I don't understand the appeal of luck-based games

[BigBoyAdvance]

How can anyone enjoy playing a game that can screw you over if you get unlucky? You could literally use the best strategies available, not make a single mistake, and miss most of your attacks, leading to an opponent's win and forcing you to retry until you're not so unlucky.
I guess people who have no skill love those type of games, because they will succeed eventually thanks to it being luck-based.

[Faefu]

welcome to dungeons and dragons.

[nizzemancer]

Originally posted by Selvon:

It's just yet another obvious clown award bait farmer. Making one of these threads should legit just be a perma steam community ban.

I don't think so, looking at his post history he's probably just a young kid who's lashing out because he's bad at the game. (I base that on his post history only going back less than a year and his first post is some Paw patrol racing game and many subsequent posts are in other meant-for-children racers)

Seems to be a case of the old "this game won't just let me win like I always do when I play games with dad"

[seandeven]

THe problem here and I see a problem of communication the poster writes that the game is luck based. The game is not luck based the game is probability based.

Perhaps semantics in some peoples eyes but the difference is real, luck is when there is no preparation..... which for barbarians is moreso, versus a meticulously calculated prepared wizards.All on mitigating risk.

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Well it's not I'm entirely luck, you use builds to overcome thay luck and skills to shift the balance if you feel it's important, for example you can make a bard that has +13 in persuasion deception and intimidation if you wanted even on crazy high checks like DC25 only a 12 is needed without other buffs you get something like bardic inspiration in thay with like a DC 8 you can need as low as 4 on the dice, you stack the the odds in your favor.

It's like any other game with hard checks but instead you always have a chance to flop and alter the path of the game wether your good or bad at a skill. You can win or fail always with luck, but you can alter the luck with builds suited for it. The hame isn't 100% luck just like games like xcom aren't all luck, they just have an element of luck involved.

[[OTS]EchoZenLogos]

Originally posted by kexdd:

How can anyone enjoy playing a game that can screw you over if you get unlucky? You could literally use the best strategies available, not make a single mistake, and miss most of your attacks, leading to an opponent's win and forcing you to retry until you're not so unlucky.
I guess people who have no skill love those type of games, because they will succeed eventually thanks to it being luck-based.

Assuming you actually want an answer, here it is:

There are multiple reasons why people like luck-based systems in games.

1. Luck-based systems allow for an element of unpredictability, which enhances immersion as in the real world unpredictability is also a factor in countless areas of our lives.

2. Luck-based systems mean that you have to always plan for the worst, which leads to better tactical thinking and this in turn means you run things in such a way that even if you get "unlucky" you still come out on top. This leads, in turn, to great satisfaction.

3. Luck-based systems allow for a wide variety of situations to unfold with the same starting point, meaning that there always is something new to see.

To be blunt: if you are losing despite using the "best strategies available" in a "luck-based game," 99% of the time you weren't actually using the best strategies. Because statistically speaking you can only get so unlucky over time, and if you plan for that bad luck then you pretty much always have a shot to do well in spite of it. Failing one or two rolls critically shouldn't be enough to make you fail unless you were already doing poorly or you got yourself into a dangerous situation through poor judgment.

To be even more blunt: this isn't a "luck-based game," it simply involves elements of luck while the vast majority of your ability to succeed relies upon your tactics and skill.

When a game involves countless dice rolls and you can modify those rolls through countless skills and spells and such - then statistically it will average out over time. All the dice rolls can do is make you unlucky just as often as they make you lucky, at that point.

[ST Ry]

Lol you ever heard of a concept called law of averages?

And talking about no skill in games with an element of luck? Wtf are you on about?

Go play a game of poker against someone who knows how to play properly and see how you get on bud.

Definitely a smoothbrain take.

[cos-buster]

Originally posted by kexdd:

I guess people who have no skill love those type of games, because they will succeed eventually thanks to it being luck-based.

Indeed, you people with your "skills" should look elsewhere. Go and play something that involves headshots and talking smack about each other's mother and leave us to have fun with our dice.

[Lord Adorable]

If you think luck is the only factor in winning in a game like this, then I suggest you play Classic Ironman mode in XCOM. See how far 'luck' will carry you.

Spoilers: You,ll die miserably on your first mission and get an immediate game over. Such an outcome will not change no matter how many times you retry it and attempt to bruteforce it.

[Rxproject]

Talking about "no skill" in a rpg where choices of magic, weapons, buff/debuff, stats, class are important...

And dice roll isn't luck, that's probability...

[Capo Rip]

It's funny because OP doesn't understand that randomizers have been a basic feature of strategy games for millennia. A card deck is a randomizer as are dice rolls. As many others have said these randomizers introduce unexpected challenges that require both skill and analytic prowess to overcome. OP lacks these things so he put his poor performance down to being unlucky instead of his failure to perceive, understand, adapt to and overcome dynamic situations in games of skill. He fundamentally does not understand games and so he complains about "lucky" and "unlucky"

[Pandasaur]

SHINY MATH ROCKS GO CLICKITY CLACK.

[Xan84]

I also like games that don't have actions based on luck. Its like comparing chess with backgammon, I prefer chess and that is not to say that backgammon has no skill element to it, it does, obviously.

[Detective Costeau]

I sometimes wonder: do you think it's possible to make a troll thread so absolutely blatantly obvious it won't get several dozen people breathlessly responding in complete seriousness?
Just thinking about that for no particular reason.

[SpaceNvader]

Originally posted by kexdd:

How can anyone enjoy playing a game that can screw you over if you get unlucky? You could literally use the best strategies available, not make a single mistake, and miss most of your attacks, leading to an opponent's win and forcing you to retry until you're not so unlucky.
I guess people who have no skill love those type of games, because they will succeed eventually thanks to it being luck-based.

People like different things. To each their own. Live and let live. I suspect you are here to just stir up trouble by hurling insults so your question is in bad faith.

[BigBoyAdvance]

Originally posted by Detective Costeau:

I sometimes wonder: do you think it's possible to make a troll thread so absolutely blatantly obvious it won't get several dozen people breathlessly responding in complete seriousness?
Just thinking about that for no particular reason.

This isn't a troll thread though. I am completely right and correct in all of my assessments.
Fact 1: if you get unlucky, you can miss almost all of your hits, leading to your inevitable defeat.
Fact 2: There's little accomplishment for winning a game that's turn-based and luck-based. Let's not pretend - it takes absolutely 0 skill to select the best skill to use when you're not pressured for time.

Easy games like that are popular, because people don't actually like to overcome challenges. They like to beat easy games and pretend they overcame challenges. Those types of games appeal to the majority of lesser IQ players (which is a lot of people, just take a look at the IQ graph). But I don't expect people to agree with me. After all, nobody wants to admit they are the below average IQ audience for a video game. Me? I took part in many maths competitions during middle school, ended up in top100 in my country several times, with my best placement being 6th. I am very confident in my intelligence, hence I have the authority to make sound judgements like I do.

This is not bait.