Login

russian armor

Relic is heading in the direction we asked them to go!

26 Jan 2015, 16:33 PM
#81
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

Posts: 951




I am not ludicrously competitive type, yet I still hate RNG.

Your comment also implies that reason game is fun is because of RNG.
Game can be just as fun without RNG deciding games randomly and doing things that are out of players hands.

That nullifies your entire 'fun' argument


That'll be why I used the phrase tend to be.

RTFP
26 Jan 2015, 16:35 PM
#82
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

Posts: 951


I would in fact suggest you hold the majority view.


Perhaps, but it's the minority view on this forum. Which can be an echo-chamber for a tiny slice of the community.

But then again it simply proves IpKai's point about the size of the player base. He might wear a Tesco fleece on the internet, but the man is seldom wrong on matters concerning CoH2.
26 Jan 2015, 16:36 PM
#83
avatar of Lynchie435

Posts: 9

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Jan 2015, 14:37 PMInverse

That's not exactly how it works. PRD is generally implemented so that the first proc chance is actually lower than the desired average value.

http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Pseudo-random_distribution


Furthermore, there are still elements of pure randomness, such as bash, evasion, Ogre Magi's Multicast mechanic, Faceless Void's Backtrack, etc.


I'm talking about both games. If a player puts himself in a situation where he needs to rely on random chance to win a game, he's fucked up somewhere along the line. Every time you rely on a single roll of the dice, you're taking a huge risk. Good players know that if, over the course of a game, you take only those risks that have a positive chance of resulting in a favourable outcome, you won't have to rely on a single instance of RNG luck to win you the game.

Games aren't decided by single decisions, they're decided by the culmination of all decisions in the game. If you're focusing on a single instance of bad luck and blaming that on a loss, you're neglecting to consider the several hundred other decisions made throughout the game that ultimately brought you to a situation where you were forced to rely on luck to win.

There's no such thing as a 100% chance to win a game, especially when you're talking about a game between two players of similar skill. All you can do is give yourself the best possible chance of success. That's why best-of-1 games in tournaments and single ladder games don't really tell you anything about the relative skill of two players, because in a single game anything can happen. That's just how competition works. It has nothing to do with RNG.

I'll give an example from CoH1, because that's the game I know best. In CoH1, snipers only had 50% accuracy against regular infantry targets that were moving, including other snipers. That meant a countersnipe attempt against a moving target had a 50% chance of success. 50% chance isn't very good when you consider the cost and game impact of a sniper, yet many lower-level players relied on countersniping and got very angry when they missed, and blamed their losses on RNG even though it was plainly clear that countersniping was unreliable.

Good players, however, realized this and adopted different tactics. Rarely in high-level games anymore do you see players building snipers and hiding them while they wait for an opportunity to countersnipe. Instead, they realized that the best thing to do was to use your own sniper as a deterrent, draining manpower at a similar rate to the opponent's sniper and using tools like flanking, vehicles, and artillery to limit the enemy sniper's effective time on the field. If you can keep your sniper at the front for more total time than your opponent's, you're going to kill more infantry and drain more manpower, which is the primary use of a sniper in the first place.

In adopting this style, players were able to avoid the inconsistency that comes with relying on low-probability RNG as a cornerstone of your gameplay. By controlling the sniper rather than going all-in on a countersnipe, players were able to rely on their positional and tactical skills instead of putting the outcome of the game on a random element that was out of their control.

There are always alternatives to consider when dealing with random elements in a game. The best players will find ways to minimize their exposure to high-risk-high-reward plays and naturally gravitate to the "safest", most consistent style possible.


Bang - Science, B***h :)
26 Jan 2015, 16:55 PM
#84
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3597 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Jan 2015, 14:37 PMInverse

That's not exactly how it works. PRD is generally implemented so that the first proc chance is actually lower than the desired average value.

http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Pseudo-random_distribution


Furthermore, there are still elements of pure randomness, such as bash, evasion, Ogre Magi's Multicast mechanic, Faceless Void's Backtrack, etc.




Hard to compare two games completely different. But game mechanism are clearly under control in Dota2 (don't know for LoL but suppose also). Element of randomness can all be countered by items and heroes capacities are derived from items themselves. In Coh2, there are no items giving you immunity from damage for a period of time.

But anyway, I'm not against RNG, but here it takes to much space on the gameplay design, those mechanisms are lacking of control limits.
when a units has 50% chance to pen another, it can be over 10 shots, 5 first pen or 5 first bounced, and honestly at any level of skill it gives the same result. For sure, at higher level a player will manage the situation better, but the result is the same at the end, your windows opportunity has been annihilated, not by your opponent but pure luck/bad luck. I don't see that in Dota2, from the 1200 hours I have played that game so far, I have never experienced this feeling of being so unlucky, same when I took a super multi strikes from Ogremagi...
26 Jan 2015, 17:41 PM
#85
avatar of IpKaiFung
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1705 | Subs: 2


He might wear a Tesco fleece on the internet


It was cold in my house.
26 Jan 2015, 17:45 PM
#86
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

Posts: 951



It was cold in my house.


Of course. Why else would you wear it?

:P
26 Jan 2015, 18:00 PM
#87
avatar of WiFiDi
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3293



Of course. Why else would you wear it?

:P


To hide his nasty cutting habbit of course. :P



26 Jan 2015, 18:33 PM
#88
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Jan 2015, 14:37 PMInverse

I'm talking about both games. If a player puts himself in a situation where he needs to rely on random chance to win a game, he's fucked up somewhere along the line. Every time you rely on a single roll of the dice, you're taking a huge risk. Good players know that if, over the course of a game, you take only those risks that have a positive chance of resulting in a favourable outcome, you won't have to rely on a single instance of RNG luck to win you the game.

Games aren't decided by single decisions, they're decided by the culmination of all decisions in the game. If you're focusing on a single instance of bad luck and blaming that on a loss, you're neglecting to consider the several hundred other decisions made throughout the game that ultimately brought you to a situation where you were forced to rely on luck to win.

i agree with that but CoH2 games can very easily be decided by a single plane crash or pathing (not actually RNG as far as i know but could be for all the consistency it has) or a heavy tank being abandoned.

RNG isn't inherently bad but it has to be limited in order to prevent it from changing games too much.
26 Jan 2015, 18:53 PM
#89
avatar of drChengele
Patrion 14

Posts: 640 | Subs: 1

Seems to me everyone agrees that SOME amount of RNG is good, but not too much. The only thing where opinions differ is how much RNG is acceptable.

In my preference the answer is "a lot". IMO Catastrophic crashes are not that frequent to merit removing from the game. But as I said, preference.

I agree that they fall on units too much because they are shot down over a battlefield, which means they tend to fall in a populated area. Let's just greatly decrease the angle at which airplanes fall down after being shot down. This will increase the fall radius and not only will they fall more offmap than before, they will also have a chance to fall well outside their circle of operations, spreading the risk to the plane owners as well, as it were.
26 Jan 2015, 18:54 PM
#90
avatar of Inverse
Coder Red Badge

Posts: 1678 | Subs: 5


i agree with that but CoH2 games can very easily be decided by a single plane crash or pathing (not actually RNG as far as i know but could be for all the consistency it has) or a heavy tank being abandoned.

RNG isn't inherently bad but it has to be limited in order to prevent it from changing games too much.

That's fair. But in that instance, the problem is being unable to react to the randomness, not the fact that the randomness exists. For example, if you could reliably dodge the plane crashes, it wouldn't matter where they randomly crash, because you could still react.

It's just an important distinction to make. Random gameplay elements aren't inherently bad; they can actually add a lot when used correctly.
26 Jan 2015, 19:18 PM
#91
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

Posts: 951

I agree with Inverse on that. Like others have said, a quick ping on the map signalling imminent plane crash wouldn't hurt. I like RNG craziness, but I'd be cool with that. Fast players who kept their situational awareness high would benefit, slower players with their heads up their arses wouldn't. Fair enough.
26 Jan 2015, 20:13 PM
#92
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Jan 2015, 18:54 PMInverse

That's fair. But in that instance, the problem is being unable to react to the randomness, not the fact that the randomness exists. For example, if you could reliably dodge the plane crashes, it wouldn't matter where they randomly crash, because you could still react.

It's just an important distinction to make. Random gameplay elements aren't inherently bad; they can actually add a lot when used correctly.

right; either the impact of the RNG needs to be minimal or there has to be counter play to it.

most games RNG falls into the minimal area. for those that don't they're generally either PvE or they're single player and have a save option. poker has a shit ton of RNG but it can be mitigated by player skill (and knowing when to quit).
26 Jan 2015, 20:50 PM
#93
avatar of Kreatiir

Posts: 2819

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jan 2015, 03:15 AMdbmb
Do you think Dota 2 esports players care about cosmetic costumes?
Do you think Counter Strike esports players care about gun skins?

If making mountain dew skins for 4v4 scrubs allows them to hire more balance designers, I'm all for it.


Actually yes, CSGO trading is one of the biggest of the net. The skins is what it sets apart from other games. Sorry mate, your argument is rekt.
27 Jan 2015, 17:55 PM
#94
avatar of dbmb

Posts: 122 | Subs: 2



Actually yes, CSGO trading is one of the biggest of the net. The skins is what it sets apart from other games. Sorry mate, your argument is rekt.


Can you link me a quote from an CSGO pro player that says something like "If this game didn't have skins, I would never have gone competitive in it".

27 Jan 2015, 20:02 PM
#95
avatar of Inverse
Coder Red Badge

Posts: 1678 | Subs: 5

Nobody plays CSGO or Dota 2 because the games have skins, but to say professional players don't care about them is kinda silly. They would be playing the games regardless of them having skins or not, but they definitely still care about them. Most professional players in both of those games have very expensive inventories of cosmetic items.

It's gaming microtransactions done right, and it's honestly brilliant of Valve to have implemented the systems they have. I've spent more on Dota and CS cosmetics than I have on actual games in the past two years.
27 Jan 2015, 22:02 PM
#96
avatar of Kreatiir

Posts: 2819

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jan 2015, 17:55 PMdbmb


Can you link me a quote from an CSGO pro player that says something like "If this game didn't have skins, I would never have gone competitive in it".



Haha dude, it's not about not playing it, it's about making it 10 tons more interesting.
28 Jan 2015, 04:24 AM
#97
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

it lets people make their model unique and it gives people who like spreadsheet games something to do when they don't want to shoot. it definitely adds to the game for the vast majority of people.
28 Jan 2015, 08:45 AM
#98
avatar of RMMLz

Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1



Haha dude, it's not about not playing it, it's about making it 10 tons more interesting.


Almost all of my friends would not play CS:GO if there were no skins. It's a huge marketing policy. They would play other wise but after a match, when they win a good crate they just lose their minds, buy a key and pray to RNG god. They win a $2 skin and do that again and again to finally win a 10$ skin.
28 Jan 2015, 10:48 AM
#99
avatar of Trubbbel

Posts: 721

Are the planes crashing into troops really random? It seems from what I've seen that the chance of it hitting stuff is pretty high leading me to believe it's not really crashing just anywhere.
28 Jan 2015, 13:02 PM
#100
avatar of BabaRoga

Posts: 829



That'll be why I used the phrase tend to be.

RTFP



:facepalm: You didn't understand my post or you just can't grasp more then one sentence?

Yes you did use phrase 'tend to be', I didn't miss it, that has nothing to do with my argument.


To quote you "RTFP"
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

306 users are online: 1 member and 305 guests
aerafield
17 posts in the last 24h
45 posts in the last week
99 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44645
Welcome our newest member, otorusqtwk
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM