4 ms·

> "100% winnable" just means that you have a chance of winning if you do the right things This is not the definition of winnable that the OP (and having listen

> "100% winnable" just means that you have a chance of winning if you do the right things This is not the definition of winnable that the OP (and having listened to him discuss this on-stream, I'm pretty sure Jorbs as well) is using. From the article, > “Can a perfect player win every game of Slay the Spire?” (alternatively, “Is there a strategy that achieves a 100% win rate in Slay the Spire?”) "100% winnable" means that you are _guaranteed_ to win if you do the right things, not that you have a _chance_ to win under optimal play. What you're saying is the same thing as saying "a coin toss is 100% winnable, because you have a chance of winning if you do the right things". I don't think that's a useful way of defining "100% winnable" in the context of this discussion. (There is a loose conversational sense in which your interpretation could be valid; 100%=absolutely, "sure, 100% it's winnable" but these discussions are all using the technical narrow interpretation.)

ebg13 6y ago
I think you're misunderstanding and getting caught up on my use of the word chance. "Chance" here means that winning is not foreclosed. If you prefer, let's change it to "opportunity". A winnable playthrough is one that you are given the opportunity to win, one that you will win if your skill is sufficiently high. Not one that anyone will always win, but one that CAN be won by skill. That's the "chance" or "opportunity" part. A non-winnable playthrough is one where you cannot win. A chess game where your opponent starts with all their pieces and you only start with a bare king is non-winnable. You literally cannot win. Nobody wants to play that game unless maybe you invent a different objective. For this context, calling a game "100% winnable" is appropriate if every playthrough is winnable, i.e. for every playthrough winning is not foreclosed. > What you're saying is the same thing as saying "a coin toss is 100% winnable, because you have a chance of winning if you do the right things This is a misunderstanding and completely the opposite of what I'm saying because there's no such thing as "the right things" for coin tosses other than "toss coin" unless you're cheating, because the coin toss is meant to approximate a random selection. Only being able to win by chance is literally the opposite of being 100% winnable. It means you'll lose many tosses without doing anything wrong unless you cheat. That's why tossing a coin is not a fun game.
dwild 6y ago
> "100% winnable" means that you are _guaranteed_ to win if you do the right things, not that you have a _chance_ to win under optimal play. That's exactly what he was arguing too. Having a chance to win means that if you do exactly the right things, you can win. It doesn't means that you may win if you do exactly the right thing... that's just absurd saying may about something fixed. You would enjoy a game where it is litteraly impossible to win? Whatever the moves you decide to do? You just lost once you got a card but still have to keep going... even though it's already decided that whatever move you choose to do, you will lose? I know I wouldn't enjoy it. There has to be a way, a specific choice of move, the rights one, that will make me win, otherwise, I'm losing my time.
- esrauch 6y ago
  > There has to be a way, a specific choice of move, the rights one, that will make me win, otherwise, I'm losing my time. This is the opposite opinion from what the first comment in this thread was saying though right? They actually do want there to be some seeds that are just impossible.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    I think so, and I think they ("Jorbs", not the commenter) said a dumb thing. They're saying that winnable is bad when it's actually good. Being able to win or at least not die[0] is a pretty big precondition for being fair, and people generally don't enjoy unfair games. [0] - This means at atomic components of the game, not necessarily the whole game. There are infinite games that have no ultimate win condition where the objective is to just go as far as possible, but if the progression is fundamentally unfair (i.e. if components are randomly unwinnable) then it will be also fundamentally unsatisfying.
    - jorbs_ 6y ago
      i think non-ascension (lowest difficulty) spire is pretty close to guaranteeing that you're able to win every run. many people who play a lot of the game prefer to play at higher difficulties. for me the main reason is that at low difficulty a significant % of my time is spent going through the motions in a run that's already won, where almost any choice will still win and so my relevance as a player disappears, and my enjoyment of the game increases as the % of the time that my decisions appear relevant increases. i've played ~5,000 hours of the game and thanks to high difficulties i'd guess at least 4,000 of those hours have been engaging gameplay, whereas if the game had never released higher difficulties maybe only 1,500/5,000 would have been interesting. it sucks that some runs just end up being losses for pretty much any reasonable player, but at least even in losses there is usually engaging decision-making up until the end, since you can almost always find some out to play toward which will let you win with a bit of luck, and you can't tell ahead of time that you won't succeed at hitting that out. easy wins where you get enough stuff to beat the endboss in 10 minutes but still have 30+ minutes of gameplay left are less desirable in my experience. it's a nice design goal for a game to just always be engaging, but very few games like this come close to achieving that goal. i'd say ascension 20 spire is closer than anything else i've ever played.

ebg13 6y ago

I think you're misunderstanding and getting caught up on my use of the word chance. "Chance" here means that winning is not foreclosed. If you prefer, let's change it to "opportunity". A winnable playthrough is one that you are given the opportunity to win, one that you will win if your skill is sufficiently high. Not one that anyone will always win, but one that CAN be won by skill. That's the "chance" or "opportunity" part. A non-winnable playthrough is one where you cannot win. A chess game where your opponent starts with all their pieces and you only start with a bare king is non-winnable. You literally cannot win. Nobody wants to play that game unless maybe you invent a different objective. For this context, calling a game "100% winnable" is appropriate if every playthrough is winnable, i.e. for every playthrough winning is not foreclosed. > What you're saying is the same thing as saying "a coin toss is 100% winnable, because you have a chance of winning if you do the right things This is a misunderstanding and completely the opposite of what I'm saying because there's no such thing as "the right things" for coin tosses other than "toss coin" unless you're cheating, because the coin toss is meant to approximate a random selection. Only being able to win by chance is literally the opposite of being 100% winnable. It means you'll lose many tosses without doing anything wrong unless you cheat. That's why tossing a coin is not a fun game.

dwild 6y ago

> "100% winnable" means that you are _guaranteed_ to win if you do the right things, not that you have a _chance_ to win under optimal play. That's exactly what he was arguing too. Having a chance to win means that if you do exactly the right things, you can win. It doesn't means that you may win if you do exactly the right thing... that's just absurd saying may about something fixed. You would enjoy a game where it is litteraly impossible to win? Whatever the moves you decide to do? You just lost once you got a card but still have to keep going... even though it's already decided that whatever move you choose to do, you will lose? I know I wouldn't enjoy it. There has to be a way, a specific choice of move, the rights one, that will make me win, otherwise, I'm losing my time.

esrauch 6y ago
> There has to be a way, a specific choice of move, the rights one, that will make me win, otherwise, I'm losing my time. This is the opposite opinion from what the first comment in this thread was saying though right? They actually do want there to be some seeds that are just impossible.
- ebg13 6y ago
  I think so, and I think they ("Jorbs", not the commenter) said a dumb thing. They're saying that winnable is bad when it's actually good. Being able to win or at least not die[0] is a pretty big precondition for being fair, and people generally don't enjoy unfair games. [0] - This means at atomic components of the game, not necessarily the whole game. There are infinite games that have no ultimate win condition where the objective is to just go as far as possible, but if the progression is fundamentally unfair (i.e. if components are randomly unwinnable) then it will be also fundamentally unsatisfying.
  - jorbs_ 6y ago
    i think non-ascension (lowest difficulty) spire is pretty close to guaranteeing that you're able to win every run. many people who play a lot of the game prefer to play at higher difficulties. for me the main reason is that at low difficulty a significant % of my time is spent going through the motions in a run that's already won, where almost any choice will still win and so my relevance as a player disappears, and my enjoyment of the game increases as the % of the time that my decisions appear relevant increases. i've played ~5,000 hours of the game and thanks to high difficulties i'd guess at least 4,000 of those hours have been engaging gameplay, whereas if the game had never released higher difficulties maybe only 1,500/5,000 would have been interesting. it sucks that some runs just end up being losses for pretty much any reasonable player, but at least even in losses there is usually engaging decision-making up until the end, since you can almost always find some out to play toward which will let you win with a bit of luck, and you can't tell ahead of time that you won't succeed at hitting that out. easy wins where you get enough stuff to beat the endboss in 10 minutes but still have 30+ minutes of gameplay left are less desirable in my experience. it's a nice design goal for a game to just always be engaging, but very few games like this come close to achieving that goal. i'd say ascension 20 spire is closer than anything else i've ever played.