x% chance of dealing a critical blow. This rewards the player who thinks about the placement of his units. It also puts them in a position where they have to weigh the pros and cons of the bonus ("is it worth splitting up my two units for that extra % when I know in a few turns they will have the chance to surround me?")
Anyways, I hope I was able to contribute [smile]
I consider myself a good RISK player. I don't play the game *that* often but whenever I play with my regular group of friends the only time I have lost was when all my friends decided to gang up on me before the session (not bragging, I'd probably get my butt kicked online, just trying to put you in context). That being said, I decided to play a match against a friend who had NEVER played and he totally decimated me. The guy had absolutely no strategy to his game but he rolled so damn high that I could do nothing to defend myself.
I am, however, not totally against the system if you allow the player to have an impact on it. For example, if a pincer attack gives the player a x% chance of dealing a critical blow. This rewards the player who thinks about the placement of his units. It also puts them in a position where they have to weigh the pros and cons of the bonus ("is it worth splitting up my two units for that extra % when I know in a few turns they will have the chance to surround me?")
Anyways, I hope I was able to contribute [smile]
I think the element of uncertainty is helpful as it introduces the concept of risk to the player. Compare the following scenarios and 2 potential game rule-sets:
Your foe has 6 health points. Your foe deals you enough damage to kill you in 8 turns. You have 10 energy points to spend in this battle. There are 2 types of attack you can use, aimed and normal, but only one per round, and only if you have enough energy remaining.
Game Rules 1
An aimed shot costs 10 energy points, and deals 6 damage.
A normal shot costs 1 energy point, and deals 1 damage.
Game Rules 2
An aimed shot costs 10 energy points, and deals between 2 to 10 damage, evenly but randomly distributed.
A normal shot costs 1 energy point, and deals 1 damage.
Note that in both games, an aimed shot deals an average of 6x as much damage as a normal shot, but the random distribution in the second game changes your strategy. In game one you may as well use all your energy in shooting the foe dead in round one, thus sustaining less damage in the process. But in game two there is a 44.4% chance of your aimed shot doing too little damage and you being helpless to prevent defeat, so you'd go for the less efficient but also less risky approach.
So it can be shown that a degree of uncertainty affects the optimal strategy, which implies it is a valid game mechanic rather than merely a factor which reduces the amount of skill needed. You merely need to apply the skill to risk management as well.
I do think it works better in systems with random selection without replacement (eg. card games) than random selection without replacement (eg. dice rolls) because the former get 'fairer' for each random sample you take, since you draw from a finite set of possibilities, whereas you have no such guarantee with the latter.
(Edit: fundamental mathematical errors corrected. ;) )
Your foe has 6 health points. Your foe deals you enough damage to kill you in 8 turns. You have 10 energy points to spend in this battle. There are 2 types of attack you can use, aimed and normal, but only one per round, and only if you have enough energy remaining.
Game Rules 1
An aimed shot costs 10 energy points, and deals 6 damage.
A normal shot costs 1 energy point, and deals 1 damage.
Game Rules 2
An aimed shot costs 10 energy points, and deals between 2 to 10 damage, evenly but randomly distributed.
A normal shot costs 1 energy point, and deals 1 damage.
Note that in both games, an aimed shot deals an average of 6x as much damage as a normal shot, but the random distribution in the second game changes your strategy. In game one you may as well use all your energy in shooting the foe dead in round one, thus sustaining less damage in the process. But in game two there is a 44.4% chance of your aimed shot doing too little damage and you being helpless to prevent defeat, so you'd go for the less efficient but also less risky approach.
So it can be shown that a degree of uncertainty affects the optimal strategy, which implies it is a valid game mechanic rather than merely a factor which reduces the amount of skill needed. You merely need to apply the skill to risk management as well.
I do think it works better in systems with random selection without replacement (eg. card games) than random selection without replacement (eg. dice rolls) because the former get 'fairer' for each random sample you take, since you draw from a finite set of possibilities, whereas you have no such guarantee with the latter.
(Edit: fundamental mathematical errors corrected. ;) )
I've come to believe that the more luck plays a part in a game, the more casual the game becomes.
Take for example, any match 3 game. Each time a player matches the pieces, new random pieces take their place. These random pieces might set off a 20x chain combo or they might do nothing and hurt the player's chances of matching other pieces.
Look at most board games. Many people play Monopoly and think that they can win with skill, yet everyone is on the same playing field if they know the rules of the game. The winner is the person who gets the luckiest when rolling the dice. They land on available properties the most and miss landing on other player's properties.
Any game where players have to roll dice can pretty much be broken down to players rolling dice. What I'm saying is that you can take away the board and the pieces and the cards and money and just have players roll dice to see who gets the highest number. It's essentially the same thing. It's just disguised in a way that seems fun and seems like skill has a place.
For games this can be a bad thing or a good thing. From what I've mentioned, games involving luck tend to attract the widest audience because people feel they have a good chance of winning, even if they aren't the most skilled. That's why casinos exist, and are so hugely popular.
But games of pure skill can also do well, though with a different crowd. A game like chess is hugely popular (obviously) yet there are many many casual gamers who don't like chess because it's "hard" or they never win. That's because there isn't any luck involved so they don't stand a fighting chance against stronger competitors.
In the end it all depends on your target audience. The larger player base right now is the casual gamer, and that means you're going to want to include luck in your game if you want to sell your game to a wider audience.
Take for example, any match 3 game. Each time a player matches the pieces, new random pieces take their place. These random pieces might set off a 20x chain combo or they might do nothing and hurt the player's chances of matching other pieces.
Look at most board games. Many people play Monopoly and think that they can win with skill, yet everyone is on the same playing field if they know the rules of the game. The winner is the person who gets the luckiest when rolling the dice. They land on available properties the most and miss landing on other player's properties.
Any game where players have to roll dice can pretty much be broken down to players rolling dice. What I'm saying is that you can take away the board and the pieces and the cards and money and just have players roll dice to see who gets the highest number. It's essentially the same thing. It's just disguised in a way that seems fun and seems like skill has a place.
For games this can be a bad thing or a good thing. From what I've mentioned, games involving luck tend to attract the widest audience because people feel they have a good chance of winning, even if they aren't the most skilled. That's why casinos exist, and are so hugely popular.
But games of pure skill can also do well, though with a different crowd. A game like chess is hugely popular (obviously) yet there are many many casual gamers who don't like chess because it's "hard" or they never win. That's because there isn't any luck involved so they don't stand a fighting chance against stronger competitors.
In the end it all depends on your target audience. The larger player base right now is the casual gamer, and that means you're going to want to include luck in your game if you want to sell your game to a wider audience.
Quote:Original post by Konidias
I've come to believe that the more luck plays a part in a game, the more casual the game becomes.
There is a lot more luck involved in poker than tic-tac-toe. Yet which is more casual? Tic-tac-toe is a pure skill game! But it still contains less skill than poker.
In some games (typically the ones termed by board game players as 'Ameritrash') luck is used as a replacement for skill. In 'Eurogames' by contrast, there is plenty of skill and the luck aspect - if present - typically just adds the risk aspect and the judgement required to deal with that, as I tried to convey above.
Not really sure it's fair to compare poker with tic-tac-toe. Poker has a higher learning curve (yet is becoming more mainstream nowadays), while tic-tac-toe is simply connecting 3 X's or O's in a line. The simple premise behind tic-tac-toe makes it widely appealing, not so much that it's a pure skill game.
Poker has become widely appealing and it's largely due to the fact that anyone can win. It's hard to deny that the more luck there is in a game, the more wider your audience will be.
There's also the factor of people mistaking unskilled play as luck. For example, it may appear lucky that a person didn't notice that they missed a chance of blocking your 3 in a row in tic-tac-toe. A simple game of 3x3 tic-tac-toe is more of a child's game, because children (up to a certain age) don't really totally grasp the concept of deep strategy... therefore they tend to make mistakes, which means the game has that sense of luck involved even though it's a matter of skill.
If you want to compare simple games though... how about rock, paper, scissors? They have tournaments based on the game and it's totally luck-based no matter what people say.
There are Monopoly tournaments for real cash prizes also... that have real champion players who feel they are skilled in the game... when in reality they just get lucky.
There is a huge debate over whether or not Texas Hold'em is determined more by luck or skill. The game has such a huge luck factor that skill only plays a part in the long term after many many hands have been dealt, and even then it's a small advantage.
Poker has become widely appealing and it's largely due to the fact that anyone can win. It's hard to deny that the more luck there is in a game, the more wider your audience will be.
There's also the factor of people mistaking unskilled play as luck. For example, it may appear lucky that a person didn't notice that they missed a chance of blocking your 3 in a row in tic-tac-toe. A simple game of 3x3 tic-tac-toe is more of a child's game, because children (up to a certain age) don't really totally grasp the concept of deep strategy... therefore they tend to make mistakes, which means the game has that sense of luck involved even though it's a matter of skill.
If you want to compare simple games though... how about rock, paper, scissors? They have tournaments based on the game and it's totally luck-based no matter what people say.
There are Monopoly tournaments for real cash prizes also... that have real champion players who feel they are skilled in the game... when in reality they just get lucky.
There is a huge debate over whether or not Texas Hold'em is determined more by luck or skill. The game has such a huge luck factor that skill only plays a part in the long term after many many hands have been dealt, and even then it's a small advantage.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
