Fix the RNG plz

[Drako2k0]

I didn't sign up for x-com levels of RNG bullshittery. Enemy always landing their 30% hits, while I miss an 80% 14 times consecutively. and the enemy has twice as many units as me. and that was the easy difficulty of the new world conquest.

[y0_lex]

If you didn't already know, you might be interested to know that Single Player campaigns allow you to choose three kinds of RNG:
Default - the current RNG you are experiencing.
Predictable - When you reload saves or restart the outcome will never change.
Biased (experimental) - Will make it less likely for extreme levels of bad luck or good luck to occur - 40% will "more often" always be 40% - this is actually less random, which is why it's called biased, but the option is there for those that want it.

It's true that you cannot change the RNG for campaigns that are in the Multiplayer Menu, such as World Conquest. Please note that in the campaign description of World Conquest it says "Expert Level". There are only three Single Player campaigns with that label: Son of the Black Eye, Under the Burning Suns, and Northern Rebirth.

[Drako2k0]

Very simple fix would be to adopt a 2 RN system over a 1 RN system. difficulty means nothing when it's the RNG that is the main hurdle. No amount of strategy can overcome constant misses.

[The Grand Mugwump]

Originally posted by Drako2k0:

Very simple fix would be to adopt a 2 RN system over a 1 RN system. difficulty means nothing when it's the RNG that is the main hurdle. No amount of strategy can overcome constant misses.

There is one strategy which works wonders with the default RNG. It's called save scumming. Yep. Have fun saving before every attack or end of turn and then reloading when things don't go as predicted.

[Pentarctagon]

Originally posted by The Grand Mugwump:

There is one strategy which works wonders with the default RNG. It's called save scumming. Yep. Have fun saving before every attack or end of turn and then reloading when things don't go as predicted.

If winning really requires that every attack and every turn go exactly as you want it to go, then you're playing way too aggressively.

[Drako2k0]

Originally posted by Pentarctagon:

If winning really requires that every attack and every turn go exactly as you want it to go, then you're playing way too aggressively.

exactly this. but also If you have to save scum to work the system, the system is broken to begin with.

[y0_lex]

Originally posted by Drako2k0:

Originally posted by Pentarctagon:

If winning really requires that every attack and every turn go exactly as you want it to go, then you're playing way too aggressively.

exactly this. but also If you have to save scum to work the system, the system is broken to begin with.

You don't have to save scum. I have beaten majority of single player campaigns without save scumming on the hardest difficulty. Many others have. The game and the campaigns have received feedback over the years and many eyes and people actually review content, such as campaigns, before they become official or before any changes are made. The system is not broken.

Becoming better at the game was something I had to work on. It didn't happen overnight for me. I even asked some people in the community to show me how a scenario could be won at the hardest difficulty without save scumming, because I couldn't imagine how. To my amazement, they would send me back replays that showed me how to win, and I found that I was able to reproduce and copy what they were doing - that's how not broken the system is - that I can even reliably copy a strategy to win scenarios.

Almost every time I thought there was no way to win a scenario in an official campaign on the hardest difficulty without save scumming, I always in the end find out that there is actually a way to do it.

You can see with your own eyes it is not broken:
May I recommend a channel on YouTube where a Wesnoth community member records himself playing campaigns at the hardest difficulties without savescumming, to help show that the system is not broken. I will admit that in his videos this person sometimes abuses foreknowledge of the maps, but it does not completely taint what he is trying to prove - that you don't have to savescum, and foreknowledge of scenarios can only carry you so far.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4DAMpKPPXlq9m0sA61VZ8Q/about

[Drako2k0]

you Can't become better when you miss an 80% hit a dozen plus times consecutively. I don't know how I can better explain that to you.

[No One]

Well, that's true.

Except, video or it didn't happen.

[Drako2k0]

Originally posted by No One:

Well, that's true.

Except, video or it didn't happen.

really don't give a damn to prove myself to you. Believe it or not. But there's a reason X-com RNG is more oppressive than Fire Emblem RNG.

[asgoritolin]

The RNG is part of the game, like darkest dungeon or any card game, it's a game about evaluating your options and risking for the ones you see better.
Some strategy games use RNG to force players to improvise, holding them in the edge of their seats, it's a special kind of game, compared to games like for example chess where it's pure strategy (and as a consequence of that, the meta of chess is to memorize the best openings).
If you don't like it there's plenty of other games for you to play.

[Drako2k0]

Originally posted by asgoritolin:

The RNG is part of the game, like darkest dungeon or any card game, it's a game about evaluating your options and risking for the ones you see better.
Some strategy games use RNG to force players to improvise, holding them in the edge of their seats, it's a special kind of game, compared to games like for example chess where it's pure strategy (and as a consequence of that, the meta of chess is to memorize the best openings).
If you don't like it there's plenty of other games for you to play.

You get points for not reading the thread. I know how rng games work. been playing them my whole life. from Feda, to shining force, to fire emblem, to x-com, etc etc. I know a thing or 2 about RNG mechanics, and I know when one game is more oppressive than another.

as I stated above, the 1 RN system that this game I am 98% sure runs on, is NOT a good system.

Now let me sit back and wait for rando #5 to come in and repeat the same BS ya'll like to repeat.

"You CAN NOT plan around missing 12+ 80% hit chances consecutively." Not when you're backed into a corner, with half the units the computer has.

[y0_lex]

Originally posted by Drako2k0:

Now let me sit back and wait for rando #5 to come in and repeat the same BS ya'll like to repeat.

How would you feel if other people called what you say BS? Let's avoid toxicity.

Originally posted by Drako2k0:

as I stated above, the 1 RN system that this game I am 98% sure runs on, is NOT a good system.

It's a matter of taste. Some games have higher and lower levels of randomness. Poker is a notoriously high randomness game, where even pros can lose.

IMO, as long as the randomness in a game is consistent, i feel like it is fair. For randomness to feel fair to me, the important thing is that the randomness is consistent in providing the same distribution when looked at over so many repetitions.

I know that the randomness in Wesnoth is consistent partly because of my observations of results over the long-term, but more concretely, something that puts my mind at ease that it is really consistent is the results of the Attack Simulation. When you attack, the game shows you the probability of each possible resulting HP of the attacker and defender. The process by which this is calculated is by literally running the attack so many times in the background quickly (called Monte Carlo simulation) and then showing you the breakdown of the results from all those many simulated attacks. The breakdown is always the same, which shows that although you will have different results in a few repetitions, you will always have the same results over many repetitions.

You say multiple RN's is the way to go. I don't quite know the exact setup you have in mind, but I'm quite sure you are suggesting a system that yields a different probability distribution of results compared to the current one.

Maybe you even agree that the RNG is fair. but you just don't like the probability distribution of its results. At this point, this is subjective taste, like preferring different genres of music or different art.

I previously mentioned that the game has a "Biased" RNG setting that you can choose. It will reduce the occurrence of extreme events happening, such as having many consecutive misses. So the game has other RNG systems, not just the default one, which you dislike. You might like this system and it's in the official distribution of the game. You are welcome to try it and give your feedback if it is any better or worse for you.

Originally posted by Drako2k0:

"You CAN NOT plan around missing 12+ 80% hit chances consecutively." Not when you're backed into a corner, with half the units the computer has.

I agree that this can be disappointing to experience. The thing is, I don't think you are necessarily supposed to plan around dealing with "12+ 80% hit chances consecutively". I think the takeaway is that you are supposed to play a bit more, and realize that it was a complete fluke and will very rarely ever happen.

Something that I enjoy about the game is about training oneself to recognize if a failure was due to bad luck or due to poor strategy. It is similar to becoming good at poker wherein you have to differentiate between playing poorly and only getting unlucky. This feeling and experience is I think part of the core design for the "default" experience of wesnoth. (remember, you can try the biased RNG).

Further Reading:
Luck in Wesnoth: Rationale by Dave
https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=21317
Dave is the original creator of Wesnoth. He explains why he designed the RNG of the game in this particular way. He even makes comparisons to Fire Emblem.

[Konrad2]

Originally posted by y0_lex:

You can see with your own eyes it is not broken:
May I recommend a channel on YouTube where a Wesnoth community member records himself playing campaigns at the hardest difficulties without savescumming, to help show that the system is not broken. I will admit that in his videos this person sometimes abuses foreknowledge of the maps, but it does not completely taint what he is trying to prove - that you don't have to savescum, and foreknowledge of scenarios can only carry you so far.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4DAMpKPPXlq9m0sA61VZ8Q/about

I just want to say that I'm happy to see my content being brought up, especially since this kind of argument was why I started recording it. :D

[Janthis]

Originally posted by Drako2k0:

I didn't sign up for x-com levels of RNG bullshittery. Enemy always landing their 30% hits, while I miss an 80% 14 times consecutively. and the enemy has twice as many units as me. and that was the easy difficulty of the new world conquest.

Thanks for this thread. I was just about to try out this game, but I hate games that pull off this RNG "you missed 5 times in a row, deal with it" crap. I think I'll skip it. Cheers!

[Kyezoar]

A. This is Wesnoth take it or leave it

B. Save and reload