Poll
Question: Should we adjust the RNG to represent THC probability more accurately?
Yes - 17 (42.5%)
No - 23 (57.5%)
Total Voters: 40

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Design Topic #2: RNG  (Read 3919 times)
anubioz
Neophyte

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2018, 02:53:46 pm »

Path of Exile already did RNG for evading right: https://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Evasion

Quote
Evasion is not purely based on chance in the sense that each hit is independent. Instead, it uses a system of "entropy" to ensure that enemies won't get long strings of hits or misses by chance. To summarize, these are the calculation steps in each attack:

    1. If it is first time an entity is attacked or if the time between the last attack and this one is larger than 6 seconds, randomise the entropy from 0–99.
    2. Calculate chance to hit of the attacker using the above formula, and add this integer to the entropy counter.
    3. If this is 100 or greater, the check counts as a hit. Subtract 100 from the entropy counter. Otherwise it is a miss and the entropy counter doesn't change.
    4. A critical hit is evaded on a separate random roll and will not affect this entropy value.

This system is designed to evenly spread out hits and misses such that players always evade an average number of times according to their ‘chance’ to evade. It is still based on chance because of the entropy counter's randomization in the first step. Note that if multiple mobs are attacking one character, all of the mobs' attacks share the same entropy counter. Also note that the chance to evade calculation on the character page is based on the average accuracy of a monster at the player's level.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 03:00:26 pm by anubioz » Logged
old_school_gamer
Neophyte

Posts: 16



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: March 07, 2019, 02:16:30 pm »

1)   Should we rig the RNG to meet players’ expectations?
2)   If yes, how? Meaning what should we aim it? What outcomes should never ever happen when your THC is 70-80%?

I don't know how to vote exactly since I'm in a demographic that loves plain old RNG that isn't rigged, but if I find fault, it's in the way and context in which RNG is used.  lol Used correctly in a setting like combat, I see it as a way to expand on the uniqueness of an experience and the freedom of a player as well as expanding on the variety of outcomes that can unfold instead of looking at damage numbers and misses all day. It is not interesting to me to take a few turns on a repeat of a battle and the AI does the exact same thing and the exact same thing happens, and I never liked the idea of moves being strictly "correct move" vs. "blunder" and prefer to think in terms of "risk vs. reward" and especially avoiding the moves that maximize risk while minimizing reward.

One of the reasons I love tactical combat with a positional factor and a grid/board is because it tends to favor a shorter but more lethal type of combat where every turn counts. I'm not spamming attack/heal/revive/buff/debuff over and over in such a repetitious way, and instead putting more thought into each move. I like when every turn feels important. And such games make choices like melee vs. ranged and AoE vs. single target so much more interesting and meaningful. If every move feels very meaningful and not repetitious and requires very careful thought with every single turn (especially in challenging battles where my characters are outclassed), then I tend to be a happy camper. If I feel like I'm just spamming the same sequence of actions repeatedly and eager to get the battle over with, then I tend to not be as happy.

I also don't mind missing several times in a row with 70% chance to hit. That's not so improbable from a mathematical perspective (almost 1/30 times), and the analogy of weighted dice (ex: something which produces a bell curve instead of a horizontal line when graphed) could risk making the experience feel a bit more "static" if it's taken very far. I think we're psychologically biased to thinking that happens more than one in thirty times even if gathered statistics would reveal this to be the case, since we tend to associate more emotion to unlucky events and recall them more vividly than when we luckily hit an enemy 3 times in a row with 30% chance (something I imagine would also no longer be possible if the RNG used an algorithm which avoided multiple consecutive numbers in a row).

What I actually find tedious and frustrating is not because I missed several times in a row, but because I'm bored just exchanging damage numbers and hit points with an enemy repetitively (and I was rarely ever bored in AoD combat). If a particular game lacks interesting events that could happen beyond hit/miss, like a game that lacks a variety of criticals, or criticals are so bland and just do double damage each time and nothing else, then I'll easily get bored more easily with more heavy RNG involvement because I just want to get to the next part of the game. Meanwhile when a game is so random that it has such a wide range of things that could occur, however improbable, I find myself constantly amused while adjusting my whole tactics to what happened. In particular I especially enjoy games where losing in the most unfortunate way is entertaining in itself (ex: Blood Bowl where my opposing team managed to throw a halfling halfway across the field and score a touchdown one turn before the game ended). I can't help but laugh at that astronomically improbable situation even though I'm a bit frustrated at the same time.

This idea is at risk of frustrating certain demographics even more but one way to mitigate the repetition of staring at misses and damage numbers for lengthy periods of time is to actually make combat even more lethal in nature, where a single hit or two could take down even the most powerful character. That would shorten the experience and make it more gripping and tense, but for those who base fun factor on their ability to win as consistently as possible, it would probably frustrate that demographic even more. For me it'd likely heighten the amusement and tension of every single move and make it so I'm thinking even more carefully about every single move I make.

Another that involves tackling elements around the RNG rather than the RNG itself is to put more emphasis on the strategic elements of gameplay being around the types of moves made where no RNG is involved (putting emphasis on allowing many risk-free moves before taking a risk). I learned very quickly from Blood Bowl that trying to do things that risk causing me to waste an entire turn like running to grab a ball which is subject to RNG is a terrible beginner mistake. Meanwhile positioning my units involved no RNG (unless they were moving away from a tackle zone). So the deep element of strategy in that one in spite of its incredible involvement of RNG is tactically positioning your units into an ideal position which isn't subject to any chance before taking any chances, and that's where the heavy skill factor comes in where skillful players can start to win far, far more consistently than lucky players. X-Com is similar that way but doesn't take the idea quite as far as Blood Bowl.

Yet another that could make even easy battles more interesting is to have more varied outcomes than black and white "win vs. lose". I vaguely recall some in AoD which were like that where I was a fairly good fighter but a very fragile NPC was involved, for example, so even if I easily won the battle, I might have failed to save the NPC and that becomes something unique and interesting. Jagged Alliance and Darklands had that sort of thing where wounds were very difficult to heal even outside of battle, so even an easy battle that lead to heavy wounds was interesting and somewhat costly to the player even if he won. X-Com had that somewhat as well since the loss of squad members or even the entire squad didn't lead to game over but was a costly setback. Fallout had some permanent damage effects (I remember permanently losing an ear to a fighter who curiously resembled Mike Tyson in a boxing match). That makes victory/loss more gray and not strictly black and white, and that grayness might help players more readily accept their fortunes and misfortunes.

What I'm trying to get at (forgive my verbosity) is that I tend to feel like complaints about RNG might have to do more with surrounding factors than the nature of the RNG itself. It is like if players complain that an RPG lacks a respec option, perhaps the game lacks a sense that every choice the player can make is interesting and worth accepting and living with the consequences.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 03:14:04 pm by old_school_gamer » Logged
menyalin
Craftsman

Posts: 426


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: March 12, 2019, 07:32:17 am »

Reading previous post and come to some thoughts about RNG badness. What RNG situation deal the biggest pain? I'd call two types:
1) RNG wall, when you need to repeat something again and again to progress.
2) Really long engagements when you fall near end just because of bad luck.
So if you making some hard RNG balance, it can be better to make shorter engagements or possibility to save\load somewhere during it. Maybe add posibility for save-load during battle on medium to low difficulty? It will ease the life or intermediate player on one side and hardcore gamers not so picky about RNG hardness on other side.

What I'm trying to get at (forgive my verbosity) is that I tend to feel like complaints about RNG might have to do more with surrounding factors than the nature of the RNG itself. It is like if players complain that an RPG lacks a respec option, perhaps the game lacks a sense that every choice the player can make is interesting and worth accepting and living with the consequences.
Completely agree.
Logged
Wizard1200
Novice

Posts: 38


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: March 14, 2019, 08:11:26 am »

Another that involves tackling elements around the RNG rather than the RNG itself is to put more emphasis on the strategic elements of gameplay being around the types of moves made where no RNG is involved (putting emphasis on allowing many risk-free moves before taking a risk). I learned very quickly from Blood Bowl that trying to do things that risk causing me to waste an entire turn like running to grab a ball which is subject to RNG is a terrible beginner mistake. Meanwhile positioning my units involved no RNG (unless they were moving away from a tackle zone). So the deep element of strategy in that one in spite of its incredible involvement of RNG is tactically positioning your units into an ideal position which isn't subject to any chance before taking any chances, and that's where the heavy skill factor comes in where skillful players can start to win far, far more consistently than lucky players. X-Com is similar that way but doesn't take the idea quite as far as Blood Bowl.

A game can be interesting without RNG in my opinion. Two examples:

Invisible Inc.:


Tactical Breach Wizards:
« Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 08:14:36 am by Wizard1200 » Logged
Scott
Developer

Posts: 2388



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: March 14, 2019, 10:42:10 am »

I don't have an issue with "long" engagements. All out, room-clearing brawls are some of the most memorable fights of all. OTOH, drawn out exchanges between low-talent or high-defense fighters can be a drag. Vince may already have addressed this, but what about scaling aim bonuses after multiple misses. For example: two misses, give the next swing/shot +5% and additional stacks until a hit is made and the counter is reset. This would apply to player and enemy of course, and isn't that farfetched. I assume someone firing at a stationary target is eventually going to come at least slightly closer after several shots.
Logged

contributed to: Age of Decadence | Dead State | Dungeon Rats | Battle Brothers | Fell Seal:Arbiter's Mark
working on: Colony Ship RPG | Stygian:Reign of the Old Ones | Encased | ATOM RPG
Wizard1200
Novice

Posts: 38


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: March 14, 2019, 02:31:31 pm »

Vince may already have addressed this, but what about scaling aim bonuses after multiple misses. For example: two misses, give the next swing/shot +5% and additional stacks until a hit is made and the counter is reset. This would apply to player and enemy of course, and isn't that farfetched. I assume someone firing at a stationary target is eventually going to come at least slightly closer after several shots.

I would go one step further:
+ 5 % THC for every attack after the first against the same target. Stacks up to 3 times (5 times with a feat) and resets as soon as you attack another target or reload a weapon. This would make fast weapons more useful, melee weapons more useful, Perception less powerful and larger groups more dangerous.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 05:07:24 pm by Wizard1200 » Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: