689a4d No.16283144
What exactly is the problem with games that have heavy RNG? Is risk management not a worthy skill? My opinion is that games need a good amount of RNG. It is the lack of RNG that most hurts replay-ability (along with some other things.)
2e2f6e No.16283157
RNG is a mechanic that wants you to be boxed in or coming back in hopes to get the equipment or collectibles you need to complete the build you're after.
ef6741 No.16283167
RNG only adds replayability if you can't see the matrix. Once you see the code operating the RNG instead of the artistry behind the world building, which includes the deliberate placement of items and paths (which RNG heavy games do not have), then the immersion disappears like a fart in the wind, and all you're left doing is rolling dice until you get the numbers you want.
Don't get me wrong, I love rogue-likes, and rogue-lites, but I will take a world hand-built by an autistic auteur over RNGesus's scraps any day of the week.
534865 No.16283171
>>16283144
Non-brainlet replayability is created by deep gameplay mechanics and game design that lets you approach problems in various ways. RNG is a crutch for shit developers and people who think a game can/should be replayable infinitely.
247972 No.16283172
>>16283167
Consider Poker vs MTG then
ef6741 No.16283179
>>16283172
But in poker (MTG too to an extent, but not nearly as much as poker) you're playing the person across from you, via bluffing and such, as much as you're playing the probability of the cards on the table.
You can't do that with a computer. A computer doesn't have a poker face.
689a4d No.16283185
>>16283167
>muh emershun
How the fuck do you forget that you are playing a game, like at all? I will never understand this obsession with being immersed beyond just enjoying a game for a long play session. For example in my OP how the fuck do you get immersed in FTL even if it had no RNG? Your crew are little expendable sprites. How would custom tailored content make it more immersive? What would be gained other than a game you get less out of the more you replay it?
fd3be9 No.16283202
>>16283144
I don't like when you can't possibly finish the game because you had shit RNG at the beginning.
9334c2 No.16283218
>>16283144
I'd rather play a good game once than have to replay an unpredictable mess a million times.
195592 No.16283268
Playing optimally and being thrown into unwinnable situations is bullshit. Actively preparing for black swans is bullshit. Balancing such a game is bullshit.
Some games successfully work in randomness by not having not having outliers. If you clamp the extremes, even the worst possible luck won't completely screw you over. You don't have any real means to influence what you get, and there's no real need to do so. Maybe enemies spawn weird or you aren't quite as powerful as you ought to be. Worst case scenario, it's more challenging.
Others like NetHack get around it by oversaturating the game with randomness and giving you the resources to soak up a streak of bad fortune, to the point where you're statistically unlikely to end up in an unwinnable situation without meaningful player input. You can actually take action to mitigate risk, to pick your battles and have an impact on the outcome. Unless you see that fucking GWTWOD the moment you step down into the mines.
Bad implementations of randomness have many outliers that will turn the game into an unenjoyable slog or just end it right there without you having a say in it. On the off-chance that you do get some agency in the matter, it's an opaque choice between maybe-lose-now vs probably-lose-later.
c29db3 No.16283275
>>16283202
I partly agree if it's a longer game, but sometimes RNG makes the experience more interesting, as for example it does in AA2 where things can just go sour in the funniest ways. Generally speaking though, RNG is a really tough thing to balance and it should always trend towards the middle, and generally have lots deciding the outcome. Not excessively or it stops being very random, but enough that individual results don't dominate. This is partly why D&D uses a lot of multiple dice rolls. It means the middle values have a much higher chance of showing up. 3d6 image related, and the chances of getting a specific number.
Playing into this to an extent is RNG needs to be unpredictable and used correctly. Specific fuck-ups in this regard are the DS Pokémon games where it is possible to seed and abused in speedruns for getting perfect starters, totally bypassing wild encounters, predicting battles to an extent, and more. Those speedruns got a lot more boring as a result. The other is with the BFG9000 in Doom which has some particularly ludicrous RNG. The ball itself does a lot of damage, but more than that is there's 40 hitscans fired out and each of those has 16d8 for its damage effectively. The issue is that P_Random is basically a sequence of 256 values so aside from that, the number of calls made by a single BFG shot is almost 3 times as long as the table itself.
Another way to handle RNG is to make it dynamic. RE4 does this with its item dropping. If you have too much ammo the game stops giving it to you except as fixed drops. If you have no healing items enemies have a decent chance of dropping green herbs. Stuff like that.
>>16283179
Not totally true. You don't have the full psychological game that playing Poker IRL does, but it is possible for a computer to try bluffing on a worthless hand, or maybe even react to the player doing the same thing. Incidentally I am now curious about whether the online Poker communities have a similar problem as Chess where you could be playing against a smart A.I for all you know. That sort of cheat detection is basically impossible.
bfd575 No.16283292
>>16283144
>What exactly is the problem with games that have heavy RNG?
It depends upon the implementation. I don't mind RNG, and certainly not in my TTRPG.
There's also different types of RNG.
>pic related
Dead in Vinland was open about having two types of RNG.
<Default RNG
The numbers fall as they might; 'True' RNG.
<Statistical RNG
A 7/10 should feel as such; 'Modified' RNG.
I know NuCOM has been accused of having a similar statistical system hidden in the RNG, which means that a soldier who keeps missing will get a hidden bonus to hit. I'm not opposed to this, but I do think such systems should be out in the open.
> Is risk management not a worthy skill?
Of course it is, but you actually have to be able to manage the risk. One of my many issues with Darkest Dungeon is the lack of control in this regard. And I'm willing to bet at least one more anon has tried the following:
>Enter dungeon with high level team
>Get into fight
>Party is surprised
>First enemy crits frontliner
>Half HP
>Second enemy crits the same target poisons them and drops them to death's door
>Enemies finally finish
>Characters at death's door goes first
>Fails DD check
>dies
>4 hours of grinding gone
>not one action could have been taken to mitigate risk
<git gud, scrub
247972 No.16283298
>>16283292
>a 7/10 should feel as such
So it feels like it's 10% likely?
247972 No.16283301
>>16283292
>>not one action could have been taken to mitigate risk
Gee it's almost like "action" in this sense is limited specifically to *combat actions* to prove an obtuse point. You know monsters can do that, so why not lead with a character that can take a hit? Gasp, it's almost as if … oof, your choice to have a glass cannon lead was a risk but didn't have a reward
897746 No.16283303
If I can't get a 100% to hit, it's a shit game
ef6741 No.16283310
>>16283185
>i can't immerse myself therefore the concept is shit
I can't explain to you how immersion works. Maybe it's different for everybody.
I just "escape", I immerse myself in whatever, and let my imagination takeover, and my body falls away and my concept of self becomes filtered through something else.
You'd be shit at table top gaming too bruh.
bfd575 No.16283319
>>16283298
>So it feels like it's 10% likely?
I may have worded it poorly, but no. The game will actively alter the numbers to make sure that you actually hit/succeed 7 out of 10 attempts.
>>16283301
>Gee it's almost like "action" in this sense is limited specifically to *combat actions* to prove an obtuse point.
But the point still stands. The systems in the situation, in this case combat, made it impossible to manage the risks, Which DD allegedly is all about.
>You know monsters can do that, so why not lead with a character that can take a hit?
Read my post again, I specifically made a note that this was a *frontline* character.
>Gasp, it's almost as if … oof
Le big yikes amirite fellow redditors XD!
fd0af1 No.16283321
>>16283185
Broken immersion is not like that at all, it's a lot more like tiny little things gnawing away inside the back of your head and they just keep accumulating until you can't ignore it anymore. Even things you were fine with before is now slowly becoming a sore point.
For RNG it is more or less dependent on the execution of it, the perfect example for this is nuXcom vs Xcom. In nuXcom the UI lies to you on what your real chances are and everything you see graphically is irrelevant, not even the height difference actually matters, it's all just playing out dice a grid points. In Xcom on the other hand has rng for aim but there are two cones drawn from the gun towards the targeted square a hit cone and miss cone. When the roll is a miss the bullet will travel a line within the miss cone which is very wide but if it rolls on a hit the bullet travels down the hit cone which is extremely tight to the point where it's almost a straight line at a short distance. No obstacles are actually considered when this is all decided, obstacles only become relevant when the bullet actually travels it's path so if a wall or object is in the way the bullet may hit it and have it's path blocked regardless of which cone is used. As you can see that's a totally different system from just dice rolling.
a7d46e No.16283416
>>16283292
I agree that the extremes of the rng in DD can be a bit harsh at times, what you describe certainly doesnt happen often but it DOES happen, which just puts you off completely.
At the same time I think it is one of the strenghts of DD, not that it is difficult because it really isn't, but I've never felt so tense (besides a few horror games) as I have in Dankest Dung.
Much of what contributes is of course that they absolutely nailed the immersion and feel of the game, but also the rng.
I suppose what differentiates DD from say FTL is that really poor RNG can only set you back a bit in contrast to immediately losing the game.
51f8c1 No.16283426
It's because most RNG-heavy games don't use it in a way where it actually benefits the gameplay.
9334c2 No.16283663
>>16283301
70% chance to bite
bfbc53 No.16283847
>>16283310
>RNG breaks immersion!
>b-but not the random numbers on the dice being rolled for a table top game
Thanks for showing how retarded your original argument was.
d69095 No.16283894
>>16283663
>no image for procedurally generated bait exists yet
this should be a thing
8afc6c No.16283931
Wesnoth was a pain to play through the story campaigns.
f207ea No.16284000
In many cases its not risk management, its a lottery.
>>16283303
If you are retarded you can miss in clicker game.
>>16283319
I remember than in warcraft 3 you could attack few times and if there wasnt a crit you could get 100% chance crit for next attack.
>So it feels like it's 10% likely?
I believe one of nuxcom games was altering chances based on difficulty. On harder your solders was getting -20% to hit (if chance was less than 100%) while game would show you fake chance to hit just so you can be extremely frustrated whole time you playing it.
433f5d No.16284016
>>16283167
>Don't get me wrong, I love rogue-likes, and rogue-lites, but I will take a world hand-built by an autistic auteur over RNGesus's scraps any day of the week.
These things aren't mutually exclusive.
823d35 No.16284034
>>16283144
There is nothing wrong with it, it's only some salty retards from cuckchan hating games they never played
5700a5 No.16284054
>>16283144
>Is risk management not a worthy skill? My opinion is that games need a good amount of RNG
I've been playing Sunless Sea, and no, it's not. Shit can be unpredictable regardless an d the rewards from the risk might simply not worth it. In FTL at least you are forced to take the risk, because even if you fail, is better than no hacing any reward.
It honestly depends and I think Sunless Sea is a worse example because even if you have 90% chances of success, you can still fail.
Other game with shit RNG is probably Darkest Dungeon, where your probability to fail is even worse, BUT, I do believe it's better in managing the risk. You can leave the dungeons at any moment, for example, but with no rewards and all the madness.
Also, What I believe to be a good game with good RNG is smash with items on. It doesn't mean you will fail just because of an item because you can still dodge or even use them to your advantage, so the result still depends on your skill instead of depending on percentages of success.
827b4e No.16284101
>>16283144
autistic people hate surprises
c8bc2e No.16284151
>this thread again
I found a great new game for all you RNG fans, you're going to love it. First, go to https://www.random.org/dice/ then press the "Roll Dice" button. If your 2 dice add up to 7 or higher, you win! Feel good! If they're lower than that though, then you can still feel proud of yourself for learning about the game's Complex™ Strategic Layer™ and appreciate how important it is to Plan Ahead™ and Manage Risk™. Want to show off how much of an Elite Gamer™ you are? Up your difficulty by taking longer adventures, requiring you to roll 7+ two, three, or even four times in a row before you win and get to feel good!
23a97d No.16284153
It comes from people shoving RPG mechanics in to absolutely everything, while missing the point of RPG mechanics entirely.
ac5ea1 No.16284171
>>16283306
>spin has a chance to proc on every attack that hits
>sending spiners that literally do no damage thanks to vanguard
they deserved it for being retarded.
bfbc53 No.16284185
>>16284153
The point of RPG mechanics is abstraction of the characters, world, and physical rules of said world so that you can play a role. You aren't playing a role if your personal reflexes and skills override the character's and the limits on that character by the rules of his world. This particular fact completely obliterates the retarded immersion argument against RNG since less RNG means your personal skills outweigh the skills of the character(s) you are playing resulting in less immersion, not more.
As for whether RPG mechanics shouldn't be shoved into every game, they shouldn't, but their inclusion isn't automatically a bad thing just because you have to deal with some chance. Chance occurrences are a part of our own reality. That their is cause and effect is obvious in most cases (and no doubt in all), but the cause is not always obvious and as such appears random or coincidental. Games without RNG are easily solvable and dumbed down to only require minimal planning while favoring reflexes. Conditions that always act the same are dumbed down to learnable patterns that even niggers can get right.
700c4e No.16284333
>>16283144
<cleverly use rng in moderation to make minor changes to gameplay without comprimising the player's control
>operant conditioning
which are they more likely to try
>replayability
i have replayed dustforce levels a hell of a lot more than i bothered with that slot machine ftl
cda36c No.16284372
>>16283144
>My opinion is that games need a good amount of RNG. It is the lack of RNG that most hurts replay-ability
It sounds like you play a lot of shitty games that have no substance and only entice you to play to roll the dice. But I guess the best way to compare types of RNG is with a series touches both ends of the RNG spectrum.
The original UFO Defense is a great example of a game that does RNG correctly, because there is a defined experience that you are reacting to. It's essentially a war game, where your risk management is almost entirely based around the amount of casualties you are willing to take. The risk management is good, because you can lose 10 men and still 'win'. Reaction fire isn't even random, it's a formula based on remaining TUs and reactions of both units, and it can't even trigger if a step causes both units to spot each other at the same time. The rewards of attacking a UFO varies on the size of the UFO, but a medium UFO can bring in up to a million dollars in sales (enough to start construction on new radar outposts), or even enough materials to just immediately build a new Firestorm, or maybe a dozen power suits. If you lose a game of UFO Defense, it's due to a chain of bad missions involving bad decisions, and you genuinely deserved to lose.
NuCOM is a great example of a game with shitty RNG. The way they intended it to be played (evident by their attempts to shut down overwatch marches) is to spend turns flipping coins to determine if you killed something or if suicidal aliens killed your soldiers. Not only will losing a soldier sometimes lead to a snowball that causes you to lose, but it can realistically fuck your game. Having a squad wipe in the mid to late game has a worse impact on your campaign than losing your primary base in UFO Defense to a failed base defense. RNG determines whether a mission's payoff was even worth the time, although usually, you just gain a couple of scraps so that the game can continue dangling a carrot in front of your face. Unlike the classic, which was a war game, NUCOM is clearly designed as a board game. The worst part about games like this are the communities that continue to insist that the invalidation of risk management combined with the game's capacity to kill anyone randomly is engaging or fun, and even accept it as part of the core experience.
As a general rule, any game that has an event that has an 80-90% chance to give you valuable materials or rewards, but a 5-10% chance to fuck you right in the ass, is using a cancerous type of RNG. You will never look at that event and say, "goddamnit I have to pass on this highly appealing event that is heavily in my favor and is probably the primary source of my income because there is a small chance it will fuck me right in my ass." You will always do it, and sometimes, the game decides to fuck you in the ass. When it happens, a sane player will step back for a moment and ask themselves, "why am I even playing a game that punishes me for making the most optimal choice?" Unfortunately, they don't speak for the faggots who play these games, get fucked in the ass, and giggle about how sometimes, you just have to get fucked in the ass, like this redditor >>16283301 who immediately fabricates reasons why the person should have been fucked in the ass.
bfbc53 No.16284373
>>16284333
>slot machine ftl
FTL can be beaten with joke builds. You don't have to gamble on giant alien spiders or zoltan monoliths.
cda36c No.16284376
>>16284185
>Games without RNG are easily solvable and dumbed down to only require minimal planning while favoring reflexes.
That fits such an incredibly narrow list of games that I'm impressed you even tried to make that argument. The games I just compared are the complete inverse of your claim. UFO Defense objectively rewards good planning while NuCOM has a chance to decide to potentially reward you for good planning. If soldiers in UFO Defense had skill trees with powerful abilities, and aliens had increased difficulty to compensate for X-Com's increased combat effectiveness, then planning is fundamentally less rewarding. You're no longer able to expend soldiers or play aggressively, and are pigeonholed into particular strategies in order to minimize the loss of those skills, since you would otherwise suffer in all future missions if RNG dictated that it was time for specific characters to die.
>The point of RPG mechanics is abstraction of the characters, world, and physical rules of said world so that you can play a role.
Sounds like you also don't understand the point of RPG mechanics. Super Mario Bros 3 has an abstraction of the characters, world, and physical rules, and you are playing a clearly defined role. It is also not an RPG by any means, and I cannot fathom someone making that argument. World of Warcraft isn't a fighting game simply because you can engage in 1v1 combat with another player.
>You aren't playing a role if your personal reflexes and skills override the character's and the limits on that character by the rules of his world.
I guess, by your own words, a real RPG actually doesn't exist, since all players have a varying degree of skill in building characters and planning encounters. Surely you realize that your character's well-thought and well-executed combat tactics are actually your will and not theirs.
>As for whether RPG mechanics shouldn't be shoved into every game, they shouldn't, but their inclusion isn't automatically a bad thing
Nobody thinks that RPG mechanics are automatically bad and I don't know what you are arguing. The point seems to be that RPG mechanics are being tacked onto games faster than shitty multiplayer modes in the early 2000's.
87abb9 No.16284380
>>16284333
You can beat it on hard consistently once you get good
bfbc53 No.16284405
>>16284376
>Sounds like you also don't understand the point of RPG mechanics. Super Mario Bros 3 has an abstraction of the characters, world, and physical rules, and you are playing a clearly defined role. It is also not an RPG by any means, and I cannot fathom someone making that argument.
It is funny to me that you claim I don't understand the point of RPG mechanics, despite how I clearly described the point, and then you strawman my argument without providing a counter argument. Good job.
>I guess, by your own words, a real RPG actually doesn't exist, since all players have a varying degree of skill in building characters and planning encounters. Surely you realize that your character's well-thought and well-executed combat tactics are actually your will and not theirs.
Your planning doesn't override the skills of the character's or the limits of the rules the character is in. Deciding to build a character a certain way just establishes what that character is. If you meta the character and avoid making choices that character would make based on how you established their personality then you have failed to roleplay that character.
>Nobody thinks that RPG mechanics are automatically bad and I don't know what you are arguing. The point seems to be that RPG mechanics are being tacked onto games faster than shitty multiplayer modes in the early 2000's.
Some games do not need RPG mechanics. Clearly some people do think they are automatically bad based on the arguments that are made. Since too many games are tacking on RPG mechanics thoughtless faggots will treat any game with such mechanics as being part of that pack of the ones with it tacked on. Same thing with RNG. A game with a good amount of RNG is suddenly as bad as the worst examples of RNG. Such faggotry shouldn't be tolerated.
c55574 No.16284407
>>16284101
>I enjoy losing because of powers outside my control
>this is fun, this is engaging
>risk management is the only skill I ever need
>strategy? whats that?
e94d1b No.16284419
>>16283144
>>16284372 provides decent and clear examples, in a very concrete fashion.
It is not fun to feel like whether or not you win is effectively down to rolling the dice. Sure, risk management is a skill, but if your options all boil down to rolling the dice in different ways, then it's not a rewarding experience.
We shit on gacha games quite a lot for this reason - gacha games are about probabilities, not about gameplay.
23a97d No.16284423
>>16284185
The way these roguelites or roguelike-inspired games use RNG is absolutely insipid. Roguelikes such as Angband do RNG-heavy right: you have random dungeons, random spells, but most of the randomness comes from optional items, unlabeled potions and magical items you find laying around. You make the conscious decision to roll the dice on these things, it isn't forced upon you as it is in a lot of roguelites. The common strategy is to save these for dire situations, because if it has negative effects, you would've died anyway. This is the sort of RPG randomness that RNG-heavy non-RPGs don't understand.
20f923 No.16284427
This is both the most engaging game I've played in a while and the most bullshit RNG I've ever encountered on almost every layer.
c55574 No.16284445
>>16284419
This is partly the reason I've begun hating FTL. Not purely because rng, but because RNG can break the game in your favor so hard, that its just unfun anymore. Scrap cannon is so astonishingly OP it makes the entire game a god damn joke, assuming you can find it.
16e307 No.16284507
>>16284372
Good that you brought up NuCom, because I tried the second one due to the free weekend going on. I genuinely can't tell if the third mission is something you've been scripted to lose.
The first mission clearly shows the game can disregard the rules. I get that it's a scripted tutorial, but when an attack that displays a <100% chance to hit actually hits a 100% of the time and an attack that has a >0% chance to hit never actually hits, it makes me wonder where else the game can cheat. Maybe some special/boss enemies play by their own rules?
I don't even know if I'm still in a tutorial. I still didn't get to choose a mission nor the whooping 4 soldiers to pit against the 5 sectoids and 10 advent soldiers that I need to eliminate in this easy mission. I'm not sure if I'm still being taught a lesson about the harsh and unforgiving nature of the game.
2ab7c5 No.16284560
>>16283292
>Party is surprised
>not one action could have been taken to mitigate risk
< should have kept your light higher
< should have brought a character with good scouting
15dd74 No.16284562
People who's egos are invested in being good at games, don't like losing due to factors beyond their control. I like it. It's like gambling. The game deals you a hand, and then you have to make good with what you have to the best of your abilities.
79fb6e No.16284606
>>16284427
>90% chance for expedition to clear an obstacle with 10 aspect
>start recruiting a guy
>expedition fails the obstacle, of course
>a disciple is injured
>recruitment not done yet, can't heal him yet
>season of sickness on the horizon
Should be fine, I have plenty of health for it to grab
>nope.avi
>he fucking dies
At least it was a heart follower, still had two more.
Different run:
>trying to get a wounded follower to die for a secret ending
>almost ready to win the run
>one hour later, no seasons of sickness
>just stalling, can win at any time
>three seasons of sickness in the next hour
>they all miss the follower
>I'm not even healing the illnesses resulting
>mfw
Most of the RNG is shit you can deal with given enough time and knowledge of how to game it, but some of it is truly bullshit.
a5ca57 No.16284611
I like it. It lowers the skill ceiling. It's a bit crude and it's not perfect but it balances things for players across the board. Games with no RNG like chess boil down to rote memorization of winning plays. Even with competitive mind games, everyone who plays seriously is eventually going to reach that singularity point where you could have used the same amount of time perfecting that one game enjoying and even finishing several others. More power to those who play for keeps on top of simple fun.
20f923 No.16284623
>>16284606
One of these days I'll have the balls to use that "destroy a random card" spell, just to see how bullshit the pulls can be.
That picture was my best run, by the way, those worms are a spectacular poison and turned out to be one of the best methods for dealing with Hunters reliably that wasn't just bullshit summons
Once you get summons, though, the game unfolds and everything gets far simpler. Fuck trying to get a Hydra society running, though, it's just straight up impossible to get as strong as, say, a Knock cult.
I sort of miss the sound bug for when you dream properly. Really lent the moment gravitas and deafness.
84eb63 No.16284629
>>16284611
>RNG lowers the skill ceiling
Even pretending that's a good thing, it doesn't actually work. RNG manipulation raises the skill ceiling to utterly absurd levels and demands a completely different skillset than the one the game is supposedly designed for, while also turning every high-skill playthrough into an identical series of nonsense inputs that produce the ideal result.
4ff2ef No.16284654
>>16284629
>this is what WoW kids actually believe
bfd575 No.16284659
>>16284560
Ah fuck, you got me… except for the fact that you can still be ambushed with the torch at 100 and with a scout character.
>>16284372
>a 5-10% chance to fuck you right in the ass, is using a cancerous type of RNG
this anon got it right, sure torches and scouts take the chance down to 5 %, but the game might still decide that it's time to clean out your corn hole.
84eb63 No.16284666
>>16284654
The fuck are you talking about? Nobody under 30 plays WoW anymore, and neither do I.
79fb6e No.16284674
>>16284623
Ah, I had an irritating run as the cop where suspects would keep killing the detective and worse ones would show up, so I never tried killing the detective except once later. Much easier to play around with evidence and notoriety using followers and hirelings, though that does open you up to, again, RNG bullshit. Does giving the detective a poison generate notoriety?
I did a Hydra cult once, I actually didn't think it would let me do that. And yeah it fucking sucks. Anyway, here's my best run, only got the victory screen though.
8609e8 No.16284702
>>16283144
Being fucked over by random numbers when you've spent time preparing makes you not want to bother preparing at all.
20f923 No.16284711
>>16284674
>Does giving the detective a poison generate notoriety?
Naturally, but it will kill almost every hunter stone dead, assuming you can sit them down for tea. The trade off is that poisons are hard to get a hold of and not all are equally effective. But then, I like painter runs and so I play fast and loose with notoriety - at one point I had the wherewithal to use Notoriety in a painting with special pigments. The best part is that it just refreshes the notoriety and generates a shitton of mystique.
After all, don't artists seem to get away with anything?
65bed8 No.16284740
>heavy RNG isn't bad
Look at Hearthstone, the ENTIRE game is RNG.
>what cards you get from packs
>who you fight next
>whether you go first or second
>what cards you draw
>the effects of the cards you play
>what cards you get in the arena
>what awards you get from the arena
>what bosses you face in dungeon run
So what happens is there are certain players who overall benefit more from the RNG than the others, and that's the only thing separating them from the other players, not skill or anything like that, just RNG and how much money they are willing to dump in the game.
65bed8 No.16284747
>>16284611
OP is actually talking about high levels of RNG. I like low levels of RNG for this reason. (Think Pokémon)
f432cb No.16284762
>>16283847
Tabletop games are very different from video games. You're essentially imagining everything described to you in words.
827b4e No.16284781
>>16284702
welcome to being black :^)
827b4e No.16284819
>>16284781
hmm yes. so basically rng = potential to feel like a nigger
reviews done quick
>FTL review:
this game makes you feel like a nigger. wise niggers will fare better. for example, eliminate the crew of the enemy ship to leave their hubcaps intact to steal for extra dollar bills. and those who are not adverse to having white friends might find that lucrative opportunities arise more often in the blue options.
im not racist btw, you have to say that nowadays
efccf0 No.16284843
>>16284659
>except for the fact that you can still be ambushed with the torch at 100 and with a scout character
no you can't
efccf0 No.16284850
the only rng the game needs is human rng
any other rng is trash design
bfbc53 No.16284853
>>16284781
>>16284819
More like RNG reflects life and why only SJWs would not like RNG. It is a system of privileges and disadvantages handed to you. Lack of RNG is equality of outcome.
9587e0 No.16284857
>>16283185
It's a white people thing, you'll never understand.
651b30 No.16284865
>>16283306
>character massively benefits from being hit by many units
>he destroys a giant group of units
>its the RNG here thats the problem
bfbc53 No.16284885
>>16284857
>being white is playing pretend with every game like a child and being mad that you are reminded that you are playing pretend
Fuck you nigger.
bfd575 No.16284926
>>16284843
Maybe I'm completely illiterate, but I just went and check the wiki to be sure. And suspect you did as well.
https://darkestdungeon.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=Surprise
>There is a base 10% chance of being surprised, or surprising monsters, in rooms and corridors that haven't yet been scouted
So what gives, well:
>pic related
If you're only reading the chart, it does indeed say 0 % chance to get surprised, but if you actually read the text it says:
>The chances differ again depending on the current light level, the specific increases can be seen in the table
That means that at max light you have a + 0 % to get surprised, i.e. it's still a base 10 % to get surprised.
3c4f58 No.16284941
It depends on what kind of mechanic it's tied to.
>>16283171
>a game can/should be replayable infinitely
Not every game should be like that, but excellent games that can do exist.
ab1cf2 No.16284999
My personal problem with RNG can be summed up with XCOM Enemy Unknown and its long war mod.
Base EW gives you 4 units with the same stats and gear. All you can do is shoot, grenade or overwatch.
Long War gives you 6 units. You have an assload of gear to choose from, from offensive/defensive grenades, medpacks, a crit scope and two equipment pieces used for migating a soldier's randomized stats if they have too little health or willpower. Not to mention about 4 or so weapon variations that can let you go wild with what kind of playstyle you want to go for. With these kinds of options, the RNG becomes a matter of decision making and minimizing risks, or betting big at your own leisure. With base EW(and what little I played, X2), you're so restricted and you have little to no options besides stack grenades and blow shit up. It's garbage.
If only Long War wasn't a buggy pain in the ass to get running.
bfbc53 No.16285286
>>16284926
I've never played Darkest Dungeon, but I want to interject out of principle alone. Are you arguing that being surprised needs to 100% avoidable? That is a good way to make a gameplay element trivial. Seems from what I read that it is already avoidable to an extreme degree. Do you want a 100% chance to win a game too?
bca885 No.16285317
Ever notice the overlap of autism hatred of randomness?
2ab7c5 No.16285352
>>16284659
>>16284926
if you scout an area there is a 0 percent chance of being surprised
23a97d No.16285462
>>16285317
Your overplayed statement deserves some sort of counter I suppose: have you ever noticed that one of the most autistic hobbies, tabletop roleplaying, is focused around RNG?
85ba2a No.16285570
>>16284885
>being unable to focus on one thing to the degree where your surroundings become irrelevant is childish
You would be a shit craftsman. You can be immersed in many things if you are not a subhuman. Games are just one of them.
ed2eaa No.16285654
What about RNG unrelated to level design or combat statistics?
>randomized pass codes
>item names
>character appearance
>NPC voice lines when interacted with
>gambling mini games
>aesthetic weather
ect.
And what about light RNG?
>slight varying placement of enemies on a map
>bullet spray
>weather (impact on game play varies)
>puzzles with different solutions each play through
3c4f58 No.16285704
>>16284885
Playing video games is playing pretend.
If you take that away, you take away much of the impact.
Being able to shut a game off (or even during play) and think to yourself "I was there" really gives it a completely new dimension.
This is why so many people talk about how important immersion is.
>>16285654
>randomized pass codes
Fine.
>character appearance
Sounds terrible. Unless the only random thing is where a character will appear and not if, it should be fine, provided the area is not too large.
>NPC voice lines when interacted with
Not really interesting. The lines should be relevant to the situation and what the player is doing or looks like.
>gambling mini games
>aesthetic weather
Irrelevant.
>slight varying placement of enemies on a map
No, because RNG is no substitute for good design.
>bullet spray
I thought that's how it worked already.
>puzzles with different solutions each play through
Fine as long as the difficulty stays on the same level and you can't get one in an unsolvable state.
>>16285317
I think most people enjoy consistency and minimal noise that interrupts established rules that you can work with.
Randomness is always there, but bullshit randomness is something no one enjoys.
bfbc53 No.16285967
>>16285570
>immersed is the same as being involved
Sure, it is fine to be immersed in a game in such a way. However, you disingenuous cunt, that isn't what is being insinuated by saying that RNG "breaks immersion."
bfbc53 No.16285979
>>16285704
>Being able to shut a game off (or even during play) and think to yourself "I was there" really gives it a completely new dimension.
>This is why so many people talk about how important immersion is.
This is absolutely retarded and shows how retarded some of you faggots are. When you read a book (which we both know you don't do) you don't stop understanding that you are reading a book even if your imagination makes it feel like you are there with the characters you are reading about. Faggots that complain about immersion in games are tryhards who probably lead completely miserable and worthless lives. Just be honest. Whichever game you are complaining about wasn't "lacking immersion" so much as you were salty about some aspect of that game and thus didn't enjoy it enough to be "immersed." Crying about immersion is probably one of the most pretentious and faggy things that you can complain about regarding a game.
85ba2a No.16286017
>>16285967
Dont hit yourself with the goalpost you are moving buddy.
I dont care what he thinks about RNG affecting immersion, you said :
>" I will never understand this obsession with being immersed beyond just enjoying a game for a long play session."
And that is clearly admitting you cant stop your mongrel brain from thinking about other stuff while doing one thing.
f9dbff No.16286033
I don't like RNG based games like FTL and Hand of Fate because I never feel like I am in control. FTL isn't as bad as Hand of Fate, though.
bfbc53 No.16286051
>>16286017
>>Don't hit yourself with the goalpost you are moving buddy
I can't help that you have shit reading comprehension you triple nigger.
45f720 No.16286065
>>16284853
>lack of RNG is equality of outcome
RNG reflects the computer deciding to screw you over despite good play. This means that even good players will end up being brought to the same level as bad gamers, who will fail regardless of the computer's meddling or not.
No RNG in an otherwise good game means an even playing field where only good gamers will prosper, and bad ones will suffer.
bfbc53 No.16286073
>>16286065
>RNG is always bad
>RNG can't be avoided
>risk management isn't a skill
>lack of variation in outcomes isn't equality of outcome
8e5143 No.16286076
>>16286065
Only women are this adverse to risk/gambling. Grow some nuts and roll the dice.
efccf0 No.16286091
>>16286065
>>16284853
True.
In high-rng games if you have winrate slightly above 50% then you're a literal god, unrivaled by anything or anyone. Which is a fucking joke.
If a top tier player play against a total shitter in any high-rng game, the latter has a chance to win. That's why this kind of games are popular. Any shitter can feel good, no matter how bad and/or retarded.
45f720 No.16286118
>>16286073
>RNG can't be avoided
If it can be avoided then it's not fucking RNG.
>risk management isn't a skill
When a game bases itself on RNG you're not utilizing a skill, you're playing a slot machine.
>lack of variation in outcomes isn't equality of outcome
Where did I imply that there weren't possible other outcomes? I'm referring to chance, not variation.
>>16286076
Only gambling addicts keep rolling dice when they know the game is rigged. What's the point in high-risk if there's no reward?
8e5143 No.16286126
>>16286118
>What's the point in high-risk if there's no reward?
>no reward
Sure thing, miss.
bfbc53 No.16286141
>>16286118
>If it can be avoided then it's not fucking RNG
How autistic are you? For example in FTL there is an infamous event involving giant alien spiders infesting a space station. You can risk sending your crew in to kill the spiders and maybe get a reward, but likely lose a crew member instead. You can avoid doing anything and risk nothing while gaining nothing, or if you have other options available you can use those for a guaranteed success with varying rewards based on the quality of the option (such as sending in a drone, or using a bio weapon to kill the spiders.)
You absolutely can avoid RNG, depending on how it is handled.
>When a game bases itself on RNG you're not utilizing a skill, you're playing a slot machine.
What is with the retarded reductionism in this thread? I don't know of a single game personally that is entirely based on RNG. Stop acting like the inclusion of RNG means that there is no skill anywhere in the game.
>Where did I imply that there weren't possible other outcomes? I'm referring to chance, not variation.
What variation? Intentionally choosing a shit choice which you already know the outcome to? Without randomness there is only so much variation to be had.
85ba2a No.16286153
>>16286126
>This is your brain on a gambling addiction
Let me guess, you only post here because you have a chance to have a post number with repeating digits ?
8e5143 No.16286159
>>16286153
>>>/pixyterry/
You're pretty catty, lady.
45f720 No.16286168
>>16286141
>FTL
Funny that you mention it, because it's an example of RNG that can't be avoided.
>required to upgrade ship to a certain level to beat a boss fight later in the game
>this requires a great deal of scrap and a couple new weapons
>scrap is obtained via random events
>avoiding these events means that you won't get enough scrap to beat the game
>events can screw you over irreparably regardless of preparation
Darkest Dungeon is an example where while RNG can easily screw over a prepared party, there is always the chance to back out and try again later.
>you absolutely can avoid RNG, depending on how it is handled
This is not what the thread was about. If RNG can be avoided then there is obviously no fucking problem. The point of discussion is when it is unavoidable.
>What variation? Intentionally choosing a shit choice which you already know the outcome to? Without randomness there is only so much variation to be had.
Do you not understand how playing a game works? How people mess up in their choices in a game, due to having to make them quickly?
>>16286126
I've got enough shit in my backlog without wasting time on a one armed bandit. Prove to me that bullshit RNG can be worth it.
1110aa No.16286176
RNG generally sucks, but if you have it then it you have to have enough where just by the sheer amount of RNG it tends to even out.
An example of this is X-Com UFO Defense vs Enemy Unknown.
UFO Defense knows it has a fuckton of RNG and manages it well. It knows you'll get fucked by it and lets you recover relatively easily. It also tries to help you predict RNG by using the law of large numbers. One soldier can fire ~15 shots, you have a fuckton of soldiers who all can do it. It also helps that it feels less RNG based because it uses a projectile system. Results tend to be clustered around the middle like a bell curve. It feels like you can manipulate and ensure success just by abusing probability when you throw the dice often enough.
Enemy Unknown requires you to not get fucked, since losing a higher ranked soldier sets you back severely and can be pretty damn frustrating and break your game. A rookie can shoot only once, making it feel even worse when you have to use them. When you only roll a die once, the result can feel like its anything. Same when your squad of 6 guys only shoot the 6 times. There are often rounds that are complete failures or incredible success due to no fault of your own and it feels terribly out of your control.
That said, risk vs reward has nothing to do with rng. 50% you get great shit 50% you get fucked just by sheer numbers is utter fucking retardation, and FTL sucks as a game
8e5143 No.16286179
>>16286168
> Prove to me that bullshit RNG can be worth it.
672ece No.16286189
>>16283144
Life is RNG I don't need it in games that are supposed to be "competitive." Just keep RNG elements out of the games they don't belong in and everyone will be happy. RNG belongs in things like grand strategy, city building sims, etc. not games that revolve around mastering mechanics. When a game is basically "Use your controls to beat your real life opponents" you just don't want RNG to save peoples asses. Even in party games like melee it's fucking stupid.
672ece No.16286196
>>16286091
This has become my problem with lots of games. Top tier players have bad win loss ratios or bad K/D ratios(meaning that there is no such thing as proper play because you can get to the top without having good overall stats)….. So what the game is telling me is that there is no correct manner to play it. So it's not competitive it's actually just some joke shooter masquerading as a real game.
501c68 No.16286205
As long as there's skill or tactics you can utilize that are learned through multiple playthroughs to supplement your progress I can better enjoy the game. If the game relies too heavily on LOL BAD ROLL YOU LOSE FAGGIT where regardless of what skill and tactics you employ you have no recourse to a shitty situation that doesn't make for a fun game.
672ece No.16286227
>>16286065
Also the problem with high RNG is that yes the new user finds it fun for the moment but he isn't there the whole time. Now everyone else has to deal with RNG bullshit being put into every fucking game because this kind of shit draws dollars but it doesn't draw the people "WHO ACTUALLY PLAY THE FUCKING GAMES." The developers of most modern shit don't care about the actual players of the games moreso that they just care about attracting huge fanbases and dollarydoos in order to appeal to everyone.
>>16286205
pretty much this. I'm sure everyone can deal with a little RNG with weird things in fighting games like having characters with the odd "move that does weird fucking shit to the game" but shit like the reversal edge system in soul calibur is pure rock paper scissors and has no rhyme or reason beyond pure gambling(yes you can somewhat mindgame people and bait etc. but everyone knows the first move in a reversal edge scenario is unreadable and unreactable and is 100 percent rng so there is an aspect of rng) unless of course you believe in yomi(which is bullshit because yomi is actually just about recognizing patterns and not about predicting the future yomi is not what yomi prophets think it is)
If anyone had actual yomi powers it would be the people who are actually in power and not a bunch of FGC guys who basically exist to entertain the autistic.
bfbc53 No.16286238
>>16286168
>>this requires a great deal of scrap and a couple new weapons
>>scrap is obtained via random events
It is mostly obtained from fighting enemy ships, which you use skill in defeating as managing your ship build, actions, and crew is how you win such ingagements. You can also quite easily obtain an augment to see where such ships are located before you jump.
>avoiding these events means that you won't get enough scrap to beat the game
You only need to avoid a few events to keep risk to a minimum. Even if you lose on a risky event you aren't screwed unless prior bad decisions set you up to be screwed.
>events can screw you over irreparably regardless of preparation
This is a gross exaggeration. Outside of the stealth ship b there isn't a single ship that can just lose out without any way to save it due to bad RNG. You lost to the flagship because your build sucked? What do you do cry because you didn't get what you needed for it? Isn't it your fault for not adjusting your build based on what was available since there are so many options to defeat the flagship? Yes, it is your fault. Not the RNG.
Even if once in a while the RNG does screw you over and you lose so fucking what. This idea that you have to win everytime is how we got to the cancerous casualization of the past two decades.
4d3980 No.16286248
>>16286091
the Mario Party philosophy in a nutshell
90c7da No.16286256
I mostly like RNG heavy games done right, a defeated rat should not drop a rare sword let alone a sword at all. I really liked Torchlight 2's system where you could modify and utilize the shared loot chest between characters and difficulties– because therein lies the overarching challenge to defeat the hardest difficulty. Long term planning across characters and difficulties provides value and replay-ability–these types of games rarely have a story worth remembering but you are beating a system thru discovery and and management and planning. And the harder and rarer things get the better. The Diablo HD mod and Titan Quest are also good at this pathway. Random loot in chests and leveled loot is very weak. You should work to earn the RNG goddesses' favor.
>>16284740
>money they are willing to dump in the game.
there can be satisfaction paying nothing and beating those who obviously paid.
>>16286238
>Even if once in a while the RNG does screw you over and you lose so fucking what
I remember a lot of SaGa games got shit on for random battles with really hard foes at the early parts of the game. However, within that is opportunity to get good stuff and skills to sparkle. FF12 had this part or two where you could poison a foe and flee and hope for a good drop– it is a challenge in itself. Maybe it comes down to what you want out of a game.
827b4e No.16286267
>>16286091
>implying 1337 pr0z0rz dont find getting fucked over by rng and losing to worse players hilarious
2d3893 No.16286323
>>16286253
that wasnt even an edit
c2fbaa No.16286343
>>16283185
Immersion isn't about forgetting that you're playing a game. It's about your mind being fully-occupied by the game. If you're playing a game and say "I'm gonna kill that guy" congratulations, you are projecting yourself onto the player character because you've been immersed.
bfd575 No.16286463
>>16285352
Except you can't choose to scout an area, that's up to the RNG, although I agree that you can increase those odds.
Camping skills are only allowed in medium to long quests and even then, it would be suicidal to use your rest right after beginning the quest just to get the camping skills to reduce surprise chances.
So my point still stands. Yes you can decrease the chances of getting ambushed, but it is still possible to be surprised by monsters with a scout and 100 light.
34a28a No.16286572
>>16283292
The game was a huge clusterfuck in its early to mid years of release. I think the current state of the game is better although the RNG elements are still noticeable. They did however discuss about it though.
I vaguely remember one of the devs in a 2017 GDC conference stating that RNG should almost always be present within Darkest Dungeon. Even with perfect planning and caution there should be some times where you will get destroyed. Although one thing that they didn't intend was the grinding that you had to do after having your high level characters killed. Since it seemed to demotivate players into dropping the game altogether they've tweaked some shit such that you can level up faster via events and trinkets, although it was a pretty bad attempt since these events and trinkets rarely ever appear. Because of the devs' stance on RNG it seems like Darkest Dungeon was intended for a niche audience for those who like RNG management and getting back up after being unjustly demolished.
My main issue with Darkest Dungeon and all the other "RNG heavy" games out there is how they often use RNG to hide the usually shallow and repetitive gameplay that they have. If those game changing ambushes and consecutive crits were to be removed then the game becomes pathetically easy and repetitive since those are the only things that catch your attention after going into the ruins for the 23rd time. That's the reason why grinding is such a fucking chore in this game. There are only a small handful of enemies in Darkest Dungeon that are constantly recycled. The only thing that changes is how the dice rolls. RNG as a mechanic is fine but it is often misused to make very basic gameplay more deeper than it actually is. Pic related shows how you can go about an hour in endless mode by being able to stall out and stress heal until you get your guaranteed virtues.
That being said, Darkest Dungeon was made with a niche audience in mind as evidenced by how the first thing you see in the game is a precaution on how bad situations WILL happen regardless of what measures were taken. Since Red Hook is making another game I do hope they learn from their mistakes and try to add more depth into the game instead of letting RNG do it for them.
d69095 No.16286766
>>16285286
The whole mantra that has been touted by the mouthbreathers populating that game is that every death is 100% your fault
<if u died it's be cuz u suck @ preparing
and
<git gud
But as anon demonstrates that is horseshit >>16284926 since scenarios can arise where no matter how well you prepare you will still lose,which is fine if you don't mind having all that time you invested in that character go down the drain and simply start over but it doesn't change the fact that ultimately preparedness has very little effect on how the game will play out since if the game decides to screw you over and over and over and over it will simply do so.
>90% chance to hit
<miss
<miss
<miss
6c5c2d No.16287049
>>16286766
90% chance to hit doesn't mean you will hit 9 out of 10 times. You could roll that 10% 10 times in a row. The odds of doing so are just really low.
bfd575 No.16287058
>>16285286
>Are you arguing that being surprised needs to 100% avoidable?
No, I don't think it should be 100 % avoidable. However, I take issue with the fact that the layers of RNG present in DD means that means that if you DO get surprised, there's a chance to go through the scenario where one character (1-6 hours of grinding) dies instantly and without you being able to interject.
I do regret the hyperbole in >>16283292 and so to be more clear: Yes, you can mitigate the risk, slightly, but to do so you are essentially throwing two more dice (light and scouting) to avoid rolling the third dice (instant character death). Layers of RNG.
>>16286572
>The game was a huge clusterfuck in its early to mid years of release
Absolutely, but it was also cathartic as fuck. I hate that Red Hook kept nerfing or removing shit.
>pic related
Back in the early days you could leap-frog 4 Crusaders through a dungeon or bring 4 Jesters to bleed enemies dry or bounce around with Solo and Finale.
>My main issue with Darkest Dungeon is how they often use RNG to hide the usually shallow and repetitive gameplay that they have
Agreed. My other issues would be inconsistent rules, such as corpses only appearing for the enemy, which only exists to let them keep using stronger abilities from their preferred position. The other is what this >>16286176 anon got at. Enemies usually don't waste turns healing, which means that they will attack more often and that then leads to them getting more opportunities to make critical attacks. Heals can also crit, but they'll rarely cover all the damage.
>DD was made with a niche audience in mind as evidenced by how the first thing you see in the game is a precaution on how bad situations WILL happen regardless of what measures were taken
Call me jaded, but I see that opening message as more of an excuse from the devs to explain their poor RNG choices. This isn't like DF where losing is fun and you get a cool story. In DD you simply loses an assload of progress and the privilege of grinding more.
>>16286766
I beat the game out of spite and by the end it really felt like simply painting by the numbers. The just isn't very well thought out, curious especially prove this by basically being problems with only one solution that doesn't encourage experimentation. Wiki fodder, essentially. Just one of the reasons why the git gud meme is such a joke in DD.
ab0e77 No.16287080
>>16286766
Darkest Dungeons would be a good game if they added actual content instead of recycling the same rooms and enemies over and over. It is rng heavy, that's the point, you're supposed to keep in mind that things can always go wrong.
This would be fine if the game wasn't such a slog and so grindy. As you said, the problem isn't losing the game because of bullshit rng, it's losing time and having to start all over again if your best heroes die. Even that would be ok if you could see something new while grinding those new heroes, instead it's just the same old missions, and it takes fucking ages.
2f73e8 No.16287133
>>16283144
Because heavy RNG makes shit not about skill, and no matter how good you are at something, RNG either will fuck you over with no fault of your own, or it will simply make things take longer.
RNG is used to inflate MMO gameplay on highest levels for example, because all of the gear that you need to get is usually unable to buy on say, an auction house, so the long time players are made to grind in a skinnerbox to make them stay.
Back when Mists of Pandaria was a thing for example, there was an end-game island only available to level 90 max level players which was essentially a gearing zone, all of the good gear dropped there off of mobs and world bosses, all of it the worst RNG for drops in the game.
It's not that games can't do well using RNG, hell you can make some killer class shit based around RNG and risk management in RPGs, but if you can't manipulate that RNG in some way, the player will always rely on non-RNG abilities.
In Dragon quest V DS, you have Sancho, who's entirely based around RNG once you get to a certain level because his best single target weapon (You'll switch weapons around for multiple characters because weapons in this game have great effects) has a "crit or miss" chance, it has decent attack but Sancho can either dole out crits or entirely miss.
Sancho has great potential for damage, but he's mostly utility otherwise, so he gets sidelined for one of the kid characters most of the time.
Now, if you had a character who was ENTIRELY based around RNG it could work, Say a gambler type who picked from a list of effects, flipped a coin, and it'd do random shit. That character would be picked based on how much you could control his RNG.
One ability with 100 effects? No. 5 abilities with 3 effects each, some hurtful to you? No. 10 abilities with 2 effects each, all beneficial? he'd be picked in a heartbeat.
In a game, RNG is something people avoid. Like random encounters, people don't like RNG.
d69095 No.16287234
>>16287049
The problem with that is that while the former holds true and indeed i have found myself missing consecutively on pivotal moments during a playthrough costing me valuable time if not the game itself because i'm not gonna re-level that lvl5 Man-at-arms that i've spent an ungodly amount of money removing quirks all over again,losing the mission i'm on and on top of that possibly have the rest of the party afflicted.I may as well start over with a fresh game at that point,i've never seen the opposite occur not even once; for example getting 3 critical strikes/heals in row with a low chance of success on one character during one battle turning a sure failure into a glorious victory.
NOT GOD DAMN ONCE
EVER
One would think that if one rule holds true for the RNG of that particular game is that it's fucking even for both sides with preparedness playing the role of mulligan,but it's not;it's flat out stacked against the player and the mulligan can go fuck itself because when the RNG steamrolls in the mulligan has the usefullness and effectiveness of an UN peacekeeping force in Serbia anywhere really.
ac4a68 No.16288205
>>16287234
>for example getting 3 critical strikes/heals in row with a low chance of success on one character
>NOT GOD DAMN ONCE EVER
This follows from the point someone else made about enemies hardly bothering with heals because there's always more from where it came from. You rarely have the chance to attack many times in succession because your guys will get fucked in the interim, and the game will punish you with stress for not treating the wounded. Obviously the side which gets to attack more often is statistically going to land more consecutive crits.
000000 No.16288996
the problem is that most gamers are infantile trash who shit the bed when faced with RNG, the possibility of being unable to achieve a win state no matter what, and 'wasting their time' despite actively wasting their time, thus not enough of these games get made, which in turn increases the turd to linen contact when one does pop up.
e00ae6 No.16289695
>>16284427
I always die right as the good stuff starts happening, always from fascination or depression. It just takes way too long to get to the good stuff.
e98ab0 No.16292678
I'm not really convinced RNG is necessary evil for game mechanics, I would rather have a rogue dodge any attack on a button or every n-th attack/on a timed cooldown than have a stat that says 25% dodge. Shit like that makes sense to me in a game where you take tens hits and can somewhat work with these odds rather than getting 2shotted.
On the other hand, would enemy AI benefit from randomization instead of pre-determined replicable behavior? Think Skaarj bot AI implementation in Unreal campaign vs the braindead beelining drones in say Serious Sam. One rewards more reflexes and aim, the other rewards planning and map layout knowledge.
19c69b No.16294077
RNG should only be used for things like AI decisions, when the choice is otherwise equal, ie:
>Heal or shoot
>Both actions have the same utility
>roll to heal vs. shoot
6c5c2d No.16294269
>>16294077
>wah this AI keeps rolling to heal, RNG is wasting mah tiiiiiime
95f632 No.16294617
Posted about this in another thread at one point, specifically with regard to competitive games, tell me what you think
>>16287154
89d3a8 No.16297309
RNG is fine as long as you have the proper tools to deal with it.
First, you need to be able to manage the risk: a tanky character shouldn't get 1 shot by a crit from a random mob. Which means that situations can be created where your expectations won't be shattered. Or in other words, if you send a 21 HP tank against two enemies that deal 1-5dmg with a 10% crit chance for double dmg, you know that your tank will NEVER get 1 shot. That means your healer can buff the tank, heal someone else, or move in a better spot. That means your CC can target more dangerous enemies. Your archer can focus down a squishy. All because you know that no matter what, your tank will survive. It allows for a strategy to be built up.
Second, you need to be able to prevent or mitigate the risk. This time let's say our tank has 19HP and is fighting the same 1-5dmg 10% crit x2 mobs. There's a chance your tank will die, so a good game would give the players the options like health/dmg reduction buff, reactionary healing, on-getting-crit passives, etc, etc. So while RNG can serve you a worst case scenario, you also have tools to make the worst case scenario not be game ending (or character killing). This again, lets you build a strategy because you can act with knowing what to expect.
Third, you need to be able to recover from RNG. Your tank ate two max damage crits in a round and died. You need to be able to revive him, have a survive with 1HP skill, not have perma-death, be able to easily and quickly replace the tank, etc, etc. This one is about frustration and not wasting time. You don't need to restart the game or reload a save because RNG fucked you in the ass. It'll hurt like hell if RNG screws you over, but you can recover.
Good examples of the first clause would be any game that give you access to detailed information about what your enemies can do, usually turn based or RTwP games. Bad examples would be Darkest Dungeon, where LOLUDEDKIDDO can happen no matter how well you prepare. Good examples of the second clause would be Final Fantasy Tactics, where you can use buffs/defensive skills/reactionary skills/positioning to reduce the chances of dying, any D&D game, or any other game where buffs/debuffs/CC are a huge part of gameplay. Bad examples would be Fire Emblem where you can have a heavy armor guy win its weapon triangle match-up and fight against a mob with 30% chance to hit and 1% chance to crit and get 1 shot in a crit, without having any control of what happens when the fight starts. Good examples of the third clause would once again be FFT where you're given a grace period to revive dead party members (or any other game with revive mechanics), or any game where characters feel a bit more expendable. Bad examples would be Fire Emblem with its perma-death system when coupled with its issues related to the second clause, or Fallout with its instant death or knocked out for multiple rounds crit effects where you just die if some raider lands a good crit on your face/eyes if not instantly, then you'll die from being knocked out for multiple rounds of combat.
c05167 No.16297867
Don't even get me started on the RNG fuckery in The Long Dark's survival mode.
My character just died of hypothermia because the RNG wouldn't let me make a fire on a wood stove after several tries, even with a combination of materials that gave me 85% chance of making a successful fire. Fuck this shit.
ff19e6 No.16298495
If a game uses random elements correctly then a player who manages those random elements appropriately will win consistently. Games that are built around managing chance can be set up to work as competitive games. For example, poker.
32a760 No.16298538
>>16283185
I think the hoopla over immersion is nostalgia fueled. I certainly become intently focused on games sometimes and have a state of "flow" where i'm not thinking about anything else. But the "i was there" stuff seems like a crock of shit to me.
>>16298495
This, all the fags with half baked "RNG btfo forever" posts are shitters who dropped XCOM after one 95% chance miss.
f52d82 No.16298600
It's very simple. RNG that sets up different situations for you to adapt to - ideally requiring you to adopt different strategies depending on the situation, maybe even forcing you to improvise - is fun and engaging. RNG that makes the results of your actions inconsistent or fucks you in the ass with no fault of your own is annoying at best.
d69095 No.16298604
>>16298495
>>16298538
>he thinks poker is chance based
>he thinks he can manage chance in a competitive poker game
>he thinks card games are RNG based
Ok geniuses here's your mission should you be dumb enough to actually accept it:
Scrape together whatever cash you have and then go to these places known as 'casinos',thankfully there is no short supply of these establishments around the globe as there is no short supply of morons that populate them either,exchange all your cash for these plastic buttons called 'chips' (no they are not edible) and then pick your card game of choice and play at least one round.
The goal of the mission is to walk away from the table with more 'chips' than you started with,if you lose all your 'chips' then it's game over for real then post results&receipts here;i'll wait and i believe everyone else will too.
In the meantime have this completely unrelated educational webm
d69095 No.16298629
>>16298615
i'm not getting any younger here
e8e032 No.16299123
>>16298604
Don't play cards, slots, or craps at a casino. Play roulette and bet on red, black, odd, or even (not more than one of these at a time.) Your best odds of winning in any casino. Yes, your best odds are only like 47%, but that's far better than any other swindle there.
b66731 No.16299176
Same reason most of /v/ hates Multiplayer games. They're casuals who only play shitty story based generic jrpgs for dumb shit like "immersion" and get ultrapissy at losing.
They hate the idea of something out of boundaries ever happening during their mindless grind and want the same static, repetitive, foolproof gameplay every time. And they actually consider themselves smart for this shit.
>>16283167
>game mechanics become shitty and tedious once you overanalyze them
wow great fucking insight sherlock