Luck in Gaming

[Eloel]

We all know how it is. Some days, you get a lucky streak. Sometimes, the dice hate your guts. There are games out there that have nothing luck-based going on for them, and I pretty much love them.
Stuff like chess, go and checkers, things you can (theoratically) think all the way through. And some are like Tic-Tac-Toe, it has been solved and re-solved countless times, and is not worth playing at all now. I'm looking for the first type.
What would examples of such games be on PC and/or console gaming?

[Cespenar]

Just off the top of my head, most RTSs have absolutely nothing to do with luck, as opposed to TBSs which tend to have RPG-ish features like to-hit chances, damage rolls, etc.

[toasty]

Luck is evil. That's why I play FPS and RTS type games seriously. There is no luck, in most of them. (THe only expection might be playing Crit-plank in League of Legends, but that is a really... not good idea anyways. :smalltongue:)

[Eloel]

Just off the top of my head, most RTSs have absolutely nothing to do with luck, as opposed to TBSs which tend to have RPG-ish features like to-hit chances, damage rolls, etc.

Most RTSs start on random terrains, which give obvious advantages to sides.
Stuff like LotR: Battle for Middle Earth (maps are same every time), I agree though.

I have to admit I was trying to omit the need for reflexes too, but, yea.

[toasty]

Most RTSs start on random terrains, which give obvious advantages to sides.
Stuff like LotR: Battle for Middle Earth (maps are same every time), I agree though.

I have to admit I was trying to omit the need for reflexes too, but, yea.

Really? Random? The games I play sure, maybe your starting location might be random, but that's it, the actual map is the same every time. Some of them don't even have that element (DotA, League of Legends)

[Triaxx]

I have to disagree with luck not being a factor in RTS games. Even with the computer, sometimes you'll have one unit that should have survived that catches a shot meant for another, dies, and robs the group of the firepower necessary to kill it's target, or acheive it's objective.

Or it's your own artillery missing it's target, falling short, and smashing your own attackers instead othe defenders. Maybe the pathfinding goes stupid, and half the group wanders off to attack a target of opportunity.

Or the enemy decides to change it's patrol orders, so instead of wandering into a hapless group of Marines, your Zerg rush runs head first into a group of Stimpakked Firebats with Medics.

On the other hand, some games that 'pop' enemies can be very luck based. Do you remember that moving around that corner causes an enemy to pop? Or does he spawn facing towards or away from you? Does the game remember he shouldn't be able to hear your silenced gun? Or does it decide that everyone can hear it even though it's a MELEE attack?

Space combat: Is that enemy going to fire that missile that'll kill me in one shot? Will I have time to even try and shoot it down? Is he armed with those big dangerous weapons? Or the light weight ones I can avoid to kill him?

Racing: Am I going fast enough to make the jump? Or too fast so I'll go shooting off the side of the course? Can I slide in between that car and the corner, or will I bounce off either one of them?

Platformer: Can I reach that ledge from this one? Or do I have to try for the lower one?

[Eloel]

Really? Random? The games I play sure, maybe your starting location might be random, but that's it, the actual map is the same every time. Some of them don't even have that element (DotA, League of Legends)

Stuff we play differ, I guess. When RTS is called for, 3 games immediately spring to my mind. Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Cossacks. All have random maps. All rely on random maps as the normal method of gaming, actually. I know (and have played) games with non-random maps, now that I think about it. C&C Generals, Warcraft, Starcraft, BFME. I guess both types exist in numbers.

Also, last I checked DotA was not a RTS. Never played League of Legends.

Edit: Triaxx summed up my concerns neatly.

[MoelVermillion]

I think that most fighting games fit the definition of what you're talking about. Outside of things like Soul Calibur that have an interactive stage you pretty much just have the two characters in the fight and nothing to interfere with them. The game state is defined purely by the positioning of the characters and what they are doing at the time. Each movement by each player changes the game state and leads to a point where you have to make a tactical decision (If they jump should you jump up with them or use an anti-air? If they attack should you block, dodge or try to counter-hit?). When you start considering how different character match-ups require you to adopt different play-styles and tactics and how no two matches will play out exactly the same and you quickly realize that its not a one solution game like tic-tac-toe.

So basically most fighting games when you progress past the button mashing stage fulfill the requirement.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Just because turn-based games make the element of chance more obvious doesn't mean that it's not in real-time games as well. In face, I'd wager that a lot of real-time games incorporate chance in some respect. Chance is used as an abstraction. There's a lot of elements in a game if you want to perfectly simulate it. What games often do, instead of simulating down to molecules, is using a layer of randomness and chance to make up for those aspects we aren't microtracking.

Example: you have a battalion of 10 soldiers who are bombed. You could calculate the trajectory of the explosion, their closeness to the burst, the energy absorption of their armor, and the effect of the explosion (at specific ranges) on their bodies, and determine absolutely what happens, or you could simply calculate the percentile chance of each soldier surviving, and roll dice.

Which way takes less processor speed?

[Mewtarthio]

Platformer: Can I reach that ledge from this one? Or do I have to try for the lower one?

That is not luck at all. If an experienced player who knows the level can reliably perform an action, it isn't luck. Now, a novice player can rely on luck, sure: If he misses a jump but lands on a moving platform that happened to be going by, I'd call that lucky. However, an expert would already know about the platform and could theoretically work out the timing necessary to land on it consistently.

[LordShotGun]

Well depending on the game, yeah luck has a lot to do with most games. Some FPSs like team fortress have random crits, and sometimes you turn the corner as a spy and BAM you run into a pyro as any light class (double if your a spy behind enemy lines)

As for RTS games, skill is predominant (ergo a skillful player will beat a lucky player 9/10) but luck does have a place.

Take Starcraft 2 right now, with good scouting you usually know what your enemy is doing most of the time but sometimes your enemy hides a tech building somewhere that you unluckily do not find and all of a sudden you have dark templars or a crapton of mutalisks in your base killing drone,probes,or SCVs.

Also, in PvP starcraft your opponent is only looking in one spot at a tine so sometimes your can get away with stuff if your lucky and they are not watching their base/army. Like doing harvester harass drops as Terran with infernal preigniter helions or doom drops of roach hydras. They are MUCH more effective if you luck out and your enemy is not watching the mini map and the first warning they get "OUR BASE IS UNDER A TACK!"

[Murska]

Well, the kind of luck Triaxxx and LordShotGun are talking about doesn't really mean 'luck-based gameplay' to me. I mean, obviously in any multiplayer experience there's going to be a factor of luck: Maybe your opponent just happens to be less skillful than you, and you win? It's got nothing to do with the game. And the fact that you don't find your opponent's hidden tech building isn't luck-based gameplay either unless you have to roll some sort of a percentage chance for trying to find it. If it's just a matter of whether or not you moved your unit to the right place to spot it, it doesn't count for me.

Against a computer, much of the same applies. However, unless given some sort of a percentage chance mechanic, a computer won't 'randomly' do anything. The AI follows it's programming /exactly/. Technically the same is true for human beings but it's too complex for us to see. Same might be true for the more advanced AIs.

EDIT: Basically if, playing a game multiple times with the exact same things done every time always has the same result, barring out-of-game influences like your computer crashing, it's not luck based.

[Cespenar]

Most of the people here use "luck" as all the little things that can differ in life: your reactions, your enemy's reactions, etc.

For that definition of luck, the whole discussion is pointless. For example, there's a chance I can defeat Deep Blue in a chess game. I'm not a very good player, but if I happen to be lucky and make just the right moves, there's a chance for me to win, no matter how small.

By that point of view, everything and nothing depends on luck. While I agree with that on a philosophical level, for this discussion to be valid, we'd need a reduced definition of luck. My take, while crude enough, is that every game in which the computer makes heavy use of random number generators is a game where luck is a solid factor.

[toasty]

Stuff we play differ, I guess. When RTS is called for, 3 games immediately spring to my mind. Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Cossacks. All have random maps. All rely on random maps as the normal method of gaming, actually. I know (and have played) games with non-random maps, now that I think about it. C&C Generals, Warcraft, Starcraft, BFME. I guess both types exist in numbers.

Also, last I checked DotA was not a RTS. Never played League of Legends.

Edit: Triaxx summed up my concerns neatly.

DotA is not a true RTS, but it is pretty strategical. Its more RTS than RPG IMO.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

My take, while crude enough, is that every game in which the computer makes heavy use of random number generators is a game where luck is a solid factor.
This.

And I'm not sure (anyone have research on this?), but I suspect that a lot of games rely on an RNG to produce results. Even fighting games, and probably FPSes to a small degree.

[Triaxx]

Fine I accept that. Platformers: Even the experienced player occasionally jumps one pixel too early, and bounces off.

So let's have another example eh? Pokemon: I played through Fire Red with only a pidgey. I didn't even let it evolve. How many battles do you think came down to the luck of the opponent choosing one move over another? Bide over Rollout. Thunder Wave, over Thunderbolt.

Chess, provided in the opening example as a game that doesn't have luck as a factor. Except it does. No matter how much you study up on your opponent, if you aim to move him a specific way, and you should, then he moves in another, it's luck. If he's done it to you, and you move in an unexpected direction, that's luck again. Call it preparedness if you like, but it comes down to luck that you were, or weren't prepared for what happened.

Baldur's Gate: Even if you've prepared completely for a fight, there's always a chance that the first spell a target fires could be dispel, which can completely invalidate the spell slots you used to prepare. Or it goes invisible when you went after it with melee fighters. Or opens the fight with timestop when you were certain it would try to maze you. Luck again.

But let's assume our RTS players are equal in skill. Perhaps they've even trained against one another, and so know when and where they will attack and have a defense ready to engage any attack the opponent might make.

The factor of luck enters the equation. Are you lucky enough to pull off a trap? Lucky enough that the opponent will fall for it? Will your luck hold if you stack up Anti-Air, so he can't hit you that way, but can see enough of your base to see you have little or no ground defense? So that while he's busy micro-managing his ground attack, you can hit him with big waves of bombers? Or will he be lucky enough to catch a single glimpse on the mini-map and realize what you're up to? If you've directed enough resources into it, he might be able to knock out your ability to recover from the failed attack. That's all luck. As much as it requires the skill to capitalize on the mistake, it also requires luck for the mistake to occur.

[Murska]

Yeah, everyone agrees that everything is based on luck in some fashion. (Except I don't, since I believe the world is completely deterministic, but that's another argument.)

However, we're defining luck to the usage of random number generators or similar. In your Pokemon example, that's luck if the game will, in the same situation, sometimes use one move and sometimes the other. However, in the RTS situation, the game doesn't do anything random. If you move your scout in a certain way, you spot the enemy. If you don't, you don't. It's about your choices, not the game's. If the enemy looks at his minimap he will spot your attack; regardless of whether he does, the minimap shows it.

[Geno9999]

Chess, provided in the opening example as a game that doesn't have luck as a factor. Except it does. No matter how much you study up on your opponent, if you aim to move him a specific way, and you should, then he moves in another, it's luck. If he's done it to you, and you move in an unexpected direction, that's luck again. Call it preparedness if you like, but it comes down to luck that you were, or weren't prepared for what happened.

See also, a more experienced player against another player who has little to no idea to what he's doing. Sometimes, (and often hilariously) the experienced player relies on the other player to play competently, or follow certain tactics and patterns, and as a result has no idea what to do against them. This is why button mashing is so effective, and also why it's so frowned upon.

As for the topic of Luck in gaming itself, You can change how reliant on luck the game is (like the difference between a Poker game to a game of Chess), but the two are inseparable. Sure, you can have a game that relies on skill, but sometimes you have a bad day. You miss a jump you should've made. You make that strategic mistake. You flinch and miss your shot. Stuff happens. But sometimes, it makes that awesome moment even more awesome.

[toasty]

Chess, provided in the opening example as a game that doesn't have luck as a factor. Except it does. No matter how much you study up on your opponent, if you aim to move him a specific way, and you should, then he moves in another, it's luck. If he's done it to you, and you move in an unexpected direction, that's luck again. Call it preparedness if you like, but it comes down to luck that you were, or weren't prepared for what happened.

That's not luck, that's the human element. Luck is when someone shuffles a deck and deals you a perfect hand. Luck is when you roll seven just when you need it most. Luck is when the RNG has you score three critical hits right in a row.


The factor of luck enters the equation. Are you lucky enough to pull off a trap? Lucky enough that the opponent will fall for it? Will your luck hold if you stack up Anti-Air, so he can't hit you that way, but can see enough of your base to see you have little or no ground defense? So that while he's busy micro-managing his ground attack, you can hit him with big waves of bombers? Or will he be lucky enough to catch a single glimpse on the mini-map and realize what you're up to? If you've directed enough resources into it, he might be able to knock out your ability to recover from the failed attack. That's all luck. As much as it requires the skill to capitalize on the mistake, it also requires luck for the mistake to occur.

None of that is luck. Honestly, I've never, ever seen any sort of "luck" appear in a game like Starcraft, DotA, or League of Legends (The former assuming the standard tournament rules instead of something like All Random). You can call it luck when one player gets better positioning on the other player and "luckily" manages to wipe out an army at the right time, but I call that skill. The winning player positioned his army so he couldn't be seen, and then moved in such a way his opponent did not notice him, and then struck with speed and precision so his opponent could not counter-attack effectively. Skill. Not luck.

Definition of Luck: good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance:

[Murska]

@toasty: That definition doesn't really work for the purposes of this discussion, for the reasons Triaxx noted. We really need to use the definition which specifies that the game is based on chance. The players always introduce an element of 'luck' otherwise.

[toasty]

Ahh yes, it doesn't, well then, ignore that bit and respond to everything else. :smalltongue:

[fknm]

[QUOTE=toasty;9847963
None of that is luck. Honestly, I've never, ever seen any sort of "luck" appear in a game like Starcraft, DotA, or League of Legends (The former assuming the standard tournament rules instead of something like All Random). You can call it luck when one player gets better positioning on the other player and "luckily" manages to wipe out an army at the right time, but I call that skill. The winning player positioned his army so he couldn't be seen, and then moved in such a way his opponent did not notice him, and then struck with speed and precision so his opponent could not counter-attack effectively. Skill. Not luck. [/QUOTE]
Provided by "Starcraft" you mean "Starcraft 1" or "Brood War", then luck can be involved, since there's a 1/3rd miss chance when attacking high ground, plus there's things like Reaver Scarabs being duds.

Also, there's a big element of luck even in SC2 on 4 position maps. Certain cheeses can be pretty much impossible to stop if your opponent scouts your position last, and you guess your opponent's position correctly.

[EifieFlare]

That's not luck, that's the human element. Luck is when someone shuffles a deck and deals you a perfect hand. Luck is when you roll seven just when you need it most. Luck is when the RNG has you score three critical hits right in a row.

I actually don't think this is what the original post had meant when it referred to luck-based games. In those sort of cases, you really can't change the outcome no matter how well you play the game, you can only watch as the computer forces you to deal with something.

While the other examples provided, like scouting in Starcraft, can also be considered "luck," it's more reliant on human "error" that causes it, and the outcome certainly could have changed had the event not taken place. It's still luck, but I don't think it's the kind in a luck-based game, and from my understanding this is the type of luck ozgun wanted. The post does reference games where you can "theoretically think everything through," which isn't in the first category of luck.

[Triaxx]

Murska: *deep breath* There's a difference between luck and skill. Pulling off that bomber attack is skill. Seeing the second of a blip of an enemy fighter crossing your line of sight is luck. If you don't see it, skill might still save you, but luck plays a part in whether you're focusing on the attack, or on the bomber attack against your base. The randomness is because sometimes pathfinding messes up. And there is such a thing as stealth bombers in some games. Or using mobile stealth units to create a corridor of invisiblity from radar. So that one bomber flying out of the corridor even for a split second, is the difference between success and failure and it's all down to the luck of the target noticing or not in that split second.

@Geno: Precisely. How many times have we had some guy who's never played the game before, suddenly smash us with a Hadoken and waste an entire charge up?

@toasty: Really, because human beings always choose exactly the optimal path or move? I don't buy it.

Of course there's no luck involved. They've been simplified to the point of statistical prediction. Most Starcraft maps are small. And the other two are Tower Defense games, with fixed starting positions. That's as close to a coin toss as most games are willing to get, and thus there's no randomness involved.

Now the map in question, suppose I informed you that the map in question is 81kmX81km? So perhaps the player with better positioning is lucky to get there first? Or wipes out the army because he had more units? Luck played a factor that he was able to scout out the army enough to judge it's size before it killed his scout. Or perhaps instead of 'skillfully' 'striking with speed and precision' the opponent simply sacrificed his army to defend his base and thus only give the 'winner' a minor victory, while denying the major victory.

I've sacrificed armies to succeed in keeping the opponent thinking that was my main force so I could finish the real one and defeat him when he came at me to finish me off. Is that skill? Yes. Is him deciding not to scout me again before his attack luck? Yes. Or perhaps killing the scout before it learns of my second army? Absolutely.

By that definition, even having one of his mobile shields wander off on a different path from the rest of the unit, and leaving some of them vulnerable is pure luck. Skill is a matter of being able to take advantage of lucky breaks on purpose, where lack of it is taking advantage without meaning too.

fknm: Why are you only scouting one position at a time? That wastes time if your scout is destroyed at the first position, possibly by the enemy scout, because he's up to the same thing. If that destruction red flags that as the enemy location, you waste time that could go into reinforcing against an attack, or your attack could go there, find nothing and miss encountering an attack force from the enemy base.

EifieFlare: Roulette. Completely based on luck, unless it's rigged.

[EifieFlare]

Uh, I don't quite get what you were trying to prove by giving a roulette as an example. That'd fall under the category of "deal with something you can't change" (unless you, as you said, rig the roulette, in which case there's pretty much no luck involved).

Aren't we trying to find the other "type," in which the luck is something that the player could have changed and the result is from their actions rather than pure chance? You provided several examples of this side, but a roulette seems to be for the other half.

[MoelVermillion]

Uh, I don't quite get what you were trying to prove by giving a roulette as an example. That'd fall under the category of "deal with something you can't change" (unless you, as you said, rig the roulette, in which case there's pretty much no luck involved).

Aren't we trying to find the other "type," in which the luck is something that the player could have changed and the result is from their actions rather than pure chance? You provided several examples of this side, but a roulette seems to be for the other half.

Yeah we're looking for the same type of luck as chess and checkers so things like:


@Geno: Precisely. How many times have we had some guy who's never played the game before, suddenly smash us with a Hadoken and waste an entire charge up?

Should not be counted as "luck" by the OP's defintion as it is roughly the same thing as a beginner moving his pawn into a random position that just happens to help him hugely.

So yeah what you said basically.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Some days, you get a lucky streak. Sometimes, the dice hate your guts. There are games out there that have nothing luck-based going on for them, and I pretty much love them.
I think this indicates we can safely ignore the question of "luck in the human element". This guy means pure chance, the chance of the RNG, that he prefers games which minimize or eliminate reliance on an RNG.

[Eloel]

I think this indicates we can safely ignore the question of "luck in the human element". This guy means pure chance, the chance of the RNG, that he prefers games which minimize or eliminate reliance on an RNG.

Yup, RNG-dependence is what I mostly meant by luck. Basically, if when you have ultimate skill, you never lose, it's not a luck based game. As in OP, Chess, Checkers and Go has that. DotA, in mirror matches, could be said to get close to that. FPS games do not have that - if you've noticed, in 95% of the FPS games, bullets don't go to exact middle, but have some kind of deviation. Hence, RNG.

I think the main concern with randomization is the informed vs uninformed gaming. For a game to be 100% skill based, the game needs to be informed. Say, there're tactics numbered 1 to 10. Higher beats lower, 1 beats 10. Let's assume #9 is a full out ground strıke, #10 is aerial assault, #1 is antiair spam.
SkilledGuy can choose #9, and get killed by RandomGuy's #10. He could also choose #10 and stumble upon someone who tries #1. Sure, he could change his tactics mid-game in most games, but even then, he's lost valuable time and resources. And the enemy could also change his tactics, again being on the advantegous side on the RPS scale.
In informed games, you (can) see exactly what the enemy is doing. Anyone who loses Tic-Tac-Toe, in my opinion, should stop playing logic-based games. Again for the example of Chess, if you played with -ultimate skill-, you'd never lose. There's bound to be a set of moves (set is, if an average game lasts 60 moves, with around 30 choices average per move, a complete strategy with 30^60 moves.) that never loses. Hence, not luck-based.

There are games which get close to 'no luck' while being uninformed. Reaching there? Won't happen.

[imperialspectre]

I'm not sure about LoL, but DotA definitely has chance-based elements. Things like the variation in hero damage (there's quite a substantial damage range for some heroes' auto-attacks, which affects last-hitting and close 1v1 hero fights quite a bit), the spawn location and type of the rune powerups, and what kinds of neutral creeps spawn in a given camp are all random and have serious effects on gameplay.

Other than that, I don't have anything to contribute.

[Cespenar]

Yup, RNG-dependence is what I mostly meant by luck. Basically, if when you have ultimate skill, you never lose, it's not a luck based game. As in OP, Chess, Checkers and Go has that. DotA, in mirror matches, could be said to get close to that. FPS games do not have that - if you've noticed, in 95% of the FPS games, bullets don't go to exact middle, but have some kind of deviation. Hence, RNG.


Anyone playing FPS games would also notice that minimizing that deviation, or even outright negating is possible via "skill". You crouch, fire in small bursts, etc. and the first n bullets would go (depending on the game) precisely where you aimed. The contribution of RNG to the game is minimal, as opposed to, say, d20 RPGs, where your enemy can roll a critical hit out of the blue and defeat your stronger character.

But, I kinda understand you. You mean no RNG whatsoever. What is your take on games with AIs then?

[Eloel]

Anyone playing FPS games would also notice that minimizing that deviation, or even outright negating is possible via "skill". You crouch, fire in small bursts, etc. and the first n bullets would go (depending on the game) precisely where you aimed. The contribution of RNG to the game is minimal, as opposed to, say, d20 RPGs, where your enemy can roll a critical hit out of the blue and defeat your stronger character.

But, I kinda understand you. You mean no RNG whatsoever. What is your take on games with AIs then?
AI is great, in multiplayer games, it's like practice vs a random opponent. In singleplayer games, it's bound to be there.

Basically, if when you have ultimate skill, you never lose
Cheating AIs, I hate. If the AI starts with double my resources and creates stuff triple the rate I do, when replacing a human opponent, so it becomes 'hard', shame on the developer of the game. AIs that have the exact same limitations as normal player opponents, might well just be other players, the randomization in AI's program is not actual luck for the game, imo. (That ties back to the 1-10 scale. If AI chooses a strategy randomly out of the 10, 1/10 of the time, it'll beat you. Since same would go for players as well, I don't think it's AI being luck-creating, it's the game.)

[fknm]

fknm: Why are you only scouting one position at a time? That wastes time if your scout is destroyed at the first position, possibly by the enemy scout, because he's up to the same thing. If that destruction red flags that as the enemy location, you waste time that could go into reinforcing against an attack, or your attack could go there, find nothing and miss encountering an attack force from the enemy base.
No offense, but have you actually played Starcraft:Brood War or Starcraft 2?

Generally, you send out a scout at about 9 or 10 supply to your opponent's base to see what he's up to. This is well before either player will have any attacking units, so, as long as you keep an eye on your probe, he won't die before reaching the enemy base.

As to why you don't scout out all 3 possible start locations at once- if you did, you'd lose. Period. If you "pylon-scout" (that is, the probe that builds the pylon scouts), you've got 8 workers on the minerals, as opposed to 9. If you "triple pylon scouted", you'd have 6 workers on the minerals... the same number you started the game with. Your econ would be so far behind that you'd lose to any rush, even if you scouted it, just because there'd be no way to have enough stuff in time.

[Murska]

Murska: *deep breath* There's a difference between luck and skill. Pulling off that bomber attack is skill. Seeing the second of a blip of an enemy fighter crossing your line of sight is luck. If you don't see it, skill might still save you, but luck plays a part in whether you're focusing on the attack, or on the bomber attack against your base. The randomness is because sometimes pathfinding messes up. And there is such a thing as stealth bombers in some games. Or using mobile stealth units to create a corridor of invisiblity from radar. So that one bomber flying out of the corridor even for a split second, is the difference between success and failure and it's all down to the luck of the target noticing or not in that split second.

And, if you bother to read the arguments, everyone agrees. However, what's being looked for is not 'luck' but 'luck-based gameplay'. The game doesn't throw a dice on whether or not to mess up the pathfinding; in certain situations it always does, in others it never does. That blip shows on your radar, whether or not you notice it. The luck factor here is based on the player, not the game.

If you want an argument against luck using your definition, as opposed to the one looked for here:
Everything consists of energy. Energy follows the laws of physics. Therefore, from a single start situation, the end result is always the same. There is no free will and no choices, since everything always happens in a perfectly deterministic fashion. Therefore, there is no luck either.

[toasty]

I'm not sure about LoL, but DotA definitely has chance-based elements. Things like the variation in hero damage (there's quite a substantial damage range for some heroes' auto-attacks, which affects last-hitting and close 1v1 hero fights quite a bit), the spawn location and type of the rune powerups, and what kinds of neutral creeps spawn in a given camp are all random and have serious effects on gameplay.

Other than that, I don't have anything to contribute.

Those are actually points. Runes are pretty luck based, and i forgot about variable damage.

LoL, wisely, did away with that. Rune buffs are now static and respawn at the same locations at the same rate. There is no variable damage. And the same kind of neutral creeps spawn at the same places at the same rates.

The only chance based element is critical strikes, and only 2 heroes actually rely on critical strikes (Gangplank and Trymedere) to do a lot of damage. As a note, both of those heroes are rather low-tier in terms of compatibility to viable team comps because they take a long time to farm up enough items to minimize that random element and guarantee crits when needed.

[Triaxx]

I don't scout with workers. Those are too valuable to waste on something like that. After those initial pylons go up, I call in three Zealots and send those to scout.

Or use Zerglings.

Or Marine's.

I never understood the fascination with sending the absurdly valuable construction units into harms way when the far less versatile attackers were available for such. Not even counting the fact that even if I lose them, I've gained valuable information on the enemy, and if they encounter an enemy scout, hey, free advantage. Which I will have lucked into.

@Murska: And so I gave examples of Luck-based gameplay and they were instantly shot down as appearently not the 'right kind' of Luck-based gameplay.

And Determinism only works under laboratory conditions. Like many things, once the real world enters into play, the outcome is no longer precisely defined because of free will, and pure, random chance.

[fknm]

I don't scout with workers. Those are too valuable to waste on something like that. After those initial pylons go up, I call in three Zealots and send those to scout.

Or use Zerglings.

Or Marine's.

I never understood the fascination with sending the absurdly valuable construction units into harms way when the far less versatile attackers were available for such. Not even counting the fact that even if I lose them, I've gained valuable information on the enemy, and if they encounter an enemy scout, hey, free advantage. Which I will have lucked into.
Ever seen a 4/6 pool? How about a cannon rush? Or a proxy gate/rax?

All 3 of those builds WILL kill you if you don't scout them. All 3 of them will "go off" loooooong before you can get 3 zealots.

[Mewtarthio]

We could spend all year arguing about free will vs determinism vs quantum mechanics, but the fact of the matter is this is not the "Philosophical Debates" board. This is the "Gaming (Other)" board, and right now our poor unsuspecting OP is probably wondering what he's unleashed. :smalltongue:

So, back on topic:

I'd say the degree to which luck (meaning RNG involvement specifically) plays a role in a game doesn't really matter so long as it's consistent. To a point, anyway: If luck's so important that strategy is meaningless, you've got a very dull, frustrating game on your hands. Still, I think some degree of luck can enhance the experience, as the player can't just use a perfect strategy and instead has to make calculated risks and occasionally dodge a curveball.

Now, obviously, a luck-based game has to make special considerations. For example, waiting for a rare event can become tedious. I've never enjoyed hunting for ultra-rare drops (like that 1-in-128 Sword of Kings in Earthbound). If, for some reason, you feel the need to have your players grind for a bit, it's better to make them get a number of uncommon items instead. That way, they can figure out what actually drops the damned thing and work out a strategy to get it (usually maximizing the number of dice rolls made while limiting the risk involved). Plus they can actually make progress towards the goal, instead of either getting it or wasting their time.

[Brother Oni]

For an RTS that's a great example of luck and skill, Company of Heroes.

You can manipulate the odds in your favour through positioning, the right troop upgrades/composition, using abilities at the right time, but when you really need that armour penetrating hit you're heavily reliant on the RNG (or hitting anything at all if you're using PIATs).

Even surviving artillery strikes or mortar bombardments is a bit hit and miss - sometimes you get lucky and avoid the first few strikes while retreating, other times, they land right in the middle of your men.

With regard to LoL - critical hit chance builds (Blitzcrank, Tryndamere and Gangplank for example) are fairly luck based, Gangplank even more so with his ultimate.

[dromer]

Honestly, in luck vs. skill, I HATE HATE HATE games that try and put as much skill as possible in the game and then put a little bit of luck in a major gameplay component. Case in point, Dungeon Fighter Online, with the misses.

[warty goblin]

And Determinism only works under laboratory conditions. Like many things, once the real world enters into play, the outcome is no longer precisely defined because of free will, and pure, random chance.

Games however are not the real world, and can very much be deterministic. A sufficiently intelligent player for example cannot lose a game of checkers, the same is likely true of chess although the problem space is so vast that it remains unproved.

Even if chess is not a deterministic game (which it almost certainly is), the skill differential between a mediocre player such as myself and a truly world class player is so high that luck still has nothing to do with it. I've played three games against a Master, and it was clear he was processing the board at an entirely different level than I was capable of. The odds of my winning are so astronomically low it was statistically indistinguishable from zero to just about any alpha level you felt like picking, we could have played a few thousand games and I still would have lost all of them.

[Triaxx]

That I accept, which is why I only mentioned contests between equally skilled players.

Sacred then is an example. Every single enemy has a random chance not only of dropping loot at all, but of dropping common, rare, unique and set types. The actual drop is determined randomly across 8 possible character types. And may also not be equipment or weapons, but also runes, used to strengthen combat abilities, or just gold.

Suitably random?

fknm: Then scouting doesn't matter because by the time you've scouted them, they've already killed you with their rush tactic.

[fknm]

fknm: Then scouting doesn't matter because by the time you've scouted them, they've already killed you with their rush tactic.
Not true. While you can't get 3 zealots out in time to deal with their rush, there are other measures you can take.

To deal with the 4/6 pool:
On a two-player map, if you scout after starting your pylon, you'll see the pool right as it finishes. This should tell you what you're up against. You've got just enough time to completely wall in your ramp with a gateway, forge and pylon, which should buy you enough time to put a cannon behind that wall. Once you've got that cannon up, keep building zealots until you get 5 or so, kill your own pylon that finished the wall, and you should be able to finish your opponent off easily.

To deal with the cannon rush:
Again, if you scout after starting your pylon, you'll see a forge, probably completed. Pull one of the probes off of your mineral line, and start searching your base. When you find where he's warping stuff in, his first cannon shouldn't be finished- pull 4 probes off of the mineral line for each building he's warping in, as with 4 probes, you can damage a building faster than it warps in. Once you've held off the initial cannon rush, you've won, since he's so far behind.

Both of these countermeasures rely on scouting with a worker during a period before you could possibly have any offensive units up. Your worker scout is the best countermeasure against "cheesy" play that you have- use it!

[Jimorian]

One interesting test of "luck vs. skill" that is often used in gambling games is "can you lose (more) on purpose".

For example, in roulette, the payoffs are based on a strict formula of your odds against winning any bet. with the house getting an advantage from the fact that the 1 or 2 green numbers don't count in determining those odds. So you get 2-1 on a red/black or odd/even bet for instance, even though you lose 20 out of 38 possibilities on a 2-green board. So no matter what you bet, your losses, in the long run, will match the house advantage, and there's nothing you can do to make it better or worse. Pure luck on each individual play.

In Blackjack, the house also has a built-in odds advantage, but through knowledge and skillful play (not including "card counting"), you can approach the stated house odds in the long run, but never beat it. You CAN however, choose to play badly and lose nearly every time by just hitting no matter what your count.

This test fails in most games with any kind of complexity where skill is obviously a factor, because things get ridiculous very quickly.

[RedSun]

Just off the top of my head, most RTSs have absolutely nothing to do with luck, as opposed to TBSs which tend to have RPG-ish features like to-hit chances, damage rolls, etc.
False. Any game where there is an element of risk involved has luck involved in some way.

Unless you are omniscient, then strategy is almost entirely about hedging your bets on the best plan. You cannot control for all factors, which is why being able to know which plan overall is optimal at any given time simplifies the need to control all factors in play.

That's the point of competitive gaming. It's about who can best play the probabilities in their favor. This is nebulously referred to as "skill."

Part of the reason Fruit Dealer won GSL (Korean Starcraft tournament) was that few of the players were familiar with fighting good zerg players. There just weren't that many zerg players to practice against at the time. That's luck.


Luck is evil. That's why I play FPS and RTS type games seriously. There is no luck, in most of them. (THe only expection might be playing Crit-plank in League of Legends, but that is a really... not good idea anyways. :smalltongue:)
See above.

[Murska]

@TPAM:

Again, luck in gameplay itself, not luck based on the human factor.

[RedSun]

Yeah, everyone agrees that everything is based on luck in some fashion. (Except I don't, since I believe the world is completely deterministic, but that's another argument.)
A deterministic universe doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of luck as a concept.

Unless you are omnipotent and omniscient, there are simply things that you cannot account for or alter. These uncontrolled elements are simply labeled "luck."

[Murska]

Odd definition. After all, doesn't luck as a concept imply that, without said 'luck', things might've gone in a different fashion? In a deterministic universe there is no other 'choice' for things to go.

Luck is not usually defined as factors that can't be controlled. It's more to do with 'random' chance, and some sort of an abstract quality that allows it to favour someone more than it does others, which by definition makes the chance not be 'random'.

[Sipex]

I think, as long as luck doesn't make or break the game (ie: bad luck doesn't automatically mean you lose) then it's okay.

Like...for instance, Mario Kart Wii? That's too luck based for my tastes.

Super Smash Bros on the other hand, while item spawns are random (of what and where) you still have a fair chance if your opponent gets the better item.

[candycorn]

My general guideline for "is it luck" is, can all sides perform the same action multiple times, and get different results? If that is the case, then there is an element of luck.

Whether you believe the universe is deterministic or not doesn't even factor into it. Even if the outcome is foreordained, if you have no way of knowing that outcome, it's effectively random to you. You have to account for the possibilities, because you wouldn't know the one outcome that will actually occur.

No, the only time a deterministic view matters is when we're looking at it from the perspective of someone who knows the outcomes.

[Murska]

Well since we can't know whether the universe is deterministic, all of our hypotheses about the matter must be thought of as meta. As in, does 'luck' exist, not 'does it matter for us if luck exists'. If you want to be a pragmatist in that fashion, determinism doesn't matter to you because of chaos theory.

[RedSun]

Odd definition. After all, doesn't luck as a concept imply that, without said 'luck', things might've gone in a different fashion? In a deterministic universe there is no other 'choice' for things to go.

Luck is not usually defined as factors that can't be controlled. It's more to do with 'random' chance, and some sort of an abstract quality that allows it to favour someone more than it does others, which by definition makes the chance not be 'random'.
Despite what you might think, you can have random events and still have a deterministic universe. Luck and chance are more of an epistemological question than a metaphysical one. It's about PREDICTION.

When we say that a person is especially especially "lucky," we mean that they have a "charmed" life. Events have conspired to give them a favorable fate. There are rational reasons and a chain of events that lead up to the outcome, but they cannot be easily predicted because nobody possesses all the knowledge of the factors involved.

Perhaps I buy the first lottery ticket of a lifetime and become a millionaire. I couldn't have reasonably predicted this outcome, so I call it luck. It's an utterly reasonable use for that word.

[Murska]

Again, we cannot think of a deterministic universe and still use the viewpoint argument.

We need to assume that, since in a deterministic universe everything can be predicted, then for the purposes of the discussion everything IS predicted and therefore there is no luck. If we use a viewpoint, we can't limit it to somehow, out of character, knowing that it is deterministic and still unpredictable for us, no more than we can assume that we don't know whether it's indeterministic or not but we can still predict future events based on what we know now. We either are outside the frame of reference or we aren't.

[RedSun]

Again, we cannot think of a deterministic universe and still use the viewpoint argument.

We need to assume that, since in a deterministic universe everything can be predicted, then for the purposes of the discussion everything IS predicted and therefore there is no luck. If we use a viewpoint, we can't limit it to somehow, out of character, knowing that it is deterministic and still unpredictable for us, no more than we can assume that we don't know whether it's indeterministic or not but we can still predict future events based on what we know now. We either are outside the frame of reference or we aren't.
Wrong. Are you honestly telling me that you have the time, knowledge and power to predict everything?

If you have theoretically infinite resources (i.e. processing power), then you can predict all the events in the universe with perfect accuracy. But that clearly isn't the state of mortal affairs, is it? If it were that simple, we would already be gods.

But we mortals kind of have to accept that there are things beyond our ability to predict. So we invent a word to communicate this idea to other people.

Seriously, it's a label for a perfectly valid concept. Stop getting hung-up over it.

[Murska]

Wrong. Are you honestly telling me that you have the time, knowledge and skill to predict everything?

If you have theoretically infinite resources (i.e. processing power), then you can predict all the events in the universe with perfect accuracy. But that clearly isn't the state of mortal affairs, is it? If it were that simple, we would already be gods.

But we mortals kind of have to accept that there are things beyond our ability to predict. So we invent a word to communicate this idea to other people.

Seriously, it's a label for a perfectly valid concept. Stop getting hung-up over it.

As you don't appear to be paying any attention to what I'm saying, I feel further discussion to be pointless.

[RedSun]

As you don't appear to be paying any attention to what I'm saying, I feel further discussion to be pointless.
I understand you just fine. You just don't want to respond to my counterpoint.

I can bottomline that for you pretty easily:
You don't have a clear idea of the definitions you are using. This leads you to play these erroneous semantical games.

That you could predict something doesn't mean that you can or will.

[Sipex]

Okay, you guys are just going in circles and not listening to each other. How about this topic go back on track now?

[RedSun]

Okay, you guys are just going in circles and not listening to each other. How about this topic go back on track now?
No, I am listening to him.

I'm not required to unconditionally accept his opinion in order understand it. You are making a false assumption about what I am thinking. And frankly, it's a bit insulting.

[Sipex]

Okay, how about this:

You guys may never agree, especially at this rate, so let's get back on topic.

[Cespenar]

Okay, how about this:

You guys may never agree, especially at this rate, so let's get back on topic.

Actually, let's not. This argument, while I believe the OP didn't expect it, is basically invalid. It depends on the definition of the term "luck", and since an agreement over that definition is impossible (and since almost no one wishes to settle for a reduced meaning for the sake of this thread), the argument can't go anywhere.

[Sipex]

And we as nerds are always so confused to why many people dislike us so much...

[RedSun]

Actually, let's not. This argument, while I believe the OP didn't expect it, is basically invalid. It depends on the definition of the term "luck", and since an agreement over that definition is impossible (and since almost no one wishes to settle for a reduced meaning for the sake of this thread), the argument can't go anywhere.
Wow.

Are you serious? So you think that the validity of a proposition cannot be explored because people aren't civil enough to agree upon a definition.

Really?

Now you're going to tell me that truth is relative and that things can be true if you believe them hard enough.

And to be contrary, I think it is relevant to the discussion. The best strategists plan for their own limitations. That is to say, they have to try and account for luck and all the mortal limitations it implies. That's very relevant to gaming.

[Eliirae]

I don't think talking about whether or not the universe is predetermined or if fates conspire against or with certain individuals has anything to do with games with RNGs in them. But hey, that's just me.

[Mewtarthio]

For the love of Vecna, people!

"I know that luck plays a factor in a lot of video games. What do you guys think about video games where the player has to be lucky?"

"In truly deterministic universe, luck does not exist, therefore your question is invalid!"

Do you see what the problem here is? It would be like if I started a topic on who makes the best RPGs and everyone got hung up on the word "best" and derailed the topic into a discussion on the nature of goodness. We'd have one faction attempting to analyze games from a Kantian perspective, another faction trying to argue about which games they'd have produced from behind the Rawlesian veil of ignorance, and a third faction declaring that only God can judge the nature of a game!

It's... It's just silly! The OP did not ask for this! The question posed was "What sort of games are designed solely to test pure strategies, rather than forcing the players to react to unpredictable circumstances?", but the answer given was three pages of arguing about the fundamental nature of chance!

[Sipex]

Thank you, this is pretty much what I wanted to say but I couldn't come up with the proper words.

[AtwasAwamps]

Wow.
Now you're going to tell me that truth is relative and that things can be true if you believe them hard enough.


Wait, what?

This isn’t the case?

Sir, I believe you are mistaken. As proof, I indicate my best friend, currently seated upon my shoulder – Flowermuffin, a fairy of rosebushes. Now, common thinkers, such as yourself, say that Flowermuffin must not exist and thus must be false. I can see where you’re coming from, of course. And, since the rest of the world cannot see Flowermuffin, or hear her when she speaks, or react to her curses where she turns people into cotton candy before I eat them, the rest of the world would, of course, accuse me of being a liar when I refer to my friendly rosebush fairy companion. Indeed, even medical science would point to her existence being a lie, as when I take these little red pills I’m supposed to take every day, Flowermuffin disappears.

But sir, to refute your logical arguments, I indicate to you Flowermuffin, seated on my shoulder in her adorable, coquettish bonnet and dress of rose petals. Because, you see, I believe in her hard enough and thus she exists.

Plus, Flowermuffin thinks you smell funny. What could be more true than this?

[Cespenar]

Wow.

Are you serious? So you think that the validity of a proposition cannot be explored because people aren't civil enough to agree upon a definition.

Really?

Now you're going to tell me that truth is relative and that things can be true if you believe them hard enough.

And to be contrary, I think it is relevant to the discussion. The best strategists plan for their own limitations. That is to say, they have to try and account for luck and all the mortal limitations it implies. That's very relevant to gaming.

Okay, keep arguing on that definition then. Sorry to barge into your business.

[Sipex]

...

I'm just going to be over here....

...


head desking for a while...

...

Send me a PM when this blows over.

[AtwasAwamps]

Send me a PM when this blows over.

Flowermuffin says hi!

[Eloel]

Flowermuffin says hi!

I'd like to hear more about this Flowermuffin. I think I saw her once, does she remember me?

[RedSun]

Okay, keep arguing on that definition then. Sorry to barge into your business.
I'm saying Murska has no functional definition for the words he is using.

He is assuming that luck and determinism are mutually exclusive, just because he arbitrary thinks that the words are antonyms or something. He doesn't ponder the CONCEPTS that the words refer to. And those remain the same regardless of what names you call them by.

I'd be perfectly willing to use his definition to discuss this except he doesn't actually give one or actually want to come to some common basis for communication.

I fail to see how this is my fault as you seem to think it to be.

[Murska]

Luck is not usually defined as factors that can't be controlled. It's more to do with 'random' chance, and some sort of an abstract quality that allows it to favour someone more than it does others, which by definition makes the chance not be 'random'.

I kind of tried to leave this discussion... Here's the definition, proving your claim of reading my arguments false. Luck = Quality that makes events that have a choice of resulting in multiple different end states end up as more favourable to the owner. Determinism states that there is no such events, thus it isn't meaningful talking about this definition of luck with determinism.

Also, the OP asked for games that don't have luck as a major gameplay mechanic. I don't have much more games to suggest that haven't been mentioned... most FPSs, some RTS games. Diplomacy is one fun non-luck-based game, though more of a boardgame that can be played online than a video game.

[RedSun]

I kind of tried to leave this discussion... Here's the definition, proving your claim of reading my arguments false. Luck = Quality that makes events that have a choice of resulting in multiple different end states end up as more favourable to the owner. Determinism states that there is no such events, thus it isn't meaningful talking about this definition of luck with determinism.
I understand your argument, I just don't think it makes much sense. Choice implies intent. Choice implies intent. People have intentions and can make choices. Events can't. Your stated definition is nonsense and your assertion is completely unfounded.

I kind of think I know what you're trying to say though. There are multiple conceivable events that might occur. But this can't be an accurate description of luck as a concept. We have a word for that already: "possibility" or perhaps "contingency."

If we say a person is lucky, we could say they have a quality that gave them a favorable end state. Let's say he was born into a rich family.

If we grant determinism's premise, then this only occurred because the events leading up to it fell into logical sequence. The events that shaped this person's life are just manifested in him having the genealogy of a wealthy family. This quality is his "luck" made manifest.

In other cases, good fortune may be a result of genetics. Or it may be simply being in the right place at the right time because it could happen no other way as per determinism. It may be a sum combination of factors, all of them nonetheless predetermined.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Luck is pretty much how often dice rolls go your way. Think of a rougealike. If you don't get any drops but instead get out of depth encounters then your skill won't help much.

Although you could argue that in a video game, nothing is truely deterministic. The random numbers all come from a psuedo-random number generator and are generated in a deterministic fashion. However for the most part it is inpossible for human reflexes to manipulate it. Some games don't have strong RNGs (like enemy drops in Legend of Zelda) and can be manipulated with sufficient skill.


I see a lot of people talking about RTS games and luck. Luck has very little to do with it. Taking a sub-optimal strategy will cause you to loose most times. Did the zerg rush over run you? It's your own fault for not taking proper counter-measures. This is a big part of the meta-game where you try to determine in advance what tactics your opponent will use and then formulate your own to counter his and then punish him. Failing at the meta-game level is not bad luck, it is a lack of skill.

[AtwasAwamps]

I'd like to hear more about this Flowermuffin. I think I saw her once, does she remember me?

No. Flowermuffin says she does not remember you, your silly haircut, or the adventures you had in the dread dungeons of Lord Hunnicut the Magnificious.

She might be lying. She does that.

[Thrawn183]

As far as I'm concerned, Luck in Gaming is the element of randomness. The starting positions in SC 2, dodge and crit chance in League of Legends, the roll of the dice in inumerable games, the flip of a card.

In as far as this goes, I like some luck in games, just not too much. This is actually why I didn't like Mario Party. I could win virtually every mini-game and it barely had any influence on the outcome. I do like some luck however, as it prevents things from becoming extremely boring.

[Murska]

I understand your argument, I just don't think it makes much sense. Events don't have a choice. People have choices. Your definition is nonsense.

If we say a person is lucky, we will say they have a quality that gave them a favorable end state. Let's say he was born into a rich family.

If we grant determinism's premise, then this only occurred because the events leading up to it fell into logical sequence. The events that shaped this person's life are just manifested in him having the genealogy of a wealthy family. This quality is his "luck" made manifest.

In other cases, good fortune may be a result of genetics. Or it may be simply being in the right place at the right time because it could happen no other way as per determinism. It may be a sum combination of factors, all of them nonetheless predetermined.

You're using your own definition of luck, something along the lines of 'having a favourable end-state'. It's subtly different to mine, in which 'luck' is an actual, existing quality that affects the random chances. My definition assumes the existance of random chance, otherwise it couldn't be affected.

As to events not having choices and people having them, that makes no sense. People making choices don't have any inherent quality that distinguishes them from any other events. Taking an example from quantum physics, if you assume the existance of randomness then you would usually say that particles have it, whereas it wouldn't be clear that people still do, since that randomness translates to probability to such a high margin that it would be almost nonexistant in the macrorealm.

[RedSun]

You're using your own definition of luck, something along the lines of 'having a favourable end-state'. It's subtly different to mine, in which 'luck' is an actual, existing quality that affects the random chances. My definition assumes the existance of random chance, otherwise it couldn't be affected.

As to events not having choices and people having them, that makes no sense. People making choices don't have any inherent quality that distinguishes them from any other events. Taking an example from quantum physics, if you assume the existance of randomness then you would usually say that particles have it, whereas it wouldn't be clear that people still do, since that randomness translates to probability to such a high margin that it would be almost nonexistant in the macrorealm.
No I'm sorry. You're going to simply have to surrender.

Choices are implied to have motive and personality behind them while events do not. Some events occur that aren't chosen by a person. Simple as that. And that is a meaningful distinction whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

And we already have a word for your definition: "possibility."

If two events are mutually exclusive, then only one of them can occur at a given time. By determinism, the event that does occur, occurs because there is a sequence of events that have a direct cause in making it occur. In which case, it's just a matter of predicting which event occurs by its cause.

They're both "possibilities." They're both events that might occur given proper cause. That isn't luck at all. Your assertion that luck and determinism are mutually exclusive has no support.

EDIT: Oh, quantum physics produces a statistical method for calculating probabilities of certain specific kinds of events which are difficult to gauge because the events in question are too fast, too small or too sensitive. Although it does more than just that.

[Murska]

No I'm sorry. You're going to simply have to surrender.

Choices are implied to have motive and personality behind them while events do not. Some events occur that aren't chosen by a person. Simple as that. And that is a meaningful distinction whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

And we already have a word for your definition: "possibility."

If two events are mutually exclusive, then only one of them can occur at a given time. By determinism, the event that does occur, occurs because there is a sequence of events that have a direct cause in making it occur. In which case, it's just a matter of predicting which event occurs by its cause.

They're both "possibilities." They're both events that might occur given proper cause. That isn't luck at all. Your assertion that luck and determinism are mutually exclusive has no support.

EDIT: Oh, quantum physics produces a statistical method for calculating probabilities of certain specific kinds of events which are difficult to gauge because the events in question are too fast, too small or too sensitive. Although it does more than just that.

Okay, I'm not a native speaker, I happened to use the wrong word. Replace choice with possibility.

Your determinism hasn't been taken to it's logical extreme. There's, in a deterministic universe, no 'other possibilities' because it is completely impossible for anything to happen except what happens. If your definition of luck doesn't need for there to be more than one possible end result, then it is quite an empty concept to discuss of, and can be summed up as what happens being favourable to the 'lucky' thing.

If I throw a ball into the air, and it falls down, I don't call that lucky. Even if the ball falling down helps me tremendously. It's not 'lucky' that we just happen to live in an universe with laws of physics as they are and Earth just happened to be right here. Now, if there for some reason was 90% chance of the ball continuing upwards forever, then it falling down would be lucky for me. But in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing as probability, because there is only one possible course of events.

Taking a still-shot of the universe, here's a start state for us. Let's forget everything that happened 'before'. (and let's not go into time right now, it's a lot more complicated a concept and we don't really need it right now) Here's our start state. Deterministically, everything that happens ever again happens exactly as dictated by the laws of physics as applied to this start state. There is only one way for things to go, and there are no other possibilities anywhere for anything to go differently. By my definition of luck, there needs to be some sort of a 'random chance', otherwise it cannot be affected. In determinism, that random chance does not exist and thus cannot be affected.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

EDIT: Oh, and all quantum physics says on the matter is that certain very specific kinds of events are impossible to predict with a high degree of accuracy at this point in time. Rather, we use statistics to calculate *probability* instead.

I'll use this quote as a springboard for my 1.54 eurocents

There's hundreds of events in every day life that are impossible to predict with a high (or even low) degree of accuracy. The throw of a die, the starting position in certain RTSs, whether or not the bus will be on time. This is because it's impractical or flat-out impossible to have sufficient knowledge of the event, it's causes and the variables that affect it's outcome to give an accurate prediction. So you're reduced to estimating the probability of each possible outcome.

Good luck is when an event with statistically calculated outcomes (rather than accurately predicted with math or what have you) has an outcome that favours you. Bad luck is when it doesn't.

Of course, in gaming this becomes a little fuzzy because as experience increases so does a player's ability to accurately predict outcomes. What one player might chalk up to luck (that is, they consider the outcome to be statistical rather than predictable) a more experienced one will see as an inevitable outcome. And even more experienced player might be aware of further variables that lead them to consider that said outcome was, in fact, luck. And so on.

What is and isn't luck does rather depend on who you ask :smalltongue:

[RedSun]

Okay, I'm not a native speaker, I happened to use the wrong word. Replace choice with possibility.

Your determinism hasn't been taken to it's logical extreme. There's, in a deterministic universe, no 'other possibilities' because it is completely impossible for anything to happen except what happens. If your definition of luck doesn't need for there to be more than one possible end result, then it is quite an empty concept to discuss of, and can be summed up as what happens being favourable to the 'lucky' thing.
No. Just because a coin lands heads now doesn't mean it can't land tails later or that a different coin can't ever land on tails.

There are multiple coins that can all be flipped and they all follow the same rules of physics.

Both these events can and do occur. Just not at the same time and place.


If I throw a ball into the air, and it falls down, I don't call that lucky. Even if the ball falling down helps me tremendously. It's not 'lucky' that we just happen to live in an universe with laws of physics as they are and Earth just happened to be right here. Now, if there for some reason was 90% chance of the ball continuing upwards forever, then it falling down would be lucky for me. But in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing as probability, because there is only one possible course of events.
That's not at all how probability works.

Coins land on heads about half the times you flip a given coin. We know that it's a reasonably accurate prediction that if we flip a million coins that roughly 500,000 of them will be heads.

Each individual event was predetermined, but we simply don't have the time or the wherewithal to calculate how each coin will land based on a sophisticated mathematical model of each coin's physics.

So it's simpler to say that about half of them will be heads.


Taking a still-shot of the universe, here's a start state for us. Let's forget everything that happened 'before'. (and let's not go into time right now, it's a lot more complicated a concept and we don't really need it right now) Here's our start state. Deterministically, everything that happens ever again happens exactly as dictated by the laws of physics as applied to this start state. There is only one way for things to go, and there are no other possibilities anywhere for anything to go differently. By my definition of luck, there needs to be some sort of a 'random chance', otherwise it cannot be affected. In determinism, that random chance does not exist and thus cannot be affected.
Again, that's not what it means for something to be random.

A random event is simply one that you didn't expect or have the power to predict. In our case, flipping a coin is a sufficiently random event that it could be used in a game of chance.

If you knew where the coin started out and how much force was applied to it, then you could predict were it would land. Except that sort of defeats the point of using it as a two-sided die.

[Murska]

Then you're just falsely applying the word 'random' to events when you really mean 'beyond my capability to predict'. It isn't random if it's predetermined, and in a deterministic universe everything is predetermined. You can't say an event is random for you if you can't predict it but not random for me if I can. It might appear random, however.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Then you're just falsely applying the word 'random' to events when you really mean 'beyond my capability to predict'. It isn't random if it's predetermined, and in a deterministic universe everything is predetermined. You can't say an event is random for you if you can't predict it but not random for me if I can. It might appear random, however.

I have a problem with the definition of random you're using, because either:

a) We live in a deterministic universe and the word random has no real world applicability
b) We live an almost deterministic universe and the word random has no real world applicability outside Theoretical Physics departments.

Either way the word random means just about bugger all and we need a new word to refer to those situations that are 'beyond my capability to predict'. Might as well use "random".

But here I am arguing semantics. I really should go do something else.

[Murska]

Well if you use 'random' for that then you need a new word for the concept of 'random'.

[Mewtarthio]

Murska, you have admitted several times that you are not a native English speaker. I am a native English speaker, and I can tell you for a fact that people can and will use words like "lucky" and "random" to describe events that are beyond their control. If those words were ever meant to apply only to non-deterministic circumstances (which is debatable, as the concept of "luck" arose from superstitions), then they're used differently today.

[Acanous]

Take Starcraft 2 right now, with good scouting you usually know what your enemy is doing most of the time but sometimes your enemy hides a tech building somewhere that you unluckily do not find and all of a sudden you have dark templars

^
Are you in Silver/Gold league? If yes, did this happen to you while fighting me?
Proxying a gate and a Dark Spire is SOP for me when fighting terran. Scans>Dark templar otherwise.

[Murska]

Murska, you have admitted several times that you are not a native English speaker. I am a native English speaker, and I can tell you for a fact that people can and will use words like "lucky" and "random" to describe events that are beyond their control. If those words were ever meant to apply only to non-deterministic circumstances (which is debatable, as the concept of "luck" arose from superstitions), then they're used differently today.

I've only admitted it once. And, obviously in normal conversations people will be using the wrong words for all kinds of things. But in a debate, you're supposed to define the terms you are using precisely. In everyday discussion, people can feel free to say that they got lucky when they won a game of Starcraft, but in professional-level after-action study of the replays people tend to try and find out what happened and why, and 'lucky' doesn't factor much into it.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Which is my point. There is little to no luck in RTS games. The player with a better ability, strategy and meta-game will be the winner more times than not. The ability to obfuscate your true strategy is but one layer of strategy games.

I did this in Homeworld once. I once built some support frigates to make it look like I was gonna use lots of strike craft. In actuality, I had just gone with ion frigates and didn't even bother researching heavy corvettes or even bombers. My enemy foolishly wasted time and resources building a counter for the corvette rush that never happened.

[Karoht]

The impression I got from the OP was that he was asking about any recommendations for games where luck is not a factor.
I'm going to take luck is not a factor in a more general sense, and change that to 'Luck is a (greatly?) minimized factor' in which case it becomes much easier to recommend a game or two.

'Games you can think your way out of' was also used as a descriptor.
And later in the thread, twitch reaction reflexes were also mentioned.


After reading this entire thread, I really can't recommend anything that hasn't already been said.

Portal is a thinker, luck is really quite irrelivant, but reflexes are still kind of a factor. Moderately so, however.
Bejewelled, tetris, Dr Mario, and other such puzzle games come to mind, but reflexes do eventually become a factor. Luck is somewhat a factor in regards to puzzle pieces.

That is really about all the games I can think of right now which don't involve (much) luck or reflexes.

[Sipex]

Bejeweled seems to have a bit too much of a luck focus to me since you can't control what gems come down and if you run out of matches you're boned.

Most other puzzle games though, the luck is so minimal that I wouldn't really count it.

[Triaxx]

Why, I must ask, in that Homeworld game was your opponent not attacking you? I've always found that in RTS multiplayer, that attacking was synonymous with scouting, and usually reveals more info than scouts alone.

(Note that I haven't played Homeworld, since I've never had a computer that didn't mysteriously freeze mid-way through loading.)

[Suicide Junkie]

Another thing to consider is how much the number of important units matters.

In Civilization it was just one-on-one.
If you attack all the coastal cities with your veteran battleship, it will be sunk by a phalanx formation before you make it all the way around the continent.

In SE4, I had an old scout frigate be attacked by a more modern cruiser.
He had about a 2:1 advantage in tonnage, and an extra 1.5:1 in tech.
But my ship got lucky and poked out one of the two enemy guns in the first few rounds of combat, evening the odds. It also got lucky in that the return fire was mostly caught by armor and none of the critical components failed, and so eventually won the battle.

By comparison, when you've got 100 vs 100, the outcome can't vary by much.
You can be assured with 99% confidence that due to your tech, designs and strategies, that you will have 10% of your ships destroyed, 60% crippled, and 20% with moderate damage.
The randomness really only ends up deciding whether it was the SS Spain or the SS Portugal which ends up on the casualty list, and whether it was knocked out of the fight due to weapon damage or engine damage. But it doesn't change the essential nature of your victory.

In such cases where you're throwing vast quantities of random numbers around, the randomness simply adds flavor to something that can be treated as deterministic.

Consider a drop of water.
Each atom essentially has a random direction and speed but, taken in bulk, they are extremely predictable by measuring the average properties and calling it temperature.


When "hero" units are brought into it, you lose the luck-swamping numbers. The billion RNG rolls among the mooks really don't matter, but those 5 rolls that the hero has to make will decide the outcome. Which puts you back into the situation where you have only a few random samples to decide the outcome, and thus poor predictability.

[Triaxx]

Unless one of those mooks makes a lucky shot and eliminates the hero from the equation.

[Suicide Junkie]

If you have a hundred mooks, each with a 1 in 200 chance of killing the hero, then that is equivalent to the hero having to make a saving throw vs mooks with 60% chance of success, and then he gets on with the business of dueling with the other heroes.

If you have a hundred mooks, each with a 1 in 10 chance of doing 1hp damage to the hero, then they're just terrain, not much different from the heroes fighting in an acid swamp that does 10 damage per round.

[Triaxx]

That of course discounts critical hits, which are randomly dished out in most cases.

So it goes from a 1 in 200 chance to 1 in 20 possibility. But only a 1 in 1000 chance of that 1 in 20 shot.

[Suicide Junkie]

My main point is that a large number of little rolls really don't matter, and they can be summed up with something as simple as 10hp per round +/- rounding error, and a single 1d10 > 4 to save vs mook headshots.

if you send 1000 heroes into a fight with a million mooks, then you don't even have to roll. Just remove 400 of them to mook headshots. If you did roll it out you might get 397 dead heroes or 402 dead heroes, but that's unimportant to the outcome.

[kyoryu]

I have a problem with the definition of random you're using, because either:

a) We live in a deterministic universe and the word random has no real world applicability
b) We live an almost deterministic universe and the word random has no real world applicability outside Theoretical Physics departments.

Either way the word random means just about bugger all and we need a new word to refer to those situations that are 'beyond my capability to predict'. Might as well use "random".

But here I am arguing semantics. I really should go do something else.

In Game Theory, the term for that (IIRC) is Nature's Choice, and it's a kind of hidden information. Whether or not it is truly random or not is irrelevant - the point is that the players do not have knowledge of it before it is revealed.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Why, I must ask, in that Homeworld game was your opponent not attacking you? I've always found that in RTS multiplayer, that attacking was synonymous with scouting, and usually reveals more info than scouts alone.

(Note that I haven't played Homeworld, since I've never had a computer that didn't mysteriously freeze mid-way through loading.)

You gotta keep in mind that the motherships have pretty decent point defenses that can shred through strike craft. No real zerg rushing in this game. His constant harassment of my resourcers and scouting out to try and find hiding ships would all be attacking. I would be doing the same thing.

Throwing a few resources into building support frigates (same tech tree as ion frigates so don't cost me resource time) caused him to waste time researching and then wasting resources on the heavy corvettes hard counters: multi-gun corvette. Since he wasted so many resources and time, he never had time to research destroyers and had far fewer ion frigates when my ion fleet assaulted him.