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

CROW3

JustVine wrote: »

What are your thoughts on a 'miss' being a partial fail rather than a full fail? That way the technical element of the action mode are the 'real' miss while you still get a 'partial things not going to plan' miss via the rng.

I like the way you think, Vine. This can be a pretty interesting middle ground. So, if I'm hearing you accurately, it looks something like this:

When a player casts a hard cc, there's a roll against a global 1/1000 chance to miss (mitigated by some stat aug), if the roll fails then do a quick roll on another table that could be something like this:

Roll Effect
1 Miss Entirely
2 Hit for 10% dmg / duration
3 Hit for 20% dmg / duration
4 Hit for 40% dmg / duration
5 Hit for 60% dmg / duration
6 Hit for 80% dmg / duration

Is that close to what you were thinking? If so, I think it's awesome.

JustVine

CROW3 wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

What are your thoughts on a 'miss' being a partial fail rather than a full fail? That way the technical element of the action mode are the 'real' miss while you still get a 'partial things not going to plan' miss via the rng.

I like the way you think, Vine. This can be a pretty interesting middle ground. So, if I'm hearing you accurately, it looks something like this:

When a player casts a hard cc, there's a roll against a global 1/1000 chance to miss (mitigated by some stat aug), if the roll fails then do a quick roll on another table that could be something like this:

Roll Effect
1 Miss Entirely
2 Hit for 10% dmg / duration
3 Hit for 20% dmg / duration
4 Hit for 40% dmg / duration
5 Hit for 60% dmg / duration
6 Hit for 80% dmg / duration

Is that close to what you were thinking? If so, I think it's awesome.

No. The 'miss entirely' would only apply to 'physically missing the action mode attack' (the aforementioned compromise. The rng miss reffers to the 'partial fail'. The amount of variance in the 'partial fail' doesn't technically matter as long as both players have the same amount of information as to what roll resulted. It is just generally easier to only have three different categories (ie physical miss, rng partial miss, and rng success.)

If the game goes tab only the 'true' miss would have to be part of the roll. I am just not assuming the game is going full tab.

Noaani

bigepeen wrote: »

Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle is decided by luck if you're using a CC rng system.

WoW's PvP system is just plain bad.

The problem with WoWs combat system (in regards to what we are talking about) is that CC matters too much.

A 6 second stun has no place existing in any MMO.

If you lower the duration to 3 seconds, which is the longest a stun should last, then a stun landing or not has a significantly lesser impact on the outcome.

I mean, I agree that if you have a game where landing or not landing a CC is the difference between winning or losing, having that be controlled by one case of RNG is bad. Thing is, that isnt the fault of RNG, that is the fault of having one CC be the difference between winning and losing.

CROW3

JustVine wrote: »

No. The 'miss entirely' would only apply to 'physically missing the action mode attack' (the aforementioned compromise. The rng miss reffers to the 'partial fail'. The amount of variance in the 'partial fail' doesn't technically matter as long as both players have the same amount of information as to what roll resulted. It is just generally easier to only have three different categories (ie physical miss, rng partial miss, and rng success.)

If the game goes tab only the 'true' miss would have to be part of the roll. I am just not assuming the game is going full tab.

Ah, ok. So remove the chance to miss from RNG entirely, such that when that 1/1000 roll is hit, the result is only a glancing blow of some percent damage / impact / duration, etc. Is that what you're thinking?

If that's the case, what governs a miss? Or does everything hit in the 'middle ground'?

JustVine

CROW3 wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

No. The 'miss entirely' would only apply to 'physically missing the action mode attack' (the aforementioned compromise. The rng miss reffers to the 'partial fail'. The amount of variance in the 'partial fail' doesn't technically matter as long as both players have the same amount of information as to what roll resulted. It is just generally easier to only have three different categories (ie physical miss, rng partial miss, and rng success.)

If the game goes tab only the 'true' miss would have to be part of the roll. I am just not assuming the game is going full tab.

Ah, ok. So remove the chance to miss from RNG entirely, such that when that 1/1000 roll is hit, the result is only a glancing blow of some percent damage / impact / duration, etc. Is that what you're thinking?

If that's the case, what governs a miss? Or does everything hit in the 'middle ground'?

Well presumably in a skill shot scenario, if the combat doesn't suck, there are stresses that can make you miss a shot or your opponent can use their movement abilities to cause you to miss the skill shot. In the case of hard cc the 'fizzle' is the physical miss.

Ok so you miss entirely your skill goes on cooldown like every other ability that got spent.

Or you hit the physical part of the attack. Now the RNG calculator comes up. Roll a 1d1000. Apply opponent's gear resistances. 1-200 you 'fumble'. Your cc is halved or softened ala my original expansions of those options. 201-1000 the stun lands. Same rng system, but the action combat serves as the full fizzle where as the fumble still delivers on the gear stats and adaptation features you have expressed a desire for.

What do you pro-rng people think?

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

I mean, I agree that if you have a game where landing or not landing a CC is the difference between winning or losing, having that be controlled by one case of RNG is bad. Thing is, that isnt the fault of RNG, that is the fault of having one CC be the difference between winning and losing.

I'm not sure if i'm getting you but i don't think people are talking about a case where there is one ability you need to land to win a fight if that is what you are implying.

In a fight, you usually make a plan on how to use your abilities. If some of your abilities have a chance of not working, then it's hard to plan around that. When one of your abilities doesn't work, you are at a disadvantage, not because of anything you did, but because a dice roll didn't land in your favor.

A place that doesn't usually have rng is healing. Do you think heals should have an rng chance of not healing? Would it be fun if the tank of your raid died because rng decided the last few heals would fail? This is the feeling people are talking about. If heals were rng, then i'd imagine you would find it frustrating if you did a boss's mechanics right but lost because the rng wasn't on your side.

JamesSunderland

mcstackerson wrote: »

A place that doesn't usually have rng is healing. Do you think heals should have an rng chance of not healing? Would it be fun if the tank of your raid died because rng decided the last few heals would fail? This is the feeling people are talking about. If heals were rng, then i'd imagine you would find it frustrating if you did a boss's mechanics right but lost because the rng wasn't on your side.

Heals usually don't have a rng chance for "apply or miss" because it follows the RPG logical idea that "you and your allies will not try to escape from your own heal", even tho heals usually have Critical Heal chance RNG.

mcstackerson

JamesSunderland wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

A place that doesn't usually have rng is healing. Do you think heals should have an rng chance of not healing? Would it be fun if the tank of your raid died because rng decided the last few heals would fail? This is the feeling people are talking about. If heals were rng, then i'd imagine you would find it frustrating if you did a boss's mechanics right but lost because the rng wasn't on your side.

Heals usually don't have a rng chance for "apply or miss" because it follows the RPG logical idea that "you and your allies will not try to escape from your own heal", even tho heals usually have Critical Heal chance RNG.

I have played games where you can fail to cast your spells (including your heals) but that isn't my point. I'm talking about.a situation where you can fail an encounter because something crucial doesn't happen when you need it to because of rng.

Instead of trying to say it's not a thing, think about it. How would you feel if you failed a raid because your healing spells failed because of rng and your tank died? When the first heal failed would you having to "adapt" feel rewarding?

bigepeen

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

Between two equally skilled players 1v1, the battle is decided by luck if you're using a CC rng system.

WoW's PvP system is just plain bad.

The problem with WoWs combat system (in regards to what we are talking about) is that CC matters too much.

A 6 second stun has no place existing in any MMO.

If you lower the duration to 3 seconds, which is the longest a stun should last, then a stun landing or not has a significantly lesser impact on the outcome.

I mean, I agree that if you have a game where landing or not landing a CC is the difference between winning or losing, having that be controlled by one case of RNG is bad. Thing is, that isnt the fault of RNG, that is the fault of having one CC be the difference between winning and losing.

Yeah 6 second stun for one ability in PvP is ridiculous.

Anyway, my point is that there's already a tried and true combat system for CCs that is better than just rng dice rolls, regardless of the length of the stuns.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I mean, I agree that if you have a game where landing or not landing a CC is the difference between winning or losing, having that be controlled by one case of RNG is bad. Thing is, that isnt the fault of RNG, that is the fault of having one CC be the difference between winning and losing.

I'm not sure if i'm getting you but i don't think people are talking about a case where there is one ability you need to land to win a fight if that is what you are implying.

In general, no.

However, the specific post I was replying to was saying exactly that.

If the outcome of any encounter is decided by one case of RNG, as the poster I replied to suggested,
the issue is with that one thing the RNG was attached to being too strong, not the fact or was attached to RNG.

That as a statement isnt directed at everyone that is for RNG, only those that think one roll of the dice can determine the outcome of a fight. Those that dont think that is the case should already agree with the specific statement, even if they dont want RNG.

JamesSunderland

mcstackerson wrote: »

I have played games where you can fail to cast your spells (including your heals) but that isn't my point.

mcstackerson wrote: »

Instead of trying to say it's not a thing,

It is/can be a thing, just a extremely rare thing for logical reasons, even tho certainly a "exception to the rule" it seems interesting, a name of any of those games comes to mind?

mcstackerson wrote: »

I'm talking about.a situation where you can fail an encounter because something crucial doesn't happen when you need it to because of rng.

think about it. How would you feel if you failed a raid because your healing spells failed because of rng and your tank died?

Would feel bad? Hell Yeah.
Especially because it would not make a logical sense for your ally to evade your heal.

mcstackerson wrote: »

When the first heal failed would you having to "adapt" feel rewarding?

Having to adapt no.
Pulling off the adaptation, Definitely, as i would've dealt with an unpredictable outcome, and that takes adaptability skill.
Even tho i would still be mad as a TT heal doesn't make any logical sense to fail at all.

CROW3

JustVine wrote: »

What do you pro-rng people think?

I like the concept, but would want a possibility in that 1/1000 then 1/6 (or whatever) for a full miss. Lots of room for mitigation. Lots of room for a glancing impact, but always a non-zero chance to miss.

But that’s just my perspective.

mcstackerson wrote: »

Instead of trying to say it's not a thing, think about it. How would you feel if you failed a raid because your healing spells failed because of rng and your tank died? When the first heal failed would you having to "adapt" feel rewarding?

If a raid failed solely because of a 1/10000 chance to miss a heal, actually missed and you weren’t able to recover, 2 thoughts:

1. You’re not ready (for whatever reason) for that content.
2. The risk for variances is accepted by walking into the raid, and to mitigate that risk requires a higher level of planning, gearing, communication, flexibility, adaptability, and thinking on your feet. How is that a bad thing?

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Even tho would still be mad as a TT heal doesn't make any logical sense to fail at all.

Indeed.

As I have said many times, all RNG should be subject to an opposed roll. Your stat at making a thing happen vs your targets stat at stopping the thing happening.

In order for heals to be able to fail, that would require players have a stat that functions as a stat to make heals fail.

That makes no sense to have.

Dygz

Magic Man wrote: »

Nope, stun is hard CC.

LMAO
Yes. That was sarcasm.
Alpha One had Stuns - which means there were hard ccs.

Xerheart

I am kinda late to this discussion so my apologizes if I repeat anything:

I feel like there should be no base chance to miss a CC, or heal or even hit. I think most games remove the hit stat for a reason, it tends to be a boring stat to have to optimize around. I would rather hit for less, than not at all. If CC is really broken, then I would rather it not be tuned around a chance to miss and rather have its duration tuned or DR adjusted.

I am on the fence about a dodge/parry/block stat that works in PvP.

I am fully on board with spells that would make missing/blocking/dodge, etc. happen. IE:

Necromancer curse that you place on an enemy for X seconds that gives a 15% chance for heals to not be effective on an X min CD.

A rogue evasion, that would block physical-based stuns and snares for X seconds on an X min CD. Or a spellmancer's magic shield that reflects the next spell. etc..

I think skills like these balance out RNG and player agency. Allowing for options for meaningful counterplay, but also some luck-based combat. (Maybe the necromancer put that anti-heal curse on me a rogue, but I have a bunch of movement skills up, so I can kite for the duration of the buff. Or the enemy team plans a stun for me while it's up, to try and force my healer to use mana to try and have a chance of me surviving.)

SirChancelot

Break out gameplay

Dygz

mcstackerson wrote: »

How would you feel if you failed a raid because your healing spells failed because of rng and your tank died? When the first heal failed would you having to "adapt" feel rewarding?

Same way I feel when I "roll a 1" in any RPG.

bigepeen

. nvm

CROW3

Xerheart wrote: »

I am kinda late to this discussion so my apologizes if I repeat anything:

I feel like there should be no base chance to miss a CC, or heal or even hit. I think most games remove the hit stat for a reason, it tends to be a boring stat to have to optimize around. I would rather hit for less, than not at all. If CC is really broken, then I would rather it not be tuned around a chance to miss and rather have its duration tuned or DR adjusted.

I am on the fence about a dodge/parry/block stat that works in PvP.

I am fully on board with spells that would make missing/blocking/dodge, etc. happen. IE:

Necromancer curse that you place on an enemy for X seconds that gives a 15% chance for heals to not be effective on an X min CD.

A rogue evasion, that would block physical-based stuns and snares for X seconds on an X min CD. Or a spellmancer's magic shield that reflects the next spell. etc..

I think skills like these balance out RNG and player agency. Allowing for options for meaningful counterplay, but also some luck-based combat. (Maybe the necromancer put that anti-heal curse on me a rogue, but I have a bunch of movement skills up, so I can kite for the duration of the buff. Or the enemy team plans a stun for me while it's up, to try and force my healer to use mana to try and have a chance of me surviving.)

Welcome to the ever continuing RNG conversation.

I’m a little confused with your points. Could you help me understand where ‘luck-based combat’ comes into play when it seems like you want to remove RNG from the equation?

Xerheart

CROW3 wrote: »

Welcome to the ever-continuing RNG conversation.

I’m a little confused with your points. Could you help me understand where ‘luck-based combat’ comes into play when it seems like you want to remove RNG from the equation?

Thanks haha, I have been trying to avoid it for a while, since I haven't read the 500 pages, but I figured I'd try to hope in for at least a little bit.

My "luck-based combat" would be from the dodge/parry/miss etc. spells placed on a target for a short duration.

IE: Necromancer places a debuff on my dps group member that makes heals have a 15% chance to miss. I am a healer and low on mana. The group member is super low and will prob die if I don't land any heal on him before the debuff wears off. In this case, I can't wait out the debuff to guarantee my heals hit. So I start spamming heals to keep them alive, hoping I get lucky and that my heals don't miss with that 15% debuff.

The difference to me with this and just base RNG is that:

1.) I don't think this type of scenario would be fun 24/7
2.) If that debuff has a 1.5 min cd, I know for that next amount of time, I can worry less about my heals missing, be more aggressive with heals, etc. Basically, I strategize around the cooldown. Where with RNG I cant strategize at all.

Let me know if that makes sense, I could be wording it poorly.

(Also figure it should be noted, I am mainly a competitive PvE player, so I am not as experienced with PvP: For WoW people: I have only gotten 2100 in RBGs and 1950 in 2s).

Child Item