Crowd control should not be based on RNG

Noaani

maouw wrote: »

I was hoping we'd get to a point of understanding why people so fixatedly cannot separate RNG from RPG.
But we did not, and I sense a level of stubbornness that renders further discussion here pointless.

I think that only renders that line of enquiry pointless, not all further discussion.

As I don't believe it is essential for an RPG - just beneficial - that particular discussion was never of much interest to me.

As to your points of discussion, the second point I don't really want to get in to myself. How Intrepid plan on dealing with defenses in relation to TT vs AC is not something I would want to speculate on, and that specific subject would require speculating on this.

To your first point though, these micro-level game systems absolutely can play a macro-level role in game play. If a game has a system by which players can specialize in either dealing CC or absorbing CC, people will build characters around this. This means that in large scale PvP, instead of basically just having DPS and healers (lets face it, tanks are useless in PvP generally), you also have CC attack and defense. Obviously new builds means new tactics, so it has the potential to change up a lot about the larger game.

Dygz

maouw wrote: »

RNG was originally intended to be TT's tradeoff for AC's requirement for mechanical skill

What? No.

In Ashes, the trade off is that AC has much less RNG than TT. It's just not zero.

bigepeen

*Reminder that combat in Ashes is a work in progress, and that combat in alpha may not represent the final game.

beaushinkle

Maybe a different approach. It's going to be a long time until the game comes out. The same, small community of frequent commenters post on all the threads. If that's going to be the case, then I think that the small community of frequent commenters would benefit from some general higher-mindedness (we all could).

places to start

• https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/thinking-ladder.html
• https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/map-and-territory
• https://constantrenewal.com/steel-man/

That wait-but-why article is one of my favorites of all time. It's incredibly lengthy but extremely inciteful insightful.

Dygz

I think you don't know the meaning of "inciteful".
Which is not surprising.

You should spend more time researching the wiki.

beaushinkle

Ah, misspelling - good catch. Meant insightful.

maouw

beaushinkle wrote: »

Maybe a different approach. It's going to be a long time until the game comes out. The same, small community of frequent commenters post on all the threads. If that's going to be the case, then I think that the small community of frequent commenters would benefit from some general higher-mindedness (we all could).

places to start

• https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/thinking-ladder.html
• https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/map-and-territory
• https://constantrenewal.com/steel-man/

That wait-but-why article is one of my favorites of all time. It's incredibly lengthy but extremely inciteful insightful.

Hey, interesting links I appreciate them.

Here's a rundown for people afraid to clickety click:

1. Thinking Ladder is a (really) long blog post charicaturizing and analyzing different approaches to intellectual knowledge processing [I disagree that intellectual debate truly shapes a person's beliefs - more likely intellectual assent] via the Scientific Method (minus empiricism). It's also quite entertaining, though a little rough in some areas.
2. Map and Territory is a collection of blog posts exploring the phrase "The map is not the territory" (i.e. the model is not reality)
3. Steel Man is a charitable move in a heated debate where you make an effort to strengthen your "opponent's" argument so you can both get more out of the conversation (this effort can be rejected though), with a side reference to the Idealogical Turing test as a way to know if you're good at listening or not.

I personally learned a lot from the 3rd link - thankyou.