Luck based CO banning

[Grit Snipe]

You know how somtimes all luck based CO' are banned including Flak well Flak is a horrible CO and is almost never picked.



luck basedCO list:
Flak:Horrible CO with -10percent and +20 percent luck

Nell:A well balanced CO that gets +20percent more luck but no bad luck

Jugger:Great CO with -10percent bad luck and +30percent good luck

I sujest picking Nell and Jugger but never Flak.

[Divva]

what's the difference between being banned and never used?
actually we don't ban them because they are too strong/too bad, they may be fun, but not suitable for competitive play.

[Grit Snipe]

Thats exacty what i was tryng to say Flak is not good for competitive play so why bother banning him.

[Divva]

Thats exacty what i was tryng to say Flak is not good for competitive play so why bother banning him.

people hate sometimes he get super lucky/unlucky that ruined both player's strategies.

[Grit Snipe]

Well you are right about that. i forgot that Flaks SCOP can do +90 percent more damage.

[Walker]

Luck COs can be fun to play with, but as Divva said they're not really suitable for competitive play. Not being able to calculate how much damage an attack will do just screws up games.

[ichbinsehselber]

You know how somtimes all luck based CO' are banned including Flak well Flak is a horrible CO and is almost never picked.

luck basedCO list:
Flak:Horrible CO with -10percent and +20 percent luck

Nell:A well balanced CO that gets +20percent more luck but no bad luck

Jugger:Great CO with -10percent bad luck and +30percent good luck

I sujest picking Nell and Jugger but never Flak.

This list is not completely correct:
Jugger and Flak are almost equal. Compare here: http://awbw.amarriner.com/co.php

In my opinion luck can be part of a tournament game. The fact that there are poker tournaments kind of proves that. And poker is by far not the only tournament which includes luck as one of the deciding factors. A good tournament game should give other factors more weight over luck. Which is the case with AWBW.

[Walker]

Poker and AWBW are such different games that I don't even see how you can compare them.

[Divva]

Maybe it's not bad to run an lucky tourney for fun. But I don't really want to see them as my opponent in serious games in the colosseum or global league. I completely agree with hellraider. It's horrible to play the game that you can't calculate your opponent's next move. Yeah they are a part of game, but you have to admit the game is flawed, not perfect balanced for competitive play.

[ichbinsehselber]

Yeah they are a part of game, but you have to admit the game is flawed, not perfect balanced for competitive play.

If you require that a theoretical genius who always makes the best move will win 100% of games even against other very good players, then this is true. And then you will want a deterministic game (which AWBW never was and also never was intended to be)
If you only require that being a better player will lead to wins in most of the games than you can keep luck in.

[hetchel]

Maybe it's not bad to run an lucky tourney for fun. But I don't really want to see them as my opponent in serious games in the colosseum or global league. I completely agree with hellraider. It's horrible to play the game that you can't calculate your opponent's next move. Yeah they are a part of game, but you have to admit the game is flawed, not perfect balanced for competitive play.

Yes, exactly. Luck is less balanced for competitive play. But competitive play and having fun are different goals.
Personally, I use the league to find opponents about my level. I don't really care about my rank.
I don't like competition itself, as it focus on winning more than having fun. In sports for example competition leads to drug use, which ruins the health of the poor athletes that get caught in that twisted spirit.
Losing due to luck is maybe less suited for competition, but it still makes the game fun. What if I lose? I just say "ok I have lost, let's play again". If you win every time (or even worse, draw every time), then the game becomes boring. Adding luck adds fun and is one more factor to strategy, even if it is not a factor you can control or predict.

[Walker]

When it comes to the league, you have hit the heart of the matter hetchel. The league is intended to to do two different things. One purpose is to provide players with a way of finding fun games against opponents of similar skill, as you said you like. The other purpose is to be the main source of competition on the site. If you ask Glenstorm, he'll tell you that he wants the league to really only serve the first purpose and that tournaments are a better idea for competition.

But anyways, when it comes to luck COs this creates a conflict. For players only looking for fun games, there is no reason to ban luck COs. Everything does not have to be as perfectly fair or balanced, because the players don't care as much about whether they win or lose. By that same argument, you can include less conventional maps or settings, etc. But for players looking for competition, luck COs are a negative because now near-perfect balance is required. It's desirable to take out or minimize any external factors that might decide the game.

In my own opinion, the league is still perfectly fun without luck COs. Maybe it's not as fun as it could be for players who really like the luck COs, but there aren't any problems. On the other hand, leaving luck COs unbanned will ruin the competitive nature of the league for some people every time a game is overtly affected by luck. So it's better to ban the luck COs.

The argument always comes back to whether or not luck COs really affect the game negatively, etc, but to me that's not even that relevant. A lot of players will still be upset if luck COs are used and they lose because of bad luck (myself included), while some players won't really care. But by banning luck COs, the idea is to make the league as fun as possible for the maximum number of people; it's not possible to make everyone happy so we do the best we can.

[Divva]

If you require that a theoretical genius who always makes the best move will win 100% of games even against other very good players, then this is true. And then you will want a deterministic game (which AWBW never was and also never was intended to be)
If you only require that being a better player will lead to wins in most of the games than you can keep luck in.

Yeah, we are not perfect living computers. But I just don't like sometimes ridiculous things will happen when i want to play seriously like a tank on city can be 2HKO'd by enemy's 2 infs and all my fronts will collapse because of that during his Lady Luck. There's no way to prevent that except praying to God, you may try to back off when your opponent has Lady Luck, but what if he just keep that to threaten you and capture your properties? and it's nothing about strategy, the most interesting part in AWBW. I think strategy is based on things which is able to analysis and calculate.

Playing casually and win by some crazy ideas/luck is exciting indeed, but playing seriously and win by your efforts on the game is also fun. I also don't care about win or lose, even in colosseum and global league, I know I'm just a middle tier player. but i care how I and my opponent acted in that game, and anything i can learn from it.