|
| Thread: The role of chance in strategy games |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted January 03, 2013 05:17 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:18, 03 Jan 2013.
|
The role of chance in strategy games
A simple question, because I'm curious.
Do you think an element of chance improves a strategy game, or do you think chance ruins the strategic element? Chess, for example, is played with no chance whatsoever - it's purely a game of predictable rules. Would Chess be better or worse with elements of chance added? Or, if you don't like chess as an example, would a game like HoMM be better if all aspects of chance were removed?
Some would say that elements of chance ruin a strategy game, because the best strategy doesn't necessarily win the game. Others would say this isn't true - that any good strategy should be able to overcome unlucky setbacks, and strategy games with chance are actually a more realistic gauge of the better strategic mind.
What do you think?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 05:25 AM |
|
|
I prefer having a carefully limited amount of variables because imo it enhances the replayability and responding to factors that can't be perfectly predicted forces players to adapt in new ways. Plus I think having inferior players being able to occasionally defeat their betters is a good thing. The averages are what tell the story, but it's good to throw a bone here and there to the noobs while also keeping the experts on their toes.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 06:31 AM |
|
|
For some reason I can't explain adding a little bit of luck to a strategy game makes it a lot more fun.
My top theory is that adding a certain amount of luck to a game makes the calculations so fantastically difficult that you start using intuition to make your decisions instead of raw processing time.
No, that doesn't really explain it either....
Of course if you add too much luck it starts to feel like a waste of time when you're playing it. This more than anything is prolly what separates the good games from the mediocre.
Perhaps humans are just intrisically attracted to watching for prizes in random events. Just think of Las Vegas and all the people that sit at the slot machines for hours on end. Getting a good stroke of luck when you need it is a huge endorphin rush compared to slogging your way towards it strategically.
Yeah, I'll go with that 
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 07:50 AM |
|
|
|
Chance exists as a variable in real life and very often messes up even with the most careful planning so I don't mind it to be present in a strategy game too (chess is too sterile in this regard). There are certain limits that have to be observed though. If one player has a big advantage over the other player solely because of the chance factor - say, he has Sword of Judgement, Helm of Heavenly Enlightment and other OMG artefacts 1 day away from his town with weak guards and the other player has nothing like that - then luck is very likely to ruin the "fun" part of the game. So shortly put - chance is acceptable as long as the game remain enjoyable.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 08:38 AM |
|
|
I think it makes it worse, definitely for the hardcore crowd, but with elements of chance, I have a lot less anxiety to play with friends. I don't like playing starcraft 2 with friends because it's too serious, too hardcore (and they're way better than me), but playing planechase on magic: the gathering or heroes is a lot more fun, because of random factors. You can have a big laugh with it.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 08:46 AM |
|
|
At one of the end of the spectrum there's flipping a coin. At the other, tic-tac-toe. The best combination is a range where skill is clearly more important than luck, but there's still some element of chance. Starcraft II goes too far in the "skill" direction - it's complex real-time chess. There are fewer strategy games that I've played that go too far in the "luck" direction, but HoMM II is a mild example - "I'm leveling up! Oh, why do I have to choose between Scouting and Navigation?"
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 12:28 PM |
|
|
randomness isn't a huge problem as long as the choices you get from it don't suck
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
b0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 12:58 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 01:19 PM |
|
|
|
To answer the question - I think a (limited) element of chance improves a strategy game and adds to it.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 01:45 PM |
|
|
The chance can make you change your strategy or tactic in a game.
Sometimes when it doesnt affect your strategy,different tactic according to the particular chance should be in order.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 02:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To answer the question - I think a (limited) element of chance improves a strategy game and adds to it.
+1. The trouble is, it's hard to find the exact amount of chance to make the game balanced.
____________
|
|
carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 02:42 PM |
|
|
I would say having a bit of chance in a real-time strategy game is good, though I prefer to be without it in turn-based strategy games. My main reason is rts demand more quick thinking, even more so if there's an element of chance there that can change things at a moments notice.
However, in a turn-based game, where most often I prefer to take things casually, being able to carefully develop a plan that is then ruined by luck isn't fun. Some elements of chance could be good, but, say, H5 had way too much chance for me to enjoy a lasting experience of it.
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 04:43 PM |
|
|
I'm playing Mount and Blade at the moment, it does require a lot of strategy to get those higher victories, but you largely rely on luck, especially the range system. (skill is crucial, but no matter how good you are, it will always fall on luck, just varying amounts)
I think luck should be mingled with strategy, greatly improves your tactical thinking, expecting the unexpected, those who do not incorporate the element of luck into their strategy, usually have staggering defeats.
In the end, many great generals gambled to get great victories, like Napoleon at Austerlitz, he weakened his right in order to bait the enemy, this was luck, but also strategy, they are one and the same, you can't have one without the other.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted January 03, 2013 04:58 PM |
|
|
There's arcade, which is all about luck.
There's simulation, which is all about skill.
And then there's the realistic part where huge amount of skill is required just to fail due to bad luck. That's life.
If there is no luck in a game it quickly becomes repetitive. Look at RTSes or HoMM fixed maps. In the end it comes to who is more efficient in their game, which will be played with the same strategy over and over.
Now add random templates to HoMM and weather to RTS. A whole new game if your birds can't fly or if your crystal mine is guarded by arcane archers. Adaptation comes into play and improves replayability.
Tactical games are supposed to be played without, or with very little, luck. Strategy games are all about luck. If chance based events are removed, it runs the risk of becoming very boring, very quickly. This is why the large number of maps/RMG is necessary for strategy games. You need new situations where you are challenged to create a new strategy.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 04, 2013 01:35 AM |
|
|
|
Well chess has no chance whatsoever and its rules are pretty simple, yet it remains popular several hundred years after invention. So obviously the position that games with no chance become boring or repetitive can't be wholly true.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted January 04, 2013 01:39 AM |
|
|
Chess has one scenario where there exists one best way. It's just a tad more complicated than Heroes or StarCraft and takes quite a lot longer to figure out.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2013 10:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well chess has no chance whatsoever and its rules are pretty simple, yet it remains popular several hundred years after invention. So obviously the position that games with no chance become boring or repetitive can't be wholly true.
On the contrary.  That something is popular, doesn't necessarily mean it's not boring or repetitive - think "popular" music.
Games are played for a certain purpose and that purpose isn't necessarily "having fun" or something like that. People may play, for example, to prove something: intelligence, superiority, whatever. Same thing with Go in non-Western cultures. Abstract No-Luck games - the winner necessarily being more skilled - seem to appeal to a certain type of competitive character that has something to do with control (among others), but if we look at the top chess players of the last 100 years or so, a lot of them have been acting, well, strange.
Anyway, the other thing is true as well. Games based entirely in chance - say, Roulette - are quite popular as well, even though I fail to see the GAMING element there. Personally I find Roulette QUITE boring, since there is no connection between what is happening - what other players are betting, what numbers have come previously and so on - and your own acting (height or style of your bets), although a lot of the players strive to construct one (studying the "permanences" for example).
Anyway, the point is that different people play (or "gamble") for different reasons.
Let me add something else: even CHESS isn't without an element of "chance", in this case it's the human element. We know that a lot of chess battles - especially when it's a series of games - are played as a war: you may sacrifice a battle in order to win the war. Players have tried to influence each other, to disrupt their game, with all kinds of tricks: attacking the PLAYER (or their mental stability). Sure, THE GAME has no element of chance, but it's played by people. While that may be dismissed, if playing a tourney with a certain number of players, random ups and downs in form of other players may influence your own course through the tourney in a random way...
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2013 12:20 PM |
|
|
It all boils down to what you want to do with the game.
If you want (first and foremost) competition with other humans, and the game is just a form of the competition, randomness should be avoided like a plague. Because it's important for competitive players to feel victory or defeat is "just" (made solely by their ability or disability to play the game at a certain level). Introducing cheap loses causes inevitable frustration, especially if the player feels the random factors allowed the less capable player to beat him.
There is a reason why most sports aim for conditions that are absolutely equal to both sides.
However, games aren't really that good of a sport, I'm afraid. I used to be big on e-sport as a teen, but today, it's too much fuss to me. Unlike real sports, computer games have a short lifespan (except the biggest classics maybe like counterstrike) and are very specific, i.e. skill you learned by playing SC1 will not necessarily make you good at Warcraft 3. This means, you have a very short time of "glory", which takes several hours of training per day, and then it just ends and you're left with a feel of a massive waste of time. Not to mention that while sports in general helps you to keep healthy, e-sports can easily make you weak, because the amount of time necessary to compete at top level pretty much makes it impossible to keep other hobbies if you're also doing something like school or regular job.
E-sports feels more like for kids, they have much more time at their hands, they learn faster, the adopt faster (i.e. when a game dies, kids move to another one with bigger ease), and they don't see this as a waste of life when it ends, they just move on.
This brings me to a conclusion that extreme competetive gaming sucks @ss, and the best way to play games is to treat them like games - a mean of having fun. And for that, a bit of randomness, if implemented well, can really spice things up (the joy of finding a powerful artifact, learning a powerful skill). If not overdone, it's welcome, imho. It's however important to keep it sane - one option shouldn't be auto-win while the others are just plain ****. This frustrates even casual gamers.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 04, 2013 05:38 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:40, 04 Jan 2013.
|
I like randomness (to a degree) in strategy games, though I think randomness in a game like chess would be weird, but could potentially be pulled off. Maybe instead of a perfectly square "battlefield" a computer version could have a more random battlefield with obstacles that could prevent pieces from moving through them. That would pose a problem for pieces like pawns though that can only move in one direction unless capturing another piece. In fact, that is sort of what HOMM battlefields do.
In games like HOMM, the random chests/resources/artifacts/buildings/creatures/guardians help replayability. You face random obstacles in the form of random guardians that guard random stuff. You make decisions about what to sacrifice to gain what you need and you have to make adjustments to your strategy to incorporate what you can reasonably obtain.
I liked the old style of leveling up of heroes where you had random (to a degree) skills/perks to chose from as your heroe levelede. Again, making a potentially different hero every time you play rather than always getting the "optimal build." That is one of the big failings of HOMM6 to me, though I have not played it since beta.
As an aside, I prefer turn based strategy games to rts though rts can be fun for a change of pace.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted January 04, 2013 07:12 PM |
|
|
A quick asnwer could be JJ one:
Quote:
To answer the question - I think a (limited) element of chance improves a strategy game and adds to it.
If you extend a bit, I'd say it depends of the game, but never putting too much on luck, or it may favours the bad player more than the good one.
Think on a RTS like StarCraft - chance must be very little, because the better player is the one with better mechanics (economy, macro, keeping a good rate of expending what you earn, etc...) and microing units, strategies in general (multi front attacks, knowing when and where to defend, etc...) and making quick decisions. A lot of chance could ruin that.
On the other hand, you have TBS like Heroes, where some chance offers great replayability. However, if you put too much on chance, things become simply stupid, just like HV initiative bar. I still have nightmares with it
And chess is more about risking units and a lot of thinking, not needing of chance there.
____________
|
| |
|
|
