Nerror wrote: » I want RNG to be a part of combat, including CC and evasion/block chances in Ashes of Creation. It's very much a personal preference, partly because it increases unpredictability and chaos. It stops the game from being almost entirely twitch skill based on firing off a rehearsed combo, and adds more quick thinking and adaptability skills. To my mind this increases the skill ceiling. Twitch skills will still be very important obviously. RNG won't change that. It also better fits the genre. Character skills, stats and passives all have to matter in an RPG. It should not only be about which player is better at twitch skills. There are other games for that. Fodderplay puts it pretty well IMO. fodderplay wrote: » +RNG = Build the OP/meta class with a +skill or template. Based on your opponents +skill or template, you may miss, have -dmg%, have -crit%, or a -debuff% (etc.). This creates strategy. Challenging and more involved.-RNG = Build the OP/meta class with a +skill or template. Farm your opponent because they have no defence to your 100% hit rate. Then all it comes down to is who clicked first and/or who has a greater latency. Not challenging and less involved. Then there are some very real technical limitations we have to deal with. 500 players battling in close proximity over a single point in a castle siege, all with different server ping etc. will for sure cause some desyncing and culling issues. You can't have a purely twitch skill based CC defense system if you can't even see the attack coming on your screen due to technical issues, even though your character might see it coming (if it was real). As with all things, the devil is in the details. I don't think anyone would seriously advocate for a 50/50 chance of resisting a CC. But I think rolling that natural 1 should be a thing. Shit happens sometimes. And I think a character should be able to spec into CC resistance, either in the form of straight up resisting it, or at least only get reduced effect or duration. Spec'ing into that should obviously come at a cost of something else. This fits the genre perfectly too. I think Tritri has a good point about differentiating the types of CC in terms of being resisted. So I'll just be lazy and say: Ditto what Tritri writes below. Tritri wrote: » Now, about RNG, here is what I think. Randomness is and will always be part of games, it's even part of real life sports. There is always a bit of luck to everything. Now there is acceptable RNG and less accepetable ones in a PvP environnement. In competitive fighting games for example, even if they try to minimize the randomness, there are characters that are based around some randomness (Faust/Zappa/Kliff from Guilty Gear series, The Hero in Smash Bros, Shingo in King of Fighters, Dan in Street Fighter 5, Dummy chars in SoulCalibur/Tekken,...) and people still play them in highly competitive tournament, the characters aren't weak or overpowered just because of their randomness. In a lot of FPS you have some randomness in the spray patterns of some of your weapons, some games more than others... you can control it a bit, but it's still random In RTS you also have randomness in the way some units will move in a terrain when multiple units are being moved. You can prevent it, but sometimes shit happens. For MMOs, I can think of some RNG that don't bother me, like RNG on defensive mechanics such as dodging or blocking (yeah the tank blocked your stun, well maybe next time try to land it from the back on chose a better target). And also some RNG that I don't like, for example, in Dark Age of Camelot, you have 5% chance for any spells to be resisted in PvP, which is ok when doing masse aoe spells since you know some of your targets will resist and you can account for it, but is infuriating on single target spells where you can have 3 resists back to back when trying to finish off your target. So having my long cooldown last resort crowd control that would change the outcome of my fight being "resisted" just BECAUSE, will anger me a bit Having it blocked because I threw it on a target that had a reasonable chance of blocking it, well, it sux, but it won't bother me, even if I'll die because of it
fodderplay wrote: » +RNG = Build the OP/meta class with a +skill or template. Based on your opponents +skill or template, you may miss, have -dmg%, have -crit%, or a -debuff% (etc.). This creates strategy. Challenging and more involved.-RNG = Build the OP/meta class with a +skill or template. Farm your opponent because they have no defence to your 100% hit rate. Then all it comes down to is who clicked first and/or who has a greater latency. Not challenging and less involved.
Tritri wrote: » Now, about RNG, here is what I think. Randomness is and will always be part of games, it's even part of real life sports. There is always a bit of luck to everything. Now there is acceptable RNG and less accepetable ones in a PvP environnement. In competitive fighting games for example, even if they try to minimize the randomness, there are characters that are based around some randomness (Faust/Zappa/Kliff from Guilty Gear series, The Hero in Smash Bros, Shingo in King of Fighters, Dan in Street Fighter 5, Dummy chars in SoulCalibur/Tekken,...) and people still play them in highly competitive tournament, the characters aren't weak or overpowered just because of their randomness. In a lot of FPS you have some randomness in the spray patterns of some of your weapons, some games more than others... you can control it a bit, but it's still random In RTS you also have randomness in the way some units will move in a terrain when multiple units are being moved. You can prevent it, but sometimes shit happens. For MMOs, I can think of some RNG that don't bother me, like RNG on defensive mechanics such as dodging or blocking (yeah the tank blocked your stun, well maybe next time try to land it from the back on chose a better target). And also some RNG that I don't like, for example, in Dark Age of Camelot, you have 5% chance for any spells to be resisted in PvP, which is ok when doing masse aoe spells since you know some of your targets will resist and you can account for it, but is infuriating on single target spells where you can have 3 resists back to back when trying to finish off your target. So having my long cooldown last resort crowd control that would change the outcome of my fight being "resisted" just BECAUSE, will anger me a bit Having it blocked because I threw it on a target that had a reasonable chance of blocking it, well, it sux, but it won't bother me, even if I'll die because of it
Nepoke wrote: » This is true, but I'd like to make a distinction between randomness from human behavior and randomness from a system. Keeping with the analogy, while you could say it's "random" if my opponent decides to dodge left or right and if my hands slip while throwing the ball, these all are things I can work on to get better. With enough practice I won't slip anymore, and I can get better at reading the opponent. But my opponent can get better at reading me, and this is where the fun comes in. I wouldn't personally consider the matches being decided by luck, even though you could argue that the result can be modeled as a chance to hit or miss. The other kind of bad random would be if the ball would just for some reason change directions during flight. Even if I had the ability to choose a better ball that does that less often, I would still feel cheated every time, no matter how infrequent it is.
truely wrote: » Nerror wrote: » I want RNG to be a part of combat, including CC and evasion/block chances in Ashes of Creation. It's very much a personal preference, partly because it increases unpredictability and chaos. It stops the game from being almost entirely twitch skill based on firing off a rehearsed combo, and adds more quick thinking and adaptability skills. To my mind this increases the skill ceiling. Twitch skills will still be very important obviously. RNG won't change that. It also better fits the genre. Character skills, stats and passives all have to matter in an RPG. It should not only be about which player is better at twitch skills. There are other games for that. Fodderplay puts it pretty well IMO. fodderplay wrote: » +RNG = Build the OP/meta class with a +skill or template. Based on your opponents +skill or template, you may miss, have -dmg%, have -crit%, or a -debuff% (etc.). This creates strategy. Challenging and more involved.-RNG = Build the OP/meta class with a +skill or template. Farm your opponent because they have no defence to your 100% hit rate. Then all it comes down to is who clicked first and/or who has a greater latency. Not challenging and less involved. Then there are some very real technical limitations we have to deal with. 500 players battling in close proximity over a single point in a castle siege, all with different server ping etc. will for sure cause some desyncing and culling issues. You can't have a purely twitch skill based CC defense system if you can't even see the attack coming on your screen due to technical issues, even though your character might see it coming (if it was real). As with all things, the devil is in the details. I don't think anyone would seriously advocate for a 50/50 chance of resisting a CC. But I think rolling that natural 1 should be a thing. Shit happens sometimes. And I think a character should be able to spec into CC resistance, either in the form of straight up resisting it, or at least only get reduced effect or duration. Spec'ing into that should obviously come at a cost of something else. This fits the genre perfectly too. I think Tritri has a good point about differentiating the types of CC in terms of being resisted. So I'll just be lazy and say: Ditto what Tritri writes below. Tritri wrote: » Now, about RNG, here is what I think. Randomness is and will always be part of games, it's even part of real life sports. There is always a bit of luck to everything. Now there is acceptable RNG and less accepetable ones in a PvP environnement. In competitive fighting games for example, even if they try to minimize the randomness, there are characters that are based around some randomness (Faust/Zappa/Kliff from Guilty Gear series, The Hero in Smash Bros, Shingo in King of Fighters, Dan in Street Fighter 5, Dummy chars in SoulCalibur/Tekken,...) and people still play them in highly competitive tournament, the characters aren't weak or overpowered just because of their randomness. In a lot of FPS you have some randomness in the spray patterns of some of your weapons, some games more than others... you can control it a bit, but it's still random In RTS you also have randomness in the way some units will move in a terrain when multiple units are being moved. You can prevent it, but sometimes shit happens. For MMOs, I can think of some RNG that don't bother me, like RNG on defensive mechanics such as dodging or blocking (yeah the tank blocked your stun, well maybe next time try to land it from the back on chose a better target). And also some RNG that I don't like, for example, in Dark Age of Camelot, you have 5% chance for any spells to be resisted in PvP, which is ok when doing masse aoe spells since you know some of your targets will resist and you can account for it, but is infuriating on single target spells where you can have 3 resists back to back when trying to finish off your target. So having my long cooldown last resort crowd control that would change the outcome of my fight being "resisted" just BECAUSE, will anger me a bit Having it blocked because I threw it on a target that had a reasonable chance of blocking it, well, it sux, but it won't bother me, even if I'll die because of it I don't understand this argument about it being about twitch skills. tab target MMORPG pvp is more about using your skills at the right times and managing cool downs, not really to do with twitch skills.
JustVine wrote: » You have repeatably ignored examples via your personal definitions.
Azherae wrote: » In the end we're having the same philosophical discussion across multiple threads and concepts.
Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » You have repeatably ignored examples via your personal definitions. What examples? Dont say Absolver, as even if we consider it a valid game to compare to, all we need to donis point to how shit the game is, and how unpopular it is and we can then all say we want better for Ashes. Even worse, most of the combat is exactly the same once you get in to it. Sure, you create a build, but then that build plays. A small number of the boss NPC's (I forget their name, it's been years) have some tactic that occasionally requires you to temporarily break away from your established method (which is a rotation by another name), but this is only occasional, and is a minor detour when it does occasionally happen. So, even if we assume that the game you are bringing up is a fighting game despite the publisher not calling it one and even if we assume there is no RNG in it when there is a small amount, what we are left with is something we dont want to emulate anyway. I am a big fan of taking aspects of games that they do well and highlighting that one thing. There are even aspects of WoW that I have highlighted as being good in the past. Absolver has no such aspects to it that are worth raising up and saying "do this thing". The game in its entirety is shit. As to other examples that have been given - fighting games (real ones), while they have little in the way of RNG, they also have little on the way of character builds. Since my point was that a game can not have worthwhile character building without an amount of RNG in combat, it is perfectly valid that we discount fighting games in general, as the person I was actually in this discussion with has done. So please, enlighten me. You claim that I have ignored other games without RNG elements, yet with character building- which other games have been bought up that I have ignored?
JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » You have repeatably ignored examples via your personal definitions. What examples? Dont say Absolver, as even if we consider it a valid game to compare to, all we need to donis point to how shit the game is, and how unpopular it is and we can then all say we want better for Ashes. Even worse, most of the combat is exactly the same once you get in to it. Sure, you create a build, but then that build plays. A small number of the boss NPC's (I forget their name, it's been years) have some tactic that occasionally requires you to temporarily break away from your established method (which is a rotation by another name), but this is only occasional, and is a minor detour when it does occasionally happen. So, even if we assume that the game you are bringing up is a fighting game despite the publisher not calling it one and even if we assume there is no RNG in it when there is a small amount, what we are left with is something we dont want to emulate anyway. I am a big fan of taking aspects of games that they do well and highlighting that one thing. There are even aspects of WoW that I have highlighted as being good in the past. Absolver has no such aspects to it that are worth raising up and saying "do this thing". The game in its entirety is shit. As to other examples that have been given - fighting games (real ones), while they have little in the way of RNG, they also have little on the way of character builds. Since my point was that a game can not have worthwhile character building without an amount of RNG in combat, it is perfectly valid that we discount fighting games in general, as the person I was actually in this discussion with has done. So please, enlighten me. You claim that I have ignored other games without RNG elements, yet with character building- which other games have been bought up that I have ignored? The game with the 8.5 review on polygon no poor reviews on the side bar for google search 71 % positive reviews on Steam and at least 60 different combat styles if you count the sword play. But sure it's shit because you say so.
CROW3 wrote: » Azherae wrote: » In the end we're having the same philosophical discussion across multiple threads and concepts. Sorta. I don't think this topic is as clearly fundamental as say the 'stun topic.' I don't see this argument as 'skill' v. 'RNG' - i.e. skill and RNG are mutually exclusive. I see this as a question of prioritization and presence. Skill IS the most important factor in pvp. So are stats. So is gear. And there is the presence of some element of randomness, which can be mitigated to a certain degree, but never to 0%.
Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » You have repeatably ignored examples via your personal definitions. What examples? Dont say Absolver, as even if we consider it a valid game to compare to, all we need to donis point to how shit the game is, and how unpopular it is and we can then all say we want better for Ashes. Even worse, most of the combat is exactly the same once you get in to it. Sure, you create a build, but then that build plays. A small number of the boss NPC's (I forget their name, it's been years) have some tactic that occasionally requires you to temporarily break away from your established method (which is a rotation by another name), but this is only occasional, and is a minor detour when it does occasionally happen. So, even if we assume that the game you are bringing up is a fighting game despite the publisher not calling it one and even if we assume there is no RNG in it when there is a small amount, what we are left with is something we dont want to emulate anyway. I am a big fan of taking aspects of games that they do well and highlighting that one thing. There are even aspects of WoW that I have highlighted as being good in the past. Absolver has no such aspects to it that are worth raising up and saying "do this thing". The game in its entirety is shit. As to other examples that have been given - fighting games (real ones), while they have little in the way of RNG, they also have little on the way of character builds. Since my point was that a game can not have worthwhile character building without an amount of RNG in combat, it is perfectly valid that we discount fighting games in general, as the person I was actually in this discussion with has done. So please, enlighten me. You claim that I have ignored other games without RNG elements, yet with character building- which other games have been bought up that I have ignored? The game with the 8.5 review on polygon no poor reviews on the side bar for google search 71 % positive reviews on Steam and at least 60 different combat styles if you count the sword play. But sure it's shit because you say so. Polygon 8.5 is a fairly cheap result to buy. 71% is not very high. 60 combat style isnt hard when each style is fairly shallow.
Azherae wrote: » Some subset of people perceive lack of RNG as lack of any driving force for timing, decision making, or interaction between the ways players make moment-to-moment choices. A different set of people going 'wait no, that's not how that works, the determining factor is decision making'. If one wants to argue 'player's ability to rapidly make decisions and notice situations should not be the important factor in RPGs', that's different. 'Rotations' and 'optimized meta builds' are not innate to mostly-deterministic gameplay, that happens when the gameplay isn't built around moment-to-moment decision making options to begin with. And why do we not build games like that normally? Because RNG.
JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » You have repeatably ignored examples via your personal definitions. What examples? Dont say Absolver, as even if we consider it a valid game to compare to, all we need to donis point to how shit the game is, and how unpopular it is and we can then all say we want better for Ashes. Even worse, most of the combat is exactly the same once you get in to it. Sure, you create a build, but then that build plays. A small number of the boss NPC's (I forget their name, it's been years) have some tactic that occasionally requires you to temporarily break away from your established method (which is a rotation by another name), but this is only occasional, and is a minor detour when it does occasionally happen. So, even if we assume that the game you are bringing up is a fighting game despite the publisher not calling it one and even if we assume there is no RNG in it when there is a small amount, what we are left with is something we dont want to emulate anyway. I am a big fan of taking aspects of games that they do well and highlighting that one thing. There are even aspects of WoW that I have highlighted as being good in the past. Absolver has no such aspects to it that are worth raising up and saying "do this thing". The game in its entirety is shit. As to other examples that have been given - fighting games (real ones), while they have little in the way of RNG, they also have little on the way of character builds. Since my point was that a game can not have worthwhile character building without an amount of RNG in combat, it is perfectly valid that we discount fighting games in general, as the person I was actually in this discussion with has done. So please, enlighten me. You claim that I have ignored other games without RNG elements, yet with character building- which other games have been bought up that I have ignored? The game with the 8.5 review on polygon no poor reviews on the side bar for google search 71 % positive reviews on Steam and at least 60 different combat styles if you count the sword play. But sure it's shit because you say so. Polygon 8.5 is a fairly cheap result to buy. 71% is not very high. 60 combat style isnt hard when each style is fairly shallow. Did you know that the Windfall style in Absolver allows you to dodge literally every single attack that comes at you if you can see it coming (or guess right for the faster ones.) Where are your rotations now?
Azherae wrote: » Noaani is just being a pointless derail.
Noaani wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Noaani is just being a pointless derail. Actually, I have been trying to say for some time now that Absolver is not a game any MMO should attempt to copy., and given several reasons for this. Basically, I have been trying to get back on the topic, while two of you just cant seen ti let your derailment in to talking about that piece of shit game go.
Azherae wrote: » Also Noaani is wrong about how exactly 'builds' work in fighting games too, because every character is a 'build', most games have between 16 and 40 of them, and the ones with 16 usually have literally 'choices you can make about which skills you have to use', sometimes more than 3. ... Honestly I'm surprised this is even still being presented as a point given how many obvious holes there are in the stance. Are people seriously expected to just believe 'no, there are no examples, it's the fighting gamers who are wrong!'?
