>bad
being in front of an enemy, slashing, your swords model hits the enemy model in the head, RNG decides that they are damaged in the leg, or you missed entirely >good
deciding gear attributes for gear that enemies drop, or room layouts / maps (again, depends on the context or personal preference with maps)
context also applies to personal preference
i personally would like my hits to hit where i hit them
i personally enjoy randomized loot and rooms / maps
Good RNG is influenced by the player. For example, attacking from behind has a higher hit % than from in front
Bad RNG has no influence from the player. Kill an enemy 100 times hoping for a 1% drop and you don't get it
11 months ago
Anonymous
hit% makes sense for ranged weapons
but melee weapons should always hit if in range, the RNG comes in when you calculate damage or the enemies defense
you can hit someone with a sword, but if you're a poor swordsman, you might do little to no damage >drop %s
i actually don't like drop % mechanics, but i disagree with bad rng being non-player influenced
personally, the world is pretty chaotic for me, lots of things are out of my control, which can make things interesting
i like some things in my games being out of my control, things I just might have to deal with, like room or map layouts, hell, even enemy equipment if its within a certain range of their level
11 months ago
Anonymous
>but melee weapons should always hit if in range
You even been in a sword fight? Hitting people, even close to them, aint easy
11 months ago
Anonymous
i mean, now we're talking about in game logic
if its a game in 1st or 3rd person, and I see the enemy get hit by my sword model, then see "missed" it just feels cheap, i get theres a certain level of abstraction i should be prepared for, but i personally don't like it, i'll tolerate it but i dont like it
if the hit% is calculated before the animation plays, its calculated as a miss, and the following animation shows a miss, then I could forgive it
otherwise, it just feels wrong
Now, for really abstracted games like Dwarf Fortress or CDDA, or even Rimworld, I'm very forgiving with these types of things. The models colliding doesn't really mean much to me cause I've gone into the game knowing they're very low level representations of whats going on.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The more abstract a game looks, the easier it is to abstract your own thoughts of what's happening and immerse yourself regardless.
11 months ago
Anonymous
exactly
so like i said before, context is important
i wouldn't say good rng is player influence and bad is not
i would say good rng is purposeful and well developed
and bad rng is careless and just thrown in
Not him, but it makes RPGs and other number-focused games more interesting at times.
Hit the enemy for 10-20 damage is more interesting than 15 every time. Or maybe a sword that has a 5% chance to make a cool explosion is better than +2 fire damage on each hit.
I'm not a powergamer, though, so they might think differently
rng generally makes turn based games more interesting, since it puts you in unexpected situations. it forces you to play reactively instead of everything always going to plan
some sort of execution requirement can take its place, but it actually has to be hard enough to fail
>bad
paying money for a chance to get your waifu >good
your attacks have a 60% chance to hit, which is improved somewhat by several precautions you can take such as equipment, positioning, so on and so forth.
can be done well or poorly. Events having a random chance to occur, but then requiring your skill to get through is nice, having an Shield capacitor pop decide the results of a duel via RNG is bad.
bad >extreme amounts of RNG over short periods of time, bad coinflips can cost you the entire game or run, game feels out of your true control >examples, hearthstone at its worst, FTL
good >small to large amounts of RNG over longer periods of time, bad coinflips arent catastrophic, ways to play around RNG or longer runs that allow for less volatile variance. feel like your actions usually matter >examples, mtg with mulligans and b03s, xcom
>interact with a random event >WHOOPS SORRY moron YOU LOSE A CREW MEMBER AND YOUR HULL TAKES 10 DAMAGE AND YOU'RE GETTING BOARDED AND THERES A BREACH AND A FIRE AND YOU GOT ION-RAPED, SHOULDA KNOWN BETTER
>I agreed to the spider mission for the 3rd time knowing full well there's a 90% chance I will lose a crew member and you're telling me I lost a crew member again? Frick this RNG!
It's called calculated risk
so you remember every event and their potential outcomes after throwing your runs to them over and over?
why even bother interacting with them when theyre frequently so disastrous and difficult to recover from? its just a gamble
I got my first win after 21 Hours and a dozen or so playthroughs. When the same event gives you the same outcome almost every single time you stop making the bad choice, it's called learning from your mistakes
If you don't like the game just don't play it
11 months ago
Anonymous
>When the same event gives you the same outcome almost every single time you stop making the bad choice, it's called learning from your mistakes
interacting with the game is a mistake apparently, just ignore all events, dont pick the "wrong" weapons, dont do the "wrong" moves
FTL on hard kinda requires you to know shit, but thinking that giant spiders are a joke is kinda moronic. You wouldn't send your crew IRL to do that shit, you'd consider it "too risky"
% chance based on skill level FOR SURE
the other option leads me to wanting to do something, running around trying to level it up, forgetting why i was trying to level up and restarting the process
Its bad, you should be able to 100% anything if you engage with those respective stats enough, but there should be RNG if you're too low/inexperienced.
decent >Stats like ACC or dodge since they usually have outside factors that increase or decrease them so it just becomes a number game
dogshit >drop chances, "oh what's that you want this one item ? I hope you enjoy grinding for hours cause the best drop chance is 2.27% Black person"
RNG when plannable is fine, the real issue is how punishing should going in blind be? Act 3 boss of Darkest Dungeon 2 is just pure moronic imo. It's just a puzzle that you have to figure out and hope you did right, but you probably didn't so phase 2 is "wrong answer homosexual you lose". It's so not fun once I cleared it, I never had the desire to play act 3 ever again. But I guess that's my issue with DD in general. "Oh you need a 2 rounds to figure out the gimmick of this fight? Lmao, you've fallen behind the damage curve, get fricked. Better luck next time."
I don't mind rng when it's "okay this should work, but if it doesn't I've got this". But getting shit canned for not playing with a guide open is fricking gay.
Good, if games had no RNG at all I wouldn't ever play games.
t. immediately left a chess club after understanding that it's literally about memorizing optimal moves
I think it's a change that was made to appease people who don't like risk-management (i.e. strategy/tactics) games, and even if it's not bad in itself it's kinda pointless.
There's a reason literally every board game ever created relies on rolling dice and drawing random cards.
Randomness adds spontaneity, which is fun, but also helps even the playing field among multiplayer players.
nah, you never want straight RNG in your games because RNG doesn't actually work how humans perceive it to work.
if something has a 95% chance to hit, human brain goes "that's gonna hit" and when it doesn't twice in a row players think the game is broken. Also if something has a 1/5 chance of happening it feels better to actually script in every 5 instances guaranteeing one will happen, otherwise people get frustrated.
there's numerous dev talks on this, a lot of the time it's players asking for RNG, then claiming the game is "broken" when it doesnt work out in their favor, so the RNG is actually pretend RNG.
context is important
so sometimes its good
and sometimes its bad
Provide some good and bad examples
>bad
being in front of an enemy, slashing, your swords model hits the enemy model in the head, RNG decides that they are damaged in the leg, or you missed entirely
>good
deciding gear attributes for gear that enemies drop, or room layouts / maps (again, depends on the context or personal preference with maps)
Literally, literally got it the wrong way around
context also applies to personal preference
i personally would like my hits to hit where i hit them
i personally enjoy randomized loot and rooms / maps
Good RNG is influenced by the player. For example, attacking from behind has a higher hit % than from in front
Bad RNG has no influence from the player. Kill an enemy 100 times hoping for a 1% drop and you don't get it
hit% makes sense for ranged weapons
but melee weapons should always hit if in range, the RNG comes in when you calculate damage or the enemies defense
you can hit someone with a sword, but if you're a poor swordsman, you might do little to no damage
>drop %s
i actually don't like drop % mechanics, but i disagree with bad rng being non-player influenced
personally, the world is pretty chaotic for me, lots of things are out of my control, which can make things interesting
i like some things in my games being out of my control, things I just might have to deal with, like room or map layouts, hell, even enemy equipment if its within a certain range of their level
>but melee weapons should always hit if in range
You even been in a sword fight? Hitting people, even close to them, aint easy
i mean, now we're talking about in game logic
if its a game in 1st or 3rd person, and I see the enemy get hit by my sword model, then see "missed" it just feels cheap, i get theres a certain level of abstraction i should be prepared for, but i personally don't like it, i'll tolerate it but i dont like it
if the hit% is calculated before the animation plays, its calculated as a miss, and the following animation shows a miss, then I could forgive it
otherwise, it just feels wrong
Now, for really abstracted games like Dwarf Fortress or CDDA, or even Rimworld, I'm very forgiving with these types of things. The models colliding doesn't really mean much to me cause I've gone into the game knowing they're very low level representations of whats going on.
The more abstract a game looks, the easier it is to abstract your own thoughts of what's happening and immerse yourself regardless.
exactly
so like i said before, context is important
i wouldn't say good rng is player influence and bad is not
i would say good rng is purposeful and well developed
and bad rng is careless and just thrown in
Not him, but it makes RPGs and other number-focused games more interesting at times.
Hit the enemy for 10-20 damage is more interesting than 15 every time. Or maybe a sword that has a 5% chance to make a cool explosion is better than +2 fire damage on each hit.
I'm not a powergamer, though, so they might think differently
I think it also makes planning more difficult when you can't be certain of the outcome. You need to plan around the possibility of bad luck
rng generally makes turn based games more interesting, since it puts you in unexpected situations. it forces you to play reactively instead of everything always going to plan
some sort of execution requirement can take its place, but it actually has to be hard enough to fail
>bad
paying money for a chance to get your waifu
>good
your attacks have a 60% chance to hit, which is improved somewhat by several precautions you can take such as equipment, positioning, so on and so forth.
can be done well or poorly. Events having a random chance to occur, but then requiring your skill to get through is nice, having an Shield capacitor pop decide the results of a duel via RNG is bad.
bad
>extreme amounts of RNG over short periods of time, bad coinflips can cost you the entire game or run, game feels out of your true control
>examples, hearthstone at its worst, FTL
good
>small to large amounts of RNG over longer periods of time, bad coinflips arent catastrophic, ways to play around RNG or longer runs that allow for less volatile variance. feel like your actions usually matter
>examples, mtg with mulligans and b03s, xcom
FTL's rng is fine. If your run was lost it was likely a bad decision you made a while back finally biting you.
>interact with a random event
>WHOOPS SORRY moron YOU LOSE A CREW MEMBER AND YOUR HULL TAKES 10 DAMAGE AND YOU'RE GETTING BOARDED AND THERES A BREACH AND A FIRE AND YOU GOT ION-RAPED, SHOULDA KNOWN BETTER
>I agreed to the spider mission for the 3rd time knowing full well there's a 90% chance I will lose a crew member and you're telling me I lost a crew member again? Frick this RNG!
It's called calculated risk
so you remember every event and their potential outcomes after throwing your runs to them over and over?
why even bother interacting with them when theyre frequently so disastrous and difficult to recover from? its just a gamble
I got my first win after 21 Hours and a dozen or so playthroughs. When the same event gives you the same outcome almost every single time you stop making the bad choice, it's called learning from your mistakes
If you don't like the game just don't play it
>When the same event gives you the same outcome almost every single time you stop making the bad choice, it's called learning from your mistakes
interacting with the game is a mistake apparently, just ignore all events, dont pick the "wrong" weapons, dont do the "wrong" moves
Black person that’s called skill.
>Black person that’s called skill.
if you can't look at your current situation, and decide if you can afford to take a gamble or not
then yes, you are lacking skill
FTL on hard kinda requires you to know shit, but thinking that giant spiders are a joke is kinda moronic. You wouldn't send your crew IRL to do that shit, you'd consider it "too risky"
>first time playing
>very first jump event
>immediately lose crew member to cannibals
uh okay
>FTL
FTL is solved to the point it's 100% winnable on Normal with good play, Hard was literally made in response to not be beatable at all times
Good RNG doesn't frick me over.
Therefore all RNG is bad.
This isn't open to discussion.
>X% chance to make skill check based on your skill ranks.
>Can reload on failed check to try it again.
Vs
>Need 5 ranks of mechanics to make skill check.
>Impossible to do if you have 4 ranks of mechanics so reloading is not an option.
Which is better?
% chance based on skill level FOR SURE
the other option leads me to wanting to do something, running around trying to level it up, forgetting why i was trying to level up and restarting the process
xcom is only RNG when you let it be RNG
What do you mean?
Its bad, you should be able to 100% anything if you engage with those respective stats enough, but there should be RNG if you're too low/inexperienced.
That's still RNG
decent
>Stats like ACC or dodge since they usually have outside factors that increase or decrease them so it just becomes a number game
dogshit
>drop chances, "oh what's that you want this one item ? I hope you enjoy grinding for hours cause the best drop chance is 2.27% Black person"
I never played Xcom. In pratice in the game, the character would really only have 65% chance of hitting it somehow, or is the shown probability wrong?
RNG when plannable is fine, the real issue is how punishing should going in blind be? Act 3 boss of Darkest Dungeon 2 is just pure moronic imo. It's just a puzzle that you have to figure out and hope you did right, but you probably didn't so phase 2 is "wrong answer homosexual you lose". It's so not fun once I cleared it, I never had the desire to play act 3 ever again. But I guess that's my issue with DD in general. "Oh you need a 2 rounds to figure out the gimmick of this fight? Lmao, you've fallen behind the damage curve, get fricked. Better luck next time."
I don't mind rng when it's "okay this should work, but if it doesn't I've got this". But getting shit canned for not playing with a guide open is fricking gay.
Good, if games had no RNG at all I wouldn't ever play games.
t. immediately left a chess club after understanding that it's literally about memorizing optimal moves
you should try blitz chess, or bullet chess
how does Ganker feel about this xcom knock off only using 0%, 50% and 100%?
>how do i feel about
i want to frick the girl rabbids
I think it's a change that was made to appease people who don't like risk-management (i.e. strategy/tactics) games, and even if it's not bad in itself it's kinda pointless.
>accuracy depends on the angle you are covered from and not just random stats
yeah it is perfect
I'm glad it exists to be honest.
cringe
There's a reason literally every board game ever created relies on rolling dice and drawing random cards.
Randomness adds spontaneity, which is fun, but also helps even the playing field among multiplayer players.
nah, you never want straight RNG in your games because RNG doesn't actually work how humans perceive it to work.
if something has a 95% chance to hit, human brain goes "that's gonna hit" and when it doesn't twice in a row players think the game is broken. Also if something has a 1/5 chance of happening it feels better to actually script in every 5 instances guaranteeing one will happen, otherwise people get frustrated.
there's numerous dev talks on this, a lot of the time it's players asking for RNG, then claiming the game is "broken" when it doesnt work out in their favor, so the RNG is actually pretend RNG.
accuracy will never be a good mechanic