And, if I didn't like tripping, I would max my Dex.
Just so we're clear here, you're saying that you think that characters should have a non-zero chance to trip as they're casually running from place to place in the world, and that this, in your view, would make the game better.
And further, that characters who choose to play low dex builds (like casters or something) should be subjected to more random tripping.
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.
You keep telling me that RPGs must have RNG. It's not clear to me that RNG must apply to all things. I also haven't seen a time where you explicitly have mentioned that this makes the game better, only that it's dogmatically necessary, but feel free to correct me here.
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."
Holy moly. Is there anything else you would like to add to this strawman before submitting it for judging at the faire?
Truth be told, my preference would be for characters with very low Dex to trip fairly frequently while running.
That would be a cool debuff effect from say a boss blow to the head, or a seriously distilled drink. Or cursed items you couldn’t take off until cleansed by a paladin.
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?
Yes. Though, I feel like you’re asking me if I think salt is salty out of principle.
"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"
These may not be in conflict. Computers can handle more complex systems AND still be unable to discretely represent the chaos of combat. That’s why having some very small chance to fail is always part of the equation.
I also think this is a fundamental element of role-playing in a fantasy world.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2021
Well, for one thing, you moved the bar from walking to running.
You asked me why characters should have a chance to roll a 1 while walking.
I said that typically in RPGs there is no RNG for mundane actions like walking.
But, if there were a non-zero chance to trip and fall while walking and I didn't like tripping so much, I would max my Dex to minimize that occurrence.
And, yes, my preference would be for characters with very low stats to have flaws rather than only gaining perks for high stats.
I don't think I stated that RNG must apply to all things. That is you, again, being binary and absolutist.
Also haven't seen a time where you explicitly have mentioned that this makes the game better, only that it's dogmatically necessary, bu feel free to correct me here.
That would be a cool debuff effect from say a boss blow to the head, or a seriously distilled drink. Or cursed items you couldn’t take off until cleansed by a paladin.
I also think that it would be a flavorful boss mechanic or alcohol effect / debuff etc. Do you think it would be an acceptable, permanent gameplay feature?
Yes - I feel like you’re asking me if I think salt is salty out of principle. Not everything has to be neat, discrete, classified, accounted for and determined. Some things are just beyond your ability to train beyond.
I'm not really sure what the neat, discrete, classified bit is about. I'm asking what the point of the "everything must have a chance to fail" axiom is. Does that serve a higher purpose of "this makes the game better", or is that a design goal in-and-of-itself, even if it makes the game worse?
You asked me why characters should have a chance to roll a 1 while walking.
I said that typically in RPGs there is no RNG for mundane actions like walking.
But, if there were a non-zero chance to trip and fall while walking and I didn't like tripping so much, I would max my Dex to minimize that occurrence.
Do you, or do you not believe that the game would be better if there was a non-zero chance that a character should trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking or running?
of course! so whenever I ask "do you believe the game would be better" or "the game would be worse", I'm talking about your subjective opinion and however you choose to define that in good faith
If you can't understand what I've already written, I am not going to hold your hand.
Did I use the word shouldn't?
Do you, or do you not believe that the game would be better if there was a non-zero chance that a character should trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking or running?
I ask because you haven't actually expressed a preference. You've said that if it existed, you would be fine with it. You said that if it were there, you would build high dex to mitigate it. You said that tripping when you move normally isn't a typical mechanic in RPGs. You haven't said explicitly if you think it would make the game better or worse in your opinion, as far as I can tell.
Do you, or do you not believe that the game would be better if there was a non-zero chance that a character should trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking or running?
Super easy question to answer. You can just type "I think it would be worse." or "I think it would be better" or "I'm not sure"
I also think that it would be a flavorful boss mechanic or alcohol effect / debuff etc. Do you think it would be an acceptable, permanent gameplay feature?
I thought we walked this path already. Maybe you rolled a 1 at some point?
I'm not really sure what the neat, discrete, classified bit is about. I'm asking what the point of the "everything must have a chance to fail" axiom is. Does that serve a higher purpose of "this makes the game better", or is that a design goal in-and-of-itself, even if it makes the game worse?
I don't know what 'serving a higher purpose' means from your perspective. Better and worse are interesting descriptors. I thought @Dygz analogy was apt. Does dribbling a soccer ball with your feet serve a higher purpose, is that a better or worse gameplay experience? It's part of the game. If you want to play basketball, great. But are you going to insist that dribbling the ball with your hands is just not fun?
I thought we walked this path already. Maybe you rolled a 1 at some point
I thought so too. I thought last time we walked this path we agreed that we probably should avoid rolling for movement because it makes the game worse. That there are some things, like movement and jumping, that need to be in the deterministic column. Did that change?
I don't know what 'serving a higher purpose' means from your perspective. Better and worse are interesting descriptors. I thought @Dygz analogy was apt. Does dribbling a soccer ball with your feet serve a higher purpose, is that a better or worse gameplay experience? It's part of the game. If you want to play basketball, great. But are you going to insist that dribbling the ball with your hands is just not fun?
Sure - I'll bite. When we set out to play soccer, the no-hands rule is a genre-setting constraint. It's there in-and-of-itself, not because it makes the game more fun. It would be ridiculous to try to change the rules of soccer because you happen to prefer using your hands rather than having to use your feet, as now you'd have a different game, not soccer.
Are we saying then, that in this analogy having CC's having a %chance to fail in MMO's is like the no-hands rule in soccer, and that changing that specific thing would be like playing a different game? That's ridiculous! World of Warcraft has no %chance to fail CCs! Guild Wars 2 has no %chance to fail CCs!
I don't even know where to start unpacking, but for starters, that's wow classic and not retail.
You may have noticed that early on in this thread I talked about how WoW originally had stun resistance and moved eventually to -%duration. WoW classic is a reboot of the early days.
In the meantime,
Do you, or do you not believe that the game would be better if there was a non-zero chance that a character should trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking or running?
So, here's where I think we are. Dygz is fully backed into a corner.
If they say that they think the game would be worse if characters can trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking and running, the house of cards crumples. They would be admitting that not everything needs to be governed by RNG, and that we should probably make things governed by RNG if it makes the game more fun, which falling randomly definitely would not do. They know that I would be able to go on and say "well then, since not everything has to be governed by RNG, how come high-impact CC's have to be governed by RNG", and they presumably don't have a great answer for that. So saying that "I think tripping would be bad for the game" is off the table.
If they say that the game would be better if characters can trip and full under normal circumstances while walking and running, then there's serious social danger. Now, they've committed to that stance. They're potentially that person on the forums that advocates for people tripping. Maybe they'll be in some cooking thread 5 months from now and some person will be like "wait, aren't you the person that thinks we should be tripping as we walk everywhere? why am I even debating this with you?". So that's off the table too.
They tried extremely hard to dodge. They said that if it existed, they would be fine with it. They said that if it were there, they would build high dex to mitigate it. They said that tripping when you move normally isn't a typical mechanic in RPGs. They haven't said explicitly if they think it would make the game better or worse in your opinion, as far as I can tell.
Since they're stuck, they're doing this "If you can't understand what I've already written, I am not going to hold your hand." "I said what I said." nonsense.
They're trying to distract with dredged up uninformed wow classic forum posts.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2021
LMFAO
You are the one obsessed with better and worse.
You are trying to force your obsession (and poor logic) on me.
I shared my perspective. You either don't like it or don't understand it, so you want me to adopt your world view.
That's not going to work.
I agree with Jeffrey: 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
Do you, or do you not believe that the game would be better if there was a non-zero chance that a character should trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking or running?
Yes. It also happens that none of the things you said were a direct answer to the question "Do you, or do you not believe that the game would be better if there was a non-zero chance that a character should trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking or running?"
Feel free to say "I refuse to answer", and I'll stop asking.
Yes. It also happens that none of the things you said were a direct answer to the question "Do you, or do you not believe that the game would be better if there was a non-zero chance that a character should trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking or running?"
Feel free to say "I refuse to answer", and I'll stop asking.
In my opinion, the answer to this is no.
However, all players should have a non-zero chance of not tripping if another player or mob uses an ability on them that has a trip component to it. This is where RNG comes in.
In a fighting game - or basically any game where the idea is to equally match players up - RNG is bad. The idea in such games is to pit player vs player, with as little to separate them as is possible.
However, that isn't the goal of an MMO outside of convoluted situations such as arenas.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
However, all players should have a non-zero chance of not tripping if another player or mob uses an ability on them that has a trip component to it. This is where RNG comes in.
Yeah, totally fine with abilities that cause debuffs that give RNG chances to trip or w/e.
However, all players should have a non-zero chance of not tripping if another player or mob uses an ability on them that has a trip component to it. This is where RNG comes in.
Yeah, totally fine with abilities that cause debuffs that give RNG chances to trip or w/e.
As long as both the caster and the target have the ability to modify that RNG chance through stats.
Comments
And further, that characters who choose to play low dex builds (like casters or something) should be subjected to more random tripping.
You keep telling me that RPGs must have RNG. It's not clear to me that RNG must apply to all things. I also haven't seen a time where you explicitly have mentioned that this makes the game better, only that it's dogmatically necessary, but feel free to correct me here.
Holy moly. Is there anything else you would like to add to this strawman before submitting it for judging at the faire?
That would be a cool debuff effect from say a boss blow to the head, or a seriously distilled drink. Or cursed items you couldn’t take off until cleansed by a paladin.
Yes. Though, I feel like you’re asking me if I think salt is salty out of principle.
These may not be in conflict. Computers can handle more complex systems AND still be unable to discretely represent the chaos of combat. That’s why having some very small chance to fail is always part of the equation.
I also think this is a fundamental element of role-playing in a fantasy world.
You asked me why characters should have a chance to roll a 1 while walking.
I said that typically in RPGs there is no RNG for mundane actions like walking.
But, if there were a non-zero chance to trip and fall while walking and I didn't like tripping so much, I would max my Dex to minimize that occurrence.
And, yes, my preference would be for characters with very low stats to have flaws rather than only gaining perks for high stats.
I don't think I stated that RNG must apply to all things. That is you, again, being binary and absolutist.
Easy enough for you to try a word search.
I'm not really sure what the neat, discrete, classified bit is about. I'm asking what the point of the "everything must have a chance to fail" axiom is. Does that serve a higher purpose of "this makes the game better", or is that a design goal in-and-of-itself, even if it makes the game worse?
ayyyyyyyyyyy we're getting somewhere. Are you saying that running around or jumping is one of those things that RNG shouldn't apply to?
Did I use the word shouldn't?
of course! so whenever I ask "do you believe the game would be better" or "the game would be worse", I'm talking about your subjective opinion and however you choose to define that in good faith
Do you, or do you not believe that the game would be better if there was a non-zero chance that a character should trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking or running?
I ask because you haven't actually expressed a preference. You've said that if it existed, you would be fine with it. You said that if it were there, you would build high dex to mitigate it. You said that tripping when you move normally isn't a typical mechanic in RPGs. You haven't said explicitly if you think it would make the game better or worse in your opinion, as far as I can tell.
Super easy question to answer. You can just type "I think it would be worse." or "I think it would be better" or "I'm not sure"
I thought we walked this path already. Maybe you rolled a 1 at some point?
I don't know what 'serving a higher purpose' means from your perspective. Better and worse are interesting descriptors. I thought @Dygz analogy was apt. Does dribbling a soccer ball with your feet serve a higher purpose, is that a better or worse gameplay experience? It's part of the game. If you want to play basketball, great. But are you going to insist that dribbling the ball with your hands is just not fun?
Sure - I'll bite. When we set out to play soccer, the no-hands rule is a genre-setting constraint. It's there in-and-of-itself, not because it makes the game more fun. It would be ridiculous to try to change the rules of soccer because you happen to prefer using your hands rather than having to use your feet, as now you'd have a different game, not soccer.
Are we saying then, that in this analogy having CC's having a %chance to fail in MMO's is like the no-hands rule in soccer, and that changing that specific thing would be like playing a different game? That's ridiculous! World of Warcraft has no %chance to fail CCs! Guild Wars 2 has no %chance to fail CCs!
Very first thing I found for WoW Stun Resist
You may have noticed that early on in this thread I talked about how WoW originally had stun resistance and moved eventually to -%duration. WoW classic is a reboot of the early days.
In the meantime,
Do you, or do you not believe that the game would be better if there was a non-zero chance that a character should trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking or running?
Remember that Steven says he wants bring the RPG back to MMORPG - like the old days.
So, here's where I think we are. Dygz is fully backed into a corner.
If they say that they think the game would be worse if characters can trip and fall under normal circumstances while walking and running, the house of cards crumples. They would be admitting that not everything needs to be governed by RNG, and that we should probably make things governed by RNG if it makes the game more fun, which falling randomly definitely would not do. They know that I would be able to go on and say "well then, since not everything has to be governed by RNG, how come high-impact CC's have to be governed by RNG", and they presumably don't have a great answer for that. So saying that "I think tripping would be bad for the game" is off the table.
If they say that the game would be better if characters can trip and full under normal circumstances while walking and running, then there's serious social danger. Now, they've committed to that stance. They're potentially that person on the forums that advocates for people tripping. Maybe they'll be in some cooking thread 5 months from now and some person will be like "wait, aren't you the person that thinks we should be tripping as we walk everywhere? why am I even debating this with you?". So that's off the table too.
They tried extremely hard to dodge. They said that if it existed, they would be fine with it. They said that if it were there, they would build high dex to mitigate it. They said that tripping when you move normally isn't a typical mechanic in RPGs. They haven't said explicitly if they think it would make the game better or worse in your opinion, as far as I can tell.
Since they're stuck, they're doing this "If you can't understand what I've already written, I am not going to hold your hand." "I said what I said." nonsense.
They're trying to distract with dredged up uninformed wow classic forum posts.
You are the one obsessed with better and worse.
You are trying to force your obsession (and poor logic) on me.
I shared my perspective. You either don't like it or don't understand it, so you want me to adopt your world view.
That's not going to work.
I agree with Jeffrey:
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
Feel free to say "I refuse to answer", and I'll stop asking.
In my opinion, the answer to this is no.
However, all players should have a non-zero chance of not tripping if another player or mob uses an ability on them that has a trip component to it. This is where RNG comes in.
In a fighting game - or basically any game where the idea is to equally match players up - RNG is bad. The idea in such games is to pit player vs player, with as little to separate them as is possible.
However, that isn't the goal of an MMO outside of convoluted situations such as arenas.
He also said he want's Ashes to have raid content that will compete with WoW.
Don't listen to what he says, he just panders to whom ever he is talking to.
Yeah, totally fine with abilities that cause debuffs that give RNG chances to trip or w/e.
As long as both the caster and the target have the ability to modify that RNG chance through stats.