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

Is RNG desirable in Crowfall?

Recommended Posts

Ah, never actually knew about the first bullet thing... heh you learn something new everyday...  :P

Yea depending on the gun the percentage of rng is higher or lower but it exists... 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NONE of this though, means that rng should be present in Crowfall as well.

There is absolutely zero correlation.

 

I'm pretty sure I said that RNG is required for PVP to keep it interesting... so, that's my two cent on why "it should be present" in Crowfall, but only for combat of course. No RNG in crafting...  :P

Edited by zero2none

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowfall has RNG in crafting. We've been told that any crafter can attempt to make a recipe he knows at any quality level, but that the chance of failure and component loss increases as the quality of the item increases relative to the crafter's skill.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion less RNG would be better. 

 

With RNG added, even if a solo player could completely outclass a two person team, the fight would be decided completely randomly. If the solo guy rolls good damage constantly he could beat both and not get to half health. If he rolls average he could probably keep pace with them, but they have 2 people with this variable damage, so 1 could roll high and one could roll low, leaving the solo guy taking average damage while his is completly variable. Or both roll high and he loses because they got to much luck, or they both roll bad and he rolls average and they lose.

 

The deciding factor in a fight should not be weither or not someone got lucky. If i beat someone in a fight once, given the same scenario and no improvement to skills i should beat them an infinite number of times. When the skill level alters ie. they get better at the game, then the new outcome should be the winning case always, weither i win or they win it is the person with he most skill at the time of combat, and untill a person out skills someone they will always lose.

 

If ACE wants the game to be truely skill based then avoiding most RNG would be best, they cant completely disregard RNG though, it will exist in some way shape or form, but the less it effects combat the more skill based the combat will be. Then it just comes down to the initial balance of the archtypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i beat someone in a fight once, given the same scenario and no improvement to skills i should beat them an infinite number of times.

 

Why? This doesn't conform to any real-world competitive scenario. When two top players repeatedly meet, even if one is acknowledged as better the other one will win some percentage of the time. Sampras vs Agassi happened 34 times and Sampras won 20 of those matches; according to your logic he should have won all 34.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mild variation in damage dealt or received can make feedback a little less monotonous, but a good action game doesn't always need numerical feedback, making minimal randomness pointless.

 

Randomly activated and available actions are an action no no. It's okay if they're conditionally activated, but when it's random, or conditional and random, it takes away from you observation of the action and engaging the opponent to anticipate random feedback.

 

It's like your a Centaur, and your getting hit from behind, so you take your attention away from formulating a decisive plan of action to look for a possible opportunity to activate a back kick. It's just bad, making it super powerful or frequent only increases the diversion rather than emphasizing deliberate tactics.

 

Hopefully they find a way to abandon ALL random number generation.

Edited by bahamutkaiser

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? This doesn't conform to any real-world competitive scenario. When two top players repeatedly meet, even if one is acknowledged as better the other one will win some percentage of the time. Sampras vs Agassi happened 34 times and Sampras won 20 of those matches; according to your logic he should have won all 34.

 

The thing your missing in your real world interpretation is that real life has an infinite number of variable (ie random) factors that can tie into those victories.

Some examples:

a windy day, or slight breeze can offset a match of some sort.

The tiredness levels of the competitors.

Hormone/adrenaline levels of competitors.

Mood

and the list can go on infinately.

 

In a game (or computer simulation) where a large percentage of real life "randomness" is non-existent then a persons skill should be the determining factor of a win. A person with rank 10 skill should always beat rank 9 and lower skill people if put in a match of equal power (ie. same armor same weapon same class) in a fighting area that is completely balanced (ie. flat plain). If 2 rank 10s fight eachother, it would end in a draw or part of the small percentage of randomness the devs cant remove will come into play and tilt the balance of power in favor of one or the other. But again there will always be randomness of some form (ie. Terrain, Starting Health/Mana/etc values if a person isnt at full, and player choice to name a few).

 

My main point is that the RNG should be left to the uncontrollable aspects of the game, not to the luck of the player. Also skill would encompass a players ability to adapt to the few RNG things that are not controllable.

 

Edit: Another important thing is my point is based off of a perfect reestablishment of a scenario, which frankly in impossible. If me and you battle and i win and you lose, both of us have gained the experience of that fight so there is no way for us to ever fight that scenario the same way again.

 

Its like dropping a bowling ball and feather from the same height. The scenario i presented would be the equivalent of dropping them in a vacuum or someplace with 0 wind resistance, they would both hit the ground at the same time, always. The more likely outcome is that one would probably never achieve 0 wind resistance and wind resistance would alter the outcome and different levels of resistance of the wind would effect the outcome each time

Edited by ShadowwBoi13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best way to simulate variation in actions is to have an accuracy condition on all actions.

 

Similarly to hitting a head shot in a shooter, if your melee attack has a 90 degree cone in front of you, the center could cause full damage while the outer edges of the cone can produced marginally less damage.

 

This makes room for achievers to outperform other players by angling and avoiding the sweet spot of an attack hit box on opponents.

 

If the game calculates the side of the opponent and how closely to center, or to the sweet spot in your strike box you land an action on a foe, you'd have a system where varied results can occur in a deliberate manner that rewards skill.

 

For a projectile, it could generate more damage based on how close your attack is to center, for a spell it may have greater damage up close, or at center, for special weapon interactions, something like a spear may deal more damage at the second half of the hit box and less at point blank.

 

Operation and understanding of your own hit boxes and your opponents can allow you to manipulate your actions to more efficiently attack and receive attacks to outplay your foe.

 

That would be far more desirable than RNG.


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing your missing in your real world interpretation is that real life has an infinite number of variable (ie random) factors that can tie into those victories.

Some examples:

a windy day, or slight breeze can offset a match of some sort.

The tiredness levels of the competitors.

Hormone/adrenaline levels of competitors.

Mood

and the list can go on infinately.

 

In a game (or computer simulation) where a large percentage of real life "randomness" is non-existent then a persons skill should be the determining factor of a win. A person with rank 10 skill should always beat rank 9 and lower skill people if put in a match of equal power (ie. same armor same weapon same class) in a fighting area that is completely balanced (ie. flat plain). If 2 rank 10s fight eachother, it would end in a draw or part of the small percentage of randomness the devs cant remove will come into play and tilt the balance of power in favor of one or the other. But again there will always be randomness of some form (ie. Terrain, Starting Health/Mana/etc values if a person isnt at full, and player choice to name a few).

 

As long as a game is action based, requires dexterity/mechanical skill, good reaction time and split second decisions  most if not all real life variables you listed (excluding wind) apply to games as well. Execution luck, along with technical influences (unstable FPS, latency, package loss etc.) usually ensure varying outcomes.

 

My main point is that the RNG should be left to the uncontrollable aspects of the game, not to the luck of the player. Also skill would encompass a players ability to adapt to the few RNG things that are not controllable.

/agree

 

In my opinion there's little to no need to add further artificial RNG. I can stand a bit, as long as RNG "positives" don't differ too much from RNG "negatives" and they are given the time to balance out. So combat can have it's ups and downs, but one lucky series of crits shouldn't win you a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all of the charater skill previews, I noticed that each of them had some RNG element associated with their kit. Confessor has mana regen, Centaur has rear kick, and Knight knocks down people who he blocks. While these are all cool thematic abilities that fit the characters, do we really want these kinds of abilities in the game? From a competitive standpoint this may be a step in the wrong direction.

 

Losing a keep because a Knight got off a lucky block would feel really bad for the losing side.

 

On the contrary, fun proc effects can make the game feel more exciting and fast paced.

YES, want them. :ph34r:


KRIPTIKserratedv3_zps4ptlmh6o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowfall has RNG in crafting. We've been told that any crafter can attempt to make a recipe he knows at any quality level, but that the chance of failure and component loss increases as the quality of the item increases relative to the crafter's skill.

 

Lets hope they do it correctly and not screw it up like in Archeage...  :P

The chance for failure was too big... 

Edited by zero2none

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? This doesn't conform to any real-world competitive scenario. When two top players repeatedly meet, even if one is acknowledged as better the other one will win some percentage of the time. Sampras vs Agassi happened 34 times and Sampras won 20 of those matches; according to your logic he should have won all 34.

So then isn't human error the only rng we need then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO RNG is just an increase in variance in an encounter, and the required adaptability to variance is interesting. Sometimes that feels bad, but often for me it made things interesting.

 

I liked rng in Tf2 while many people hated it. I think its an interesting way to change up a game that could get stale without it. That being said RNG doesn't have to be a random proc damage thing.

 

RNG can be applied to many things, for instance blocking damage. Thats more subtle and hard to read in a situation without feedback, and I think in as mobile a game as this is expected to be, a stagger/stop/shield up motion would be intersting, to see how it changes momentum in a fight...depending on the class maybe their animation for this would be a roll or some other thing that isn't as negative, for their role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they develop the terrain, archetype distinction and tactical variance, than there isn't any need for artificial variance.

 

In my opinion, most range is compensating for a lack of gameplay depth.


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread made me barf.

 

RNG is not needed for this game. Wanna evade? Move your character to the right. Wanna crit somebody? Hit them in the head. Want rainbows to come out of your bottom? Go play hello kitty online.

 

If there is RNG, it needs to be controllable. Such as a low quality weapon that has a chance to do 40-46 damage, while a high quality has a chance to do 45-46.

Edited by cannibal man

Cannibal Man - Future serial killer

I can't even.  You win, I am done with this part of the discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread made me barf.

 

RNG is not needed for this game. Wanna evade? Move your character to the right. Wanna crit somebody? Hit them in the head. Want rainbows to come out of your bottom? Go play hello kitty online.

 

If there is RNG, it needs to be controllable. Such as a low quality weapon has a chance to do 40-46 damage, while a high quality has a chance to do 45-46.

 

 I agree, except for the barf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God no. The less RNG, the better. Except for the acceptable ones: +++ your gear, crits, etc. Not more than that. Like crafting something has a chance of being poorly made socks, bad, not bad, good, excelent, godly.


“War is mass murder, conscription is slavery and taxation is robbery.” ― Murray N. Rothbard
alGxc9C.png
✣Junte-se a nós✣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People whining about RNG imo. don't have a full grasp of what they're saying.

 

You don't dislike RNG, you dislike a style of RNG you've encountered in the past.

 

 

There are too many factors in RNG to simply go "durr rng sucks" its like saying you dislike pie, when you actually dislike cake. They're deserts.

 

RNG is as broad as that, at the least.

Edited by Zomnivore

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...