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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eluem last won the day on March 12 2016

Eluem had the most liked content!

Eluem's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Fun thing with the tetris example. Most modern tetris variants, if I understand correctly, actually use a sort of small cycling deck to make the randomness more evenly distributed to prevent situations where you get all of one good or bad piece in a row. Real randomness naturally clusters quite often. So, to prevent that, randomness often needs A LOT more engineering than you'd think to make it feel good in a game. So, it actually doesn't usually reduce the complexity of developing (relatively) simple but highly interactive systems.. like real time combat. For something more complex and less interactive.. like weather, procedural maps, resource nodes, AI behavioral preferences, ect. RNG works fine. Especially since, if done correctly, fully simulating it wouldn't make much more of an impact unless you 100% fully simulated a world where things can actually butterfly. However, that's totally outside of the scope of the point of Crowfall.. and wouldn't make the game's experience much better compared to the difficulty of developing them. (Nor do I think it'd be possible to even properly simulate on contemporary technology lol). So RNG is FINE there. As Lephys said, my entire point revolves around RNG in combat. It's just pointless lol The systems already built into the game make for enough uncertainty and variance as it is.
  2. Here we go again. It's clear to me, now, after reading this one... that you're not open minded and/or you're a troll. All of your arguments are riddled with fallacy and are entirely illogical. You just state that your "point stands true for any factors" with out explaining how. In a game where actions are simultaneous, and combat has counterplay between actions... if you do the same thing every time, you're not a top tier player... because you'll be predictable and trivially countered by a good player. You're just saying that your statement is true.... but it's not... your statement is trivially false. You can't say that, in a game where predictability can be countered.. that top tier players will always do the same thing... because they wouldn't be top tier if they were predictable. Here, you just quote the definition of gamble... which supports my point.. and then say it will. The two definitions here both indicate that there needs to be some risk taking. Random crit chances aren't a risk to take. They just happen or don't.. you're always going to be attacking. If you had some big attacks with large crits and a low base damage.. then yeah that's a risk.. a gamble.. but that's a stupid gamble for a real time game. Having big attacks that can be countered (simultaneously via prediction) and have big drawbacks if they get countered... but big payoffs if they don't... that's a gamble.. and it doesn't require any artificial randomness. Irregardless... you mean regardless? Well.. regardless of how other people might feel, I was telling you how *I* would feel because you were making assumptions about my motivation to play a video game that is designed around action PvP. Still, your original point in this argument was that you need RNG to let bad people beat good people. I fundamentally disagree with that statement.. and I'm sure most others do too. Also.. what kind of phrase is that "full of poorly made socks"?... this entire nonsensical set of "arguments" of yours in this post are riddled with crazy ad hominem remarks. Again, the Pavlov's dog experiment doesn't apply here. It's an invalid analogy. When people play action combat PvP games, they expect to lose. This isn't some instant gratification base level experience that can be explained in the same way that the Pavlov's dog effect can be. Human beings actively choose to do things that are frustrating because when they succeed, it's gratifying. I am extremely disappointed that I have to explain that to you. You clearly don't have any will power within you, do you? You need the game to make you feel good with out any effort on your own part? Then why play a PvP game? Go play candy crush. That game is designed around Skinner Box psychology and isn't based on giving people an interesting challenge. This entire argument here is so frustrating to me.. because it precludes the entire notion that people play video games FOR a challenge.. which is an inherently frustrating experience... we power through the frustration.. because we're consciously choosing to endure it because we enjoy the challenge itself. That's why makes humans great. You need to research boredom in humans. You make these vapid passing claims of complex psychological understanding as your basis for an argument that a game requires randomness... but it's clear that you don't understand the experiments you're using or the topic that you're debating. Again, I provided some form of an explanation for my argument.. and you respond with baseless claims that I'm simply wrong. If poker was strictly randomness, then poker tournaments wouldn't have consistent winners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Series_of_Poker_Main_Event_champions If poker was strictly luck.... then why does this list have so many of the same people in it? You're the one that's out of touch with reality, sorry. Okay... so here, you say that my posts are "nerdoid shallow minded drivel" well this is just another nice big ad hominem. My posts are formed of arguments from a strong understanding of game development and design.. and my statements are backed by strong logic and evidence, not just theory. Your statements, on the other hand, have nothing backing them. They're just statements that you make and say are true. When you do try to back them up with any form of evidence, the evidence contradicts your own point. Here's a fun one. This statement makes so many silly assumptions. 1) Assuming the game failed due to not having randomness AND ignoring that it has many other VAST differences compared to other MOBAs Bloodline Champions has a ton of factors that caused it to fail. Poor business model, poor support, terrible choice of theme (not many people like the tribial theme) and a pleathora of other factors. The lack of randomness has nothing to do with it. If randomness was a part of the game, it would have died a lot faster and wouldn't still have a niche community playing it to this day. 2) Assuming that the randomness in other MOBAs is a significant factor Yes, RNG exists in the most popular MOBA ever, LoL, but I've payed this game.. and honestly... a significant number of the most played characters have mechanics that completely remove the RNG. Ezreal, for example.. he has a couple of builds that depend heavily on his Q. His Q has no RNG.. it can't crit. Many of the main abilities in the game can't crit, actually. Look at Yasuo.. his passive makes is so that he ends up with 100% crit "chance" by the first half of the game... and he no longer has any randomness involved in his mechanics. Beyond that, even builds that do end up having RNG, the RNG is really minimal. OH and here's a fun thing, they actually changed the way the RNG works, so that it's not truly random. Their crit system is based on a critstack. Each time you don't crit, they increase your crit chance for the next attack, until you're guaranteed a crit. This makes crits far more normalized and.. really it makes me wonder why they even bother to have them in this game. Which is a topic of discussion within the dev team. This system was implemented.... because people didn't like the RNG in LoL... so they made it... less RNG and more of a "after x hits, do extra damage.." system. Again, the game probably doesn't even need it.. and the only reason it might need it.. is because the basic attacks have no counterplay. They're lock on targeted and just hit the opponent. They're not activated and aimed abilities that can be countered by other attacks, evasion, or basic movement. So once again, your own example proves you wrong. 3) Assuming that the randomness in other MOBAs improves them I already covered this a bit in the above argument... even in LoL the RNG crits were considered a bad mechanic so they made them less random. They're no longer truly random and you're guaranteed crits after a few hits without any. Even with that, it's questionable whether or not the randomness even helps here... and more importantly, the combat mechanics have no aiming, counter player, basic dodging, or normal movement that can allow you to evade people's attacks. Bloodline Champions and Crowfall do have these things... so you don't need RNG to mix up how many hits it will take to defeat someone. You don't know when they're going to juke in a direction or use an evasion ability or use an attack this gives them mitigation during the animation.. ect ect ect... you don't know these things... so you have natural variance of play "or randomness if you want to call it that" with out artifical RNG. In LoL, basic autoattacks automatically hit and have no aiming involved... due to this, you always know exactly how long it will take to kill someone with your autoattacks if they're not randomized because the enemy can't move out of the way of them and use basic actions to evade. Once again.. an invalid argument that only proves my point. 4) Assuming that RNG is required for long term health of the game Finally you close your entire nonsensical argument with another blatant statement with out ever backing it up. You simply outright claim that leaving RNG out is bad for the long-term health of the game... well... that's just nonsense. You don't need RNG when you have counterplay to create variance. The attacks in Crowfall are not lock on targeted attacks that can't be evaded. Your opponent has tons of basic actions.. even basic movement.. that can cause you to miss.. and you can't reactively correct for this. You need to predict. Since you need to predict, there's always uncertainty. If there is no uncertainty, the person you're fighting is bad.. because they're playing predictably and you can always counter them. Good players will always vary their actions, because if they don't, they'll lose.. and therefore, they're not good players.
  3. I understand what you're saying... but the "best player always winning" doesn't mean they always do the same things. In a well designed game (with out randomness), the best players have huge variety in their actual play. This makes it hard to predict them. Doing the same exact thing over and over again should never be optimal. Good counterplay in a game means that you can respond to what the enemy player or team is doing and respond. In a game with simultaneous actions.. or realtime mechanics, you can't just respond to what they're doing, either. This means that you need to predict them and pick a good move to counter what you THINK they'll do. If the best players always do the same stuff.. then... they're not the best because anyone that picks up on their obvious same actions can be easily countered. Look into BattleCon
  4. There's another purpose to RNG that I didn't think of, actually. I was talking to my friend and he mentioned that it has value in making it so that stats can be more incremental and meaningful. In his example: If you're fighting something with 100 health, 40 and 45 damage are the same. It takes 3 hits. If you add random crits, depending on how you balance it, you can have some incremental increase in your RNG so that you will kill the enemy in 2 hits some small percentage of time more. So you can extremely gradually gain vertical strength. This isn't ideal for a 90% PvP focused game anyway... the more incremental you make the vertical progression (not that there should be ANY perfectly vertical progression in a PvP game anyway...) The more difficult it will be for players to be fighting on an even basis, where skill is what matters. This is one of the huge issues with Dark Souls 2 having their Soul Memory mechanic. It doesn't match you up based on your level.. but how long you've played (basically)... so eventually you're playing against people that are 200 levels over you. It's very difficult to fight people that have the same exact level as you... ideally in any dueling situation, players will have even stats.. so they can let their skill determine the victor. I definitely would prefer for crowfall to have a much more "chunky" progression system with tiers rather than being as fine as possible so that players will be matched more evenly more often...
  5. Actually, the natural "RNG" that I was talking about does not result from belly fat, keyboard layout, or any other such factors... I'm talking about the fact that a real time game like Crowfall naturally has simultaneous decisions that occur. Just like in Dark Souls, Chivalry, or any fighting game. In any game with simultaneous decisions to be made, players must predict each other. Top level players tend to attempt to be less predictable while attempting to still achieve a meaningful strategy and apply meaningful tactics. Being predictable in a game like that tends to cause loss... unless the mechanics are lacking so much that there's no way to counter obvious play and there's only a couple of "correct" decisions to make and no alternative strategies to work out due to emergent depth. If the game does have this depth, the natural "RNG" will occur indefinitely. BattleCon is the perfect example of this concept. I'm going to split this "sentence" up. You used commas where you really needed periods. "The "artifical" RNG on the other hand will implement an element of gambling" No, it won't. At least not gambling in any meaningful sense... taking a "gamble" in a game normally means that you should be able to make a calculated risk. You should be able to control when you take the risk and have some decision involved in it. Random crits are something that simply happen when doing ANYTHING during combat. It's not something that you decide you're going to ante up on or fold on. It's just... each hit randomly does variable damage.. just because. Beyond that, with simultaneous decisions between players, you don't need artificial RNG to cause randomness. Both players don't know what the other is going to do (unless the mechanics lack enough depth for there to be meaningful choices to make and there's only one right choice all the time)... so that automatically causes randomness. "giving even the least able players a chance to win, not big enough to completely offset the skill advantage, but probably significant enoguh to keep them motivated" Again, natural randomness will give bad players enough of a chance to get *close* to winning. That should feel good enough for them to enjoy the gameplay and want to try more and to learn from their mistakes. "read about Pavlov's dog on how that works." I know about Pavlov's dog experiments.. and this example is actually an invalid analogy. They're not similar concepts. Pavlov's experiments involved providing two separate stimuli, one that caused salivation naturally and another that normally wouldn't cause salivation. By *consistently* (not randomly.. though that's not even the point here.. because this argument was so off base..) providing the stimuli simultaneously, the dog's brain eventually associated both food and the arbitrary stimulus (a bell in his case) with causing salivation. Eventually, Pavlov was able to ring a bell and cause the dogs to salivate without having any food present at all. This argument really has NOTHING to do with the topic. It's a completely invalid analogy. Okay so... here you make three entirely invalid assumptions: 1) Crowfall players don't have any desire to take gratification in the intrinsic rewards of enjoying the actual gameplay...and the victories that come from it.. and only enjoy the extrinsic rewards So this is a very silly assumption. If the combat in this game is built well, I'll enjoy winning for the sake of winning. The loot is just a bonus. At least in the PvP. In PvE, I'll most likely be motivated by the loot... but I've play Dark Souls 2 PvP for hundreds of hours and there's no loot to be gained from that and I still enjoy it... and that's an RPG as well. You can have both. You're basically setting up a false dichotomy... 2) Getting lucky shots to win huge rewards is something that I (and transitively, everyone else in the world) would enjoy I can guarantee you that.. while I might feel a brief sense of excitement if that happened... it'd immediately be followed by a sense of disappointment that I didn't actually EARN my reward.. I just.. got it.. because lol rng... and the person that lost to the rng would feel like CRAP because they'll just be sitting there thinking "I just got SCREWED by the RNG... AGAIN! ...sigh..." 3) This one is related to a mix of assumptions between your statement above about how you need to be able to get lucky victories and the fact that you're saying that you need to get loot and vertical power progression for gratification.... You're assuming that it's impossible to have partial victories with rewards even if you lose and that you need to be able to win via RNG to be able to enjoy the game if you're bad... because if you always lose because you're bad, you'll never get loot and you'll never have fun (because the only fun is loot gain) So, there are definitely options to allow for partial power progression rewards for fighting, even if you don't win. For example: xp rewards for taking part in a battle, partial xp for kill assists, special achievement rewards for accomplishing specific combat goals (hit two people with your cleave attack twice in 10 seconds)... and tons of other options... Poker is actually mostly about playing against your opponent... it's a common misconception that poker is all about luck. Poker tournaments are consistently won by top tier players. Now, it still has a lot of randomness, and I really don't enjoy it as a game myself.. it just has really dry and boring core mechanics.. but when you give people a set pool of "money" (points) to gamble with, it's mostly about reading your opponent's tells and making calculated risks between rounds. More importantly, though, that's an incredibly invalid analogy. I'm going to make an assumption here.... that you're talking about winning money playing poker, right? Gambling? That's silly... people enjoy gambling because.. well for several reasons.. one is due to an issue with people's inability to properly understand probability due to how counter intuitive it is.... but more importantly... when people gamble, they're specifically going out to do something that is very easy and can possibly, randomly, give them money. They're not going out to enjoy a challenging experience. Poker CAN be a challenging experience, but only within a specific setting with specific rules in place.. and you're not winning or losing in high level poker DUE to the rng, you're winning IN-SPITE of it. Then why even have it? Also, what's your suggestion for "somehow"? I'm providing suggestions for actual solutions. What does "somehow" mean? From my perspective, all of your arguments seem to be ill-conceived or flat out logical fallacies, I'm sorry :/
  6. The systems needed to replace randomness already exist in Crowfall. They're just putting randomness in on top of them instead of fully committing to their awesome mechanics and designs. Random critical hits, on hit procs, and on receive hit procs can all be replaced with simply baking them into the attack chains, relative positioning, cooldowns, resource systems, and other conditions to decide when they should occur. If you really study what the randomness effectively means, you'll see that it doesn't actually add replayability at all. It just adds "static/noise" to the game. Also, if you look closely at what the Crowfall team has already implemented and what they're planning on implementing, you'll see that they ARE building the systems needed to do what I've suggested.... but they're simply throwing artificial randomness on top of it.... and I really don't get why. Maybe, in the end, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this lol. The above text gets the point across just fine, though. Read below if you want a giant rant about the stuff in more detail lol
  7. I fully understand the difficulty of creating such systems, I'm actually working on making a game myself (a top down PvP focused melee combat game heavily inspired by Dark Souls).. I agree that creating tons of mini game systems and such for gear can be quite difficult. Randomness in crafting and such isn't as important to me, personally.. However, I have a different feeling from most about vertical progression in general. I don't like it. I prefer diagonal with a heavy focus on giving capabilities/variety instead of raw power. This discussion doesn't belong here though lol so I'll stay off of that. I need to refocus lol, I let myself go onto a bit of a rant. The main thing I wanted to address in your post was the statement about headshots. I don't like headshots. They don't require a tactical or strategic decision (well they do a little bit.. but it can be mitigated by reaction and coordination. The decision is whether or not you want to spend the time and mental energy trying to focus in for the headshot or just go for the quick and easy body shot.. but I don't think it's enough.. especially with how heavily mitigated that decision can be with enough training.. it can get to be almost a non-decision). I prefer "crits" or boosted damage to be based on actual tactics and decisions. Hitting in the back is meaningful. It means that you flanked them or that you evaded an attack and got behind them or something tactical. Hitting an enemy while they're in some vulnerable state.. like while they're winding up an attack and exposed or after they did some big attack like some spin move that leaves them vulnerable for a little bit or if they were hit with a status. Things of that nature.. decisions.. responding to the current state of the fight/predicting what your opponent might do so you hit them during a vulnerable frame. That's key in general, though. Predicting, not reacting... tactics, not hand eye coordination. Those work better in an online game anyway, since there's always lag to deal with. Extremely tight reactions and extremely tight hand eye coordination don't really mean anything when lag is present.
  8. How does the RNG make the engagements interesting? They just do things randomly. As far as being varied, they CAN make it more varied.. but only if the core combat mechanics didn't make the gameplay naturally varied. Look at BattleCon. It's a COMPLETELY 100% deterministic game in terms of ability resolutions and there's no random card draw or dice rolls or anything. Any action you take will always have the same result. It's also turn based... however since the game is SIMULTANEOUS turn based, you need to predict your opponent's tactics and strategy. This creates an extremely engaging and varied experience. You don't need artificial randomness (like crits, special effect procs, random misses/blocks/dodges/ect) to create a varied and interesting fight. RNG doesn't even necessarily make a fight varied. A lot of RPGs have tons of unnecessary RNG but you still end up playing out the same ability cycles anyway. It doesn't really change anything in a lot of cases. Simply putting enough depth and counterplay into the game will cause natural variation due to the player's choices. This is the type of combat I want to see in Crowfall. RNG is just a crutch to make a fight "interesting" and "varied" when you failed to make the actual mechanics have enough counterplay to prevent obvious and consistently repetitive interactions.
  9. Well there's several problems with this statement. -Assuming that forced RNG is required to have some RNG. People mess up.. and if the gameplay is based around mind games and prediction, there's natural RNG in the fact that you can't always predict someone 100% accurately, you don't need forced RNG for that. -You assume that everyone needs to have a "chance" at winning.. and they should be given that chance via RNG. This has been tested before, and it's been proven to fail. Look at tripping in SSB Brawl. All that did was be annoying.. and it made better players win harder when it happened and rarely helped worse players because they're not good enough to capitalize on it. Also, not everyone needs a "chance" to win.... it's okay to lose to someone that's better than you almost every time. It will almost never be EVERY time simply because they can mess up too, even if they're really good. Chivalry: Medieval Warfare has no RNG and I still managed to beat people 10000 times better than me sometimes. It also feels CHEAP to win via rng.. you just feel like you got lucky.. it doesn't feel good. It feels cheap to both players... and causes arguments, if anything... -You assume that if a player can't get gratification via random victory, that the game will bleed players faster. This is a pretty massive assumption. I don't see any basis for this claim. In fact, I see a lot of counter examples. Going back to super smash brothers... people still play melee and SSB for WiiU, but Brawl was by far the most hated of all smash games.. because it had RNG added to the combat. There's other examples of games lasting for a very very long time BECAUSE they had deep and RNGless gameplay. I've actually never seen a game where people said "yeah I'm still playing this because sometimes I can win because I got lucky... even though I'm not that good... at least it feels GREAT when I win due to no fault of my own.. and the enemy team never rages that I won because RNG blessed me during that fight yay!". That's never been the case. No one EVER feels GOOD because they won or lost due to RNG. At least, I've never met someone that feels that way. There's a big difference between something happening naturally within the mechanics, albeit not planned by the player, that ends up being awesome. Like.. throwing a grenade at someone very far away, missing.. but then an enemy vehicle drives by and it lands on them instead and scores you an epic triple kill. Yeah, that feels great and is effectively "random" but it's not forced unnatural fake crits just flying off that suddenly made you win (or lose) a fight. Also, while I'm here ranting again... I'd like to note something about RNG in bullet spread on abilities or guns in FPSes. One thing that people aren't considering when they claim that this RNG is okay, therefore crits are okay is the fact that this RNG is HEAVILY controlled. Someone mentioned that you can burst fire to control it but.. also important is the fact that this RNG changes with distance as well. The closer you are to a target the less the spread matters. The RNG on spread isn't an uncontrolled factor that has no tactics involving it. RNG crits and ability procs have no scaling based on player action. They simply happen or don't. There's nothing the player can do with their positioning or controlling their attacks to reduce the RNG to 0. Also, the RNG on bullet spread usually has a very very very small variance in terms of actual damage output. Like.. at distance X with burst control rate Y I'm going to end up having an average DPS Z with an EXTREMELY LOW standard deviation. The actual effective variance due to this mechanic is almost none. It will almost never change a fight's outcome randomly. it's mainly (effectively) a visual effect to make the game look nicer. You'll almost never win or lose a fight because the RNG blessed you or damned you or your enemy. There's so many more important factors with the range and burst control. /rant
  10. "RNG is part of MMOs" is not really a valid argument. It's part of a lot of MMOs.... but not because the games need it.. it's simply a pattern people are following somewhat habitually. The origin of RNG in MMORPGs is actually based on the first RPGs that existed.. which were not video games. They were tabletop games. In a tabletop game, RNG was generally used to come up with a quick way to simulate the outcome of events. This was done for several key reasons.. here's a few: 1) Combat isn't the focus: Most tabletop RPGs were not focused on depth of combat and tactics, they were focused on story telling between the "players" and the DM. They were about roleplaying.. not playing a role in a fight.. but role playing as in acting and story telling. Roleplaying and story telling are great, and can continue into video games... but the reason that tabletop RPGs used RNG was simply because they didn't care that combat was deep and tactical, they just wanted it to be unpredictable so the "players" (story tellers and role players) could roll with the flow of the story... sort of like improv. 2) Alternatives are too difficult: Some concepts simply can't be managed reasonably in tabletop RPGs. For example, a few posts above I discuss how random weapon procs shouldn't be implemented because you can use a plethora of other mechanics to control how special weapon effects work rather than randomness. These mechanics work GREAT in a video game where the computer is tracking all the variables for these effects... but in a tabletop RPG, it's just too much effort.. especially when the combat isn't even the core focus. It's just way easy to roll some dice..rather than to have your entire table filled with tokens to represent different effects and mechanics to keep track of the game state. 3) DM Control and Fairness: In a tabletop RPG, the DM controls all NPCs and if combat was actually tactical and deep... it would be extremely difficult for the DM to be unbiased either against or for the players... it would also require that the DM is extremely good at the combat mechanics for him/her to be able to make any kind of difficult fight. 4) The Story is Everything: When playing tabletop RPGs, the most important thing is the story itself and how interesting, cool, funny it is. Things like critical failures can happen where you went to shoot a giant in the face with a fireball and hopefully knock him off a cliff... but instead you mess up and make the ground explode and the whole cliff collapses and everyone falls and then you roll for landing or something and the giant lands first, dies and everyone lands on him and it's hilarious. Or you can end up as a wizard, picking up your downed warrior's greatsword and attempt to throw it at a giant... you require an insanely perfect roll to manage to do anything... you roll criticals all around and throw it through his eye and defeat him. Hilarious things can happen... for better or worse... thats the point though in a tabletop RPG. 5) No Alternatives for Aiming and Reaction: Tabletop RPGs simply don't have any system that could possibly work for aiming and reacting other than making the characters work randomly. This is related to #2... but it's basically because there aren't any realistic alternatives that they cared to implement. They just wanted to get the roleplay experience of telling a story. My point is simply that the origin of randomness in MMOs dates back long ago and it really never belonged in video games at all. The reason it formed into working as such was just the nature of the evolution of the genre over time. First people just looked to make it so they could do tabletop online.. then people started adding layers and layers of graphical fidelity and mechanics and real time gameplay.. ect ect... but never went and looked back at that nasty old RNG concept and thought about whether or not it was actually good or bad for the games they were making. They just kept it in there because it was there in all the games before it. It's time to drop this concept from action RPGs. It adds nothing.
  11. Why do you want random crits and random weapon procs? I don't understand the desire for these types of mechanics. You can make the game infinitely more interesting by making critical hits and weapon ability procs based on actual tactical decisions. Flanking, knocking the opponent into a "vulnerable" state, ect... Look at my post a few posts above to see more details about the game design concepts behind my reasoning for this. Same thing here, why would you want any forced RNG in the combat? For both of you, just to note, when I say "forced RNG" I mean things like random crit chances, random ability procs, random blocks, random evades..ect.. I don't mean more natural randomness like having some *slight* randomness in the pattern of a shotgun-esk ability or some ability that rapidly fires projectiles. In practice, this randomness, when designed correctly, has barely any impact on the outcome of a fight and mostly exists for visual effect... and could even simply be a visual effect in some circumstances.. and the actual damage could be a cone with increasing damage toward the center of the cone so it's not random at all. I just don't understand why anyone would want random crits to pop up when they could instead have major crits pop off when they hit their enemy in the back, or when tehy hit them while they're "vulnerable" after being staggered... or when tehy hit them while they're winding up or swinging with an attack that can do counterattack damage (ala dark souls). It's just far more interesting.. I don't get why anyone would want their weapons to RANDOMLY apply special abilities when they could instead be based on actual mechanics such as if you do certain combos with the weapon, it will apply the ability during certain steps in the combo... OR you need to build up a status effect on someone to make it apply. For example with a frost weapon that can randomly slow a target.. change that to.. does applies 10 frost. Frost is an effect that will slow you it is applied to you.... you need to have 100 of it built up onto you for it to apply. So the person needs to hit you 10 times with small gaps between hits (because the bar will drain when not having frost built up). This is how status effects work in dark souls... and it works very well... to poison someone, it's not a random chance on a weapon... you need to hit the person with enough things that can build up the poison status effect, quickly enough, to build up that bar... So now poison or whatever status effect depending on the specific details of how it applies, when it builds up, if it builds up even if you don't deal damage due to being blocked, how quickly it drains, ect ect ect.... now these things actually affect your playstyle and the person you're fighting's play style. You might not have done enough damage to put them at critical health, but you have filled their poison bar up to 90% and now they're terrified and trying to back away so you can't get the full status filled and poison them. This becomes apparent in their behavior.. so you can take advantage of it. It also changes how you fight because you'll want to be more aggressive and leave as little time between your attacks as possible so that the poison effect doesn't fade away. It actually impacts the gameplay rather than just being some other stat that just flies around in the background and makes the combat convoluted without adding actual depth. It just makes it random and frustrating for those on the receiving end.
  12. I don't want to go off topic about this any further, but that definition is incomplete.. and if you look into it more different people include or ignore the part of the definition that requires the post to be valueless for it to be considered a necro.
  13. I don't really think this constitutes a necro. Isn't a necropost required to not contribute anything? I feel that my delving into the inner workings of game mechanics and the purpose of rng and how it influences the way games are played added something that I didn't see in the thread, unless I missed it. Also, the thread isn't that old... sure it's a couple months late.. but it's not like years or anything.
  14. TL;DR: I definitely feel that crowfall's design should be based around the concept that there will never be rng forced into mechanics. Crits should be based on conditions like backstabbing or hitting someone while they're vulnerable... it should be about tactics, counterplay, and mind games.. there's no reason for rng when you have deep mechanics. Games that have deterministic outcomes can become predictable. Tic-tac-toe is an example of a game where the outcome is trivially predictable. There are 3 major ways that I'm aware of to change this predictability: 1) Add RNG: this doesn't add any skill, but it makes the game less predictable. You won't be able to be 100% confident about what is going to happen because some of the elements are random. Many games use this solution, it's easy to think of examples. 2) Use chaos: Basically, make the decision tree so large and complex that it's impossible for a human to find their way through it. This is how Chess and the Japanese game Go work. If you made an extremely large version of tic-tac-toe, it could potentially work similarly. My favorite: 3) Use Simultaneous Actions/Prediction: This uses the idea of playing against your opponent's mind to reduce certainty. You can't KNOW for sure what the other player is going to do.. but you can predict them based on their behavior as the fight progresses. This works especially well when the fights aren't ended too quickly and when there's enough depth to the mechanics of a 1vs1 fight that your personality/behaviors can actually shape the way you play. You can have a plan.. a strategy.. and the opponent can try to figure out what it is and counter it.. and you can recognize this and counter that counter... This creates a ton of spice and replayability with out using any forced randomness. This is how fighting works between evenly skilled fighters in real life. It's also out fighting games like streetfighter work... and how my favorite game BattleCon works... It's how dueling in Starsiege: Tribes works. This is what I want Crowfall to feel like.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just don't see why the randomness has any value in the game at all. The PvP in Dark Souls is AMAZING. Easily the best melee combat PvP experience I've ever had. There is absolutely no intentional RNG built into the systems in dks1 and dks2 (except for the rng crit gauntlets which are game breaking... because they have rng). You don't need RNG to have spicy combat. If the mechanics have good counterplay and depth, then you can have very enjoyable gameplay based around tactics and mind gaming. You don't need to randomly have things happen for them to be interesting. If you have two people dueling in a game, and they both know exactly how many hits it takes to defeat each other, it doesn't make the game uninteresting. Look at fighting games like BlazBlue, for example. Those games have EXTREMELY spicy gameplay. Look at super smash brothers (with items turned off), there's little/no randomness in the mechanics there. Those games are extremely fun and enjoyable. They don't need randomness.. they have depth and counterplay. CS:GO was brought up a few times... the reason that game would feel dry and boring with out random spread on shots (not that I think the random spread on shots actually makes the game fun enough for me to play it) is due to the fact that all the weapons are HITSCAN and the game has an overall extremely low time to kill. This makes it so that there's very little counterplay in a 1vs1. It's all about who clicks the other's head more/faster. If you look at Starsiege: Tribes, all but one of the guns in that have no randomness. In fact, the MAIN weapon in that game is the Spinfusor. It fires an explosive disc that can travel very long distances.. it's effectively like a rocket launcher of sorts... the projectiles move quite slowly though... and the players have a lot of mobility to allow them to juke and evade. This creates a massively deep set of mechanics for dueling with TONS of counterplay and "spice" with zero rng. The one gun in Tribes that does have randomness is the chaingun... and the spread on that might actually be preset, I don't remember.. but it's bullet spread covers a large area, it's meant to be used only at very close range and the rng in it's application is actually effectively non-existent. The spread acts more as a visual thing rather than actually making a significant difference in the gameplay.
  • Create New...