Bring back luck... with a twist?

Soul of Stray Demon wrote:

Serious_Much wrote:

Rynn wrote:Luck is the direct enemy of skill.

Well I think it can help anyone, no matter how skilled- doesn't always hinder. Though it is the opposite of skill in a way

Too much randomness is the opposite of skill, but the ability to deal with small bits of randomness is actually a skill in and of itself.

While there is validity to that statement, I can assure you random crits are turned off on TF2 competitive servers for a reason. Randomness is in a lot of ways the direct enemy of skill. Randomness means that if two equally skilled people fight, the result will not be a tie, but that based on factors outside their control, sometimes one of them will win, even if they did not deserve to. The worst feeling in a competitive game is losing simply because your opponent got a critical hit.

Dealing with small amounts of randomness is more in tune with claiming there is skill in being able to handle any random combination of affixes in an ARPG at the drop of a hat.

Skill is about getting the number of times you'll win a fight to 100/0. And if luck plays a role in that, than this number is only 99/1, under any circumstance. Which means 1 out of 100 times, no amount of skill mattered in the results... and if Luck plays the role of skill not being enough, than it is the enemy of that skill.

Usually it doesn't work because its implemented incorrectly (e.g. there's too much of it).

No, the poor implementation happens when single or few outcomes have drastic impact on the outcome of the game.

One 90% battle where if you lose it you insta-lose the game is a big difference from 1000 90% battles, for example. The problem with extreme luck outcomes is when a game is designed such that they can individually turn around a match by themselves. When you're working with odds and planning around them, designing them such that it is rare/implausible that the more intelligent manipulation of odds loses is crucial.

The list of games that violate this and stupidly implement such lucky outcomes is far too long for my tastes. It's hard to get away from it. Everything from Madden (dropped INT) to Civilization (early game fights with barbarians/other civs) to pokemon (critical hits, min/max damage) to RPGs pulls this crap, and it's a real struggle to list any where it adds actual gameplay depth in any capacity whatsoever.

Souls doesn't do it. Let's not take it in that direction. Let's keep souls about skill (hoping of course that servers irons out lag = win when it's bad enough, which is rare on xbox but not so rare if you're talking about 500+ ms ping variance).

Well I think it can help anyone, no matter how skilled- doesn't always hinder. Though it is the opposite of skill in a way

Luck equalizes/dilutes the impact of skill. When luck "helps" a skillful player it is far less likely to alter the outcome than when it "helps" the weak player, simply because on average the skillful player would win regardless, so lucky outcomes in his/her favor would be meaningless.

The worst feeling in a competitive game is losing simply because your opponent got a critical hit.

Winning that way is meaningless, too. When players enjoy winning solely because of that it says a lot about them already.

[quote="TheMeInTeam"]

Well I think it can help anyone, no matter how skilled- doesn't always hinder. Though it is the opposite of skill in a way

Luck equalizes/dilutes the impact of skill.  When luck "helps" a skillful player it is far less likely to alter the outcome than when it "helps" the weak player, simply because on average the skillful player would win regardless, so lucky outcomes in his/her favor would be meaningless./quote]

So you're saying it's unfair if a less skilled player gets lucky but if a skilled player gets lucky it's okay?

So you're saying it's unfair if a less skilled player gets lucky but if a skilled player gets lucky it's okay?

Are you seriously asking me that? I think that works better as a joke, and hopefully it is one .

I don't want to be rude, but I'm seriously confused as to where in my post one would gather even the implication that it is "ok", and am bothered by just how badly such a question misses the point. What is hard to understand about the concept that luck will alter the outcome in favor of the inferior player more frequently, and how does pointing it out imply that luck for either side is a good thing or even acceptable?

That concept isn't even debatable, it's true by definition. When you put in a skill equalizing factor, the side with more skill has a lower win rate. Who do you think is benefitting from that then :p?

To be honest without luck, stuff like PvP would be boring. The whole reason why things like football, dark souls pvp, betting are so enjoyable and addictive is that uncertainty. If you know within seconds you are a better player than someone and it means they have no chance of winning would you enjoy that?

So in answer to your question- luck is benefiting both the skilled and unskilled players. Even if it reduces the skilled player's win ratio, the uncertainty it brings makes everything much more exciting as you don't know what will happen, even against a relatively less skilled opponent

I agree. The whole point of randomness in games is to make things unpredictable, otherwise it would just be boring. The tricky bit it getting the balance right; how do you use randomness to introduce unpredictability without leveling the playing field (and effectively penalising good players)?

To be honest without luck, stuff like PvP would be boring. The whole reason why things like football, dark souls pvp, betting are so enjoyable and addictive is that uncertainty. If you know within seconds you are a better player than someone and it means they have no chance of winning would you enjoy that?

There is a fundamental flaw in that line of thinking, and that's that the person who is better on average is always the better person *this time*.  The person who is better *this time* should win, but that isn't always the same person.  That's why we play.  You don't need luck for upsets.

By the way, what major outcome-altering factor exists in dark souls PvP that is luck-dependent?  Damage is fixed based on equipment matchups and movesets/hits/timings are fixed also; I don't think anybody is going to make a case that lag is a good thing for the game and that's one of the few random factors known.

So in answer to your question- luck is benefiting both the skilled and unskilled players.

No, luck in this context harms both players and the game.  By reducing the impact of possessing skill, you remove some of the incentive to attain skill, because skill matters less than it otherwise would.  This is bad for both players, as it frustrates the skillful and removes encouragement of those lacking to improve.  The game winds up with less depth and is dropped sooner in its life cycle.

Even if it reduces the skilled player's win ratio, the uncertainty it brings makes everything much more exciting as you don't know what will happen, even against a relatively less skilled opponent

Uncertainty does not require luck.  If you're certain of the choices of your opponent, you need a better opponent, not to have him randomly deal triple damage to you.

The tricky bit it getting the balance right; how do you use randomness to introduce unpredictability without leveling the playing field (and effectively penalising good players)?

First you talk about luck, but then you ask a balance question.  There is a reason for that.  A desire for uncertainty is not a case for luck.  It is a case for balance between choices such that it is possible to be unpredictable and still be effective.

If someone might do any of 2 things that can possibly work, vs 15 things that can possibly work, obviously the latter is going to be a deeper and more uncertain experience, and it will do so independently of the existence of any luck whatsoever.

Edit:

Since you mentioned football also, let me point out that madden deliberately adds far more luck than exists in reality. In the NFL, defenders catch 70% of interceptions on average. In madden, that figure is less than 50%. In the NFL, an average halfback fumbles on right around 1% of carries (good ones less than half that). In madden, they fumble it several times more frequently.

Fumbles are luck-dependent factors in-game; poor throws resulting in opportunities for interceptions are almost independent from luck.

One turnover makes the difference in the outcome of a game a reasonable amount of the time; a differential of two has an enormous impact on who is likely to win. Why, then, make ranked/competitive matches and even those played for money deliberately much more dependent on luck than the actual game?

The best justification I'm seeing for it so far, and it is a pathetic one, is that it somehow makes games "more exciting". If rolling dice is exciting to you, fine. Go roll dice. Heck, go to Vegas and put money on rolling dice. Some people certainly find that exciting. But why do it in the framework of a game that would otherwise take skill? Why force people to play dice when they actually want to play Dark Souls or a different game? What message does penalizing skill send? What depth does it add to the game?

.....randomly deal triple damage? What are you talking about?

I was talking luck as in concept, not as an in game value.

In terms of uncertainty and knowing what your opponent is going to do- that is partially luck. You don't know that he would do what he chose to do for certain. That factor is always present, and you are lucky when taking a gamble and it pays off, since that's what luck is, it's making a gamble to have it pay off favourably for you.

The changes between different matches, and outcomes being different. It's not some mathmatic-esque movement of you do x, opponent does y= you win/lose. The factors are in there, but mistakes your opponent or you make, are lucky also.

Pretty much- Anything that goes your way that was unintentional is basically lucky for you

.....randomly deal triple damage? What are you talking about?

Some games do exactly this with their "luck".  And what junk is suggested in OP? Well...

However, each point of luck also gives you a 1% chance of scoring a critical hit, which would inflict a backstabs worth of damage on a regular strike.

What does this sound like to you? To me it sounds like extra damage at random. I don't want to see it in dark souls, and I don't want to see an awful player nearly 1-shot someone good because he got 1 hit and that hit happened to be "lucky" and suddenly the longsword hits for 1200 by grazing the arm.

In terms of uncertainty and knowing what your opponent is going to do- that is partially luck. You don't know that he would do what he chose to do for certain.

Each player making a choice and one doing well as a result of the choices is not luck.  This is not a chance outcome, but rather a direct consequence of player choices.  If both players make the same choice again, they both get the same result every time.  It's a bit silly to compare that to actual in-game built in luck factors.

I don't have a problem with my opponent choosing to do something unpredictable, I have a problem with correctly predicting it, countering it, and him being rewarded anyway at random.  That souls doesn't do that, ever, is one of the very best things about its experience.  For all of its hyped difficulty, outside of the BoC it is very fair.  I will vehemently oppose trash gameplay mechanics drifting into one of the better series I've ever played, that has done just fine...in fact better than most...without them.

Like I said, I'm not talking about a in game luck factor or a stat, but luck itself. We're talking about different things here, obviously.

I thought you were saying the presence of luck inhibits skill, but obviously you were saying an in game luck factor is bad, which I'd agree with

Yes, I was confused because what the OP suggested is what I'm actually opposing, and unless I'm mistaken also what Rynn was opposing.

Nevermind then

In game luck be a bad idea

This topic has turned into a discussion into how bad luck is in games. The OP was about stopping the 8th stat from being useless. I'd also like to point out that to even have an ok chance of scoring a critical hit, you have to have a high luck stat, meaning you're putting less points into other stats.

This thread was originally about having an 8th stat that's useful. Since we've said all there is about luck in games, can we get this thread back on topic?

I agree.

I think making resistance useful is the way forward. It looks like in dks2 they're trying... and they're making the 8 stats into 10. Very scary.

Serious_Much wrote:I agree.

I think making resistance useful is the way forward. It looks like in dks2 they're trying... and they're making the 8 stats into 10. Very scary.

Res contributing to poise and defense more would be a big draw...maybe even having it resist backstabs/ripostes somewhat. It would also be a lot more meaningful if it was the only way to raise stats, instead of getting some extra benefit from taking a level in anything + getting even more from humanity, or if it afforded elemental protection otherwise difficult to achieve. There's lots of ways to make it useful.

Its problem right now is that it doesn't do anything simply taking levels in anything else won't also do, and as levels go up its difference between one point in it and one point in other levels is even more reduced. The benefit starts small...and then still scales down! Of course a stat that functionally accomplishes nothing or close-to-nothing is going to fall behind. But, what if 40 res = 30 poise and 100 elemental resistances, and you got none from leveling? Suddenly we have a different story, and builds that avoid it are softer.

One could also scrap it and simply add different stats.