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

Is Crafting too much RNG?

Recommended Posts

RNG is never a good solution to a progression system. Failure always leads to frustration. The only acceptable RNG is quality.

This is a game; if i invest time/money I want a result. I find it acceptable that the quality of the result will greatly increase (or the time invested decreased) depending on the skills i train. I find it unacceptable that i invest time/money into something just to have the RNG gods tell me *NOPE*.

 

There is NO reason why as a starting player i get confronted with 4  consecutive failures to craft a BASIC potion. I've spent time looking for nodes, i've spent time mining and I've spent time crafting this. Why the custard should I be punished with absolutely nothing but frustration.

 

If there is one thing that drives away players it's being punished by the RNG gods. There are plenty of games out there that have proven that point.

Not 100% this, but close. Gambling is a total loss game, and losing is frustrating, but good casino games manage the losing event so as to reduce the frustration as much as possible.

 

Right now the failure is so frustrating, because it is in your face, total loss, and your forced to dwell on it. 

 

There is a managing of loss that needs to happen, and the current model is really really harsh on a last stage fail.

 

From a gambling parallel, it would be the same as if when you bet red/black in Roulette, you had to let the bet ride for 4 consecutive wins on that color, and had to watch as your money doubled 3 times, only to be lost on the last bet, when you really didn't want to choose to risk it all, and pull back some of your winnings.

 

Losing your mats on an Iron bar, is not nearly as pain full as your finished item attempt.

 

What could work, is if you lost one of the boxes of mats.  So iron bar could lose 3 ore, while armor could lose your extra padding, or rings, or one of your ore boxes, but not the entire thing.

 

That would be managing loss without making it so painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be managing loss without making it so painful.

 

I think there are a lot of ways failure could be managed to make it less painful. What I would like to know is why it is even necessary in Crowfall. I understand why it exists in games like Archeage, where items are permanent once made and therefore measures exists to drain resources and items from the economy. I just don't see what purpose it servers here. Crowfall already has so many ways to drain resources that I can't help but imagine a Scrooge McDuck scenario where there is so much abundance that we need to waste resources otherwise we would literally be swimming in them. It is going to take a built in dupe bug in the form of factories to keep up and even then it will still be brutal and tedious, and that is saying something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of ways failure could be managed to make it less painful. What I would like to know is why it is even necessary in Crowfall. I understand why it exists in games like Archeage, where items are permanent once made and therefore measures exists to drain resources and items from the economy. I just don't see what purpose it servers here. Crowfall already has so many ways to drain resources that I can't help but imagine a Scrooge McDuck scenario where there is so much abundance that we need to waste resources otherwise we would literally be swimming in them. It is going to take a built in dupe bug in the form of factories to keep up and even then it will still be brutal and tedious, and that is saying something.

Depends on what happens to less than ideal results, and how harsh decay is.

 

All those less than ideal parts, do we get to trade them for 50% of another spin, or do they get pushed up the pipe and made into throw away gear for new players and in massive siege battles. Will there be consumption in other items that do not rely on experiment quality, like buildings and fortifications?

 

I think the devs wanted all the leavers possible to start with, and I suspect if some leavers are redundant or too harsh, they will simply be discarded or tweaked into non-importance.

 

I would rather see the system have a huge production, and a huge consumption/destruction model, so it's easier to control the flow of things, than an anemic or plentiful system where one side or the other is too heavily weighted.  

 

All product needs to be like blood flowing through the body, always in motion, and always enough to keep things healthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 100% this, but close. Gambling is a total loss game, and losing is frustrating, but good casino games manage the losing event so as to reduce the frustration as much as possible.

 

Right now the failure is so frustrating, because it is in your face, total loss, and your forced to dwell on it. 

 

There is a managing of loss that needs to happen, and the current model is really really harsh on a last stage fail.

 

From a gambling parallel, it would be the same as if when you bet red/black in Roulette, you had to let the bet ride for 4 consecutive wins on that color, and had to watch as your money doubled 3 times, only to be lost on the last bet, when you really didn't want to choose to risk it all, and pull back some of your winnings.

 

Losing your mats on an Iron bar, is not nearly as pain full as your finished item attempt.

 

What could work, is if you lost one of the boxes of mats.  So iron bar could lose 3 ore, while armor could lose your extra padding, or rings, or one of your ore boxes, but not the entire thing.

 

That would be managing loss without making it so painful.

 

But that is exactly point. IF i want to gamble - i'll go to the casino.

I do NOT want to gamble. Crafting is NOT gambling. Experimenting is -sort of. I get that there is a lot of progression in crafting better to best items.

There lies the challenge. Not in a RNG outcome that sets me back to 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is exactly point. IF i want to gamble - i'll go to the casino.

I do NOT want to gamble. Crafting is NOT gambling. Experimenting is -sort of. I get that there is a lot of progression in crafting better to best items.

There lies the challenge. Not in a RNG outcome that sets me back to 0

Your not ever going to get that if you want diversity.

 

If there is zero RNG, then every crafter of X level will always produce X product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not ever going to get that if you want diversity.

 

If there is zero RNG, then every crafter of X level will always produce X product.

 

It is not that there should be zero RNG but there is too much RNG. Random outcomes can be beneficial for a game but not to the extent that it becomes a lucky lottery and the player feels that his skill is being replaced by the roll of the dice.


o8WHnLc.png


THE most active European guild. Join us

now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not that there should be zero RNG but there is too much RNG. Random outcomes can be beneficial for a game but not to the extent that it becomes a lucky lottery and the player feels that his skill is being replaced by the roll of the dice.

I agree.  The design components are all there, they just REALLY need tuning, and not just "I think this feels right" tuning, but  "we ran 5 million tests and these are all the results let's see how close they are to what we need", or "we want players to feel the loss event for 1.35 seconds before moving onto the next try, vs 3.2 seconds for the wins" level of tuning.

 

https://youtu.be/og_DJoG08T4?t=241

 

I also think they really need to listen on this total issue.  Everyone I have seen comment on it, and the above negative reaction from Markeedragon during his tour, while TBlair almost looks happy at that reaction, and then trying to explain why this poor player experience is a good thing, tells me they really need stop and see just how much of a horrible feeling this is for players. 

 

I would never have let a Casino game hit production with this crappy of an experience, and if ACE is wise they will re-visit this decision and realize that giving a crappy experience on an RNG is much more than convincing a player to "cut their losses".

 

Players that "cut their losses" in Casino's, leave.

 

Lest anyone say/think I am over pushing the gambling line on these mechanics, that is exactly how they have described them.  

 

"I wouldn't say its a series of slot like events, I would say it's deeper than that".

 

https://youtu.be/og_DJoG08T4?t=149

 

Bit of Dunning-Kruger effect here if they think slots are shallow.  Slots are insanely deep in how the winning and losing experiences are designed, down to the 10/th of a second in presentation time control, event pass through timing, sense of win possibility, etc ,etc, etc.

 

It would serve them well to actually understand just what a Casino does to make losing palatable to players, if they plan on losing mechanics. The fact that they put the same emphasis on loss as win, tells me they have along way to go in this regard.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not ever going to get that if you want diversity.

 

If there is zero RNG, then every crafter of X level will always produce X product.

like i said, there can be RNG in teh quality/experimentation outcome. This is a world where everything deteriorates, so I don't see why there would be an issue with the fact that every input in crafting would also guarantee an outcome. That putcome can vary tremendously, but at least there is an outcome.

You could even think of a salvaging system for resources to prevent the market being flooded with crap items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like i said, there can be RNG in teh quality/experimentation outcome. This is a world where everything deteriorates, so I don't see why there would be an issue with the fact that every input in crafting would also guarantee an outcome. That putcome can vary tremendously, but at least there is an outcome.

You could even think of a salvaging system for resources to prevent the market being flooded with crap items.

Hopefully there will be some sort of salvage option to reclaim the resources from poor results but the current Failure result is totally demotivating.

 

A skilled craftsman would never attempt to build an item and get nothing - it is just a bit ridiculous.

Edited by Dirkoff

o8WHnLc.png


THE most active European guild. Join us

now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never been a fan of slot machine mechanics. Even if the skills allow you to manipulate the slot machine's odds, its still a slot machine. Of course i have never been a gambler either, maybe i lack that chance enjoyment some people get addicted to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully there will be some sort of salvage option to reclaim the resources from poor results but the current Failure result is totally demotivating.

 

A skilled craftsman would never attempt to build an item and get nothing - it is just a bit ridiculous.

 

Agreed.

 

Maybe if the game just decides that you're going to have garbage rolls and failed experiments you should at least get a "ruined" item that can be salvaged for [some amount] of the base materials that went into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a good deal of information about randomness in game design. In fact there's a good book by Raph Koster  http://www.theoryoffun.com/  on game design. Which is kinda ironic in that he discussed the crafting system with Blair.

 

But essentially, a player makes some decisions or moves or acts in some way and as a result there is an outcome. The player uses this result to assess his skill in the game. The outcome is used as a skill feedback loop for the player, This outcome is used to make future decisions or moves. In a shallow game, there might not be many of these moments, whereas a deep game can continue delivering this feedback loop longer.

 

However, the vast majority of outcomes in Crowfall's Crafting system no longer have meaning. I crafted an item using a recipe and I rolled the dice. It came up as a “failure”, and I lost all my time/resources. That event – me crafting an item  – is not deterministically linked anymore to the actions or skills I have acquired  beforehand. The feedback loop has been broken.

 

Output randomness does not increase the depth of a game, in fact its the complete opposite. What the randomness  actually does is obscure the outcome. You may have played perfectly, and still lost  when in fact your play wasn’t the problem; dice rolls were.

 

These theories are not mine they can be read in any book about good game design.

Edited by Dirkoff

o8WHnLc.png


THE most active European guild. Join us

now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a good deal of information about randomness in game design. In fact there's a good book by Raph Koster  http://www.theoryoffun.com/  on game design. Which is kinda ironic in that he discussed the crafting system with Blair.

 

But essentially, a player makes some decisions or moves or acts in some way and as a result there is an outcome. The player uses this result to assess his skill in the game. The outcome is used as a skill feedback loop for the player, This outcome is used to make future decisions or moves. In a shallow game, there might not be many of these moments, whereas a deep game can continue delivering this feedback loop longer.

 

However, the vast majority of outcomes in Crowfall's Crafting system no longer have meaning. I crafted an item using a recipe and I rolled the dice. It came up as a “failure”, and I lost all my time/resources. That event – me crafting an item  – is not deterministically linked anymore to the actions or skills I have acquired  beforehand. The feedback loop has been broken.

 

Output randomness does not increase the depth of a game, in fact its the complete opposite. What the randomness  actually does is obscure the outcome. You may have played perfectly, and still lost  when in fact your play wasn’t the problem; dice rolls were.

 

These theories are not mine they can be read in any book about good game design.

 

Relevant video with the books author.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUXdivm7JVU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully there will be some sort of salvage option to reclaim the resources from poor results but the current Failure result is totally demotivating.

 

A skilled craftsman would never attempt to build an item and get nothing - it is just a bit ridiculous.

https://youtu.be/v-6LF3IyzCw?t=1275

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Failing adds absolutely nothing to the system other than annoyance and irritation. It is not necessary in a game where gear is already guaranteed to be impermanent and I would like to see it removed.

 

This. Definitely.


Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a good deal of information about randomness in game design. In fact there's a good book by Raph Koster  http://www.theoryoffun.com/  on game design. Which is kinda ironic in that he discussed the crafting system with Blair.

 

But essentially, a player makes some decisions or moves or acts in some way and as a result there is an outcome. The player uses this result to assess his skill in the game. The outcome is used as a skill feedback loop for the player, This outcome is used to make future decisions or moves. In a shallow game, there might not be many of these moments, whereas a deep game can continue delivering this feedback loop longer.

 

However, the vast majority of outcomes in Crowfall's Crafting system no longer have meaning. I crafted an item using a recipe and I rolled the dice. It came up as a “failure”, and I lost all my time/resources. That event – me crafting an item  – is not deterministically linked anymore to the actions or skills I have acquired  beforehand. The feedback loop has been broken.

 

Output randomness does not increase the depth of a game, in fact its the complete opposite. What the randomness  actually does is obscure the outcome. You may have played perfectly, and still lost  when in fact your play wasn’t the problem; dice rolls were.

 

These theories are not mine they can be read in any book about good game design.

 

Since this thread got a bump, I'm going to pull a diagram and points I made about this issue in another thread.

 

400px-Operant_conditioning_diagram.png

 

This is operant conditioning, or skinner box design.  It lets you teach a chicken to dance, or a rat to hit a bar for food, and is the base line psychology behind slot machines.

 

The current "Failure" can trigger two types of results,  Reinforcement -> Negative or Punishment -> Negative.

 

Reinforcement -> Negative is triggered by long term crafting, users that continually add more materials (Increased behavior), and suffer punishment (Loss of materials)

 

Punishment -> Negative is triggered by casual crafting, the one off crafter type who loses all the resources they harvested in a final attempt.

 

Both of these outcomes only reinforce one behavior, stop risking materials, because you could lose everything.

 

In the case of most operant conditioning, in order for conditioning that results=pleasure, only success is withheld in the process. For example with the rats, if only 1/4 times that the bar is hit for food, food drops out, the rat is more inclined to continue pressing the bar on the chance of a positive results.  In no case is the rat punished, say by small electric shock, when the food does not drop.

 

In gambling, losing is carefully controlled to prevent reinforcement.  Slot loss events are as near as instant as legally possible, (yes regulations exist (PG 9) to prevent the total loss of negative reinforcement to loss) while wins flash lights, ring bells, and make coin dropping noises. Take for another example Roulette.  After the ball lands and the marker is placed, the sweep for losing chips is preformed as fast as possible, while the payout of the marked winners is allowed to continue for quite some time. This reinforces that winning is possible, and there is great pleasure in watching that win accumulate. The differences in speed is so important, that most casinos have a machine that automatically sorts and stacks the swept chips out of sight, so that players don't see their losses any longer than is absolutely necessary.

 

It's not just about not paying a second dealer to stack the chips, although that is a factor, it is also the psychological impact of watching someone stack up things of value that just moments ago were yours.

 

ACE needs to refine the failure, or remove it entirely, because right now it is wholly negative, and counter productive to the desired pleasurable experience that crafting should be.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove crafting failure. They proved it. Now do it.


Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spent an hour and a half gathering materials, refining, making components then assembling to make a staff.

 

Failure.

 

Back to square 1 with nothing to show for time invested for an item made with the most basic components, knotwood, ore, rock.

 

This WILL discourage new players, and they WILL use word of mouth to complain about it. This will impact game population.

 

Reduce the value of such items to balance, but do have them easier to construct. The crafting tree will enable the use of better components but first levels items should be easy, and encourage players to keep playing. Even if they decide they will be a combat class and not a crafter, let them make some gear to encourage them to stay, and then maybe think about joining a group, or at least interacting with one or more groups, to get better gear.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this thread. Agree with so much of it. I'm really just shocked that this is such a big issue when economics are supposedly one of the main considerations of the game and with Raph Koster as part of the team in any capacity. I figured this stuff would've been hashed out well before now. Honestly it's deeply concerning, especially as someone who finds the combat thoroughly bland and primarily wanted to play in an economic capacity. I'll keep testing at each stage and hoping for some change, but you have to wonder when things this central will essentially be locked in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this thread. Agree with so much of it. I'm really just shocked that this is such a big issue when economics are supposedly one of the main considerations of the game and with Raph Koster as part of the team in any capacity. I figured this stuff would've been hashed out well before now. Honestly it's deeply concerning, especially as someone who finds the combat thoroughly bland and primarily wanted to play in an economic capacity. I'll keep testing at each stage and hoping for some change, but you have to wonder when things this central will essentially be locked in.

If you watch the video, you can see a couple of personality and relationship things at play.

 

Raph is obviously behaving like a contractor.  Watch from 9:30 to 10:50. See how he semi back pedals on what to me is a no brainier solution when Blair looks hesitant. 

 

Also in the next part of the conversation they talk about the easy just press F, vs the harder, mini game model, and Raph backs down on the idea after Blair tells him why they picked easy.

 

No matter how much hesitancy he had, I never really saw Raph push or challenge a choice already made, nor anything that indicated more than him helping to flesh out existing ideas.  So if the total failure was already a set in core mechanic, if he continued his consultation with the same approach, I would expect he backed down on that conversation as well.

 

Being someone who did this very thing for a living for a number of years, and not being a paid consultant, I'm pretty adamant that leaving failure as is it just daft.

 

One very very simple solution would be for any combine failures, simply drop the quality one color grade, regardless of the materials used.  So if you had all green starting mats, a failure would make the next stage white.  Make it so regardless of the mix, it ends up lower than the lowest quality mat used. You can get a green result with a mix of green/white, so a failure would make the final quality clear. Totally clear gear is already pretty crap, so no need to punish players that make that stuff.

 

On the final combine, where testing can't happen anymore and the color no longer really matters, just give it a 25% durability hit or something.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...