Crowd control should not be based on RNG

Xerheart wrote: »

I don't think this type of scenario would be fun 24/7

One of the benefits of opposed rolls is that the developers could make it so that if you really hate misses,and would rather hit for less but guarantee each hit, you can gear up to make that close to a reality.

In the other hand, if you are fine with missing sometimes, but really like hitting big when you do hit, you can gear up for that instead.

It gives players more options, allowing you to gear and spec appropriate to how you want to play the game.

I fail to see what is wrong with that, from any perspective.

Xerheart

Noaani wrote: »

One of the benefits of opposed rolls is that the developers could make it so that if you really hate misses,and would rather hit for less but guarantee each hit, you can gear up to make that close to a reality.

In the other hand, if you are fine with missing sometimes, but really like hitting big when you do hit, you can gear up for that instead.

It gives players more options, allowing you to gear and spec appropriate to how you want to play the game.

I fail to see what is wrong with that, from any perspective.

True I can see that and how it would allow for player agency. I'm not terribly opposed to a hit stat/gear for sure. I think my opposition to it is based on WoW PvE experience, where I have to sacrifice stats to get hit.

I think it just boils down to, for me, it is a kind of boring choice on deciding whether I want to hit or not. But I can obviously see how, just because it's a boring/less interesting choice for me, others could like the trade off.

I am curious how the majority of players feel about the hit stat/gear.

JustVine wrote: »

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?

Mmmmn. I think I'm missing some nuance.

If it's an Action Combat Stun... The big part of what determines whether the Stun "fumbles" instead of hits...with regard to RNG... are the stats. If the attacking character has low Dex, we should expect the Stun might actually "fumble".
Just because the attacking player has excellent twitch skills does not mean their character has decent Dex.
Especially if the target character has excellent Dex, we should still expect the RNG to kick in an Evade. Or if excellent Constitution, the target character might resist.

Though, we have to take into a account that RNG is much less of a factor for Action skills as compared to Tab Target skills.
The player with excellent twitch skills does get some reward for having excellent twitch skills - it just doesn't completely negate RNG.

JustVine

Dygz wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

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?

Mmmmn. I think I'm missing some nuance.

If it's an Action Combat Stun... The big part of what determines whether the Stun "fumbles" instead of hits...with regard to RNG... are the stats. If the attacking character has low Dex, we should expect the Stun might actually "fumble".
Just because the attacking player has excellent twitch skills does not mean their character has decent Dex.
Especially if the target character has excellent Dex, we should still expect the RNG to kick in an Evade. Or if excellent Constitution, the target character might resist.

Though, we have to take into a account that RNG is much less of a factor for Action skills as compared to Tab Target skills.
The player with excellent twitch skills does get some reward for having excellent twitch skills - it just doesn't completely negate RNG.

RNG isn't negated in the currently proposed model. Gear resistance and stats apply in the proposed model.

'If it's an Action Combat Stun... The big part of what determines whether the Stun "fumbles" instead of hits...with regard to RNG... are the stats.'

The nuance you might be missing is that a physical miss is a full miss. The player's skill is tested. The fumble is an RNG partial miss. The character executed the move imperfectly. A success is where both you and your character succeeded. You are rewarded with the abilities full effect.

Whether or not this model fits Intrepid's model is not yet known. Your beaten dead horse of a Jeffery Bard quote does not specify how the rng applies to the action combat hit. This is a proposal to meet in the middle. So I am asking your /opinion/ on a possible implementation.

It sounds a lot like 'no I don't like this model because I am an rng purest.'

JustVine wrote: »

RNG isn't negated in the currently proposed model. Gear resistance and stats apply in the proposed model.

Right. Sorry. I was not meaning to convey that you suggested RNG should be completely negated. I was just including the reminder that in the Ashes concept players do get rewarded for their excellent twitch skills.
General statement while discussing Ashes. That wasn't specifically referring to your suggestion.

Songcaller

I heard a while ago RNG isn't applied in Action Combat, because, in Action Combat you can miss through incompetence. There would be little point in having two miss functions. Hard CC is classed as Action Combat last I heard, thus, no rng would be applied to the active combat. If you expect a quote I can't be bothered to find one. I also could be wrong because changes have happened to the combat iteration.

Edit: Spelling mistakes.

JustVine wrote: »

The nuance you might be missing is that a physical miss is a full miss. The player's skill is tested. The fumble is an RNG partial miss. The character executed the move imperfectly. A success is where both you and your character succeeded. You are rewarded with the abilities full effect.

"Full effects" still have to account for the target character.
The RNG for a fumble depends on the attacking character's Dex.
But, really, for the most part, all character stats v character stats being equal, if the attacking player hits with action ability, the action ability should hit 99% of the time unless the attacking character has very low Dex.

JustVine wrote: »

Whether or not this model fits Intrepid's model is not yet known. Your beaten dead horse of a Jeffery Bard quote does not specify how the rng applies to the action combat hit. This is a proposal to meet in the middle. So I am asking your /opinion/ on a possible implementation.

It sounds a lot like 'no I don't like this model because I am an rng purest.'

I don't know how that can be described as an "RNG purest" since, in Jeffery's model, Action skills considerably negate RNG. That negation just isn't zero.

1: I'm not sure more compromise is needed. True.
2: But, the nuance I feel I'm missing is the difference between a fizzle and a resist.

I think if the attacking player's character has decent Dex, the attack should not fizzle 99% of the time if it's an action ability that hits via player twitch skills. Unless the target character has much higher Dex and Evade or a very high Constitution and very high Disable Resistance. But, then it's not because the attacker fumbled or fizzled, it's because the target Evaded or Resisted.
I wouldn't say I'm an RNG purest - but I have said, push come to shove, character build should trump player twitch skills in an RPG.

JustVine

Mk so both you and CROW3 have effectively gone 'no I want stun to have a binary fail option np matter what' despite the fact that player skill already provides that.

@JamesSunderland is the only other person I technically am waiting on an opinion irt it. But I expect a similar response as CROW3's

It's about character build; not player twitch skills.
In an RPG character v character is more important than player twitch skills v player twitch skills.

JustVine wrote: »

Mk so both you and CROW3 have effectively gone 'no I want stun to have a binary fail option np matter what' despite the fact that player skill already provides that.

From the defenders perspective, there needs to be a non-action combat defense to everything.

If all defenses against action abilities are action abilities, then the games combat is not really hybrid.

I'm not giving any solution to this - as this has been the aspect of hybrid combat that I consider the hardest to resolve.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Can you look at the healing scenario to understand because you don't seem to get it. All your skills have an affect on a fight, it's not about one skill being too strong. It's about all of them having a purpose and if one fails to serve that purpose because of rng, then you are at a disadvantage for reasons outside of your control.

CROW3 wrote: »

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?

1. Well this isn't true, as we discussed you can win the encounter and probably have in the past, just got unlucky this time. I chose this scenario because of how time sensitive it is. In a prolonged fight, rng isn't a big deal as things are able average out over time but in the tank scenario, you don't have that time for things to average out. If a few heals are missed, it's a failure.

2. Does that mean you think heals should have a chance to miss? That aside, all of those things can happen without rng elements and i also disagree to some extent when you think about how it actually plays.

When it comes to the healing example, if you miss a heal, what crazy thing do you do to compensate? Cast another heal. Maybe you need to use a cooldown but that means you are now at a disadvantage, not because someone screwed up and you needed to save them but because rng didn't like you for a moment.

Similar thing when it comes to a cc. Let's say you were saving a CC to counter an opponents ability, they use that ability and your cc fails, what do you do? Use another another ability if you have it or let the opponent do their action, either way, you are now at a disadvantage at no fault of your own.

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Can you look at the healing scenario to understand because you don't seem to get it. All your skills have an affect on a fight, it's not about one skill being too strong. It's about all of them having a purpose and if one fails to serve that purpose because of rng, then you are at a disadvantage for reasons outside of your control.

If you have stats available to you - or options in your build - that can increase your chances to make it land, then it isn't out of your control.

That said, even if it is out of your control, things in games happen to you that are out of your control all the time - such as being stunned. You can't complain that you are against having things taken out of your hands in relation to an ability that takes things out of other players hands - that is just a weird argument to make.

Also, the post that I quoted, that the post in question was a specific reply to, had no mention of a healing scenario.

Since my post was a reply to that one specific quoted post, I have no idea what it is you mean by that.

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Can you look at the healing scenario to understand because you don't seem to get it. All your skills have an affect on a fight, it's not about one skill being too strong. It's about all of them having a purpose and if one fails to serve that purpose because of rng, then you are at a disadvantage for reasons outside of your control.

If you have stats available to you - or options in your build - that can increase your chances to make it land, then it isn't out of your control.

That said, even if it is out of your control, things in games happen to you that are out of your control all the time - such as being stunned. You can't complain that you are against having things taken out of your hands in relation to an ability that takes things out of other players hands - that is just a weird argument to make.

Also, the post that I quoted, that the post in question was a specific reply to, had no mention of a healing scenario.

Since my post was a reply to that one specific quoted post, I have no idea what it is you mean by that.

Do you think heals would be better if there was an rng chance of failing and not healing there target?

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Can you look at the healing scenario to understand because you don't seem to get it. All your skills have an affect on a fight, it's not about one skill being too strong. It's about all of them having a purpose and if one fails to serve that purpose because of rng, then you are at a disadvantage for reasons outside of your control.

If you have stats available to you - or options in your build - that can increase your chances to make it land, then it isn't out of your control.

That said, even if it is out of your control, things in games happen to you that are out of your control all the time - such as being stunned. You can't complain that you are against having things taken out of your hands in relation to an ability that takes things out of other players hands - that is just a weird argument to make.

Also, the post that I quoted, that the post in question was a specific reply to, had no mention of a healing scenario.

Since my post was a reply to that one specific quoted post, I have no idea what it is you mean by that.

Do you think heals would be better if there was an rng chance of failing and not healing there target?

This question has no relavence to the quote I replied to.

However;

Noaani wrote: »

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.

CROW3

mcstackerson wrote: »

Do you think heals would be better if there was an rng chance of failing and not healing there target?

I can't remember, are all heals tab-based or are there (non-AOE) directed heals that are similar to ranged AC?

(I'm debating the philosophical v. practical aspects of this question).

Also -

mcstackerson wrote: »

1. Well this isn't true, as we discussed you can win the encounter and probably have in the past, just got unlucky this time.

There's a threshold here. In my mind, a team that's ready for content can clear that content outside the rare probability ranges of RNG miss%s. If something misses, they can recover and defeat the encounter. In your example, if a team wins or loses the encounter *only* because of a rare miss, they are pretty far over their skis for that particular encounter. Again, no problem with the ambition of that, as long as the raid team understands and accepts the risk for what it is.

Healing spells can fail in systems where casting spells requires effort on the caster's part and can be messed up if your character doesn't perform the action right i.e. they might slur a word or mess up a gesture.

@Noaani That isn't the question. Would healing be better with an RNG chance of failing?

@CROW3 I still feel like you are dodging the question, would that be better? Would having a chance to fail to heal improve the system since it would force you to adapt or would you prefer you not having to factor that in during a fight and instead focus on other aspects of the encounter?

If you truly believe RNG enhances the experience in a place it usually exists then why wouldn't you want it in a place where it's not as common but can create the same experience?

If i'm missing something then please explain it to me but i'd want more then a lore reason for why it doesn't work that way in a game you have played.

Songcaller

In games where there is RNG on Heals you would never solo heal a raid. On a game with no RNG on heals you can sometimes solo heal. It is the only distinction I can make, if you have RNG on Heals and you solo heal then either the raid leader or the healer in question should be more cautious.

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani That isn't the question. Would healing be better with an RNG chance of failing?

I specifically answered this in my last post.

Since all RNG in a game should be subject to opposed rolls, and all opposed rolls should be able to be influenced by both players, since it doesn't make sense to have a stat that increases the chance for a heal to not land on you, it doesn't make sense for heals to have RNG in terms of hit/miss.

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani That isn't the question. Would healing be better with an RNG chance of failing?

I specifically answered this in my last post.

Since all RNG in a game should be subject to opposed rolls, and all opposed rolls should be able to be influenced by both players, since it doesn't make sense to have a stat that increases the chance for a heal to not land on you, it doesn't make sense for heals to have RNG in terms of hit/miss.

I don't think you did.

Ok, people heal at different rates in our society. Some cures that work for some don't work for others and doctors vary in their skills so we will base some stats off that. Everyone has a stat that dictates how susceptible they are to heals. Maybe the old wise mage isn't as good at getting healed then the young, strong tank. You might also have a healing stat that dictates how good you are at identifying an injury so you can heal it. Your heal stat that dictates how good you are at healing goes against their stat that dictates how susceptible they are to healing. If your roll fails, you don't heal them.

Would you like that system where you could fail to heal someone?