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

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

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.

It's easy to think someone isn't following the conversation when you aren't listening to what they have to say.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

It's easy to think someone isn't following the conversation when you aren't listening to what they have to say.

When you say something like

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.'

when in fact that is not what I have said, anything you may have to add to that doesn't matter, because that is not what was said.

If you opt to join a conversation, join the conversation as it is. Don't just make shit up as you have done here (I literally didn't say what you claimed I did, and then you decided to comment on what you pretended I had said - what the actual fuck?)

Even more than that, when people call you out for not following the conversation and just making shit up, don't then attempt to reverse that by saying they aren't paying attention to what you are saying.

Of course I am not going to pay attention to your response to the thing you made up and claimed I said. Why would you ever think someone would?

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

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.

But sure let's correct your misunderstanding. I brought up that example (thought you were talking about something else due to your unclear wording,) is because 'in a situation where you die to stun because you geared against stun and you 'fail' the save and die from the combo, you are generally going to have two 'visible' things to emotionally react to. 'The gear didn't do its 'job'.' (This is a psychological bias, but good video games build around those not ignore them.) 'If I had more defense I would have lasted longer.' I'm talking about 'emotional responses.' Your response to that is the gear equivalent of 'git gud' mine is 'ok this situation isn't a necessary experience let's build in a way that lowers the quantity of those situations.'

Do you want yo keep condecending me about how wrong I am or do you want to have an actual debate and answer my earnest questions to you that you ignore entirely

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

It's easy to think someone isn't following the conversation when you aren't listening to what they have to say.

When you say something like

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.'

when in fact that is not what I have said, anything you may have to add to that doesn't matter, because that is not what was said.

If you opt to join a conversation, join the conversation as it is. Don't just make shit up as you have done here (I literally didn't say what you claimed I did, and then you decided to comment on what you pretended I had said - what the actual fuck?)

Even more than that, when people call you out for not following the conversation and just making shit up, don't then attempt to reverse that by saying they aren't paying attention to what you are saying.

Of course I am not going to pay attention to your response to the thing you made up and claimed I said. Why would you ever think someone would?

'I made it up.' I got this impression from numerous things you have said in numerous threads. Getting exact quotes would take a lot of time so ok. 'I made it up.' Rather than misunderstood you... You don't perceive cc to be part of the strategic part of the game and the part that keeps things from getting stale....?

Dygz

JustVine wrote: »

But sure let's correct your misunderstanding. I brought up that example (thought you were talking about something else due to your unclear wording,) is because 'in a situation where you die to stun because you geared against stun and you 'fail' the save and die from the combo, you are generally going to have two 'visible' things to emotionally react to. 'The gear didn't do its 'job'.' (This is a psychological bias, but good video games build around those not ignore them.) 'If I had more defense I would have lasted longer.' I'm talking about 'emotional responses.' Your response to that is the gear equivalent of 'git gud' mine is 'ok this situation isn't a necessary experience let's build in a way that lowers the quantity of those situations.'

It's unlikely that someone will die from a Stun because they "rolled a 1".
It might be that someone who built their character to be highly resistant to Stuns gets Stunned anyway.
There are no guarantees in life. Sometimes shit happens even when you felt you prepared against it.
Sure. Blame everything on the gear.
You could have maxed Defense and still get Stunned because your opponent got in a lucky blow.
Getting gud is not a guarantee that you always win.

We will build in a way that lowers the instances of unwanted outcomes.
RNG means that shit can still happen sometimes. But we build our characters in such a way to make those times as infrequent as possible.
You may want to play chess instead of backgammon, but RPGs are a backgammon game; not a chess game.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

do you want to have an actual debate and answer my earnest questions to you that you ignore entirely

Not really, because every time I attempt to actually discuss something with you, you respond to something I was saying to another poster, and ignore the answer I gave you to the specific point you were making.

JamesSunderland

Man reading some of the "anti-rng" comments makes me think some people are truly scared to death by RNG, and are much more prone to stale and almost static systems, that can alot of times make the experience very repetitive and monotone, stuff that is usually more aligned with Mobas or Fighting Games that barely have RNG.

truelyyy

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Man reading some of the "anti-rng" comments makes me think some people are truly scared to death by RNG, and are much more prone to stale and almost static systems, that can alot of times make the experience very repetitive and monotone, stuff that is usually more aligned with Mobas or Fighting Games that barely have RNG.

you say that as if MOBA combat isn't fun? RNG doesn't mean fun combat

JamesSunderland

truely wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Man reading some of the "anti-rng" comments makes me think some people are truly scared to death by RNG, and are much more prone to stale and almost static systems, that can alot of times make the experience very repetitive and monotone, stuff that is usually more aligned with Mobas or Fighting Games that barely have RNG.

you say that as if MOBA combat isn't fun? RNG doesn't mean fun combat

Moba combat is fun, not as fun as MMORPG combat in my opinion but certainly fun and their popularity numbers don't lie, but they are completely different type of games with completely different types of concepts, style, tempo and etc.

Yes, RNG doesn't mean fun combat and Non-RNG also doesn't mean fun combat.
But RNG means variability and unpredictability and non-RNG means monotone and repetitiveness.

Dygz

"Chess is fun, so backgammon shouldn't have dice."
"Backgammon is fun, so chess should have dice."

CROW3

Chess with dice could get very interesting. 🥸

Guli

Well after reading most of the thread, my opinion is still the same as the OP.

I hope we can get some new thoughts or insight from intrepid on this topic

Rainwolffield

This would be my take on CC and RNG. Gear does modify your RNG range, but as far as hit and miss your right, there’s a small amount of randomness to it. If you want to eliminate it that’s fine. But as far as how long CC last I think some RNG is a must. It’s a dice role and in truly good stat driven games there should be. Gear and stats matter and it’s also important if you want any kind of game play beyond the Trinity. The randomness is also what allows you to reverse or fight back out of disaster.
So I think you always need some, but how much and where is debatable. The RNG is what makes stat driven characters work, because you’re constantly closing in and maximizing what your di role can land in and hit. I also like it for gear drops. It makes each drop interesting and exciting. Remember that (most developers forget this) the objective of any good online game should be more about the fun that keeps you logged in. I know it’s cheap design but it makes the rewards worth fighting through the disappointment. I always said that the one think TBC got right over every mmo before it was that while none of the gear was just handed over, you had to work for it, you had multiple paths in which you’re always working for it.

I KNOW this was CC. Just saying that RNG is a very addictive yet rewarding and frustrating design. But it does have ways to balance it out. Should CC always land? That’s fine but then you should penalize it by the time looking for a balance..

Magic Man

In Ashes soft CCs are planned to be tab (therefore RNG) while hard CCs are to be action (no RNG, you have to land the ability). It does make sense. However, in this alpha, there was no ''hard'' CCs per se - mostly ''soft'' CCs that felt like hard CCs (it's a balancing issue that will be fixed some time later probably)

Dygz

All combat has RNG, including hard CCs:
"RNG is always going to play a role in Ashes of Creation whether that be in PvP or PvE, but one way to mitigate that is through the action system. The action system is going to be far less sort of dependent on those you know dice rolls and there'll be far more in your own hands. They won't ever completely eliminate that but it's a way for us to sort of reward skilled play versus sort of tactical strategies type play."
– Jeffrey Bard

Stun is a "soft" CC?

bigepeen

I think that PvP in MMOs don't really need rng at all.

Most games add rng to create a little variability in gameplay. This helps keep the gameplay fresh in games where the mechanics are so simple that you can easily predict the outcome without it.

In MMO PvP, there are so many builds, gear, and even subtle character racial differences, that this introduces a ton of variability into the game already. It's totally unnecessary to add on rng on top of that to increase variability even further. You can't really predict the outcome of something, because there may be something in the opponent's build that you didn't expect, or someone else comes out of nowhere to attack you, etc...

Noaani

bigepeen wrote: »

I think that PvP in MMOs don't really need rng at all.

My issue with this is how low Stevens target for gear based improvement is.

In most games, gear makes up to 400 - 500% of your "power". A character in top end gear in a game like WoW would be able to take on 5 gearless (apart from basic weapons that would be needed) characters in literally any MMO I have ever played.

In Ashes, the target is for gear to equal about 50%. This means two characters with no gear (apart from basic weapons that would be needed) should be able to easily defeat a player in the best gear the game has to offer.

If this is how things go, it would mean that gear isn't really all that much of a variable in the game. This results in there only being two variables left between the same two people fighting each other a few times - their spec, and RNG.

While we are going to be able to change our spec, it likely isn't going to be all that easy. People aren't likely to tinker with it, but rather settle on one that they like and only change it when there is a need.

As such, this means the only variable left in PvP is RNG.

Take that away and what do we have left?

Sure, you have variables in regards to which player you are fighting, but in most games I tend to find that 90% of my PvP fighting is against the same 20 or so people. Without much in the way of gear being a factor, and without RNG being a factor, you will very quickly learn which of those 20 people you always win against, and which you always lose against.

Those you always win against will likely run when they see you, as they always lose, those you always lose against will likely see you run.

RNG being present in Ashes is what is going to play a factor in people deciding to fight back or not - if you want open world PvP, you want RNG.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

I think that PvP in MMOs don't really need rng at all.

My issue with this is how low Stevens target for gear based improvement is.

In most games, gear makes up to 400 - 500% of your "power". A character in top end gear in a game like WoW would be able to take on 5 gearless (apart from basic weapons that would be needed) characters in literally any MMO I have ever played.

In Ashes, the target is for gear to equal about 50%. This means two characters with no gear (apart from basic weapons that would be needed) should be able to easily defeat a player in the best gear the game has to offer.

If this is how things go, it would mean that gear isn't really all that much of a variable in the game. This results in there only being two variables left between the same two people fighting each other a few times - their spec, and RNG.

While we are going to be able to change our spec, it likely isn't going to be all that easy. People aren't likely to tinker with it, but rather settle on one that they like and only change it when there is a need.

As such, this means the only variable left in PvP is RNG.

Take that away and what do we have left?

Sure, you have variables in regards to which player you are fighting, but in most games I tend to find that 90% of my PvP fighting is against the same 20 or so people. Without much in the way of gear being a factor, and without RNG being a factor, you will very quickly learn which of those 20 people you always win against, and which you always lose against.

Those you always win against will likely run when they see you, as they always lose, those you always lose against will likely see you run.

RNG being present in Ashes is what is going to play a factor in people deciding to fight back or not - if you want open world PvP, you want RNG.

'What do we have left'? Skill if the combat system doesn't suck. Gear attributes enhancing play styles if the gear system doesn't suck.

'But people will start knowing who they can and cannot beat'. Obviously. That's how any game with an RPS class balance system will work. I am a mage? Fucking run away from any tank that's reasonably as geared as me. RNG or Not. RNG on CC doesn't fix that inherent flaw at all nor does it fix skill gaps.

The solution to ensuring open world pvp happens isn't rng, it's having a good gear system and a good hybrid combat system with spacing dependent neutral, hitboxes and yomi. The combat being good allows for improvements in skill. RNG on cc mutes those gains by providing more randomness and less actual skill. You wanna take on someone you lose to that didn't have a class that is your bad match up? Get better at combat and get gear that increase it's enhancement of your fighting style, or makes up for your weaknesses in those familiar match ups. Learning how to properly ambush/avoid being ambushed does the rest.

If they get better just as fast as you? Figure out a way to enjoy the combat win or lose or play a different part of the game. If you need to win to be happy you will probably have a bad time in a game like Ashes where lose is inevitable at some point.

Additionally most games aren't Ashes and encourage better dynamic player population clustering. You want open world pvp to matter more to your experience? Go to a more populated node. Less? Go to a less populated node.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

'What do we have left'? Skill if the combat system doesn't suck. Gear attributes enhancing play styles if the gear system doesn't suck.

As I said, we are talking about fights between the same two people, since most of the open PvP I have experienced in games with open PvP tends to be against the same general people.

This means that player skill is already a known in these situations, and so isn't a variable.

People also don't generally change their playstyle, so again this isn't a variable in regards to fighting the same people regularly.

While RNG may not completely cover over the RPS aspect of the game (which is a design goal, not a flaw as you suggest), it absolutely will increase the frequency in which people stay to fight rather than opt to flee.

---

Your post is hinging on the false assumption that randomness removes from skill. This has been debunked before, including earlier in this thread.

Randomness adds the need for more skill, as it means you are faced with more individual situations in which you will want to prevail.

If you are a class that relies on a CC opener, and that opener fails, it takes player skill to recover. If that CC is always going to hit, you have no need to have that player skill to recover from that situation, as that situation won't happen.

While you may or may not have a point, I simply can't get past a post touting a long-debunked notion.

Feel free to re-state your thoughts without reference to this dead and buried notion, if you wish.

Ugoogee

I suggest something like a Stun Meter that fills up whenever any CC hits a player or enemy. This Stun Meter would fill up to a max of 100 points and would only trigger hard CC at max points. Damage from all CC abilities and skills would apply normally. After hard CC triggers at 100 points, the meter would drain back to zero and can not be filled again for about 3 seconds. Also the Stun Meter would start to drain over time if a player or enemy has not been damaged or affected by CC for about 4 seconds.

CC that the players gets from skills and abilities would have an extra stat number that indicates how many stun points it would increase the Stun Meter. Some weapons like a hammer/mace could also have these stats and would apply stun points by landing successful attacks, but would not trigger any additional effects at 100 points.

Hard CC will not trigger when under 100 points but fills the Stun Meter immediately. However soft CC like slows would still trigger but fill up the Stun Meter over time during its duration. Soft CC will not cause any extra bonuses or effects when they reach 100 points. Players and opponents that are soft CCed can not gain stun points to their meter from another soft CC until the duration of the current effect is over. Stun points from hard CC would be applied normally during soft CC effects.

Players could also spec skill points into an attribute or gain equipment/gear that would reduce incoming stun points applied to their Stun Meter. This type of resistance could be called something like Toughness, Sturdiness, Poise etc...

I think adding a Stun Meter system would incentive cooperation between players to use their CC abilities wisely. I think this could help in scenarios where players would focus most of their CC on an opponent to prevent them from using a lethal spell while still giving the opponent a chance to cast without being chain CCed.

I didn't read most of this thread so I apologize if I repeated certain concepts and ideas.

Child Item