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

Is RNG desirable in Crowfall?


Zerve
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm just gonna say a few words and hopefully not get too entrapped in this whole discussion, (because, frankly, I don't actually find it very interesting) but here goes

 

in very broad and general terms, predictability is the enemy of intrigue. This concept can be reflected in many different areas of a given game. If there is always a single optimal option, that's what people are going to do. This concept also applies to the sorta similar discussion regarding player skill- if skill matters absolutely, the best player always wins.

 

These things are cancerous to a game. On paper, they sound straightforward and reasonable- Yeah, the best player should always win! Yeah, the best strategy should always give you an edge! Yeah, the best piece of equipment should be what everyone always uses!- but if you ever actually create a game based around those principles, the game usually dies a slow (or sometimes quick) death. Even the winners pretty quickly get bored of doing the same thing they always have, and by that point the non-winners have long since left.

 

Now, to be clear, this doesn't necessarily mean that you need RNG to have an interesting game. RNG is just one of a few possible ways to keep things from getting predictable- for instance, you can have an absolutely huge quantity of "build options" (like EVE) and that allows enough room for players themselves to be the unpredictable element (and also leads to a "metagame", which is almost always a good thing). But if you're trying to keep things "lean" and simple from a design standpoint, you need to be very aware of how easy it is to accidentally create something horribly bland. And you don't just need to avoid this in the "core gameplay loop", either- even individual system blandness can be really off-putting if it's bad enough. Being averse to using RNG where it might otherwise make things dynamic is a mistake.

 

Anyway, that's my 2c, thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna say a few words and hopefully not get too entrapped in this whole discussion, (because, frankly, I don't actually find it very interesting) but here goes

 

in very broad and general terms, predictability is the enemy of intrigue. This concept can be reflected in many different areas of a given game. If there is always a single optimal option, that's what people are going to do. This concept also applies to the sorta similar discussion regarding player skill- if skill matters absolutely, the best player always wins.

 

These things are cancerous to a game. On paper, they sound straightforward and reasonable- Yeah, the best player should always win! Yeah, the best strategy should always give you an edge! Yeah, the best piece of equipment should be what everyone always uses!- but if you ever actually create a game based around those principles, the game usually dies a slow (or sometimes quick) death. Even the winners pretty quickly get bored of doing the same thing they always have, and by that point the non-winners have long since left.

 

Now, to be clear, this doesn't necessarily mean that you need RNG to have an interesting game. RNG is just one of a few possible ways to keep things from getting predictable- for instance, you can have an absolutely huge quantity of "build options" (like EVE) and that allows enough room for players themselves to be the unpredictable element (and also leads to a "metagame", which is almost always a good thing). But if you're trying to keep things "lean" and simple from a design standpoint, you need to be very aware of how easy it is to accidentally create something horribly bland. And you don't just need to avoid this in the "core gameplay loop", either- even individual system blandness can be really off-putting if it's bad enough. Being averse to using RNG where it might otherwise make things dynamic is a mistake.

 

Anyway, that's my 2c, thanks

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

"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."

 

My point stands true for any factors, influence of which on the outcome decreases as the amount of time invested by the player increases. People that invest more time will be less variable at making decisions and executing their actions and predicting their opponents in game, same as controlling the effects of their mood and learning to manage their belly fat.  In most games you have mentioned , there are matchmaking systems to compensate for that, so casual players do not meet hardcore opponents, in Crowfall most likely there will be none. Also in the games you have mentioned, gear loss is not a factor, here it will be. that will add signifincatly to the level of dissatisfaction of the significant portion of the player base that can only get "close to winning" but almost never actually win.

 

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.

 

"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."

 

 Gamble noun

6.
any matter or thing involving risk or hazardous uncertainty.
7.
a venture in a game of chance for stakes, especially for high stakes.
 
Yes, it will.

 

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.

 

 

"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..."
 
The person that lost massive amount of value will be feel like crap regardless of whether there was RNG involved or not, he will find something lese to blame, be it crappy connection or poor game design. And if you are telling me that you will "feel disappointed" if you happen to acquire massive amount of value via a chance, I can honestly tell you that you are full of poorly made socks.  Irregardless of how weird your perception of reality is 99% of people would normally be very happy with that.

 

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, 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."
 
By removing artificial randomness and thus making them lose constantly, you will condition them into negative perception of themselves in Crowfall combat, thus the Pavlov's dog effect. The game will eventually associate with nothing but pain in the ass and they will swiftly move to a game where they will feel themselves more able. I am a bit disappointed I have to explain the obvious.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

"Poker is actually mostly about playing against your opponent... it's a common misconception that poker is all about luck."
 
Oh really, poker is really about luck, managing uncertainty and understanding of your opponent. randomness is the core element of poker, and if you try to argue that you are totally out of touch with reality.

 

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.

 

Now really, most of your post is nerdoid shallow minded drivel, a poorly buit structure of pure theory.

 

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.

 

 

 

Bloodline champions removed RNG alltogether and they did not do very well compared to other MOBAs with more traditional mechanics, all other factors set aside absence of RNG is not good for long-term health of the game.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to clarify here that the use of RNG that Eluem is so reasonably opposing is specifically in regard to the outcomes of player choices/actions in an action-controlled game. Rolling the HP of a wolf, or determining what mines/nodes spawn where at world generation are not, nor are either of us saying that they are. Randomness in the non-player-controlled factors that you have to deal with is fine. Is it raining? Did some fog roll in? Did an AI-controlled foe miss you? These are 100% fine. It's when you artificially adjust the outcome of a player-controlled choice or action that it becomes an issue.

 

Did you press your dodge/roll button, but some invisible dice decided you tripped or failed to dodge? Did you knock someone flat on their face, then folloe up with a devastating attack, only to NOT-crit, then use some piddly positioning attack 15 seconds later and crit? That sort of thing is a bit silly in context. As Eluem stated earlier in the thread, things like random crits and successes/failures came into existence purely because the games using them were unable to (or chose not to) simulate these things directly via player control. In a MOBA, even, you just pick a targrt and issue an attack command. You don't actually aim your character's bow or blade. So, it's somewhat understandable, at least, that misses and crits are simulated via chance. However, a cone of flame or other AoE effect still either hits or doesn't, depending on nothing more than character placement. If you're inside the spell/ability's effect, you're affected. And yet, you still have instances of even pro players missing by a few pixels with an AoE attack, or being countered by another affect ot a well-timed stun, etc. You wouldn't give a giant column if flame a random chance to miss, would you? So why give a Ranger's bow -- that's being actively aimed by the player in real-time -- a chance to miss, or crit, or shock? With crits, better to present the player with a set of circumstances that's difficult to achieve (yet difficult for the defender to fully avoid), then let the chances of its occurrence be what they may. For something like an elemental damage effect, it's best to simply let it apply a percentage of attack damage, every time you hit. Or, if it's going to only work every 4 hits or something, at least don't make it random. Maybe the sword's magic has to charge? Then let the player know and control the release. OR, make it work under certain conditions, again. Or any combination of the above.

 

I do believe that the biggest reason people are so adamantly against a lack of random combat effects is that they haven't seen any game attempt it to a serious degree. It's not just your typical MMO with random crits ripped out. The effects that would've been random in another game are deliberately re-designed to simply better coincide with player control and decisions.

 

Non-random does not mean unlimited. It's the limits that make it all interesting.

This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna say a few words and hopefully not get too entrapped in this whole discussion, (because, frankly, I don't actually find it very interesting) but here goes

 

in very broad and general terms, predictability is the enemy of intrigue. This concept can be reflected in many different areas of a given game. If there is always a single optimal option, that's what people are going to do. This concept also applies to the sorta similar discussion regarding player skill- if skill matters absolutely, the best player always wins.

 

These things are cancerous to a game. On paper, they sound straightforward and reasonable- Yeah, the best player should always win! Yeah, the best strategy should always give you an edge! Yeah, the best piece of equipment should be what everyone always uses!- but if you ever actually create a game based around those principles, the game usually dies a slow (or sometimes quick) death. Even the winners pretty quickly get bored of doing the same thing they always have, and by that point the non-winners have long since left.

 

Now, to be clear, this doesn't necessarily mean that you need RNG to have an interesting game. RNG is just one of a few possible ways to keep things from getting predictable- for instance, you can have an absolutely huge quantity of "build options" (like EVE) and that allows enough room for players themselves to be the unpredictable element (and also leads to a "metagame", which is almost always a good thing). But if you're trying to keep things "lean" and simple from a design standpoint, you need to be very aware of how easy it is to accidentally create something horribly bland. And you don't just need to avoid this in the "core gameplay loop", either- even individual system blandness can be really off-putting if it's bad enough. Being averse to using RNG where it might otherwise make things dynamic is a mistake.

 

Anyway, that's my 2c, thanks

 

The best player does not always win. In real life, where there's no RNG, Hall of Fame pitchers give up homeruns to rookies, great quarterbacks throw picks to no name corners, MMA fighters dominate for 5 rounds and then make one mistake and end up being choked out by a beaten and bloody opponent.

 

In the same vein there's never one best strategy. What would be best constantly changes by the millisecond based on the actions of the fighters. You thought you had a perfect opportunity to use Iwinbutton9000 but your opponent stepped backward when you thought they should have stepped forward. The natural flow of combat in a free form action game is all the randomness you need to keep combat interesting. I've never heard anyone say "Dark Souls would have been a good game if it had crits," or "If only you had to roll dice to determine combat results in Chess it would be a great game." It just doesn't happen. Ever.

OJN1n7E.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RNG is fine, it's just a tool that can be used to introduce chance/uncertainty/opportunity, emulating RNG (luck) from RL (winks at caffynated)

 

Like any other tool however . . . you can use it well or poorly.

 

What we want is the "right" way, as opposed to the wrong way is all.

 

I think in Crowfall the "appropriate" opportunities for RNG will hash out differently than some other games given what I'm hearing in mechanics (e.g. free-aim, no tab target lock), but that doesn't mean RNG all by itself becomes completely unusable as a tool in appropriate areas.

Edited by Bramble

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RNG is fine, it's just a tool that can be used to introduce chance/uncertainty/opportunity, emulating RNG (luck) from RL (winks at caffynated)

 

This. You can use all the RNG in the world to create opportunities and/or uncertainty in the factors the player must deal with, but there's no reason to make it affect the outcome of simple player actions/choices. Think of Tetris. RNG might determine what block you have to deal with, or even the fall speed of the block, but would you ever use it to determine what happens when the player presses the rotate button, or down? Or what happens when you place a block? "Oh, that block doesn't fit in that slot, but you rolled a crit, so it just fit anyway! Oh, you shold've cleared that line based on how you dealt with the already-random falling block sequence, but you just happened to roll a miss, so the line didn't clear."

 

You already got lucky by randomly getting that 4-straight piece you needed. Why would you want to have its active placement be randomly affected?

This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This. You can use all the RNG in the world to create opportunities and/or uncertainty in the factors the player must deal with, but there's no reason to make it affect the outcome of simple player actions/choices. Think of Tetris. RNG might determine what block you have to deal with, or even the fall speed of the block, but would you ever use it to determine what happens when the player presses the rotate button, or down? Or what happens when you place a block? "Oh, that block doesn't fit in that slot, but you rolled a crit, so it just fit anyway! Oh, you shold've cleared that line based on how you dealt with the already-random falling block sequence, but you just happened to roll a miss, so the line didn't clear."

 

You already got lucky by randomly getting that 4-straight piece you needed. Why would you want to have its active placement be randomly affected?

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...