Crowd control should not be based on RNG

i just dont like the idea where you pray that your CC actually hits or not, and im not talking about balancing right now, this is about CC. Not what class has it or not, but if it should be guaranteed hit or not.

if its guaranteed = skills matter more than RNG
if its not (like it is now in alpha) = if you have bad luck you will die to the on who has better luck.

toughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Nerror

truely wrote: »

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.

Oh I was going off of the hard CC being action skill based thing. As in, you need to move and aim quickly and precisely. I should have made that clear I guess. For the tab target mode and skills it's much less twitchy of course

Edit: The tanks Onslaught skill is currently very tab target friendly, and I would consider the rank 3 knockdown to be a hard CC, so that kinda goes against the whole "hard CC is action skill based" thing though.

Nepoke wrote: »

Well I've already explained why this is frustrating and how dodge could be replaced by a percentage reduction to damage (and CC too I suppose.) What I now want to show is how applying this all-or-nothing behavior to other stats is silly, and why nothing should behave like this.

Currently in Alpha 1, the dodge roll halves damage taken. So that is already there.

Noaani

GrilledCheeseMojito wrote: »

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.

The reasons you have given are all centered on the popularity of the game, and not any actual discussion beyond 'it is shit' without giving reasons why. If this is how you implement mechanics in a game, then maybe Ashes should have battle passes and randomized instanced matchmaking - Fortnite does that, and it has the most reviews of anything out there.

Maybe try to engage on why they are bad design decisions instead of making it a popularity contest. Adding a feature to your game only if it passes a threshold of popularity is a great way to make something bland and boring.

I am not going to get in to a technical debate on specific aspects of a game that I have not played for 4 years.

What I will say is - if any developers saw any redeeming qualities in that game, those qualities would have made it to other games by now - regardless of the popularity of the specific game in question.

If you have an issue with that - if you think an industry worth almost $100,000,000,000 is not paying any attention to itself - then hey, let's talk about how you and I can tell them they are doing it wrong!

Honestly, if you go in to a debate on game design citing exactly one 4 year old example of a thing you are talking about, you've already lost your debate.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

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!'?

I do want to address these two points, but I will start by first off saying that at least the game series you talked about (the Soul series) is a fighting game series. So, well done for that,you are doing better than others just with that

The first point above, in regards to builds, I would consider these to be characters or classes, not builds.

A build requires some for of, well, building. If the player has no options, they are playing a character. If they have few options, they are playing a class kit, if they have many options, they are playing a build.

You may not think the distinction is important,but I absolutely do. An MMO with only characters or class kits is simply uninteresting.

To the second point, I am not saying fighting games are wrong, or the people that play them. I am saying that fighting games are right for fighting games, but qring for MMO's.

MMO's attempt to offer a completely different experience to what fighting games offer. One of the key aspects of that is in player choice in terms of a build. As you rightly point out yourself, fighting games that do have builds (which are still far more limited than MMO builds) marganilize that feature of the game anyway, as that is not what those games are about.

What this means is that unless someone can add in the ability for players to create their own builds in to a game with the combat system of a fighting game, you cant just assume that this combat style would work along side the ability for players to build and gear their characters with the granularity that MMO players would expect.

Ah we are back to 'my definitions are the only correct ones.' Ok mate.

'MMO's attempt to offer a completely different experience to what fighting games offer.'

This may have been true back in tab target pve centric days but not in action combat PvP centric days. Now it is more about 'I want decision making to be the most important thing but want some form of engaging combat and a gear system so I will play an mmo over a fighting game and an action mmo over a tab target one.' It's a spectrum, something you have proven in many threads to have difficulty understanding.

First of all you really seem to not understand the argument at all. Do you think ashes should be tab target?

If not, and action combat is desirable, should we not be looking to lessons about combat from games that perfected it? Action combat has base principles gear or not.

Side bar I really doubt you have touched the Soul character creator given your comments.

Secondly 'the build matters more than the kit in an mmo' while not wrong is 'correctly wrong' relative to fighting games. Just because you don't know how to unlock the 'crazy pressure character' vs the 'tricky zoner character' in the same character doesn't mean it isn't possible. Mmo's just take the easy to understand for casuals method by giving abilities labels. That doesn't mean the two require completely different base knowledge sets to understand how good action combat works.

So back to why this actually comes up:

'The genere that pushes action combat the most decided randomness takes away from agency.'

'Characters in those games with random mechanics are built with positive agency not negative agency'

'We therefore think CC is better off not being random in action combat because it takes away agency in a system unsuited to it.'

Lastly, GW2 has been consistently cited as 'a game where there is no miss chance for cc' and quie frankly your argument just like the Absolver thing resulted in you going 'its shit and didn't count'.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

Ah we are back to 'my definitions are the only correct ones.' Ok mate.

What definitions are my own?

A fighting game is a video game genre based around close combat between a limited number of characters, in a stage in which the boundaries are fixed. The characters fight each other until they defeat their opponents or the time expires.

That is from Wikipedia - while not the best source for information, if there is going to be a consensus on a definition of a game genre, that is where you will find it.

You are the one wanting to make up your own definitions for things, not me. Mate.

If not, and action combat is desirable, should we not be looking to lessons about combat from games that perfected it? Action combat has base principles gear or not.

That depends.

Are you wnting a discussion about MMO's in general, or about Ashes specifically.

If you want to talk about MMO;s in general, have at it, I have no interest in that discussion.

If you want to talk about Ashes specifically, then no, we shouldn't be looking at fighting games. This is because fighting games are incompatible with existing known systems in Ashes. Turning Ashes in to a game that is using fighting games as a basis for combat means making a game that is no longer Ashes, but rather something else.

Ashes has a large focus on build identity. This needs to be maintained.

Ashes will use hybrid combat - tab target is the basis of the game and is the fallback if hybrid doesn't work. These are Stevens own words. That means that this needs to be maintained as well.

Ashes will have combat with potentially 1000 players in it, fighting games generally have 2, or perhaps 4.

These are all things that are essential to Ashes, and that fighting game combat is incompatible with.

Dygz

It's OK to look at games that perfected action combat. Ashes should be looking at all games.
That doesn't mean that the devs should adopt mechanics from non-RPGs at the expense of the RPG mechanics of Ashes.
I'm sure soccer players can learn from basketball players. That doesn't mean soccer should change their rules to allow players to travel down the soccer field while holding the ball in their hands.
Removing RNG from an RPG is like removing dice from backgammon. Doesn't matter how good a game chess is.

In Ashes, RNG is going to be dialed down considerably with regard to action combat. It's not going to be removed completely. Because the goal is not to make the best action combat possible for any action combat game.
The goal is to make action combat that is pretty good for an RPG.

Guli

Nerror wrote: »

Currently in Alpha 1, the dodge roll halves damage taken. So that is already there.

its actually around 90-80%

Nerror

Guli wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Currently in Alpha 1, the dodge roll halves damage taken. So that is already there.

its actually around 90-80%

Hrm, maybe it depends on the attack? I've definitely seen roughly half damage on some of the dragon attacks.

Bot

RNG on anything is terrible game design. I hate the idea that abilities in so many games like MMORPGs have crit chances. It makes absolutely no sense to actually sit there and think you'll ever have a consistent and enjoyable game with RNG.

TeamVASH

Guli wrote: »

i just dont like the idea where you pray that your CC actually hits or not, and im not talking about balancing right now, this is about CC. Not what class has it or not, but if it should be guaranteed hit or not.

if its guaranteed = skills matter more than RNG
if its not (like it is now in alpha) = if you have bad luck you will die to the on who has better luck.

toughts?

I HATE luck espcially on things that can cause you to win or lose a game. Enchanting, weapons and combat should not be RNG. The only RNG aceptable is the drop rate of an item.

Leonerdo

As I understand it, "fishing" for RNG procs is an acceptable design in PvP games. But only if it confers a relatively minor advantage, AND there's decent gameplay options that follow both a hit or a whiff.

Using card games as an example/analogy: RNG plays a large role on every single turn, when you draw a card. But there's still plenty of strategizing and skill and preparing for different situations. Even if you don't get lucky and draw the perfect card, there's still something you can do (usually). Plus, a game usually lasts long enough, and you draw enough cards, that the RNG averages out. Each instance of RNG makes a relatively small impact, such that you still have tough choices to make. And both sides have a decent chance at victory for most of the game.

It can be the same in Ashes. It's okay to have RNG procs that provides some small level of unexpectedness, which promotes adaptability. And that can include short CCs. However, it's NOT okay to have an RNG CC that's so strong it effectively ends the fight by itself. It's also NOT okay if a CC proc is your only way to start a fight (like if all your abilities have a long wind-up time, and you need the CC to land anything).

We don't want combat where the focus is mostly on fishing for RNG. But if there's a little bit of that on one or two skills, that's makes for a more dynamic fight. Or a more interesting series of fights. Because yeah, at some point, someone is going to wreck you thanks to a very lucky string of RNG procs. And it will be super frustrating because there was nothing you could do. But if you fight 1000 fights, it's more interesting when some of them are outliers. As long as the frustrating ones aren't too common.

Also, stun-break abilities should be a thing. So that hard CC can be impactful, and still allow the opponent to respond (sometimes).

Dygz

Leonerdo5 wrote: »

It's NOT okay to have an RNG CC that's so strong it effectively ends the fight by itself. It's also NOT okay if a CC proc is your only way to start a fight (like if all your abilities have a long wind-up time, and you need the CC to land anything).

Yeah, I think everyone here agrees with that.

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

Leonerdo5 wrote: »

It's NOT okay to have an RNG CC that's so strong it effectively ends the fight by itself. It's also NOT okay if a CC proc is your only way to start a fight (like if all your abilities have a long wind-up time, and you need the CC to land anything).

Yeah, I think everyone here agrees with that.

Same. RNG should be present but not substantial, mitigable but never to zero.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Leonerdo5 wrote: »

It's NOT okay to have an RNG CC that's so strong it effectively ends the fight by itself. It's also NOT okay if a CC proc is your only way to start a fight (like if all your abilities have a long wind-up time, and you need the CC to land anything).

Yeah, I think everyone here agrees with that.

Same. RNG should be present but not substantial, mitigable but never to zero.

Indeed.

One thing I have noticed - the more understood a system is, the more accepting an individual is of RNG with that system.

No one complains about RNG in terms of the damage range of a weapon or a spell, because everyone understands it.

This seems to me to be why neither myself nor any of the people I play MMO's with regularly have an issue with RNG. We all tend to be people that pick apart systems to understand them, and when you do that you usually see fairly clearly how small a part RNG actually usually plays, yet how important it is.

I can fully understand people that do not know what's going on having an issue with RNG. To them, RNGmust look like some magical phenomenon that they only pay attention to when it doesnt go their way.

The answer to this iant to remove RNG, it is to provide easier access to information so that more people can understand what's going on.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Leonerdo5 wrote: »

It's NOT okay to have an RNG CC that's so strong it effectively ends the fight by itself. It's also NOT okay if a CC proc is your only way to start a fight (like if all your abilities have a long wind-up time, and you need the CC to land anything).

Yeah, I think everyone here agrees with that.

Same. RNG should be present but not substantial, mitigable but never to zero.

Indeed.

One thing I have noticed - the more understood a system is, the more accepting an individual is of RNG with that system.

No one complains about RNG in terms of the damage range of a weapon or a spell, because everyone understands it.

This seems to me to be why neither myself nor any of the people I play MMO's with regularly have an issue with RNG. We all tend to be people that pick apart systems to understand them, and when you do that you usually see fairly clearly how small a part RNG actually usually plays, yet how important it is.

I can fully understand people that do not know what's going on having an issue with RNG. To them, RNGmust look like some magical phenomenon that they only pay attention to when it doesnt go their way.

The answer to this iant to remove RNG, it is to provide easier access to information so that more people can understand what's going on.

Oh please. More information isn't going to lower the amount of times I roll ones. You want builds to actually matter, scrap rng entirely and give us direct shortened time. RNG in cc is dumb because it makes the game less dynamic, it's a binary thing.

You want builds to matter, and go 'if you didn't want it to happen this way you would have built better'. No mate I rolled three ones in a row. The game took away my agency because 'you want adaptibility.' There are plenty of better ways to build adaptability. But taking away player agency is not an acceptable one. My gear doesn't matter if I roll bad and that's just facts.

No one wants to regret taking hard cc chance down instead of extra defense. 'This gear is trash' 'you took the wrong gear'. But if it 'worked' its the correct option suddenly. That's a sign of bad game design.

Leave rng to crits. At least thats a positive experience.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

Oh please. More information isn't going to lower the amount of times I roll ones.

Honestly, this opening to your post refuting mine kind of reinforces what I said. This is a clear case of "one more person opposed to RNG who doesn't understand the systems in which they are used".

First, you will never see what you roll.

Second, even if you did come up with the lowest number possible, that doesn't automatically mean you fail. In many opposed rolls, the RNG element of it makes up maybe 10% of the total, and gear makes up the other 90%. If you "roll a 1" but still have better gear than your opponent, you'd still land your CC even if they rolled the highest value they could.

You complain I am making disingenuous arguments, and then follow that up by a purposeful example of a one dimensional gearing paradigm to back up what you think is your point. That is the definition of disingenuous, as I am quite positive you know that gearing in a game like Ashes won't be as one dimensional as you painted it above.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

Oh please. More information isn't going to lower the amount of times I roll ones.

Honestly, this opening to your post refuting mine kind of reinforces what I said. This is a clear case of "one more person opposed to RNG who doesn't understand the systems in which they are used".

First, you will never see what you roll.

Second, even if you did come up with the lowest number possible, that doesn't automatically mean you fail. In many opposed rolls, the RNG element of it makes up maybe 10% of the total, and gear makes up the other 90%. If you "roll a 1" but still have better gear than your opponent, you'd still land your CC even if they rolled the highest value they could.

You complain I am making disingenuous arguments, and then follow that up by a purposeful example of a one dimensional gearing paradigm to back up what you think is your point. That is the definition of disingenuous, as I am quite positive you know that gearing in a game like Ashes won't be as one dimensional as you painted it above.

It is one dimensional because it is binary. If you are arguing for a 'tiered' system of miss hit crit. That's a separate concept. You know why? Because missing in itself is binary. I don't care if 'the effect is lower this percent of time'. Missing out due to RNG is taking away agency when it didn't need to be. I brought up that gear paradigm because thats what tends to get built in systems that focus on RNG. Because it is inherently difficult to balance. Because it is by nature random and rng forces having to build around extremes rather than fine tuneable variables. Something that means a very different thing once hard cc or even soft cc gets involved. Because now its the difference between who gets a turn or who gets to root who.

'If you had better gear than your opponent but rolled a one you would still hit'.That's also a false paradigm. If you have better gear than someone it isn't an equal fight to begin with. Obviously you are going to be advantaged.

Also 'if you had better gear than your opponent but rolled a one you would still hit'. Oh so you ARE in favor of 100% hit so long as 'you earned it.' Great except that's bad game design because now whatever gear lets you hit 100% is now 'the meta'.

But let me guess you actually meant 'I want equal fights to have randomness but I want unequal ones to have less.' Ok but seriously why? I can't think of any good reasons for that. Gear buffs already seperate the combat experience, but if there wasn't rng and just 'flat time resist' you'd have a larger pool of 'fights in pvp that have some decisions and strategy' that matter.

If I can miss an ability usage due to RNG rather than my strategic awareness being flawed, my decision to use it stops mattering. The game can be better than that.

But again I am talking just cc here, the part of the game you repeatedly say 'makes for interesting combat that goes outside boring rotations.' You are specifically advocating 'lets have less ability to plan' on a part of the game that heavily effects strategy 'because I want to parts of the game that force me to adapt'. Why THIS area for the rng? There are plenty of other places to have adaptation like spacing, opponent ability useage, surrounding mobs, crit chance....

Dygz

LMAO
You rolled three 1s in a row out of how many on the "dice"?
Disable Defense won't just be on gear.
I dunno how Crits are a positive experience. They aren't positive for the targets on the receiving end of the Crit.

JustVine

Dygz wrote: »

LMAO
You rolled three 1s in a row out of how many on the "dice"?
Disable Defense won't just be on gear.
I dunno how Crits are a positive experience. They aren't positive for the targets on the receiving end of the Crit.

You were in a position to get hit either way.

Vhaeyne

Noaani wrote: »

First, you will never see what you roll.

I know this is off-topic, but I can see the roll in DDO and I love every second of it.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

It is one dimensional because it is binary.

You completely missed the point.

The one dimensional thing was your example of a gear choice between CC resist gear and defense gear.

WoW and ESO are the only games I can think of with even anything close to that one dimensional style of gearing, and even they aren't close to that.

Also 'if you had better gear than your opponent but rolled a one you would still hit'. Oh so you ARE in favor of 100% hit so long as 'you earned it.' Great except that's bad game design because now whatever gear lets you hit 100% is now 'the meta'.

This is another example of you not understanding - well - anything.

Yes, you will be able to get to 100% hit chance in any game with RNG if your gear is good enough and their gear is bad enough. However, that doesn't mean you have 100% hit, because they can always get better gear, which would lower your chance to hit against them.

This is how a contested roll works. It is my result vs your result, and both of us can influence that result via our gear.

This isn't going to result in everyone running around with max CC gear though, as even though gearing decisions are not one dimensional like you painted earlier, they are still choices. Choices have consequences.

What will happen is there will be people that specialize in CC in PvP, and they will maximize their chances to land that CC. It won't be a meta, it will be a specific build that some people will run. You aren't going to make gear decisions just to increase one or two CC's landing, but if you are able to build a class around CC, you will.

But again I am talking just cc here, the part of the game you repeatedly say 'makes for interesting combat that goes outside boring rotations.'

This is another example of you not following discussions.

I have said RNG in general is essential to keep a game away from rotations, not specifically CC RNG.

A game could keep away from rotations without any CC at all, if it wanted to do so.

You really need to pay attention to how often you are pulled up for not having followed the conversation, after being more than willing to thrown in your opinion on what you think the conversation is. Perhaps even reflect on that some.

Child Item