What you keep missing is that RPGs are stories that reflect characters going through the epic tale of the Heroes Journey. Which includes - sometimes shit (randomly) happens. Luck/Fate are integral aspects of Fantasy stories following the Heroic Journey.
Mildly off topic... Can you show me where it's written that what happens to Heroes during they Journey must be decided randomly? Like, did Tolkien roll some dice to figure out what would happen to Frodo, or did he choose? Or is that just a carry-over from table-top D&D rules?
If primarily what you are doing is tournament-style gameplay without an epic narrative, of course RNG is not going to be great. The focus is going to be on player twitch skills v player twitch skills.
RPGs are focused on building up characters as they gain experience.
Which means if I want a character to not experience something like Stuns, I'm going to build the stats as the character gains experience to become more resistant to Stuns. And, yes, that is going to emulate the real world.
I see you've switched from using "MMORPGs" to using "RPGs". Because, the "MMORPG" gameplay loop for ashes isn't going to be "building up a character as it gains experience". It's, for those of us that play 8+ hours a day, going to be efficiently powerleveling to 50, researching/optimizing our builds, practicing pvp, trying to contest world bosses, trying to hold efficient farm spots for resources, farming, node control, rare mount farming, BiS farming, etc. All the stuff that you normally find in MMO gameplay.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2021
How is the Hero's Journey reflected well enough in Node progression?
Node progression is the Node's journey not the Hero's Journey.
The Hero's Journey is about the progression of the Hero's prowess while gaining experience - which in Fantasy settings includes combat. And, typically, shit happens to the character along the way which causes them to learn how to better overcome adversity - like learning to resist Stuns if Stuns have been a significant challange.
How is the Hero's Journey reflected well enough in Node progression?
Node progression is the Node's journey not the Hero's Journey.
The Hero's Journey is about the progression of the Hero's prowess while gaining experience - which in Fantasy settings includes combat. And, typically, shit happens to the character along the way which causes them to learn how to better overcome adversity - like learning to resist Stuns if Stuns have been a significant challange.
Shit happens like giant Balrogs you cant defeat random ring wraith encounters etc. That's what node progression generated. Story opportunity for players journey progression.
'Butterfingers my sword into death.' Much less heroic than losing to Balrog. By your own definition nothing is ocercome because the rng never goes to zero. Shit will always happen. No progression is made. Dumb micro event that only serves to underscore how little agency you have even with growth. As opposed to macro event that you can get stronger in and prevail through hard work and improved skill.
I don't plan on arguing you as your mind is as changeable as a law of physics. I am more so pointing out that the heroes journey feeling has multiple ways of execution in an rpg setting. It's a difference in perceptions.
Small print leads to large risks.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I haven't switched from MMORPGs to RPGs.
MMORPG is a subset of RPG.
Building up a character as it gains experience is an integral part of Ashes game design.
That is not the only form of progression, but for combat it certainly is.
"Efficiently powerleveling to 50, researching/optimizing our builds, practicing pvp, trying to contest world bosses."
You can do all of that as you build your character as it gains experience, sure. You can't effectively do any of that without building your character as it gains experience.
Here, what you seem to be saying is, "I want ignore the character building stuff and just focus on PvP tournament-style combat, just like I have in other MMORPGs."
But, Steven wants to put the RPG back into MMORPG.
So, he is going to design combat with RNG - even Active combat will have some RNG.
Steven is not going to design combat such that it's just like tournament battles.
RNG in RPGs help emulate the stages of the Hero's Journey below:
Challenges and Temptations
Abyss, Death/Rebirth, Revelation
Transformation
Gift of the Goddess
Rather than some kind of Mary-Sue progression where you are able to 100% prevent failures with "deterministic" stats. It's in there specifically to prevent min/maxers avoiding adversity by stacking their stats.
RNG means that, no matter what, sometimes shit will happen. You will still sometimes roll a one.
Which results in something like Delilah cutting Samson's hair or Balder being killed by mistletoe.
All I can really do is present what I believe to be true in the most honest and strongest way I know how to do!
I think the reflexive nature of this statement is worth noting. In the end, I'd bet we could find more that we agree on than we disagree on, as time will prove out.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Shit happens like giant Balrogs you cant defeat random ring wraith encounters etc. That's what node progression generated. Story opportunity for players journey progression.
I'm pretty sure that Nodes will not generate something like a Balrog that can't be defeated.
Through experience you learn to build your character(s) to defeat that mob.
'Butterfingers my sword into death.' Much less heroic than losing to Balrog. By your own definition nothing is overcome because the rng never goes to zero. Shit will always happen. No progression is made. Dumb micro event that only serves to underscore how little agency you have even with growth. As opposed to macro event that you can get stronger in and prevail through hard work and improved skill.
This sounds to me like you don't know what the Hero's Journey is.
I don't know what you mean by "nothing is overcome because the RNG never goes to zero".
Sometimes heroes lose agency. Especially in Fantasy stories that include gods participating in the affairs of mortals.
I don't plan on arguing you as your mind is as changeable as a law of physics. I am more so pointing out that the heroes journey feeling has multiple ways of execution in an rpg setting. It's a difference in perceptions.
OK.
(I agree that Node progression contributes to the narrative of the world, sure)
I'm pretty sure that Nodes will not generate something like a Balrog that can't be defeated.
Through experience you learn to build your character(s) to defeat that mob.
Do you have an opinion on the claim that there will be content that only 1% of players may be able to defeat?
Or perhaps, content that can only be defeated if one is lucky?
Because your counterpoint didn't actually make sense to me. The Node generates the enemy, the player applies their skill to the enemy, 'Fate' determines whether they defeat the enemy or not, not build (that's what's being proposed as the scenario, I mean).
It definitely seems that you're ok with that, and your response would be 'to build the character to be more capable of defeating it'. Am I following?
Min maxers don't react like that. Min maxers just try again, because if the RNG was the main reason they lost, even multiple times, they just repeat it until the RNG favors them, just like getting a drop. It really doesn't prevent anything.
It sounds more like you are saying 'RNG is in the game to make min-maxers more capable of losing while they undertake things'.
Then again, I know from previous discussions with you, at least some of your underlying reasonings and feelings towards these things. It's not hard to tell when you're pushed close to them.
Here, what you seem to be saying is, "I want ignore the character building stuff and just focus on PvP tournament-style combat, just like I have in other MMORPGs."
I don't know how you got PvP tournament-style combat out of "trying to contest world bosses, trying to hold efficient farm spots for resources, farming, node control, rare mount farming, BiS farming, etc".
But, Steven wants to put the RPG back into MMORPG.
So, he is going to design combat with RNG - even Active combat will have some RNG.
You keep saying this! Every time you say this, I say that we can have RNG in a broad sense without specifically making it so that high-impact CC's have a chance to fail and then it's like your brain short circuits and you go back to line 1.
Rather than some kind of Mary-Sue progression where you are able to 100% prevent failures with "deterministic" stats. It's in there specifically to prevent min/maxers avoiding adversity by stacking their stats.
We're not trying to 100% prevent failure or avoid adversity or circumvent the hero's journey. We're talking specifically about removing the chance that high impact crowd control abilities can fail. In the same way that we prefer for our character to not trip on pebbles as we walk because it's more fun.
Do you have an opinion on the claim that there will be content that only 1% of players may be able to defeat?
1% means it's not undefeatable.
And one of the reasons why it will only be 1% is because most players won't want to play hardcore enough to learn tactics to defeat the mob.
Even with the 1%, it's unlikely they will be able to 100% repeat defeat the mob because - Ashes will have RNG.
Because your counterpoint didn't actually make sense to me. The Node generates the enemy, the player applies their skill to the enemy, 'Fate' determines whether they defeat the enemy or not, not build (that's what's being proposed as the scenario, I mean).
The Node progression spitting out a World Boss does not emulate sometimes shit happens to the Hero .
That's more like sometimes shit happens to the world.
Min maxers don't react like that. Min maxers just try again, because if the RNG was the main reason they lost, even multiple times, they just repeat it until the RNG favors them, just like getting a drop. It really doesn't prevent anything.
I don't understand what is supposed to be prevented.
Hardcore players will try multiple times until they win. Yes.
It sounds more like you are saying 'RNG is in the game to make min-maxers more capable of losing while they undertake things'.
RNG is in the game so that you are able to build your characters to better/max at some things and worse/min at others. And to help resolve contested challenges. Sometimes you might "roll a 20", sometimes you might "roll a 1".
That helps make the narrative be better than always winning once you've learned the meta.
Then again, I know from previous discussions with you, at least some of your underlying reasonings and feelings towards these things. It's not hard to tell when you're pushed close to them.
haha! Exactly!
Because with regard to player twitch skills, it shouldn't be that a player with excellent twitch skills inherently over comes a character with a better build simply because that player has weaker twitch skills.
It's kind of like just because I as a player can spot a secret door, that does not mean my character should be able to Spot that secret door. Even an expert player with max Dex should have some chance of sometimes rolling a 1 and failing to unlock an equal level lock. And should probably also have some chance of failing with locks several levels below.
Yes. There are some gamers who think even with MMORPGs, they should be able to consistently "beat the game". But, RPGs are not supposed to be 100% beaten due to player prowess.
RPGs have RNG because characters should sometimes fail. And also should sometimes have great success.
Especially in a Fantasy Setting where Fate and gods are real.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
We're not trying to 100% prevent failure or avoid adversity or circumvent the hero's journey. We're talking specifically about removing the chance that high impact crowd control abilities can fail. In the same way that we prefer for our character to not trip on pebbles as we walk because it's more fun.
There should always be some chance that a high impact crowd control fails.
Because life is not 100% guaranteed and sometimes things unexpectedly fail.
This is especially true when you have people actively learning how to get things that challenge them to fail.
Especially in a Fantasy setting that has Fate and a pantheon of gods - including a God of Fate.
I already told you that fun is subjective.
"Chess is fun and it doesn't have dice, so backgammon should not have dice either."
I just want to fully understand, so I was trying to get a quote.
Your words were:
RNG in RPGs help emulate the stages of the Hero's Journey below:
Challenges and Temptations
Abyss, Death/Rebirth, Revelation
Transformation
Gift of the Goddess
Rather than some kind of Mary-Sue progression where you are able to 100% prevent failures with "deterministic" stats. It's in there specifically to prevent min/maxers avoiding adversity by stacking their stats.
I absolutely don't want to unfairly misattribute anything that might come up because of the way you worded something. I'm not looking for some 'gotcha' moment that comes up as a result of the order of someone's sentences. But people tell you what they believe, and as I mentioned. Verify.
So, is it unfair of me to condense out the middle of some of that quote?
RNG in RPGs is in there specifically to prevent min/maxers avoiding adversity by stacking their stats.
Because, what I'm saying is, if somehow you were 'in a position to speak for Steven' or for Intrepid, and this was a statement you made about the design principle of Ashes, then there would be a clearer perspective about how to view the game and what to expect from it.
Right now, there are obviously 'people expecting that a game where you stand to have competitive style interactions resulting in loss', that this would not be a 'design goal'. I make no argument as to how right those people are. I just want to unequivocally verify that this is a thing that you would choose to have as a design goal, and a thing that you indirectly attribute to Steven's design goals by extension.
There should always be some chance that a high impact crowd control fails.
Because life is not 100% guaranteed and sometimes things unexpectedly fail.
This is especially true when you have people actively learning how to get things that challenge them to fail.
Especially in a Fantasy setting that has Fate and a pantheon of gods - including a God of Fate.
I already told you that fun is subjective.
"Chess is fun and it doesn't have dice, so backgammon should not have dice either."
Why should there be a chance that a high impact crowd control fails? What does life being not 100% guaranteed have to do with making high impact crowd control? We're making a MMORPG, not simulating real life. Chess is supposed to represent a war, right? Yet the pieces don't lose morale or have a %chance to trip. This is okay because it's a game and the game is allowed to be designed in whatever way the designer sees fit.
We're not trying to 100% prevent failure or avoid adversity or circumvent the hero's journey. We're talking specifically about removing the chance that high impact crowd control abilities can fail. In the same way that we prefer for our character to not trip on pebbles as we walk because it's more fun.
There should always be some chance that a high impact crowd control fails.
Because life is not 100% guaranteed and sometimes things unexpectedly fail.
This is especially true when you have people actively learning how to get things that challenge them to fail.
Especially in a Fantasy setting that has Fate and a pantheon of gods - including a God of Fate.
I already told you that fun is subjective.
"Chess is fun and it doesn't have dice, so backgammon should not have dice either."
Exactly.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Right now, there are obviously 'people expecting that a game where you stand to have competitive style interactions resulting in loss', that this would not be a 'design goal'. I make no argument as to how right those people are. I just want to unequivocally verify that this is a thing that you would choose to have as a design goal, and a thing that you indirectly attribute to Steven's design goals by extension.
It's not competitive style interactions resulting in loss, though.
I'm going to flip this a little bit from what was a bit more abstract to fit better with character builds v player twitch skills. That quote didn't properly factor in the scenario of players wanting to use twitch skills to Stun an opposing character.
I was thinking about the other debate where it was said that Stuns should not be a thing.
In an RPG, I should be able to create a character that has more Dex than I have as a player. Especially if I have average player twitch skills.
Character skills are supposed to be different than player skills.
If I have average "Spot" as a player, I should be able to build a character that has a higher Spot than what I have.
Ideally, in an RPG, if there is a puzzle that has to be solved to open a door, I should be able to build a character with a high Intelligence who can solve that puzzle more easily than my mediocre player intelligence.
So... if I build a character with max Dex and Max Evasion, that character should still have some chance of evading a hit by a character with mediocre Dex run by a player with high twitch skills.
Because the whole point of an RPG is that I can build a character with maxed Dex and Evasion that excels at evasion. So it's not really fair to inherently lose that "contest" with a character who has average Dex just because the player has above average twitch skills.
What Ashes is does is, for Action Combat greatly reduce the RNG...it's just not going to be zero.
So, it's not really going to be a loss.
If our characters have equal Dex and I get hit by the Stun, I expect to not Evade 99% of the time.
If my character has a high Dex and high Evasion and your character has a mediocre Dex, I expect RNG to mitigate that hit to some degree such that my Evasion kicks in more often. And I will let the devs decide how much more often.
But...this is why Jeffrey says that Ashes combat will always have some RNG.
"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
Because the whole point of RPGs is that I can build a character with more Charisma than I, as a player, have.
Or I can build a character with better eyesight than I, as a player, have.
Or that I can build a character with higher Dex than I, as a player, have.
But, even, if I max my Dex and Evasion...there should always be a chance for me to roll a 1 and fail... at whatever.
In competition - you can prep and prep and prep and and think you've executed just the right moves...and shit happens and you fail.
Again, especially in a Fantasy setting where Fate and gods are real.
(Similar if we're talking high Constitution and high Physical Disable Defense)
But, even, if I max my Dex and Evasion...there should always be a chance for me to roll a 1 and fail... at whatever.
Okay. Let's use a super-specific example so that I can really make you commit. Why do you think that walking forward 10 feet should have a chance to roll a 1 and fail? Why does that make the game better?
When you've played the game for 10000 hours and you've fallen on your face while walking forward a few hundred times, does this still increase immersion? Do you still want this to happen again?
It's not competitive style interactions resulting in loss, though.
That is completely a misunderstanding on my part then. I thought that Sieges and Node wars were intended to be competitive style interactions due to their stakes. I thought I heard it said by either Steven or Jeffrey that this was intended to be a competitive PvP game.
This probably led me to the erroneous belief that one would attempt to remove any unnecessary influences with wide variance.
By design, RNG on certain skill types has the potential to result in 'wide variance', and I hadn't seen any indication that Ashes was intending to not have those skill types. (let's treat 'wide variance' as 'either you got pulled in by Javelin and deleted from a GvG scenario or you did not).
None of that has anything to do with twitch skills at the moment. Your opponent tabs to you, presses the Javelin ability, and a value for your resistance is factored.
Let's say you have the aforementioned 5% resistance, in this case, to Javelin.
1d20: 20 You happen to resist it, the opposing team cannot execute their strategy and are routed. To some people, it does not matter if this is 1d20 or 1d100 (they might be much more upset if it is 1d100).
I didn't intend to derail this so much, so the rest of the post, which is mostly repetition of stances you hold that I already understand, is not really worth our consideration.
Your character has more 'ability to resist a Javelin pulling them closer' some percentage of the time than you do IRL. So it is. It is in fact part of your build. You made a choice to build for it. Your character-building skill thwarted your opponent's plan.
I really just wanted to make absolutely sure that the idea behind what you were saying was 'I believe that RNG exists to thwart the plans of players who would otherwise build their plans around certainty and min-max', and to verify that your concept of 'how much of this is acceptable' is 'whatever forces them to accept adversity'.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This is okay because it's a game and the game is allowed to be designed in whatever way the designer sees fit.
Specifically because it's a Roleplaying Game and RPGs have RNG.
FPS and fighters don't need RNG because there is more focus on the combat and considerably less focus on the narrative...especially less focus on the Hero's Journey.
You act like all game genres should have the same rulesets - or that any video game that includes Action Combat should have the exact same rules and be designed for tournaments and e-sports.
If Ashes were a MOBA or an MMOFPS, I would not have an issue with no RNG.
Specifically because it's a Roleplaying Game and RPGs have RNG.
FPS and fighters don't need RNG because there is more focus on the combat and considerably less focus on the narrative...especially less focus on the Hero's Journey.
I feel like we’ve repeated this ad nauseam for like 6 pages now. 😆
Specifically because it's a Roleplaying Game and RPGs have RNG.
FPS and fighters don't need RNG because there is more focus on the combat and considerably less focus on the narrative...especially less focus on the Hero's Journey.
Sure, so if we can maintain the binary property that the game has RNG, and even the binary property that the combat has RNG, can we specifically get rid of RNG for high-impact crowd control abilities?
Where I want to get to is that you believe that high-impact cc abilities need to have a %chance to miss because it makes the game better. Not because it's necessary for the genre. Not because RPGs need RNG. Not because everything should have a chance to fail.
----
Why do you think that walking forward 10 feet should have a chance to roll a 1 and fail? Why does that make the game better?
When you've played the game for 10000 hours and you've fallen on your face while walking forward a few hundred times, does this still increase immersion? Do you still want this to happen again?
I keep trying to mention, and you haven't recognized a single time yet that this is a game, and the point of a game isn't to simulate reality, but to be a game that is fun to play. Maybe for you, fun-to-play means simulates reality, and that's perfectly fine!
This is basically what I think. I don't want to reality simulator, because I don't want a strike to break one of my character's bones and not being able to play my character 3 to 12 months because he's in bed recovering. Sure, this would be more immersive, and there are valid arguments saying that a percentage chance to fracture a bone upon a hit is more immersive or old-school rpg like, but it's also anti-fun.
Specifically because it's a Roleplaying Game and RPGs have RNG.
FPS and fighters don't need RNG because there is more focus on the combat and considerably less focus on the narrative...especially less focus on the Hero's Journey.
Sure, so if we can maintain the binary property that the game has RNG, and even the binary property that the combat has RNG, can we specifically get rid of RNG for high-impact crowd control abilities?
Where I want to get to is that you believe that high-impact cc abilities need to have a %chance to miss because it makes the game better. Not because it's necessary for the genre. Not because RPGs need RNG. Not because everything should have a chance to fail.
----
Why do you think that walking forward 10 feet should have a chance to roll a 1 and fail? Why does that make the game better?
When you've played the game for 10000 hours and you've fallen on your face while walking forward a few hundred times, does this still increase immersion? Do you still want this to happen again?
You're possibly misunderstanding something about the person you're trying to talk to.
Dygz moreso 'wants people to have the option to fail despite their efforts', than to specifically enhance the game experience.
That was what I was verifying.
Consider this. If Dygz builds a 5% chance to resist Javelin, and you build a 10% chance to ignore other people's resistances, this would result in a 100% chance of Javelin working again. This would be 'no twitch skills, build skills only'.
If you were to ask 'Would you be okay with the idea that players who want certainty could always build to equal or slightly higher chance to ignore resistance, than the player could build resistance?'
What do you figure the answer will be?
A ) Yes that's fine, as long as builds matter.
B ) There should always be a chance to build higher resistance than Ignore Resistance
C ) The key is that the build options should involve tradeoffs
D ) "There should always be a chance for that to fail."
Maybe CROW3 or James would give you a different answer, but I would bet on Dygz's answer being D, to the point where even if Dygz denies this, I won't believe the answer.
My point is that you are trying to reach a point with someone who has some other 'motives' for the things they are suggesting.
Don't get too caught up in other people's issues, you'll burn yourself out.
@Azherae
I would go for D) With the exception of very few specific High Impact CCs with TTK length CoolDown or higher, those type of skills could be considered as something like "ultimate skills".
C) Would be a balancing nightmare:
Assuming the RNG setting, this would depend if the base chance for the CC to apply is 100% or not
(if the base chance for the CC to apply is 100%, max acquirable %chance to resist would need to be Equal to max% chance to apply for certainty of one of the %chances to be possible).
Otherwise in a setting were %chance could always be higher than %chance to resist,
%chance to resist would be meaningless to build and it would be a straight up failure in terms of not only balance, but also system design.
This certainty of one of the %chances would require an expensive price to be reached in an RNG setting for the sake of system integrity...
The %chance of both apply and resist would need a 100% cap for certainty to be reached and on top of that it would depend on how hard and what other stats you have to sacrifice in order to reach max %chance of one of them, so the source of those % should be the same and exclusive (you either get the resist stat or the chance to apply stat) in order for someone who reaches Max Resist be unable to reach Max chance to apply at the same time. As a compromise In an max resist vs max chance encounter to apply CC would require a 50/50.
To be honest, at that point, it would be better to just throw the RNG in CC out of the window under such unreasonable circunstances, rather than trying to balance something like that.
@Azherae - D, it goes back to what I’ve said consistently: a mitigable non-zero chance for any ability to miss.
Do you want this because you "want people to have the option to fail despite their efforts" because you think having that enhances the game, or do you want that out of principle?
D ) "There should always be a chance for that to fail."
Maybe CROW3 or James would give you a different answer, but I would bet on Dygz's answer being D, to the point where even if Dygz denies this, I won't believe the answer.
Yeah. In an RPG there should always be a chance to "roll a 1".
I'll leave it up to the devs to figure out the math of it for a video game.
"Enhance the game experience" is subjective and mostly depends on the genre of game.
Again, if we were talking MOBA or MMOFPS, I would not have an issue with no RNG for hard CCs.
Why do you think that walking forward 10 feet should have a chance to roll a 1 and fail? Why does that make the game better?
When you've played the game for 10000 hours and you've fallen on your face while walking forward a few hundred times, does this still increase immersion? Do you still want this to happen again?
Where I want to get to is that you believe that high-impact cc abilities need to have a %chance to miss because it makes the game better. Not because it's necessary for the genre. Not because RPGs need RNG. Not because everything should have a chance to fail.
Um. I keep telling you that it makes the game better if the game is an RPG.
I don't know why it's so difficult for you to comprehend that.
It's like you're saying, "Ball games are more fun when you can pick up the ball in your hands and run with it towards the goal."
I'm saying that should not be a thing in soccer. It's great for basketball and American football. I agree.
And you're saying, "But it's frustrating to not be able to do that. It makes me feel disappointed."
And, I'm saying, "OK, but don't expect soccer to change their rules about that."
And you're saying, "But, if the game has a ball, we should be able to hold it in our hands run with it because that is more fun."
And, I'm saying, "Sure, but if you change that rule in soccer, it becomes some other game that is similar to soccer but is not soccer."
I think there's a critical point of conversation causing people to be talking on different channels.
RPGs don't necessitate use of RNG.
Which is why people against RNG are ignoring the statements "RNG because RPG" - it doesn't make sense.
Which is why people for RNG keep repeating "RNG beacuse RPG" - because in their mind the two are inseperable.
I think it's an error to categorically lump RNG into RPG.
It's usually better practice to ask "why use RNG"? and on table-top games I can only think of 2 reasons:
to simulate chaos
to simplify complex systems
So the arguments are more like:
"We should use less RNG because computers can handle more complex systems these days"
vs
"We should use more RNG because there is a lot of chaos in combat that can't be systematized"
I wish I were deep and tragic
4
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If you were to ask 'Would you be okay with the idea that players who want certainty could always build to equal or slightly higher chance to ignore resistance, than the player could build resistance?'
I think maybe I should amend this because people should build to equal or slightly higher chance to ignore resistance than their player can build resistance. And especially when Level disparity is involved, we should probably expect that to reach 99.999%.
It just should not be a zero chance to fail.
It's exactly what Jeffrey said.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Why do you think that walking forward 10 feet should have a chance to roll a 1 and fail? Why does that make the game better?
When you've played the game for 10000 hours and you've fallen on your face while walking forward a few hundred times, does this still increase immersion? Do you still want this to happen again?
Sorry, I missed this question and it is a great one.
It actually reminds me of CROW3 with jumping.
In RPGs, you don't roll for mundane actions like walking or a low jump... like the standard jump we typically have in MMORPGs. You roll for challenges.
So, I would not expect walking to cause people to trip and fall. But, if it happened as often as I trip in real life, I would be fine with it.
And, if I didn't like tripping, I would max my Dex.
Truth be told, my preference would be for characters with very low Dex to trip fairly frequently while running.
Comments
Mildly off topic... Can you show me where it's written that what happens to Heroes during they Journey must be decided randomly? Like, did Tolkien roll some dice to figure out what would happen to Frodo, or did he choose? Or is that just a carry-over from table-top D&D rules?
I see you've switched from using "MMORPGs" to using "RPGs". Because, the "MMORPG" gameplay loop for ashes isn't going to be "building up a character as it gains experience". It's, for those of us that play 8+ hours a day, going to be efficiently powerleveling to 50, researching/optimizing our builds, practicing pvp, trying to contest world bosses, trying to hold efficient farm spots for resources, farming, node control, rare mount farming, BiS farming, etc. All the stuff that you normally find in MMO gameplay.
Node progression is the Node's journey not the Hero's Journey.
The Hero's Journey is about the progression of the Hero's prowess while gaining experience - which in Fantasy settings includes combat. And, typically, shit happens to the character along the way which causes them to learn how to better overcome adversity - like learning to resist Stuns if Stuns have been a significant challange.
Shit happens like giant Balrogs you cant defeat random ring wraith encounters etc. That's what node progression generated. Story opportunity for players journey progression.
'Butterfingers my sword into death.' Much less heroic than losing to Balrog. By your own definition nothing is ocercome because the rng never goes to zero. Shit will always happen. No progression is made. Dumb micro event that only serves to underscore how little agency you have even with growth. As opposed to macro event that you can get stronger in and prevail through hard work and improved skill.
I don't plan on arguing you as your mind is as changeable as a law of physics. I am more so pointing out that the heroes journey feeling has multiple ways of execution in an rpg setting. It's a difference in perceptions.
MMORPG is a subset of RPG.
Building up a character as it gains experience is an integral part of Ashes game design.
That is not the only form of progression, but for combat it certainly is.
"Efficiently powerleveling to 50, researching/optimizing our builds, practicing pvp, trying to contest world bosses."
You can do all of that as you build your character as it gains experience, sure. You can't effectively do any of that without building your character as it gains experience.
Here, what you seem to be saying is, "I want ignore the character building stuff and just focus on PvP tournament-style combat, just like I have in other MMORPGs."
But, Steven wants to put the RPG back into MMORPG.
So, he is going to design combat with RNG - even Active combat will have some RNG.
Steven is not going to design combat such that it's just like tournament battles.
RNG in RPGs help emulate the stages of the Hero's Journey below:
Challenges and Temptations
Abyss, Death/Rebirth, Revelation
Transformation
Gift of the Goddess
Rather than some kind of Mary-Sue progression where you are able to 100% prevent failures with "deterministic" stats. It's in there specifically to prevent min/maxers avoiding adversity by stacking their stats.
RNG means that, no matter what, sometimes shit will happen. You will still sometimes roll a one.
Which results in something like Delilah cutting Samson's hair or Balder being killed by mistletoe.
When arguing that all abilities need a non-zero, but mitigatable chance to miss:
I think the reflexive nature of this statement is worth noting. In the end, I'd bet we could find more that we agree on than we disagree on, as time will prove out.
Through experience you learn to build your character(s) to defeat that mob.
This sounds to me like you don't know what the Hero's Journey is.
I don't know what you mean by "nothing is overcome because the RNG never goes to zero".
Sometimes heroes lose agency. Especially in Fantasy stories that include gods participating in the affairs of mortals.
OK.
(I agree that Node progression contributes to the narrative of the world, sure)
Do you have an opinion on the claim that there will be content that only 1% of players may be able to defeat?
Or perhaps, content that can only be defeated if one is lucky?
Because your counterpoint didn't actually make sense to me. The Node generates the enemy, the player applies their skill to the enemy, 'Fate' determines whether they defeat the enemy or not, not build (that's what's being proposed as the scenario, I mean).
It definitely seems that you're ok with that, and your response would be 'to build the character to be more capable of defeating it'. Am I following?
Min maxers don't react like that. Min maxers just try again, because if the RNG was the main reason they lost, even multiple times, they just repeat it until the RNG favors them, just like getting a drop. It really doesn't prevent anything.
It sounds more like you are saying 'RNG is in the game to make min-maxers more capable of losing while they undertake things'.
Then again, I know from previous discussions with you, at least some of your underlying reasonings and feelings towards these things. It's not hard to tell when you're pushed close to them.
You keep saying this! Every time you say this, I say that we can have RNG in a broad sense without specifically making it so that high-impact CC's have a chance to fail and then it's like your brain short circuits and you go back to line 1.
We're not trying to 100% prevent failure or avoid adversity or circumvent the hero's journey. We're talking specifically about removing the chance that high impact crowd control abilities can fail. In the same way that we prefer for our character to not trip on pebbles as we walk because it's more fun.
And one of the reasons why it will only be 1% is because most players won't want to play hardcore enough to learn tactics to defeat the mob.
Even with the 1%, it's unlikely they will be able to 100% repeat defeat the mob because - Ashes will have RNG.
The Node progression spitting out a World Boss does not emulate sometimes shit happens to the Hero .
That's more like sometimes shit happens to the world.
Pretty sure I'm OK with that
I don't understand what is supposed to be prevented.
Hardcore players will try multiple times until they win. Yes.
RNG is in the game so that you are able to build your characters to better/max at some things and worse/min at others. And to help resolve contested challenges. Sometimes you might "roll a 20", sometimes you might "roll a 1".
That helps make the narrative be better than always winning once you've learned the meta.
haha! Exactly!
Because with regard to player twitch skills, it shouldn't be that a player with excellent twitch skills inherently over comes a character with a better build simply because that player has weaker twitch skills.
It's kind of like just because I as a player can spot a secret door, that does not mean my character should be able to Spot that secret door. Even an expert player with max Dex should have some chance of sometimes rolling a 1 and failing to unlock an equal level lock. And should probably also have some chance of failing with locks several levels below.
Yes. There are some gamers who think even with MMORPGs, they should be able to consistently "beat the game". But, RPGs are not supposed to be 100% beaten due to player prowess.
RPGs have RNG because characters should sometimes fail. And also should sometimes have great success.
Especially in a Fantasy Setting where Fate and gods are real.
Because life is not 100% guaranteed and sometimes things unexpectedly fail.
This is especially true when you have people actively learning how to get things that challenge them to fail.
Especially in a Fantasy setting that has Fate and a pantheon of gods - including a God of Fate.
I already told you that fun is subjective.
"Chess is fun and it doesn't have dice, so backgammon should not have dice either."
Your words were:
RNG in RPGs help emulate the stages of the Hero's Journey below:
Challenges and Temptations
Abyss, Death/Rebirth, Revelation
Transformation
Gift of the Goddess
Rather than some kind of Mary-Sue progression where you are able to 100% prevent failures with "deterministic" stats. It's in there specifically to prevent min/maxers avoiding adversity by stacking their stats.
I absolutely don't want to unfairly misattribute anything that might come up because of the way you worded something. I'm not looking for some 'gotcha' moment that comes up as a result of the order of someone's sentences. But people tell you what they believe, and as I mentioned. Verify.
So, is it unfair of me to condense out the middle of some of that quote?
RNG in RPGs is in there specifically to prevent min/maxers avoiding adversity by stacking their stats.
Because, what I'm saying is, if somehow you were 'in a position to speak for Steven' or for Intrepid, and this was a statement you made about the design principle of Ashes, then there would be a clearer perspective about how to view the game and what to expect from it.
Right now, there are obviously 'people expecting that a game where you stand to have competitive style interactions resulting in loss', that this would not be a 'design goal'. I make no argument as to how right those people are. I just want to unequivocally verify that this is a thing that you would choose to have as a design goal, and a thing that you indirectly attribute to Steven's design goals by extension.
Why should there be a chance that a high impact crowd control fails? What does life being not 100% guaranteed have to do with making high impact crowd control? We're making a MMORPG, not simulating real life. Chess is supposed to represent a war, right? Yet the pieces don't lose morale or have a %chance to trip. This is okay because it's a game and the game is allowed to be designed in whatever way the designer sees fit.
Exactly.
I'm going to flip this a little bit from what was a bit more abstract to fit better with character builds v player twitch skills. That quote didn't properly factor in the scenario of players wanting to use twitch skills to Stun an opposing character.
I was thinking about the other debate where it was said that Stuns should not be a thing.
In an RPG, I should be able to create a character that has more Dex than I have as a player. Especially if I have average player twitch skills.
Character skills are supposed to be different than player skills.
If I have average "Spot" as a player, I should be able to build a character that has a higher Spot than what I have.
Ideally, in an RPG, if there is a puzzle that has to be solved to open a door, I should be able to build a character with a high Intelligence who can solve that puzzle more easily than my mediocre player intelligence.
So... if I build a character with max Dex and Max Evasion, that character should still have some chance of evading a hit by a character with mediocre Dex run by a player with high twitch skills.
Because the whole point of an RPG is that I can build a character with maxed Dex and Evasion that excels at evasion. So it's not really fair to inherently lose that "contest" with a character who has average Dex just because the player has above average twitch skills.
What Ashes is does is, for Action Combat greatly reduce the RNG...it's just not going to be zero.
So, it's not really going to be a loss.
If our characters have equal Dex and I get hit by the Stun, I expect to not Evade 99% of the time.
If my character has a high Dex and high Evasion and your character has a mediocre Dex, I expect RNG to mitigate that hit to some degree such that my Evasion kicks in more often. And I will let the devs decide how much more often.
But...this is why Jeffrey says that Ashes combat will always have some RNG.
"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
Because the whole point of RPGs is that I can build a character with more Charisma than I, as a player, have.
Or I can build a character with better eyesight than I, as a player, have.
Or that I can build a character with higher Dex than I, as a player, have.
But, even, if I max my Dex and Evasion...there should always be a chance for me to roll a 1 and fail... at whatever.
In competition - you can prep and prep and prep and and think you've executed just the right moves...and shit happens and you fail.
Again, especially in a Fantasy setting where Fate and gods are real.
(Similar if we're talking high Constitution and high Physical Disable Defense)
Okay. Let's use a super-specific example so that I can really make you commit. Why do you think that walking forward 10 feet should have a chance to roll a 1 and fail? Why does that make the game better?
When you've played the game for 10000 hours and you've fallen on your face while walking forward a few hundred times, does this still increase immersion? Do you still want this to happen again?
That is completely a misunderstanding on my part then. I thought that Sieges and Node wars were intended to be competitive style interactions due to their stakes. I thought I heard it said by either Steven or Jeffrey that this was intended to be a competitive PvP game.
This probably led me to the erroneous belief that one would attempt to remove any unnecessary influences with wide variance.
By design, RNG on certain skill types has the potential to result in 'wide variance', and I hadn't seen any indication that Ashes was intending to not have those skill types. (let's treat 'wide variance' as 'either you got pulled in by Javelin and deleted from a GvG scenario or you did not).
None of that has anything to do with twitch skills at the moment. Your opponent tabs to you, presses the Javelin ability, and a value for your resistance is factored.
Let's say you have the aforementioned 5% resistance, in this case, to Javelin.
1d20: 20 You happen to resist it, the opposing team cannot execute their strategy and are routed. To some people, it does not matter if this is 1d20 or 1d100 (they might be much more upset if it is 1d100).
I didn't intend to derail this so much, so the rest of the post, which is mostly repetition of stances you hold that I already understand, is not really worth our consideration.
Your character has more 'ability to resist a Javelin pulling them closer' some percentage of the time than you do IRL. So it is. It is in fact part of your build. You made a choice to build for it. Your character-building skill thwarted your opponent's plan.
I really just wanted to make absolutely sure that the idea behind what you were saying was 'I believe that RNG exists to thwart the plans of players who would otherwise build their plans around certainty and min-max', and to verify that your concept of 'how much of this is acceptable' is 'whatever forces them to accept adversity'.
FPS and fighters don't need RNG because there is more focus on the combat and considerably less focus on the narrative...especially less focus on the Hero's Journey.
You act like all game genres should have the same rulesets - or that any video game that includes Action Combat should have the exact same rules and be designed for tournaments and e-sports.
If Ashes were a MOBA or an MMOFPS, I would not have an issue with no RNG.
I feel like we’ve repeated this ad nauseam for like 6 pages now. 😆
Sure, so if we can maintain the binary property that the game has RNG, and even the binary property that the combat has RNG, can we specifically get rid of RNG for high-impact crowd control abilities?
Where I want to get to is that you believe that high-impact cc abilities need to have a %chance to miss because it makes the game better. Not because it's necessary for the genre. Not because RPGs need RNG. Not because everything should have a chance to fail.
----
Why do you think that walking forward 10 feet should have a chance to roll a 1 and fail? Why does that make the game better?
When you've played the game for 10000 hours and you've fallen on your face while walking forward a few hundred times, does this still increase immersion? Do you still want this to happen again?
This is basically what I think. I don't want to reality simulator, because I don't want a strike to break one of my character's bones and not being able to play my character 3 to 12 months because he's in bed recovering. Sure, this would be more immersive, and there are valid arguments saying that a percentage chance to fracture a bone upon a hit is more immersive or old-school rpg like, but it's also anti-fun.
You're possibly misunderstanding something about the person you're trying to talk to.
Dygz moreso 'wants people to have the option to fail despite their efforts', than to specifically enhance the game experience.
That was what I was verifying.
Consider this. If Dygz builds a 5% chance to resist Javelin, and you build a 10% chance to ignore other people's resistances, this would result in a 100% chance of Javelin working again. This would be 'no twitch skills, build skills only'.
If you were to ask 'Would you be okay with the idea that players who want certainty could always build to equal or slightly higher chance to ignore resistance, than the player could build resistance?'
What do you figure the answer will be?
A ) Yes that's fine, as long as builds matter.
B ) There should always be a chance to build higher resistance than Ignore Resistance
C ) The key is that the build options should involve tradeoffs
D ) "There should always be a chance for that to fail."
Maybe CROW3 or James would give you a different answer, but I would bet on Dygz's answer being D, to the point where even if Dygz denies this, I won't believe the answer.
My point is that you are trying to reach a point with someone who has some other 'motives' for the things they are suggesting.
Don't get too caught up in other people's issues, you'll burn yourself out.
I would go for D) With the exception of very few specific High Impact CCs with TTK length CoolDown or higher, those type of skills could be considered as something like "ultimate skills".
C) Would be a balancing nightmare:
Assuming the RNG setting, this would depend if the base chance for the CC to apply is 100% or not
(if the base chance for the CC to apply is 100%, max acquirable %chance to resist would need to be Equal to max% chance to apply for certainty of one of the %chances to be possible).
Otherwise in a setting were %chance could always be higher than %chance to resist,
%chance to resist would be meaningless to build and it would be a straight up failure in terms of not only balance, but also system design.
This certainty of one of the %chances would require an expensive price to be reached in an RNG setting for the sake of system integrity...
The %chance of both apply and resist would need a 100% cap for certainty to be reached and on top of that it would depend on how hard and what other stats you have to sacrifice in order to reach max %chance of one of them, so the source of those % should be the same and exclusive (you either get the resist stat or the chance to apply stat) in order for someone who reaches Max Resist be unable to reach Max chance to apply at the same time. As a compromise In an max resist vs max chance encounter to apply CC would require a 50/50.
To be honest, at that point, it would be better to just throw the RNG in CC out of the window under such unreasonable circunstances, rather than trying to balance something like that.
Aren't we all sinners?
Do you want this because you "want people to have the option to fail despite their efforts" because you think having that enhances the game, or do you want that out of principle?
I'll leave it up to the devs to figure out the math of it for a video game.
"Enhance the game experience" is subjective and mostly depends on the genre of game.
Again, if we were talking MOBA or MMOFPS, I would not have an issue with no RNG for hard CCs.
Why do you think that walking forward 10 feet should have a chance to roll a 1 and fail? Why does that make the game better?
When you've played the game for 10000 hours and you've fallen on your face while walking forward a few hundred times, does this still increase immersion? Do you still want this to happen again?
I don't know why it's so difficult for you to comprehend that.
It's like you're saying, "Ball games are more fun when you can pick up the ball in your hands and run with it towards the goal."
I'm saying that should not be a thing in soccer. It's great for basketball and American football. I agree.
And you're saying, "But it's frustrating to not be able to do that. It makes me feel disappointed."
And, I'm saying, "OK, but don't expect soccer to change their rules about that."
And you're saying, "But, if the game has a ball, we should be able to hold it in our hands run with it because that is more fun."
And, I'm saying, "Sure, but if you change that rule in soccer, it becomes some other game that is similar to soccer but is not soccer."
RPGs don't necessitate use of RNG.
Which is why people against RNG are ignoring the statements "RNG because RPG" - it doesn't make sense.
Which is why people for RNG keep repeating "RNG beacuse RPG" - because in their mind the two are inseperable.
I think it's an error to categorically lump RNG into RPG.
It's usually better practice to ask "why use RNG"? and on table-top games I can only think of 2 reasons:
So the arguments are more like:
"We should use less RNG because computers can handle more complex systems these days"
vs
"We should use more RNG because there is a lot of chaos in combat that can't be systematized"
It just should not be a zero chance to fail.
It's exactly what Jeffrey said.
It actually reminds me of CROW3 with jumping.
In RPGs, you don't roll for mundane actions like walking or a low jump... like the standard jump we typically have in MMORPGs. You roll for challenges.
So, I would not expect walking to cause people to trip and fall. But, if it happened as often as I trip in real life, I would be fine with it.
And, if I didn't like tripping, I would max my Dex.
Truth be told, my preference would be for characters with very low Dex to trip fairly frequently while running.