Crowd control should not be based on RNG

i just dont like the idea where you pray that your CC actually hits or not, and im not talking about balancing right now, this is about CC. Not what class has it or not, but if it should be guaranteed hit or not.

if its guaranteed = skills matter more than RNG
if its not (like it is now in alpha) = if you have bad luck you will die to the on who has better luck.

toughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

bigepeen

Noaani wrote: »

Randomness adds the need for more skill, as it means you are faced with more individual situations in which you will want to prevail.

This is only true for games that lack depth, and thus near perfect execution is fairly easy to perform.

For example, StarCraft, the ultimate competitive rts and probably the highest skillcap game out there, has no rng. As a result, some players achieve extremely high win rates that would otherwise be impossible in games with more rng. Better players in a higher league almost never lose to players from a lower league. This is due to skill, of which rng does not help.

Would you say that Go or chess requires rng to differentiate player skill?

Noaani

bigepeen wrote: »

some players achieve extremely high win rates

You realize, I assume, that this would be a death knell for a game like Ashes.

Edit; chess with randomization would be interesting, as has been suggested in this thread - the first post of this page, in fact.

truelyyy

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

I think that PvP in MMOs don't really need rng at all.

My issue with this is how low Stevens target for gear based improvement is.

In most games, gear makes up to 400 - 500% of your "power". A character in top end gear in a game like WoW would be able to take on 5 gearless (apart from basic weapons that would be needed) characters in literally any MMO I have ever played.

In Ashes, the target is for gear to equal about 50%. This means two characters with no gear (apart from basic weapons that would be needed) should be able to easily defeat a player in the best gear the game has to offer.

If this is how things go, it would mean that gear isn't really all that much of a variable in the game. This results in there only being two variables left between the same two people fighting each other a few times - their spec, and RNG.

While we are going to be able to change our spec, it likely isn't going to be all that easy. People aren't likely to tinker with it, but rather settle on one that they like and only change it when there is a need.

As such, this means the only variable left in PvP is RNG.

Take that away and what do we have left?

Sure, you have variables in regards to which player you are fighting, but in most games I tend to find that 90% of my PvP fighting is against the same 20 or so people. Without much in the way of gear being a factor, and without RNG being a factor, you will very quickly learn which of those 20 people you always win against, and which you always lose against.

Those you always win against will likely run when they see you, as they always lose, those you always lose against will likely see you run.

RNG being present in Ashes is what is going to play a factor in people deciding to fight back or not - if you want open world PvP, you want RNG.

I'm not sure what you mean by 400-500% of your power, gear can only make up to 100%??

Also I wouldn't worry about gear not being impactful, playing alpha 1 gear makes a massive difference, someone with the epic gear would literally 2 shot someone with bad gear. I personally thought the gap was too large.

Noaani

truely wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by 400-500% of your power, gear can only make up to 100%??

This is untrue. It would be true if we were only looking at things from the perspective of the fully geared out player - but we are comparing a fully geared to a naked player.

If a naked character has a spell that does 200 damage, and that same spell on a fully top end geared character with the same spec does 400 damage, then that character got 100% of the damage output of that spell from their gear.

However, if that spell does 500 damage, then they get 150% from their gear.

However, when talking about total power of a character (which is what Steven talked about when he said this), you need to also factor in defense.

If we take the same two characters above, and you cast that 200 damage spell on me, it will only do 100 damage, as I have gear with defensive stats. You have no such gear (as we are comparing the over all power of a top end character vs a naked character), so my version of that same spell that does 500 damage due to my gear will do all of that damage to you as you have no gear to lower it.

So, same spec, same spell, you casting it on me does 1000 damage, me casting it on you does 500 damage.

So, what percent of an improvement is 500 over our baseline of 100?

Edit to add; in relation to your comment on alpha, keep in mind that Intrepid have stressed many times that the alpha was in no way a content test - let alone a balance test.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

'What do we have left'? Skill if the combat system doesn't suck. Gear attributes enhancing play styles if the gear system doesn't suck.

People also don't generally change their playstyle, so again this isn't a variable in regards to fighting the same people regularly.

You dont have to change your style for your gear to make up for some of your weaknesses in a specific match up. People will get better gear and 'try again' if the gear system is done right.

Your post is hinging on the false assumption that randomness removes from skill. This has been debunked before, including earlier in this thread.

Randomness adds the need for more skill, as it means you are faced with more individual situations in which you will want to prevail.

As previously explained in this thread Randomness =/= RNG

I mentioned having 'yoming' or RPS style decision making within the combat system as important. It is how one builds good randomness in combat. This type of combat design puts the randomness in the hands of the player rather than the computer. Good combat design leaves room for randomness.

If you are a class that relies on a CC opener, and that opener fails, it takes player skill to recover. If that CC is always going to hit, you have no need to have that player skill to recover from that situation, as that situation won't happen.

If the CC always hits and is the reason you keep losing, you should have the ability to get gear that lowers the duration on it. If the combat design isn't shallow there are probably more factors to the combat. The likelihood of cc other than stun being the sole reason you are losing is low. It takes player skill to actually get better at combat rather than hoping the rng gods smile upon you.

If rng on cc is enough to make up for the skill gap between two people then rps based randomness serves equally well. If rps based randomness is not rng isn't either.

Rng isn't a meaningful fix to skill gaps. If the skill gap is large people will still run. At least in a system where there isn't RNG on CC you the losing player can make a meaningful adaptation and maybe even get better at strategic play. When the chances are based on rng however, running is still the right answer because it is an unknown. Bad game design.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

I mentioned having 'yoming' or RPS style decision making within the combat system as important.

No it isn't

Yomi is not a good fit for an MMO.

Also, don't go attempt to sperate terms that have been conflated for 20+ years. Randomness and RNG have been synonymous in regards to MMO combat discussion for as long as MMO discussions have been going on.

Someone coming in and giving you a new word for a concept that has always existed (opposed decision making) doesn't alter that - and doesn't mean that new term is suddenly the best thing ever, either.

bigepeen

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

some players achieve extremely high win rates

You realize, I assume, that this would be a death knell for a game like Ashes.

Not necessarily. While individual skill is important, it isn't the most important factor in open world PvP. Also, extremely high win rates being achievable in arena PvP is a good thing as long as it's not because of P2W.

Noaani

bigepeen wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

some players achieve extremely high win rates

You realize, I assume, that this would be a death knell for a game like Ashes.

Not necessarily. While individual skill is important, it isn't the most important factor in open world PvP. Also, extremely high win rates being achievable in arena PvP is a good thing as long as it's not because of P2W.

In an arena it's fine.

In an open world MMO like Ashes, it's an issue.

bigepeen

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

some players achieve extremely high win rates

You realize, I assume, that this would be a death knell for a game like Ashes.

Not necessarily. While individual skill is important, it isn't the most important factor in open world PvP. Also, extremely high win rates being achievable in arena PvP is a good thing as long as it's not because of P2W.

In an open world MMO like Ashes, it's an issue.

I'm not sure why it's an issue, because even if combat is almost entirely skill-based, it doesn't mean that one group of people can dominate every battle in open world PvP or PvX. This is because individual skill is not the most important factor in open world battles.

Noaani

bigepeen wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

some players achieve extremely high win rates

You realize, I assume, that this would be a death knell for a game like Ashes.

Not necessarily. While individual skill is important, it isn't the most important factor in open world PvP. Also, extremely high win rates being achievable in arena PvP is a good thing as long as it's not because of P2W.

In an open world MMO like Ashes, it's an issue.

I'm not sure why it's an issue, because even if combat is almost entirely skill-based, it doesn't mean that one group of people can dominate every battle in open world PvP or PvX. This is because individual skill is not the most important factor in open world battles.

The thing I am referring to as being an issue in a game like Ashes is if some players have extremely high win rates in open world PvP. I am not making any comment on how that may have come to pass.

Psomo

Have played both systems for years. 100% cc landing (wow) and rng landing (lineage 2-classic wow). I am just a pvp player and my experience to these systems is that 100% land rate is pure experience and patterns... U stun him he trinkets then fear to disorient and so on bla bla... It needs very good coordination with your team mates which is smth nice but still it is just patterns and counting how many cc's enemy used already (addons even took that away).

I liked more rng on cc like lineage because it felt like it required more adaptability and brains than following patterns... Altough i give you that it can be frustrating when the healer resists 5-6 consecutive stuns.... Still prefer that system tho.

In the end there is no better or worse it is just that people have to adjust their playstyle accordingly.. anyway my vote is for rng cc with a bit shorter cd's of course than what they would have if it was 100% land rate.

bigepeen

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

some players achieve extremely high win rates

You realize, I assume, that this would be a death knell for a game like Ashes.

Not necessarily. While individual skill is important, it isn't the most important factor in open world PvP. Also, extremely high win rates being achievable in arena PvP is a good thing as long as it's not because of P2W.

In an open world MMO like Ashes, it's an issue.

I'm not sure why it's an issue, because even if combat is almost entirely skill-based, it doesn't mean that one group of people can dominate every battle in open world PvP or PvX. This is because individual skill is not the most important factor in open world battles.

The thing I am referring to as being an issue in a game like Ashes is if some players have extremely high win rates in open world PvP. I am not making any comment on how that may have come to pass.

If some players have extremely high win rates in open world PvP, then it just means that they are very good at avoiding engagements where they are at a disadvantage or outnumbered. Extremely high win rates in and of itself isn't a problem. In fact, you can have a 100% open world PvP win rate just by being extremely good at running away from every engagement except for one time when you killed a lvl 1.

JustVine

Psomopsoli wrote: »

Have played both systems for years. 100% cc landing (wow) and rng landing (lineage 2-classic wow). I am just a pvp player and my experience to these systems is that 100% land rate is pure experience and patterns... U stun him he trinkets then fear to disorient and so on bla bla... It needs very good coordination with your team mates which is smth nice but still it is just patterns and counting how many cc's enemy used already (addons even took that away).

I liked more rng on cc like lineage because it felt like it required more adaptability and brains than following patterns... Altough i give you that it can be frustrating when the healer resists 5-6 consecutive stuns.... Still prefer that system tho.

In the end there is no better or worse it is just that people have to adjust their playstyle accordingly.. anyway my vote is for rng cc with a bit shorter cd's of course than what they would have if it was 100% land rate.

That's a one button hard cc in tab target problem not a 100% accuracy problem.

bigepeen

Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle is decided by luck if you're using a CC rng system.

WoW's PvP system is just plain bad.

What you need instead is super armor that relies on timing to give yourself armor against stuns. Certain skills or abilities give you a short period of time of super armor. This way, anticipation of stuns is used, which fundamentally counters players mindlessly going through a rotation. This is infinitely better than pure rng deciding battles.

Songcaller

I disliked super armour in BDO. It sometimes gave protection in some fights, but, activation of super armour got you nuked by opponents in your super armour downtime. In a 1vs1 super armour was more effective, but, 1vs1 won't be balanced in Ashes.

Magic Man

Dygz wrote: »

All combat has RNG, including hard CCs:
"RNG is always going to play a role in Ashes of Creation whether that be in PvP or PvE, but one way to mitigate that is through the action system. The action system is going to be far less sort of dependent on those you know dice rolls and there'll be far more in your own hands. They won't ever completely eliminate that but it's a way for us to sort of reward skilled play versus sort of tactical strategies type play."
– Jeffrey Bard

Stun is a "soft" CC?

Nope, stun is hard CC.

Screen_Shot_2021-09-02_at_16.38.48.png

CROW3

bigepeen wrote: »

Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle is decided by luck if you're using a CC rng system.

Not quite. Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle may sometimes be decided by luck if C has some dimension of RNG. It's statistically more probable that a win will come from some other element, like fat fingering a key, or responding to a skill in an unexpected way, or just wearing the opponent down using bleeds & evasion v. direct damage.

Just because RNG is present doesn't mean it's the dominating deciding factor, it's just a potential factor.

mcstackerson

CROW3 wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle is decided by luck if you're using a CC rng system.

Just because RNG is present doesn't mean it's the dominating deciding factor, it's just a potential factor.

Yep, i don't think people are against it because it will always decide a fight, they just find it annoying when it does and don't think the rng element is necessary.

bigepeen

CROW3 wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle is decided by luck if you're using a CC rng system.

Not quite. Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle may sometimes be decided by luck if C has some dimension of RNG. It's statistically more probable that a win will come from some other element, like fat fingering a key, or responding to a skill in an unexpected way, or just wearing the opponent down using bleeds & evasion v. direct damage.

Just because RNG is present doesn't mean it's the dominating deciding factor, it's just a potential factor.

Alright, so if we take an extreme example to illustrate which system is better in a completely controlled environment: two equally skilled pros who never fat finger keys or misclick, with equal gear, playing a class mirror match to ensure a 50% win rate matchup...

In an rng system:
The two pros know what the optimal rotation is and try to go through the rotation as quickly as possible. The battle is extremely close at first. The difference in the battle is pure luck, based around whomever got better rng on the CCs.

In a stun armor system:
The two pros know that each other knows the optimal rotation. However, they both do not know when the other might switch this up and use an ability that gives them stun armor instead. The battle is extremely close, but the winner is decided by who baits out more stuns into their stun armor or who risks using the optimal rotation to maintain a damage lead despite it being risky to be countered with stun armor. The difference here is that the battle is not pure luck, and is decided by tactics, mind-games, and player agency.

Now, if I choose the first system, and I won or lost the battle, then I've learned absolutely nothing. Both players would just have to shrug their shoulders and praise/blame rng. Sounds fun, right? Well, if you choose the second option, you can actually learn something and point to where if you had just used an ability with stun armor here, or predicted something there, that you could have won or lost the battle, and not just have to blame it on rng. Therefore, I think the second system that actually puts the outcome of battles in the players hands, and not rng, by definition gives the players more agency and is the better system.

JustVine

CROW3 wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle is decided by luck if you're using a CC rng system.

Not quite. Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle may sometimes be decided by luck if C has some dimension of RNG. It's statistically more probable that a win will come from some other element, like fat fingering a key, or responding to a skill in an unexpected way, or just wearing the opponent down using bleeds & evasion v. direct damage.

Just because RNG is present doesn't mean it's the dominating deciding factor, it's just a potential factor.

Not that I really support this solution either but since you all have been pretty 'do or die' irt rng stun while offering no attempt to meet in the middle. So here is my attempt at pulling your sides half to the middle instead.

What are your thoughts on a 'miss' being a partial fail rather than a full fail? That way the technical element of the action mode are the 'real' miss while you still get a 'partial things not going to plan' miss via the rng.

The 'partial fail' could be designed one of two ways:

It could be some portion of lower time limit. This means that you still have to react to the situation and possibly need to switch your next move on fail to be more optimal for damage or rotation. From the defenders side this is the more 'generous' and less technical option. It's simpler to do and balance on a technical level but might represent solvable design challenge to make it clear to both players whether or not you are experiencing a miss or hit.

Or it could be some form of softer CC (e.g. the stun is now just a root or ability lock out or something that still feels consistent with the thematic to the move/class.) Now you as an attacker can 'plan' around having two 'strategies' ready one less optimal than the other depending on what abilities you have available and what your current advantage in the fight is. The defender otoh now has the opportunity to have their soft cc defenses come into play in a part of the fight that wouldn't otherwise happen. This makes the fight more dynamic and unpredictable since cc defenses are more linked to gear and can be switched up from fight to fight. But obviously requires a lot more balance considerations. But you also have less trouble with the animation problem that comes up in the other possible solution. (I am definitely strongly biased in preferring this approach. But they are probably both equally valid.)

You also get the 'build' trade off of 'guaranteed cc time down but smaller than a 'miss' vs 'increasing miss chance' as possible route for designing gear.

Child Item