On the flipside, if Intrepid was making an MMOFPS like Planetside 2, I would be against RNG elements in combat.
100% agreed.
This is something I am unsure of those with a background in more action oriented games really understand.
An RPG isnt necessarily supposed to be your skill at aiming vs your opponents skill at dodging or blocking, it is supposed to be your characters skill at aiming vs your opponents characters skill at dodging or blocking.
That isnt to say player skill isnt a thing, it's just that in tab target games player skill is more mental than physical - never more true than at the top end.
In one guild I was in years ago, someone passed around a MENSA test they had, and most of the guild had a go at it. For fun, one of the officers listed the results, and the list was basically identical to the existing list the guild had in terms of who we considered the best players.
I dont really have a point to make with this anecdote, I just found it interesting at the time (and still find it interesting now).
Edit to add; I forgot to explain why RNG is needed when the paradigm is character vs character as opposed to player vs player.
Without RNG, either every attack will hit, or every attack will miss. You can't have a 90% chance to hit without some form of RNG to designate that 10%. The idea of having literally every 10th hit miss would mean that players would just ensure every 10th hit is a small attack.
Without this RNG, a game that is character vs character as opposed to player vs player is over before it even starts.
Most action oriented players just don't stick to action only because they prefer it, they play tab at the highest levels as well.
The concept of a role isn't as archaic and myopic as it once was, as action combat and FPS both have roles and those roles are not diminished as a player needs to be strong in their role in order for their team to succeed.
At a core level, Output RNG simulates dice rolls. If all these games weren't based on DnD and had some other inspiration, output RNG probably wouldn't exist. I do love input RNG but output RNG is a cancer. There's a reason you don't see RNG in Esports environments and when an Esports World Cup was won due to an RNG Miss there was uproar.
At a core level, Output RNG simulates dice rolls. If all these games weren't based on DnD and had some other inspiration, output RNG probably wouldn't exist. I do love input RNG but output RNG is a cancer. There's a reason you don't see RNG in Esports environments and when an Esports World Cup was won due to an RNG Miss there was uproar.
Neurath, you keep saying I'm trying to make the game something it isn't, but the game clearly DOSE have miss chance and RNG in it already which your saying needs to be removed, while I'm just saying that distance for ranged attacks needs to be an input to calculating these miss chances. You're the one asking for the more radical change as you want total removal of a mechanic, now I don't have anything inherently against radical ideas (particularly when the game is in alpha that's the time for them) but your characterization of our respective radicalness is backwards.
And your justification is that you feel AoC should be or at least be as close as possible too an e-sports game even though this is nowhere in the game's goals, and frankly I do not think an MMORPG game could EVER be an effect e-sport game. Again, your desire is the one less in line with the games vision, simply because the game has PvP as a prominent goal does not mean it aspires to be counterstrike.
You need to read the wiki. The devs said arena will be esports if the demand is high after launch and Steven said there will only be rng in enchantment overcharge. Other than that, the devs said there might be input rng due to the seasons.
You only need to look the prior page where Character Stats are shown to see that your mistaken on the presence of RNG, so whatever dev quote your referencing is either a misinterpretation or out of date. Your entitled to your opinions, but not to mis characterize the current state of development.
The best way to check whether there is output rng in Ashes is to hit lvl1 mobs as a much higher lvl character. If you ever miss - there's either output rng or the scaling of stat comparisons is quite mean to the attacker. If your 100acc can miss against 1ev, then I'd assume that you'd be missing quite a bit against any characters that are near your accuracy stats.
You need to read the wiki. The devs said arena will be esports if the demand is high after launch and Steven said there will only be rng in enchantment overcharge. Other than that, the devs said there might be input rng due to the seasons.
Yeah, but the first comment was said in a "don't be stupid, MMO's aren't e-sport games" kind of way.
The comment about enchanting was that there wouldn't be any RNG *in crafting* other than enchanting.
In terms of combat, this is probably worth reading
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.
Now, that is from Jeff rather than Steven, but still.
I find it somewhat interesting how this mirrors my comment at the top of this page about how tab target combat is more about tactics and strategy, while action combat is more about player skill (reflex and such). Neither one completely eliminates the need for the other skill type, it's just that each combat type has a predilection towards one or the other.
Yes, I understand your position. But you can't build a hybrid system based on one half of the hybrid. If there is rng output on tab skills, then I would gravitate to action skills. I think resists and immunities are enough. We don't need output miss.
You have the combat tracker. I've seen only one instance where a skill hasn't landed in the dev streams (sleep) other than that I couldn't tell if it was a resist or an rng miss.
You seem to have fatally misunderstood the concept of input/output RNG if you think a player stat called 'accuracy %' is input Randomness. The clear meaning of that stat is that when a player makes an attack there will be a dice roll and a certain portion of the time there will be a miss, it may be that the target has another stat and that two opposing rolls occur or percentages are subtracted, like your accuracy is subtracted from their dodge %. But in the end, this is all standard RPG hit chance math that dates back to 1st edition D&D and is THE classic definition of output randomness because it occurs AFTER the players action choice and determines the outcome of the attack. An example of input randomness would be how many goblins are in a room after you enter it, the player is presented the option to flee or fight the goblins, aka the input the encounter was random and then the player makes a choice of how to deal with it. The first page video explains it all perfectly.
Input rng changes the fundamental iteration of an outcome based on predetermined parameters. It can be environment or it can be inherent. You've described the output rng system when you went to dice roll after the input calculations.
There are reasons you can skip the output rng and just have input rng. You can affect input rng with a build but output rng is a constant randomness which cannot be accounted for. It literally takes player agency away.
Yes, I understand your position. But you can't build a hybrid system based on one half of the hybrid. If there is rng output on tab skills, then I would gravitate to action skills. I think resists and immunities are enough. We don't need output miss.
You have the combat tracker. I've seen only one instance where a skill hasn't landed in the dev streams (sleep) other than that I couldn't tell if it was a resist or an rng miss.
To be clear, based on your description of input RNG vs output RNG (not a definition I've heard before), I actually do agree that output RNG is bad.
I've always been of the opinion that any action in combat should have it's outcome determined equally by both parties. This is what I've talked about on these forums previously as opposed RNG. Any time RNG is involved, it should be my appropriate stat vs your appropriate stat, with an RNG roll.
Basically, both involved parties should have the ability to influence the outcome of RNG via gear and buffs as appropriate.
The above post was simply clearing up what Intrepid have said on RNG, and making sure people know it will be (by necessity) a part of combat.
It increases the skill ceiling for players to adapt to a series of bad luck RNG and still overcome the odds.
Nope. It decreases the skill ceiling because players are no more able to control the outcome of their actions. It rather increases the skill floor for no-brain-all-keys-smash-pray-for-rng players.
Input rng changes the fundamental iteration of an outcome based on predetermined parameters. It can be environment or it can be inherent. You've described the output rng system when you went to dice roll after the input calculations.
There are reasons you can skip the output rng and just have input rng. You can affect input rng with a build but output rng is a constant randomness which cannot be accounted for. It literally takes player agency away.
Yes, you have FATALLY misunderstood the input/output randomness distinction. Please go watch the video, repeatedly if necessary.
Input Randomness is random RESULTS that are presented to the player prior to choices, like the random map generation in a rogue-like. Output randomness is the random success of player actions after the choice to act has been made. It does not matter if a player is told what their probability of success is, or if their ability to make character build/gear choices will alter that probability. Nearly every RPG ever made has done both those things (I need to roll a 17 or higher to hit because of my +3 sword) and AoC seems no different, but that is still definitionally output randomness.
Yes, you have FATALLY misunderstood the input/output randomness distinction. Please go watch the video, repeatedly if necessary.
Input Randomness is random RESULTS that are presented to the player prior to choices, like the random map generation in a rogue-like. Output randomness is the random success of player actions after the choice to act has been made. It does not matter if a player is told what their probability of success is, or if their ability to make character build/gear choices will alter that probability. Nearly every RPG ever made has done both those things (I need to roll a 17 or higher to hit because of my +3 sword) and AoC seems no different, but that is still definitionally output randomness.
Ok, great. This is all semantics that we should not give a shit about at this current moment.
Do you agree with Neura's point or do you want literally any and all points of rng in combat gone?
Nope. It decreases the skill ceiling because players are no more able to control the outcome of their actions. It rather increases the skill floor for no-brain-all-keys-smash-pray-for-rng players.
You simple don't consider "Adapting to the possibilities/outcomes of RNG" or
"Playing around the hand you are dealt with" a skill, without recognizing that your concept of skill is just limited.
Input rng changes the fundamental iteration of an outcome based on predetermined parameters. It can be environment or it can be inherent. You've described the output rng system when you went to dice roll after the input calculations.
There are reasons you can skip the output rng and just have input rng. You can affect input rng with a build but output rng is a constant randomness which cannot be accounted for. It literally takes player agency away.
Yes, you have FATALLY misunderstood the input/output randomness distinction. Please go watch the video, repeatedly if necessary.
Input Randomness is random RESULTS that are presented to the player prior to choices, like the random map generation in a rogue-like. Output randomness is the random success of player actions after the choice to act has been made. It does not matter if a player is told what their probability of success is, or if their ability to make character build/gear choices will alter that probability. Nearly every RPG ever made has done both those things (I need to roll a 17 or higher to hit because of my +3 sword) and AoC seems no different, but that is still definitionally output randomness.
The results of input rng aren't so random. You should know that if you have a higher stat than another then you will be much more successful if you've ever faced an Evasion Build and you couldn't touch them at first. In fact, the debate rages on because Evasion Builds want the randomness of RNG whilst those who oppose them want the certainty of build mechanics. Input RNG can literally make an evasion build obsolete, and Output RNG can make an Accuracy build obsolete.
The literal dichotomy of accuracy verses evasion is input rng at it finest. Output RNG is not related to accuracy or evasion, its literally just an extra calculation which determines whether an attack is successful or not. I explained you have some games with 100% accuracy but you still miss due to Output RNG. You seem to either not read my input or you have random output. The input RNG has already determined the effectiveness of the attack yet output rng does the same thing again with a randomised outcome.
You simple don't consider "Adapting to the possibilities/outcomes of RNG" or
"Playing around the hand you are dealt with" a skill, without recognizing that your concept of skill is just limited.
It is a skill. To some extent. Very limited. For me it is less interesting and way less valuable. I like to play vs other player's clear actions without any unnecessary additions. I don't like to play vs bunch of random() returns.
RNG devalues player actions. RNG forces player to act statistically: "Idc if I lost now. I can bother that dude 10 more times by clicking my RNG debuff buttons and pray for crits and eventually win anyway haha". I think it is just a disgusting combat design. That player should be annihilated 10/10 and forced to teamup with friends / git gud by remebering CDs and manage resources more effectively / get better gear / find less contested place / etc.
Ok, great. This is all semantics that we should not give a shit about at this current moment.
Do you agree with Neura's point or do you want literally any and all points of rng in combat gone?
I've been defending randomness this whole thread not attacking it. What I'm attacking is Neurath's total misunderstanding of the terminology he is using. He has repeatedly said he wants no "output randomness" which would under the proper meaning of the word be equivalent to your "remove all points of RNG in combat", aka it would be like an FPS game in which nothing but your cursor location and click timing determines if you hit.
But what he actually wants is not clear because he seems to be railing against something that RPG games have never actually had, some kind of 'no cause' randomness which has no from any stat.
MY desire is for the normal RPG stat driven randomness which has existed for the entire history of the genre and is clearly already in the game per the character stat page show. In addition, I specified that a distance modifier for ranged attacks is essential so that chance to hit drops with distance.
You simple don't consider "Adapting to the possibilities/outcomes of RNG" or
"Playing around the hand you are dealt with" a skill, without recognizing that your concept of skill is just limited.
It is a skill. To some extent. Very limited. For me it is less interesting and way less valuable. I like to play vs other player's clear actions without any unnecessary additions. I don't like to play vs bunch of random() returns.
RNG devalues player actions. RNG forces player to act statistically: "Idc if I lost now. I can bother that dude 10 more times by clicking my RNG debuff buttons and pray for crits and eventually win anyway haha". I think it is just a disgusting combat design. That player should be annihilated 10/10 and forced to teamup with friends / git gud by remebering CDs and manage resources more effectively / get better gear / find less contested place / etc.
Learning how to make the most of RNG is a player skill.
A player can't win or lose a fight with RNG alone. It's like luck, it favors the prepared. If you are good at the game and come up against someone every so slightly better, or with ever so slightly better gear, RNG may well be a factor. But that is only after both players have learned the game, got good at it, got decent gear etc.
If you are a reasonable player with reasonable gear, you are not going to lose a fight to a scrub due to RNG. If you think you lost to a scrub due to RNG, you actually just lost to a scrub.
But what he actually wants is not clear because he has seems to be railing against something that RPG games have never actually had, some kind of 'no cause' randomness which has no from any stat.
Unless I misunderstood him, he wants standard rng. And doesn't want the design choice of "your attack could miss at any random point, even if you're a lvl100 dude attacking a lvl1 mob".
Imo it's utterly pointless to discuss (and especially argue) semantics, when you agree on the point that's being made by either side. At least as long as those semantics don't stand in the way of making the point. I guess you misunderstood Neura's point which is why you argued about semantics. You could've instead just asked to clarify the point. Woulda saved both yours, Neura's and the forum's time
You simple don't consider "Adapting to the possibilities/outcomes of RNG" or
"Playing around the hand you are dealt with" a skill, without recognizing that your concept of skill is just limited.
It is a skill. To some extent. Very limited. For me it is less interesting and way less valuable. I like to play vs other player's clear actions without any unnecessary additions. I don't like to play vs bunch of random() returns.
RNG devalues player actions. RNG forces player to act statistically: "Idc if I lost now. I can bother that dude 10 more times by clicking my RNG debuff buttons and pray for crits and eventually win anyway haha". I think it is just a disgusting combat design. That player should be annihilated 10/10 and forced to teamup with friends / git gud by remebering CDs and manage resources more effectively / get better gear / find less contested place / etc.
I see, you atleast recognizes it as a skill, even tho you do have little regard for it and see it as an obstruction...
RNG values players adaptability skills, RNG forces player to act with an extra layer of possibility to deal with in mind, and as such it works on top of all other skills as an additional layer of skill.
The results of input rng aren't so random. You should know that if you have a higher stat than another then you will be much more successful if you've ever faced an Evasion Build and you couldn't touch them at first. In fact, the debate rages on because Evasion Builds want the randomness of RNG whilst those who oppose them want the certainty of build mechanics. Input RNG can literally make an evasion build obsolete, and Output RNG can make an Accuracy build obsolete.
The literal dichotomy of accuracy verses evasion is input rng at it finest. Output RNG is not related to accuracy or evasion, its literally just an extra calculation which determines whether an attack is successful or not. I explained you have some games with 100% accuracy but you still miss due to Output RNG. You seem to either not read my input or you have random output. The input RNG has already determined the effectiveness of the attack yet output rng does the same thing again with a randomised outcome.
Don't accuse me of not reading your posts when you have clearly not done the homework to correct your misuse of terminology. The video was posted on the first page but I will put in another link here
I can't be more explicit in input and output rng. Input rng is not random, it is by preset dynamics and predetermined variables. Hell, input rng can even have modifiers, multipliers, subtractions and additions.
Output rng is just a dice roll with a chance to fail. I've played enough Warhammer and DnD to know I am correct.
Explains that the references were specific games. I'm talking about the actual fundamentals of mmos and the core principles between the functions of input and output rng. I even said before input rng can be environment or inherent.
I see, you atleast recognizes it as a skill, even tho you do have little regard for it and see it as an obstruction...
RNG values players adaptability skills, RNG forces player to act with an extra layer of possibility to deal with in mind, and as such it works on top of all other skills as an additional layer of skill.
RNG combat:
1. if target can stun - buff 60% stun resist and pray that it works. If it didn't worked, but you've survived - heal up by 100 HP (or 200 HP with 30% chance).
2. spam X and Y until [X or Y procs by chance] and then do Z to deal 1000 dmg (or 2000 with 10% chance).
3. Repeat until someones RNG is low enough to lose.
Non-RNG combat:
1. if target can stun - use 100% stun resist right before it stuns. If you messed up, but survived - heal up by 160 HP.
2. spam X and Y until [idk, some non-rng condition met like 3 stacks of X and Y are not cleansed / <50% HP not healed / spell casting state / etc] and then do Z to deal 1200 dmg.
3. Repeat until someone messes up enough to lose.
Where is adaptabillity? In spamming until some thing randomly procs?
Where is extra layer? In dividing every action outcome to proc-or-not and getting the upper/lower hand from it?
Isn't it more fair to give players full control of their action results rather then just add tons of RNG layers?
The one situation when RNG is good is in statistically broken balance. It works as averaging factor and game looks better in general by raising the hell low floor and lowering the sky-high ceiling. Lazy solution btw.
Comments
This is something I am unsure of those with a background in more action oriented games really understand.
An RPG isnt necessarily supposed to be your skill at aiming vs your opponents skill at dodging or blocking, it is supposed to be your characters skill at aiming vs your opponents characters skill at dodging or blocking.
That isnt to say player skill isnt a thing, it's just that in tab target games player skill is more mental than physical - never more true than at the top end.
In one guild I was in years ago, someone passed around a MENSA test they had, and most of the guild had a go at it. For fun, one of the officers listed the results, and the list was basically identical to the existing list the guild had in terms of who we considered the best players.
I dont really have a point to make with this anecdote, I just found it interesting at the time (and still find it interesting now).
Edit to add; I forgot to explain why RNG is needed when the paradigm is character vs character as opposed to player vs player.
Without RNG, either every attack will hit, or every attack will miss. You can't have a 90% chance to hit without some form of RNG to designate that 10%. The idea of having literally every 10th hit miss would mean that players would just ensure every 10th hit is a small attack.
Without this RNG, a game that is character vs character as opposed to player vs player is over before it even starts.
The concept of a role isn't as archaic and myopic as it once was, as action combat and FPS both have roles and those roles are not diminished as a player needs to be strong in their role in order for their team to succeed.
Aye, doesn't fly in PVP.
And your justification is that you feel AoC should be or at least be as close as possible too an e-sports game even though this is nowhere in the game's goals, and frankly I do not think an MMORPG game could EVER be an effect e-sport game. Again, your desire is the one less in line with the games vision, simply because the game has PvP as a prominent goal does not mean it aspires to be counterstrike.
To be clear, some games can have 100% accuracy and you still miss due to output rng. I have no qualms with input rng, just output rng.
Yeah, but the first comment was said in a "don't be stupid, MMO's aren't e-sport games" kind of way.
The comment about enchanting was that there wouldn't be any RNG *in crafting* other than enchanting.
In terms of combat, this is probably worth reading Now, that is from Jeff rather than Steven, but still.
I find it somewhat interesting how this mirrors my comment at the top of this page about how tab target combat is more about tactics and strategy, while action combat is more about player skill (reflex and such). Neither one completely eliminates the need for the other skill type, it's just that each combat type has a predilection towards one or the other.
You have the combat tracker. I've seen only one instance where a skill hasn't landed in the dev streams (sleep) other than that I couldn't tell if it was a resist or an rng miss.
There are reasons you can skip the output rng and just have input rng. You can affect input rng with a build but output rng is a constant randomness which cannot be accounted for. It literally takes player agency away.
To be clear, based on your description of input RNG vs output RNG (not a definition I've heard before), I actually do agree that output RNG is bad.
I've always been of the opinion that any action in combat should have it's outcome determined equally by both parties. This is what I've talked about on these forums previously as opposed RNG. Any time RNG is involved, it should be my appropriate stat vs your appropriate stat, with an RNG roll.
Basically, both involved parties should have the ability to influence the outcome of RNG via gear and buffs as appropriate.
The above post was simply clearing up what Intrepid have said on RNG, and making sure people know it will be (by necessity) a part of combat.
Online games already has "some unpredictability and chaos" - the players.
Nope. It decreases the skill ceiling because players are no more able to control the outcome of their actions. It rather increases the skill floor for no-brain-all-keys-smash-pray-for-rng players.
Yes, you have FATALLY misunderstood the input/output randomness distinction. Please go watch the video, repeatedly if necessary.
Input Randomness is random RESULTS that are presented to the player prior to choices, like the random map generation in a rogue-like. Output randomness is the random success of player actions after the choice to act has been made. It does not matter if a player is told what their probability of success is, or if their ability to make character build/gear choices will alter that probability. Nearly every RPG ever made has done both those things (I need to roll a 17 or higher to hit because of my +3 sword) and AoC seems no different, but that is still definitionally output randomness.
Do you agree with Neura's point or do you want literally any and all points of rng in combat gone?
Players can be way more predictable than you imagine, logical/meta patterns can be pretty well defined, without RNG inside the system itself.
You simple don't consider "Adapting to the possibilities/outcomes of RNG" or
"Playing around the hand you are dealt with" a skill, without recognizing that your concept of skill is just limited.
Aren't we all sinners?
The results of input rng aren't so random. You should know that if you have a higher stat than another then you will be much more successful if you've ever faced an Evasion Build and you couldn't touch them at first. In fact, the debate rages on because Evasion Builds want the randomness of RNG whilst those who oppose them want the certainty of build mechanics. Input RNG can literally make an evasion build obsolete, and Output RNG can make an Accuracy build obsolete.
The literal dichotomy of accuracy verses evasion is input rng at it finest. Output RNG is not related to accuracy or evasion, its literally just an extra calculation which determines whether an attack is successful or not. I explained you have some games with 100% accuracy but you still miss due to Output RNG. You seem to either not read my input or you have random output. The input RNG has already determined the effectiveness of the attack yet output rng does the same thing again with a randomised outcome.
I've been defending randomness this whole thread not attacking it. What I'm attacking is Neurath's total misunderstanding of the terminology he is using. He has repeatedly said he wants no "output randomness" which would under the proper meaning of the word be equivalent to your "remove all points of RNG in combat", aka it would be like an FPS game in which nothing but your cursor location and click timing determines if you hit.
But what he actually wants is not clear because he seems to be railing against something that RPG games have never actually had, some kind of 'no cause' randomness which has no from any stat.
MY desire is for the normal RPG stat driven randomness which has existed for the entire history of the genre and is clearly already in the game per the character stat page show. In addition, I specified that a distance modifier for ranged attacks is essential so that chance to hit drops with distance.
Learning how to make the most of RNG is a player skill.
A player can't win or lose a fight with RNG alone. It's like luck, it favors the prepared. If you are good at the game and come up against someone every so slightly better, or with ever so slightly better gear, RNG may well be a factor. But that is only after both players have learned the game, got good at it, got decent gear etc.
If you are a reasonable player with reasonable gear, you are not going to lose a fight to a scrub due to RNG. If you think you lost to a scrub due to RNG, you actually just lost to a scrub.
Imo it's utterly pointless to discuss (and especially argue) semantics, when you agree on the point that's being made by either side. At least as long as those semantics don't stand in the way of making the point. I guess you misunderstood Neura's point which is why you argued about semantics. You could've instead just asked to clarify the point. Woulda saved both yours, Neura's and the forum's time
I see, you atleast recognizes it as a skill, even tho you do have little regard for it and see it as an obstruction...
RNG values players adaptability skills, RNG forces player to act with an extra layer of possibility to deal with in mind, and as such it works on top of all other skills as an additional layer of skill.
Aren't we all sinners?
Don't accuse me of not reading your posts when you have clearly not done the homework to correct your misuse of terminology. The video was posted on the first page but I will put in another link here
Please do not reply further until you have grasped its contents and can coherently describe what you actually want or do not want.
Output rng is just a dice roll with a chance to fail. I've played enough Warhammer and DnD to know I am correct.
Furthermore, this article https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2020/1/16/21067906/random-number-generator-rng-probability-xcom-spelunky-input-output
Explains that the references were specific games. I'm talking about the actual fundamentals of mmos and the core principles between the functions of input and output rng. I even said before input rng can be environment or inherent.
1. if target can stun - buff 60% stun resist and pray that it works. If it didn't worked, but you've survived - heal up by 100 HP (or 200 HP with 30% chance).
2. spam X and Y until [X or Y procs by chance] and then do Z to deal 1000 dmg (or 2000 with 10% chance).
3. Repeat until someones RNG is low enough to lose.
Non-RNG combat:
1. if target can stun - use 100% stun resist right before it stuns. If you messed up, but survived - heal up by 160 HP.
2. spam X and Y until [idk, some non-rng condition met like 3 stacks of X and Y are not cleansed / <50% HP not healed / spell casting state / etc] and then do Z to deal 1200 dmg.
3. Repeat until someone messes up enough to lose.
Where is adaptabillity? In spamming until some thing randomly procs?
Where is extra layer? In dividing every action outcome to proc-or-not and getting the upper/lower hand from it?
Isn't it more fair to give players full control of their action results rather then just add tons of RNG layers?
The one situation when RNG is good is in statistically broken balance. It works as averaging factor and game looks better in general by raising the hell low floor and lowering the sky-high ceiling. Lazy solution btw.