Misses, resists and other combat RNG

What are people's thought on the topic of RNG in combat?

1) My impression is that there will be no RNG misses or resists of damaging attacks. Same goes for effects from attacks like DoTs, CC or debuffs. If someone sends it your way, and you don't have a specific effect that keeps from landing, it's going to stick. You may be able to reduce the damage with resists/armor stats, but it won't just be completely nullified. I bring that up because after the mage preview I've been seeing a lot of comparisons to systems where you just stack resists to a specific element to not get hit by it.

2) RNG blocks, dodges or parries. My understanding is that the default level of evade/block/parry will be 0%. I don't think we've seen anything official related to this from the Devs other than active block showcased in the tank preview. There are a lot of options .Tank and rogue are the most likely classes to have something like this. Either as a passive X% chance to block/evade damage, or as an active buff that gives an X% chance. But since all classes could have rogue/tank/other

#1: IMO for a modern MMO, RNG missing/resists are not needed. It's just too huge of a benefit for an attack to completely miss, especially in a cooldown based system.

For #2, I'm also not a fan of anything passive. But a moderate-to-long-cooldown RNG-based defensive buff would be ok (Ex: gain 30% evade chance for the next 5 seconds). Even better would be a cooldown based buff that negates the next attack against you. I'm more interested in having active block or iframes incorporated into the dodge roll

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Lodrig

I give up, you are too stubborn and arrogant to receive correction despite my repeated good faith attempts to explain and point you towards educational materials. Both those D6 rolls your describing are definitionally output randomness, the only difference is one is a binary result (hit/miss) and the other is a spectrum, no one has ever differentiated randomness on that basis, so you have a completely made-up definition in your head and a refusal to let go of it. You should seriously refrain from posting on this forum with such an attitude as you're a net negative. contribution to any discussion when you throw around terminology incorrectly.

Songcaller

So, based on one video and a mistaken identification of input rng you have condemned a person to the bin. I'd rather not waste my time either. If you want to see Output RNG destroy a game you should play Valorant. Otherwise, my point stands that input rng is still better than a random d6 roll at every juncture. I even linked the article which linked to your video but it seems to have made no difference.

Lodrig

I read your link, it was just a short summary of the video posted earlier, a summary completely supporting my position btw. Note that I've been aware of the distinction between input and output randomness for years and I can vouch for the video's accuracy. I can find as many references as you can watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXn3tGBztVc

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/randomness-and-game-design

https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.08437

Songcaller

First source:

Well, except for this: There’s one element of output randomness in Into the Breach, and that is in the player’s built-in defense system, which can roll the dice and save their skin, completely at random.

From a second source:

Players on both teams are forced to adapt to whichever elemental dragon spawns, prioritizing it differently depending on how it benefits their unique situation.

Third source:

Input randomness is essentially information before the action: the draw of cards before a turn, or the creation of a procedurally generated map. That gives the player something to strategize against, and for sure it feels like a fairer way to handle an element as necessary to games as randomness.

Conclusion:

You seem to gloss over the parts that support my position and continue to spout the same stuff over and over again. Ive stated twice it can be environment but it can also be inherent.

Solvryn

Lodrig wrote: »

I read your link, it was just a short summary of the video posted earlier, a summary completely supporting my position btw. Note that I've been aware of the distinction between input and output randomness for years and I can vouch for the video's accuracy. I can find as many references as you can watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXn3tGBztVc

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/randomness-and-game-design

https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.08437

I find 9:37 absolutely hilarious.

Noaani

Lodrig wrote: »

I give up, you are too stubborn and arrogant to receive correction despite my repeated good faith attempts to explain and point you towards educational materials. Both those D6 rolls your describing are definitionally output randomness, the only difference is one is a binary result (hit/miss) and the other is a spectrum, no one has ever differentiated randomness on that basis, so you have a completely made-up definition in your head and a refusal to let go of it. You should seriously refrain from posting on this forum with such an attitude as you're a net negative. contribution to any discussion when you throw around terminology incorrectly.

I mean, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.

Since you are arguing so much against Neurath's use of input vs output RNG, you must have an understanding of how he is using it.

Since the introduction of that term to this discussion was not in relation to the definition of the term itself, but rather to his opinions on RNG, if you understand what his opinions on RNG actually are, then the definition of the term literally doesn't matter.

I've never heard the term used the way he used it, but that didn't prevent me understanding the point he was getting across.

Lodrig

Noaani wrote: »

I've never heard the term used the way he used it, but that didn't prevent me understanding the point he was getting across.

Can you explain it then because it really is unclear to me. If he thinks D&D type mechanics are ok then I don't see what he wants removed from the game, because that's what the game looks to be using.

Solvryn

http://keithburgun.net/randomness-and-game-design/

Songcaller

Lodrig wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I've never heard the term used the way he used it, but that didn't prevent me understanding the point he was getting across.

Can you explain it then because it really is unclear to me. If he thinks D&D type mechanics are ok then I don't see what he wants removed from the game, because that's what the game looks to be using.

I don't want anything removed. I want a stat to have a counter stat, a move to have a counter move and not to have an output rng system based on random dice rolls.

You should be able to get a tradeoff between effective stats and diminished stats. Thus, you can build to counter a build or build and know your weaknesses. It's inherent to mmo gameplay in general and I would hope its in Ashes too.

Solvryn

Neurath wrote: »

Lodrig wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I've never heard the term used the way he used it, but that didn't prevent me understanding the point he was getting across.

Can you explain it then because it really is unclear to me. If he thinks D&D type mechanics are ok then I don't see what he wants removed from the game, because that's what the game looks to be using.

I don't want anything removed. I want a stat to have a counter stat, a move to have a counter move and not to have an output rng system based on random dice rolls.

You should be able to get a tradeoff between effective stats and diminished stats. Thus, you can build to counter a build or build and know your weaknesses. It's inherent to mmo gameplay in general and I would hope its in Ashes too.

More aiming, less dice rolls for me.

Starts with parting ways with passive RNG all together. No need for that shit at all.

Noaani

Lodrig wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I've never heard the term used the way he used it, but that didn't prevent me understanding the point he was getting across.

Can you explain it then because it really is unclear to me. If he thinks D&D type mechanics are ok then I don't see what he wants removed from the game, because that's what the game looks to be using.

Rather than repeating what Neurath has said above, I'm going to quote myself from earlier in this thread as to point out how easy it actually was to understand his position if you simply paid attention to what was being said instead of getting all hung up about a term being used in a manner that is different from what you are used to;

Noaani wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Yes, I understand your position. But you can't build a hybrid system based on one half of the hybrid. If there is rng output on tab skills, then I would gravitate to action skills. I think resists and immunities are enough. We don't need output miss.

You have the combat tracker. I've seen only one instance where a skill hasn't landed in the dev streams (sleep) other than that I couldn't tell if it was a resist or an rng miss.

To be clear, based on your description of input RNG vs output RNG (not a definition I've heard before), I actually do agree that output RNG is bad.

I've always been of the opinion that any action in combat should have it's outcome determined equally by both parties. This is what I've talked about on these forums previously as opposed RNG. Any time RNG is involved, it should be my appropriate stat vs your appropriate stat, with an RNG roll.

Basically, both involved parties should have the ability to influence the outcome of RNG via gear and buffs as appropriate.

The above post was simply clearing up what Intrepid have said on RNG, and making sure people know it will be (by necessity) a part of combat.

As per this post, the terms I have always seen used for what he was talking about are opposed rolls (my chance to hit vs your chance to dodge), vs unopposed rolls (me rolling a chance to fumble for no reason other than that I need to roll a chance to fumble).

Lodrig

Opposed stat rolls is fine as a design choice and I'd be fully in favor of that.

Neurath: Is Noanni's description of your desire, correct? Have you been conflating unopposed rolls with 'output randomness' and opposing rolls with 'input randomness' this whole time? If that's the case, then no wonder your impossible to understand, that's like confusing east and west with left and right.

Songcaller

No, what has confused the issue is your insistence procedural generation is the only form of input rng.

Depraved

Neurath wrote: »

At a core level, Output RNG simulates dice rolls. If all these games weren't based on DnD and had some other inspiration, output RNG probably wouldn't exist. I do love input RNG but output RNG is a cancer. There's a reason you don't see RNG in Esports environments and when an Esports World Cup was won due to an RNG Miss there was uproar.

really? so you never saw LoL players using 1% crit chance rune back in the day? XDDD

Songcaller

If you add a variable to the outcome it is input rng. Output rng is a randomised roll. I referenced lol when I've mentioned input rng before. To get a randomised value input rng uses fisher's skew lores of probability, where as output rng is an equalised roll with a chance to fail.

From May 2022:

Neurath wrote: »

Would rather have input rng like lol. It needs to be on the fly, unpredictable and conquered by skill. I do not want money wasted on novelties when serious systems would generate more players.

Also, some more things to consider around input rng vs output rng:

Here are several tips and tenets to consider when you're considering how RNG plays into your game's design:

1. Wherever possible, opt for RNG Input instead of RNG Output
RNG Input, where there is some element of variance in the tools or situation the player receives, is the far more exciting and satisfying version of RNG. Consider a card game like Hearthstone: the RNG Input is the cards that you draw (and the deck you are randomly matched against); the RNG Output is card effects like "Deals 1-8 damage at random". You'll find that players complain much more about the RNG Output (even though they interact with RNG Input every single turn), because they have no real ability to react to what happens, and it generally doesn't set up interesting situations - it just screws over one player or the other.

Some of the best board games are interesting for years precisely because of their RNG Input! For example, Settlers of Catan and Twilight Imperium randomize their boards (and resource locations) at the beginning of each game, meaning that strategies which worked in your last game might not work in this game.

RPG combat can absolutely include RNG Input. As a few examples of things you could do:
* Start each enemy off with random buffs or debuffs at the beginning of combat (Elsword does this)
* Have bonuses available on certain turns (such as the 12th turn of combat), especially if there are ways to manipulate who gets to act when (Trails in the Sky does this)
* In Tactical RPG combat, lay bonuses, obstacles, or resources in random squares (Disgaea)
* Semi-randomize the skills that are available to each character in combat (Baten Kaitos)

2. Use RNG to create interesting Hooks
Hooks are where the outcome of one event lead to interesting narrative or gameplay in another event. These can be large (an RNG roll determines the entire future course of the game) or small (an RNG roll determines what kind of position you'll be in for the next turn of combat). The important thing is that it sets up something interesting.

A very good example of an RNG roll in a video game RPG could be an attempt to convince a monster to join your cause. If successful, you avoid (or end) a combat, you have a cool new ally to try out in combat, and maybe you even get to learn more about the monster through interactions outside of battle. In unsuccessful, you still have an interesting combat ahead of you, and maybe you get interesting rewards when you kill it, or maybe it even returns as a cool and rewarding enemy later.

3. Avoid RNG elements that lead to Game Overs
Any time the player receives a Game Over, it should be because of their own mistakes, decisions, or lack of skill. It should never be because the RNG said you're getting a Game Over. The biggest offender here is when an enemy uses RNG Instant Death skills (or uses 100% certain Instant Death skills based on an RNG that determines their moves) - pretty much no way for the player to react to that besides hope the RNG is feeling merciful. But other RNG mechanics can also directly lead to Game Overs, such as Critical Hits that are large enough to completely one-shot party members.

4. Avoid RNG elements that No-Sell a player's action
While not as bad as Game Overs, RNG elements that cause a player's action to completely fail are also really dissatisfying. They make the player wonder why they even bothered trying to do something (and if bad RNG results happen repeatedly, they will lead to a Game Over as well). Having the RNG determine Hits and Misses is the most frequent and obnoxious offender in RPGs - it rarely provides any interesting gameplay but it always provides frustration. Status effects such as Paralysis in Pokemon also run afoul of this - it feels bad to enter a command knowing there's a 50% chance it will completely be ignored.

5. Use clear, round Probabilities (and show them to your player if feasible)
It's a lot more comfortable to make a decision when you know what your odds of different outcomes are. For something like Crit Chance, it's a good idea to show your player the odds that it will happen. And by the way, I completely disagree with several posters who said you should lie about probabilities (even if it's in their favor). If you're going to make them this kind of information, allow them to make a smart decision instead of deceiving them. Changing the probabilities to avoid long strings of Bad Beats (see #10) is fine, but be transparent to your player about it if you're giving them a number of any sort.

There are times, however, when giving information about possible outcomes ("Do you go through the front door, or try to sneak through the sewers?") will break immersion. In times like these, it's okay not to show the player the possible outcomes or their probabilities.

6. Give your player ways to influence the RNG
The most interesting and compelling RNG systems tend to be ones that the player can influence or control. For example, if you're going to have an RNG calculation to determine Critical Hit rates, tie the chance of scoring a Crit to a Stat that the player can build (such as Dexterity or Luck), and make sure that characters have lots of viable choices of Equipment so that they can choose different Stats to specialize in. Maybe one player really wants to have a high chance of scoring Critical Hits, while another would rather have consistent Strength, and a third player wants just one character to specialize in Crits.

7. Frame RNG events as Positives, not Negatives
Framing a mechanic differently can completely change your player's mind about it. In one famous example, World of Warcraft originally had a 'Fatigued' penalty which halved your EXP from monsters if you played too long without a break. Players hated this, so Blizzard re-framed it by removing the Fatigued penalty, halving the EXP from all monsters, and then awarding players a 'Well Rested' bonus which doubles your EXP from monsters for a few hours after a break. In actuality, no change was made to the mechanic itself - you'll have exactly as much EXP as you'd have under the 'Fatigue' system! But because of the re-framing, players loved this and felt rewarded rather than punished.

One mechanic I often see in games, but is universally hated, is a chance for an item or equip to 'Break' with each use. For example, a reusable Healing Orb that heals an ally but has a 30% chance to break with each use. Ouch! When it breaks, it feels soooo bad, especially if that happens on the first or second try! Instead, frame it as a single-use item that heals an ally and has a 70% chance to give you a 'Freebie' (doesn't disappear from inventory after use). Now if the 30% is rolled, it feels like the item did its job; if the 70% is rolled (especially if it's rolled multiple times in a row), you feel like you got some kind of awesome bonus!

8. In Single-Player Games, consider using Asymmetric RNG Mechanics
There's some value in making it feel like the AI is playing by exactly the same rules you are, but since RPGs usually have a lot of asymmetry between you and the enemy anyway (for example you have to run an entire dungeon of monsters and keep your HP/MP up the whole way through), sometimes a mechanic will just work better if it's something only the player can take advantage of. RNG mechanics are particularly good candidates here.

Eternal Senia is one of my favorite examples. It's a sort-of Action RPG where when you touch a monster, they take damage and you also take damage, based on the comparison of your stats. However, while enemies can Miss you (based on your EVA stat), you can't Miss them, and while you can Crit enemies (based on your CRIT stat), they can't Crit you. The result feels awesome - once you have a sense of the enemies' stats you can go in with a solid expectation of how many hits it will take to kill them, and you never get the jarring sense of "oh, that Miss totally broke the flow". The only unexpected outcomes that can happen are positive ones ("wow, I just one-shot that wolf with a crit!!")

Is it fair to the enemy? No. Can the enemy complain about it? No. Does it make for a good experience for the player? Heck yeah!

9. Allow the Player to opt in to RNG Output
Wherever the player has the chance to choose to engage in an RNG mechanic, it signifies and knowing risk-reward tradeoff that the player is willing to take. They accept the risk that the output could be unfavorable, and generally they will be more OK with that bad outcome because they chose to opt into it.

Examples of this could be a character (in an RPG where you can choose your active party from a large roster of characters) that has skills with highly random effects, a weapon that deals highly variable damage or has high damage alongside a chance to Miss, or a system (in a tactics game, for instance) where hitting an enemy from the front has a chance to be blocked, but hitting them from behind is a 100% chance to succeed. That gives the player an interesting decision: put their attacker in harm's way by moving deeper into enemy lines to backstab the enemy, or attack from the safer position in front but risk a Block.

Remember that if opting into the RNG Output is objectively better than choosing not to (e.g. the weapon deals twice as much damage with only a 25% miss chance), then the player will feel like they are 'forced' to use it and any psychological benefit gained from offering this choice is wiped out.

10. Compensate for Bad Beats
It feels especially bad when a very uncommon RNG roll, or a long string of unlucky RNG rolls, go against you. However, by compensating the player for really bad luck (especially if they were making what was a smart move), you can turn something that feels horrible into something that feels fair and even good! Players appreciate this.

11. Give your player the Last Laugh
Ultimately, your player can do a lot of things to gain an advantage in battle (choose the right equips, manage the party's HP well, grind, etc.), but when the RNG ultimately determines the outcome, it has the potential to override everything the player has done to improve their odds. Wherever possible, you should give the player the opportunity to have the last laugh if they play skillfully.

12. Round Up (avoid chances <5% or 91-99%)
Something weird happens with very high or very low probabilities - they tend to make for patterns that feel distorted and unsatisfying (even when they are perfectly fair in reality). In the case of probabilities above 90%, players tend to view it similarly to a 100% guaranteed effect, and having the effect fail/miss results in great dissatisfaction, like a "sure thing" was taken away as an affront to the player. Hit rates are a great example of where slight chances to fail can be extremely dissatisfying.

For probabilities below 5%, the expected effects become so nebulous that players tend to simplify the effect as "if I try X times, I'll get 1 success" - so, for example, a 2% chance to Paralyze an enemy on a skill would read as "If I try this 50 times, I'll Paralyze the enemy". In reality, the chance to Paralyze the enemy at least once with 50 attempts at this skill is 1.00 - (0.98 ^ 50) = 63.6%, meaning a 36.4% chance that you still haven't gotten even one success after 50 attempts. Even after 100 attempts, there's still a ~13% chance you're still waiting for something that never comes! This is really important with concepts like Drop Rates. Players don't want to grind forever waiting for a drop that never comes.

In short, round up all effects/drops/RNG chances that are less than 5% to at least 5% (if the effect is so powerful that it's gamebreaking at 5%, then it's badly designed and you should rework it)... and round up any effects/drops/RNG chances that are greater than 90% to 100%, which is much more satisfying than dealing with the anxiety that a slight chance of failure could completely bamboozle you.

13. Varying Damage is OK, but keep it small
Damage (and even other effects that come in large numbers, like Gold in treasure chests) is okay to add some RNG output variance to, as it adds a nice feeling of unpredictability and immersion to combat. Why does it make combat more immersive? Because when the numbers change a little from hit to hit, it no longer feels like solving a math problem ("The enemy has 230 HP, I'm dealing exactly 37 damage per hit, so I will need 7 hits to defeat it"). With variance, it feels more like managing an actual battle, where you judge things like "how long will it take to eliminate their DPS?" by time and flow, rather than by solving a simple math equation.

HOWEVER, when adding variance to things, keep the variance small! For example, with the default 20% variance on damage, the best possible result is 120% of the damage formula and the worse possible result is 80% - this means that the best possible result is doing 1.5x as much damage as the worst! This kind of spread is something I usually attribute to stats or even to Critical Hits - not to simple RNG variance. A spread of 10%, or even 5% if your damage numbers are big enough, is enough to add the feel of unpredictability.

(As a finer point, the more "rolls" you make to determine total variance, the better. By default, RPG Maker rolls twice on Variance to create a total variance between -20% and +20% (if your Variance is 20), with most results falling between -10 and +10 rather than falling close to the edges. The more times you roll, the more results fall closer to the mathematical mean - that way, you can allow for rare outlier results, while keeping most results very close to the expected balance you're going for.)

14. When in doubt, throw it out!
The last rule's simple. If you ever find yourself unsure of whether to add an RNG-based effect to your game, err on the side of not adding it! Guaranteed effects, even if they're weaker, tend to be more satisfying and more strategic. If you're ever going to add an RNG element to your game, especially one that controls output rather than input, make sure you can express a compelling reason that the RNG element makes for more interesting, more compelling gameplay.

Thank you to Wavelength.

Child Item