Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

buc0727

Testers
  • Content Count

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About buc0727

  • Rank
    Piapiac

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. The spreadsheet has a mistake for the Legionnaire Vessel recipe. It's listed as requiring a 'Desiccated Centaur Body' instead of a 'Restored Centaur Body'.
  2. Just catching up on things after a hiatus.... For some reason I initially misread "dodge tank" as "doge tank" which is also quite different
  3. For some people, having no uncertainty in combat feels as exciting and satisfying as combat in chess (and I'm not talking wizard's chess). These tend to be the kind of people who fill in a role-playing narrative in the heads as the combat is playing out. "... and as Thargor swings his sword in a mighty blow to cleave the goblin skull, a bit of moss underfoot causes his stance to slide, just a little, so that the blow glances of the goblin's helmet instead, leaving the goblin dazed but alive..." vs. "Thargor hit the goblin for 32.437 damage. again. exactly the same as the last 3 times. exactly the same as he will the next time, after the goblin hits him for 12.845 damage. again. *yawn* wake me up when combat is over." Some people are looking for that sort of thing whenever they play an RPG, whether it's single-player or MMO, and Crowfall is being marketed as an MMORPG. I'm not trying to convince you that it's wrong to want things to be precise and completely lacking in RNG, just the same as I wouldn't try to convince someone that they need to introduce dice-based combat resolution into chess (although that could be a fun variant). What I am trying to do is help you understand the other perspective. Competitive online games can be fair, fun, and reward skill (both player and character) independent of whether or not they have RNG. Oh, speaking of RNGs affecting the outcome of things... What about the unique random map for each campaign and the initial player spawn at the start? Those could potentially have very significant effects on the ultimate outcome of the campaign. Do those RNG influences need to be eliminated as well?
  4. You're pointing at the extreme ends of a continuum as if they were the only options. They are not. Crowfall is going to simulate a lot of things, combat being just one among many. Simulations are simplifications of more complex systems, and part of that simplification is how to handle the reduction in fidelity going from "a very particular iron banded oak wood shield, with iron sourced from mine X, oak from tree W, assembled by armoursmith Z, and enchanted by enchanter Y, a very long and involved process culminating in the enchantment applied on day Q. There is a hairline split in the grain of the third board.... etc etc" to "Iron Shield, +13 defense, +6 vs. magic". Randomness is frequently brought in to replace the uncertainty of physical reality brought about by the simplifications of the simulation. How much is a matter of taste. This has also been discussed as if there were a "right" and a "wrong" answer. There certainly is not in general, and I doubt there is in the specific instance of Crowfall, although there may be "better" and "worse" answers for Crowfall. We can talk theory as much as we want, but ultimately ACE should judge their systems, including combat, on merit as they are playtested rather than simply following the most popular theory on the board.
  5. For many years NASCAR determined qualifying order by random draw. Since the track frequently changed over the course of a qualifying run, it could make a big difference whether a driver drew a spot at the beginning or the ending of the run. Aside: If I use a hardware RNG that gets its entropy from temperature and/or acoustic variations in the environment then that is also physics at work. Why is one more valid than the other?
  6. I don't recall crossing paths with him yet. Based on his profile we just might.
  7. Normal fights between equally skilled players should have random (i.e. unpredictable) winners each time anyway, otherwise they either aren't "normal" fights or "equally skilled" players. But, I understand what you're getting at. There's a difference between winning 50% of the time for no discernible reason and winning 50% of the time because of how you played. And it's an important difference, since it contributes directly to the feedback loop necessary for the player to improve their skill at the game (as opposed to their character's skill). That's why I suggested earlier that if it were possible to reduce the magnitude of RNG in proportional to the calculated disparity in skill between the players then it would be in favor of doing so. Compared with "normal" sport competitions, video games have extremely few player inputs with very little to distinguish a "perfect" performance from one that is "merely adequate". Consider hitting a baseball with a bat. In most games it is purely a matter of timing for a single button-press, so the only player-introduced variable is how close to the ideal timing they were. In the real world it's a complex orchestration of many muscle groups in the arms, legs, back, etc, all contributing to not just the timing of the swing but also the angle, strength, and follow-through. Even state-of-the-art motion-sensing controls are significantly poorer in terms of input provided to the system than the real world is. ACE is talking about combat mechanics where you have windows of time in which to chain skills together into combos. Sure there's the meta-game of which move to execute next, but once that is done it comes down to not much more than pushing the right button within the correct time window in order to have the move play out exactly the same 100% of the time, that just doesn't feel right to me. It feels like a thin cardboard simulation. Maybe I'm just arguing this position because I don't expect to be as skilled of a player as many (I'm not 40 yet, but I can see it from where I am), and I know that precise no-RNG systems tend to greatly favor player skill even more than systems with an RNG do, but I'd like to think that it's because I've felt dissatisfied with RNG-less combat even in single player games.
  8. I'm curious who you're identifying as the whales. I'm good enough with math to know that I don't have enough disposable income to be purchasing cash shop mystery boxes. Further, just because I believe in the value of RNGs in simulations doesn't mean that I have any illusions about my personal relationship with RNGs. They hate me. I've played many board games that incorporate both RNGs (dice, cards, etc) and skill. Over the years it has been not just my observation, but also the observation of those I play with regularly, that the more severe the RNG (i.e. dice being a "harder" RNG than cards) the more likely it is that I'll get the short end of the stick. It's gotten to the point where we evaluate the effectiveness of new randomizer mechanics based on how frequently they dole out to me unusually poor results, declaring the method to be "fair" if my outcomes are worse than the expected results by a statistically significant margin.
  9. Agreed. Professional poker and televised professional poker (and by that I mean people making their living by playing poker) only overlap partially. I only brought up the televised tournaments because it's something more people can relate to. Most professional poker takes place in untelevised cash games where the only prize is what you can take in the pot. Most (but not all) of the tournament winners are people who make the bulk of their income through those cash games. I think that some of those pro players use the public tournament system primarily as a way of furthering the social image they use in the meta-game at the cash games. Sure there is luck involved, but even though I've not played much I still know enough to know that the difference made by skill is vast. I worked with a guy who, for a time, was a professional cash-game player in a region of the U.S. and I'd never dream of playing against him for money. Yet he was just a small-time regional player and wouldn't himself ever dream of trying to compete with the household names of tournament poker. I'm sure there are levels in between of people who aspire to compete with those who aspire to compete with those household names. In other words, despite all the randomness involved in poker I estimate that I'm at least four orders of competency removed from those at the top of the game, probably even more. We typically don't see this level of disparity because the skilled and the unskilled don't usually sit down at the same table. WRT the question of a sport with RNG built-in... Consider (non-arena) American Football. The ball has an odd shape that under some circumstances (particularly after being kicked) makes it more susceptible to the effects of the wind (especially when played outdoors and in bad weather) and to make unpredictable bounces on landing. It may not be an RNG in the strictest definition of the term but it is definitely unpredictable behavior due to factors that are not controllable by players and frequently can't even be observed directly by players. Oh, and there's the coin flip to determine who starts with the ball and choice of goals to defend (which is sometimes very significant depending on the weather conditions). Motor racing, of all kinds, also has factors that are best modeled by a constrained RNG. Engine failure? Sure physics can explain that it was caused by part X being overstressed, and the best shops tend to turn out engines that are less susceptible to that sort of thing, but just like any good RNG you can't know what will happen without actually doing the race. And that's not even counting the effects of weather, e.g. a cloud drifting by at just the right time cooling the right part of the track at just the right time to benefit a particular driver during qualifying.
  10. High-end poker isn't a game of chance. It's a bluff/counterbluff/read/tell/probability/statistics competition with a game of chance providing the context while the meta-game dominates the RNG of the physical game. In some ways it may not be all that different from the relationship between Forumfall and Crowfall.
  11. TL;DR: I believe we need some amount of randomness, but not so much that RNG dominates skill (both player and character) What about tournament poker? Lots of randomness there. Not only is it a competitive space but they're usually playing for real world currency, sometimes at a scale where paying for a Crowfall Bloodstone backer package would be lost in a rounding error. Do we want our gameplay dynamics to look more like a poker tournament or more like a chess tournament? A RNG acts as a damper on skill (both player and character) disparity, pushing things closer to a 50% win/loss percentage. This is both good and bad. On the plus side, it keeps things more interesting for everyone. If the skill disparity is large enough that the outcome of a matchup is 100% certain before things even begin, then there's very little fun to be had for either the winner or the loser. On the negative side, if RNG is overdone then skill (both player and character) are meaningless and there's also very little fun to be had for either the winner or the loser. The key phrase there is "if RNG is overdone". How much is "overdone"? That depends on many things, most of which haven't been ironed out yet for Crowfall. One thing that I think would be interesting is if the amount of RNG could adjust itself dynamically based on skill discrepancies, with more RNG (but not "too much") being used when the discrepancy is larger. It's fairly straightforward to calculate the discrepancy based on character skill disparity, but before you can calculate the disparity for player skill you have to first measure player skill. I don't know if anyone has even tried to implement a system like that, but I'd be interested to see one if anyone knows of something.
  12. buc0727

    RIP Doc Gonzo

    My completely unsolicited and uninformed interpretation of doc's post here what went down: Doc got reported. Probably not for the first time (especially if this was motivated by an old rivalry). The case wasn't so clear that ACE could outright demote doc with cause, but for some reason they felt that they could not ignore the situation either. So he was asked if he would step down "voluntarily". Which he did, but not without some bitterness.
  13. buc0727

    RIP Doc Gonzo

    This thread? Although I admit that the OP made a lot more sense before the events of the last four posts on page 1. Top post on page 2 is priceless.
  14. I'm good with people having multiple characters with different specializations. I'm probably going to do the same, at least for a little while. But, even if we will be able to bring them all into the same campaign I think I'd like to try to spread them out over different campaigns. See the worlds. So, what are some things that could drive active engagement from multiple different roles in a campaign? First, have the world react to the presence of players in it. This world is infected by the Hunger, and some of us are actively trying to combat it. Make it respond to us in a variety of way such that sitting around doing nothing is bad. We know that EK buildings will require taxes and upkeep. We know that campaign buildings will require repair when damaged. Perhaps as the world itself is dying the player-made buildings also start to crumble and take damage over time. Damage that needs to be repaired constantly. Damage that is worse the more players that are online in the campaign. Maybe the monster threat grows slightly worse with additional players online. Not enough to be more dangerous than the opposing teams, but additional roving bands of monsters spawn that are relatively easy for even a solo character to mop up but still need to be taken down before they destroy the improvements to a POI. Second, I think the borders between factions need to be fluid and very permeable. Sieges should require planning, forethought, and supply lines, but a small band should be able to raid deep into enemy territory. Make teams have to be constantly re-scouting their own territory to make sure that their enemy hasn't gained a foothold somewhere. Perhaps the covert capture of a POI doesn't become known automatically and instead requires that a character is within range to see the change of banners flying overhead. No gatherer should ever feel completely safe, no matter how deep they are in their own faction's territory. Hmm... that's all I've got for now.
  15. Options? Who said this is about options? I have no problem with a gonzo-multi-boxer. Heck, I'd probably be one if I had enough spare cash. My problem is with the hardcore-multi-boxer (hereafter referred to as an HMB) who's out to leverage out-of-game money and hardware into an in-game advantage. Yes it won't be a 1:1 advantage. Yes, it might even put each of their characters individually at a disadvantage. But you aren't facing their characters individually, you're facing a "Zerg of One" . You just killed combat toon #1? No problem, here comes combat toon #2. Killed combat toon #2? No problem, here comes combat toon #3. Thus weakened you succumb. Sure this HMB suffered two deaths to your one, but they still carried the field and ended up with all your stuff (subject to campaign loot rules). But my fear of an HMB pales in comparison to my fear of The Farmer. The Farmer is an HMB who has figured out how to sell their in-game surplus for real world money and is now able to cover all of their ongoing expenses and profit. They've turned our game into a business. At that point we become nothing more than a combination of a market to be manipulated and a raw material to be mined, all for their profit. They no longer have the option to say "GG" when defeated, because that's eating into their profit margin and, if it happens enough, will send them to the unemployment line. I want to fight people who are passionate about the game, not people who are fighting to preserve their business and lifestyle.
×
×
  • Create New...