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

Nepoke

@CROW3 Miss chance can be replaced by a % damage reduction in proportion to the miss chance, as that is exactly what it is on average, to convert a game with miss chances into one without. The result is a less frustrating game overall, though I'd rather the game was designed without evasion as a stat from the start.

I see no reason to miss an attack (especially with action combat) unless a dodge or a blind of sorts was used.

CROW3

Nepoke wrote: »

@CROW3 Miss chance can be replaced by a % damage reduction in proportion to the miss chance, as that is exactly what it is on average, to convert a game with miss chances into one without. The result is a less frustrating game overall, though I'd rather the game was designed without evasion as a stat from the start.

I see no reason to miss an attack (especially with action combat) unless a dodge or a blind of sorts was used.

Interesting. I see the % damage as being more of a glancing blow. I think it's a good and complex mechanic to implement, but it's different than a miss. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for an attack to miss (and tying to to the OP, for a CC to miss as well), that's just the nature of combat. Even those very good with a sword don't land all of their attacks. RNG abstractly accounts for all of the environmental factors that aren't going to be represented directly as a calculation.

All of that said, I think there should be ways to mitigate that RNG (never to 0% btw) on both sides of the line (i.e. the attacker has 'to hit' / the defender has 'evasion').

Nepoke

@CROW3 I think I see your perspective now. You like the aspect of miss chance simulating the real narrative struggle that the game is sort of abstracting behind button presses and mouse clicks. I guess I can only offer my own view on this:

Miss chances and stuff make more sense in games like pokemon or a text based roguelike/MUD, where you are telling your character (or your enslaved animal) to do an action. If there was no chance involved, the game loses the suspense of "oh will Mr. Burnsley hit the flame breath attack!?" and everything just feels like a cold calculation. In this case the rng is sort of needed to simulate a real fight happening under the command you gave.

In a more fluid game that offers more freedom on just not what I want my character to do, but also how they do it, miss chances feel a lot less like a simulation but more like just being cheated. If I'm at the right range to land a blow and I do it at the right time, and I don't hit because the game says so, it's not a good feeling for me. Imagine Link just randomly missing when fighting Ganondorf, or Simon's whip missing a skeleton in Castlevania 4. These games give you so much control that the character's struggle is your struggle, and there is no need for additional simulation.

You could argue that tab targetting is far enough away from full control that miss chance is fitting there, but in my personal experience missing a kill shot when you played everything right just feels awful. And especially when it comes to action combat, I feel like my character should hit when I hit something, not vice versa.

Good thoughts in any case, my dude.

CROW3

@Nepoke - Yep, good take on my perspective. Is it more acceptable from your perspective for a 'miss' to be characterized as a dodge, parry, or an absorb? The net effect is the same (the target avoided taking damage), but there's a perception that the swing connected with the target.

Nepoke

@CROW3 Correct, as long as the dodge, parry or absorb would be an action that the monster/player you're fighting initiates. For example if the ogre I'm fighting has a majestic backflip that makes him 100% evade all physical attacks as one of it's moves, it feels there's now something I can play around: Don't swing at the backflipping ogre or you miss.

If the dodge, parry or absorb are just chance based passive attributes, they fall into the "being cheated out of a hit" category in my opinion.

CROW3

Got it - that makes sense.

Dreoh

If you want to really have this argument you actually don't need to look any further at all than the most concentrated genre of PvP in gaming.

Fighting games are entirely PvP from the ground up and have been optimized over the lifetime of the genre to have as fair and engaging PvP as possible.

To ever have an argument about what's fair in PvP, you literally have to look no further than the genre that has already hashed out and tried and tested these arguments.

All successful fighters have as little RNG as they can possibly get away with. The ONLY exceptions are things like Faust's random item mechanic where there is ample time to react or things that have a chance to harm the user instead.

If you're arguing FOR RNG, you're actively arguing against good, balanced and fair PvP, which is fine if you have other reasons like "immersion" or something, but don't claim "RNG makes PvP better because of adaptability" or anything. The Smash Melee community a decade ago banned items because the "adaptability" argument is just ridiculous.

You know what fighting game had RNG and is notorious for being bad because of it?
Smash Bros Brawl.
Your character could randomly trip.
Imagine making an amazing comeback, and as you are about to win against all odds, you suddenly roll the dice badly and your character decides to fall on the ground, and you get killed because of it.

That is in no way good PvP.

Imagine arguing that your ability you fired and committed an action to should have a chance to not have any effect and thinking that's a good argument.
That shit would never fly in the fighting game community.

CROW3

Dreoh wrote: »

Imagine arguing that your ability you fired and committed an action to should have a chance to not have any effect and thinking that's a good argument. That shit would never fly in the fighting game community.

Valid, so let's just take that perspective as correct. However, this isn't a fighting game, and we (the AoC community) are not that community. There may be folks from that community in this game, but there is still a context change. This is pvp within the context of a MMORPG.

Hence the conversation.

Noaani

Nepoke wrote: »

If the dodge, parry or absorb are just chance based passive attributes, they fall into the "being cheated out of a hit" category in my opinion.

I agree with this in the absence of any means for players to increase their hit chance.

When players do have that means though, this "being cheated" then becomes simply a need for better gear, or a change of build to increase your chance to hit.

Noaani

Dreoh wrote: »

Fighting games are entirely PvP from the ground up and have been optimized over the lifetime of the genre to have as fair and engaging PvP as possible.

Which fighting game is it you have in mind where players create the build and select the gear?

Dreoh

CROW3 wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

Imagine arguing that your ability you fired and committed an action to should have a chance to not have any effect and thinking that's a good argument. That shit would never fly in the fighting game community.

Valid, so let's just take that perspective as correct. However, this isn't a fighting game, and we (the AoC community) are not that community. There may be folks from that community in this game, but there is still a context change. This is pvp within the context of a MMORPG.

Hence the conversation.

No, it's not a fighting game and I never said it was.

I was arguing about PvP and using the genre that is PvP entirely throughout as precedence.

The genre might be different and have different gameplay and mechanics yes, but the standards of what's fair and balanced in PvP across any genre doesn't change. It's a bit disingenuous for you to say my comment holds no weight here.

Noaani wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

Fighting games are entirely PvP from the ground up and have been optimized over the lifetime of the genre to have as fair and engaging PvP as possible.

Which fighting game is it you have in mind where players create the build and select the gear?

Funny you say that, because there are plenty of fighting games that do that.

I know you tried to get me in a "gotcha" argument, but you actually further prove my point.

Smash bros, Rivals of Aether, Street Fighter x Tekken, Marvel vs. Capcom 4 as just a few examples all have some kind of optional-or-not equipment/stat choice system.

In every single one of those, they are NEVER used in serious competitive play or are disliked by the majority of the community.
Many games with these systems being forced will enact a "standard" set that everyone is required to choose in competitive play.

Now as to how this relates to RPG PvP?

Obviously stats and equipment are a major focus of RPG's, so you can't just ignore an entire part of a game for the sake of standardized PvP in a game like Ashes. (Though some games like GW2 have standardized PvP sets and stats for the standardized PvP mode, because they understand what makes balanced/fair and competitive PvP)

The way you solve this is by not having RNG as a factor. It's as simple as that. This has been rehashed in many other combat-related threads, but accuracy, evasion and spell full-resistance stats should not be a thing if you want competitively viable, fair and balanced pvp. Your win should be determined by your actions and reactions, not by the roll of a die or many dice over the course of a battle.

Instead of these flat-out anti-competitive RNG stats, you should add more utility to the player to be able to react to abilities and damage.

Instead of "Thats a strong ability, it should have a chance to miss"

It should be "That's a strong ability, the opponent should be able to react"
or
"That's a strong ability, it should have some kind of heavy cost that the enemy can exploit"

To argue that RNG is necessary is to argue for complacency and laziness in combat design.

Unless you just want RNG for fun the way casual Smash players play with items, then ignore all of my comments on this matter. But then it's not a competitively viable or fair/balanced PvP system anymore.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

Fighting games are entirely PvP from the ground up and have been optimized over the lifetime of the genre to have as fair and engaging PvP as possible.

Which fighting game is it you have in mind where players create the build and select the gear?

Absolver

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

I agree with this in the absence of any means for players to increase their hit chance.

When players do have that means though, this "being cheated" then becomes simply a need for better gear, or a change of build to increase your chance to hit.

Yeah, that's the direction I would lean to as well. There are tradeoffs with a spec and gear. For instance, investing in 'to hit' instead of 'dmg per hit' so I would hit more often, but for less. Or 'dmg per hit' instead of 'to hit' so I have a higher % chance to miss, but my hits do more dmg. Or a balance between the two. Or I invest in both, but I then don't spend the points in another part of the tree to get "BF DPS ability."

This is very much how builds in Path of Exile are managed (let's set the META part of that game aside for the sale of this discussion).

Dygz

The standards of PvP gameplay do change if the game in question is, say, an RPG first and foremost.
If it's a fighting game first and foremost, with RPG elements, those RPG elements are going to take a backseat to the PvP combat.

Dreoh

If it's an RPG, and you want competitively viable combat, you're going to limit severely how much a player's win is determined by RNG, which is exactly the same across any genre, exactly as I described in my earlier post.

To say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.
I know you have some kind of hard-on for the traditional/nostalgic mechanics of RPGs @Dygz based on your stances in every other thread, but that doesn't change the reality of the argument.

If you want more immersive/fun PvP and aren't worried about how competitively fair/balanced it is, then yes, RNG is perfectly fine. No different to playing Smash with items casually, or Street Fighter x Tekken with gems casually.

The "This isn't a Fighting Game" is a strawman argument to completely circumvent the points I brought up.

Dygz

Actually, no.
Because if you're going to severely limit RNG, you're probably going to make a game that is a different genre than RPG.

Which is why, in Ashes, the devs have made it clear that they are balancing for 8v8 with rock/paper/scissors. It's also why Steven has said that if it's a choice between Tab Target and Action Combat, he's going to go with Tab Target.

Dreoh

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I agree with this in the absence of any means for players to increase their hit chance.

When players do have that means though, this "being cheated" then becomes simply a need for better gear, or a change of build to increase your chance to hit.

Yeah, that's the direction I would lean to as well. There are tradeoffs with a spec and gear. For instance, investing in 'to hit' instead of 'dmg per hit' so I would hit more often, but for less. Or 'dmg per hit' instead of 'to hit' so I have a higher % chance to miss, but my hits do more dmg. Or a balance between the two. Or I invest in both, but I then don't spend the points in another part of the tree to get "BF DPS ability."

This is very much how builds in Path of Exile are managed (let's set the META part of that game aside for the sale of this discussion).

You know how you avoid this whole scenario of having to have to focus on building around an obviously broken mechanic?

Don't implement the mechanic.

Now players can focus on more engaging parts of combat instead of getting that "necessary" stat.

It's like how everyone in Monster Hunter just stacks Attack+ gear and gems because it's outright just the best stat and all the Element+ gear and gems are never used because they are all inferior to just raw attack damage.

Monster Hunter could easily solve that issue the same way. By removing the Attack+ bonus stat and balancing the rest of the game to accommodate it.

Now people can be more creative in their builds instead of always building the obviously optimal stat.

Dreoh

Dygz wrote: »

Actually, no.
Because if you're going to severely limit RNG, you're probably going to make a game that is a different genre than RPG.

Which is why, in Ashes, the devs have made it clear that they are balancing for 8v8 with rock/paper/scissors. It's also why Steven has said that if it's a choice between Tab Target and Action Combat, he's going to go with Tab Target.

Yes I'm aware you think RNG is synonymous with RPG.

It's outright ridiculous and damaging/limiting to the genre.

Dygz

That's like saying restricting hands from moving the ball down a soccer field is damaging to soccer because ball games are better when you can use your hands.

RNG is a fundamental aspect of RPGs, so no...RNG is not at all damaging to the RPG genre (nor to MMORPGs).

Dreoh

RNG is absolutely not a fundamental aspect of RPG's.

A traditional aspect yes, but saying fundamental is laughable.

You can have stats (which are a fundamental backbone of RPGs), and stat-based combat with or without RNG.

Dygz wrote: »

That's like saying restricting hands from moving the ball down a soccer field is damaging to soccer because ball games are better when you can use your hands.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what this is an analogy for or even what you're trying to say here lol

Child Item