691 replies to this topic

[Draconious]

As some of you may know there has been a heated debate in the Engineer forums on the randomness of boons for elixirs and the effects it has on you playstyle, build, and most importantly the outcome of a fight. I know that the engineer is not the only profession who has had a conversation on RNG with certain abilities, but it seems to be the most notable case.

The thief profession is also affected by RNG in terms of the class mechanic Steal. Mesmers are also affected however this randomness is some what mitigated by the design and intent of they profession; to cause confusion to survive.

My question is this, does RNG abilities have a place in competitive PvP?

Note crit chance can be changed to the players choosing and therefore is irrelevant to the conversation.

[Rufess]

Please forgive my broken English, since I am from a country where is not using English for the first language.

My opinion is : All random factor should not appear in PvP, especially A.Net try to make GW2 a e-sport.

Random factor means that player cannot control what will happen after he used his skill. Engineer, for example, has a elite skill called Elixir X, which will give you a random form from three. The player will randomly turn into rampaging brute, withering plague or whirling tornado. And those three form can do different things and suppose to deal with different situations.

That means : The player may want to use tornado, for a area control to save the team, but after using the skill he got plague, which deal burst damage to single target, which cannot help him to deal with the situation. Or the player have to wait for a situation that those 3 form can deal with, otherwise he will not cast the skill.

And this result is what a e-sport game should, or say, must to avoid. A e-sport game should only depends on player's skill but not a Random Table.


On the other hand, Crit is a different story. Crit can see as a damage boost. Let say if your damage is 100, and you have 20% chance to do 150% damage, so you can say your total damage is (100*0.8 + 100*1.5*0.2) = 110.

Not like to above case, whether there is a Crit hit or not, the case will not change. In other words, you have a normal hit, then your goal is reached, which is to damage your enemy. If your have a Crit hit, then you also reached your goal, ever more.


I am not sure if I have made my words. So if you have any problem on reading and understanding what I have said, please let me know. I will try to explain my thinking in an other way.

Again, sorry for my broken English.

[blakdoxa]

You should have this in the Courtyard, but there has been A LOT of talk about RNG lately. =/

thief: http://www.guildwars...e/page__st__480

engineer:
http://www.guildwars...ineers-and-rng/
http://www.guildwars...lixirs-and-rng/

courtyard:
http://www.guildwars...ompetitive-pvp/

I can deal with RNG in my own way. For many others, they just can't stand it... =/

If RNG gets purged crit has to go too.

Edited by blakdoxa, 06 July 2012 - 06:48 AM.

[Radiea]

No.

But too many topics already.

[Alaroxr]

I think RNG is fine (as long as it's not excessive and is done correctly). It's actually an advantage to the person who uses it over the person who has to react to it, which isn't taken into account by a lot of criticisms of RNG.

When RNG is excessive it shouldn't be in the game, but if it's only out of 2-3 possible options on command, then I think it is good. It means your enemy can't predict what is going to happen (neither can you, but you're more prepared and have a better capacity to react to it).

Players are going to get used to seeing a Profession with a certain weapon and know exactly what they can do, and predict what will likely happen. When you introduce RNG like the Thief's steal or Engineer's abilities, it throws them off and takes them out of their comfort zone as well.

------------------

Take the Thief's steal for example. When a Thief uses steal, they gain 1 out of (2-3?) possible options. A skilled Thief will have those memorized for each Profession and mentally be ready to react to that item. After the Steal occurs, the Thief is in the advantageous position of knowing exactly what that item is, while the person they are fighting has to guess on 3 possible options. This isn't classic RNG because the Thief knows the outcome of the RNG before the enemy.

In the case of the Engineer, it's purpose is to create unpredictability in an otherwise very predictable game. Like I said above, when you see a Profession with a certain weapon, you know the majority of the actions they are about to perform. When the Engineer comes into play, that's thrown completely out the window.

The Engineer may start with a Rifle or Pistol, but you don't know if they're going to switch to an Elixir Gun, Med Kit, Flamethrower, Grenade Kit, Mine Kit, or Tool Kit. They also have 4 additional abilities that you can't predict as well from their Tool Belt. Even their weapon mechanics have a slight factor of unpredictablity. For example, the Rifle can be traited to, on a critical hit, Bleed, Blind, inflict Vulnerability, and grant Swiftness. This keeps their enemies on edge because it's impossible to know when Vulnerability, Blind, and Swiftness will appear (while Bleed is 100% on critical hits, so it can be predicted).

I think the RNG on the Engineer fits well with what the Profession already has going for it. The Thief's Steal's RNG gives an undeniable advantage that otherwise wouldn't be there if there was only one possible item per enemy.

Edited by Alaroxr, 06 July 2012 - 07:11 AM.

[master21]

RNG is in all types of games, even those "e-sport" ones. In fps in a matter of bullet spread generated by random numbers, on games like gw2 is a matter of crit, combo proc from projectiles and many others.

[misterdevious]

Don't forget the randomness of Rangers. You know what the pet's automatic skills will do... you just don't know when it will use each one. Also, each member of the Porcine family randomly forages one of three environmental weapons.


The developers clearly believe that there is skill to be demonstrated in how well you "react to" random occurrences...

Quote

"the engineer's healing skill, skill 6, not only heals the engineer but it randomly applies one of the different buffs in the game, so you can react to it and basically act differently based on the buffs that you get" -Colin Johanson

"or get more critical hits and react to their effects." - attributes blog

"This gives players the ability to choose between builds that give high spike-damage critical hits, deceptively strong conditions, reactionary critical effects, or classic big-hit power, while remaining competitive with any of them." -attributes blog

"The truth is that random effects are what create moments of opportunity for players to react to. There is a threshold of randomness that is not acceptable, but if you are given outcomes that have clear, non-game breaking implications, those are the moments that expert players should be using to press advantages." - Jon Peters

[Shinimas]

Quote

If RNG gets purged crit has to go too.

Not necessarily. Crits is just damage and it doesn't really change the way you play. Stuff like Elixir X, however, is pure luck, you can't even plan ahead with this skill.

[Craywulf]

With the right percentages RNG can have it's place in PvP. It's just a matter of balancing the numbers and making sure the boons and/or conditions are similar in types.

[Alch]

just food for thought,

if RNG completely spoiled competitive play, then how you explain Backgammon?

[Killyox]

Shinimas, on 06 July 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

Not necessarily. Crits is just damage and it doesn't really change the way you play. Stuff like Elixir X, however, is pure luck, you can't even plan ahead with this skill.

Then you have not seen all sigils and traits with "x happens on crit"

[A Wyatt Mann]

Killyox, on 06 July 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Then you have not seen all sigils and traits with "x happens on crit"

But its always the same thing.

Its not like you have a trait that says "on crit, cripple, immobilize or burn your opponent"

Its always one thing. So its purely a damage related thing.

[Killyox]

A Wyatt Mann, on 06 July 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

But its always the same thing.

Its not like you have a trait that says "on crit, cripple, immobilize or burn your opponent"

Its always one thing. So its purely a damage related thing.

Elixir H always heals. I swiftness was changed to vigor it would also provide 1 ou of 3 defensive boons.

I am not for or against randomness. I am for logical randomness with at least 1 guarenteed effect.

Also if my trait gives me 33% chance to cause blindness on critical and it happens to trigger when you do your imba hyper knockdown to finish me off how is that NOT an RNG and lucky survival ?

Edited by Killyox, 06 July 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[Arngrim Einheri]

Draconious, on 06 July 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

As some of you may know there has been a heated debate in the Engineer forums on the randomness of boons for elixirs and the effects it has on you playstyle, build, and most importantly the outcome of a fight. I know that the engineer is not the only profession who has had a conversation on RNG with certain abilities, but it seems to be the most notable case.

The thief profession is also affected by RNG in terms of the class mechanic Steal. Mesmers are also affected however this randomness is some what mitigated by the design and intent of they profession; to cause confusion to survive.

My question is this, does RNG abilities have a place in competitive PvP?

Note crit chance can be changed to the players choosing and therefore is irrelevant to the conversation.

Well mesmers are ENTIRELY affected by the random factor. They dabble with random boons and random conditions all the time, and they can be quite competitive in pvp. Random factor for me means that you won't be able to design perfect builds anymore, insted you will have to reserve more room for more possible different outcomes.

Edited by Arngrim Einheri, 06 July 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[Killyox]

If there was NO rng at all it would all come down to "ok he is doing A so i will do B because that counters A, he will do C because it counters B and thus i will follow with D"

It would become drastically more predictable. Part of skill is not just whoever clicks fastest but also who can adapt the quickest to suddenly changing situation.

That RNG (properly made/designed rng), will spice things up and create less pedictable moments. For the better.

[Xiondar]

It's been talked to death and Anet seems clear on their standing with this one. They seem to like where it is and have a justified reason to have it in SPvP.

Whether we like it or not, it is here to stay for the time being and I will adjust to it. It's different, but I can adapt... not everything in competitive gameplay in general is predictable... they just added another factor to make it even less predictable; which I will learn to live with.

[Killyox]

I'm sure that if they had to face decision: Do we want a very fun game and no e-sport or semi fun game with e-sport?

Pretty convinced they would go with option nr 1. RNG adds those "OH SHIT, WOW" moments both negative and positive, but it makes things actually exciting. I rather watch players return from certain rng and dominate opponent than just a chess match.

[Shinimas]

Killyox, on 06 July 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Then you have not seen all sigils and traits with "x happens on crit"

X happens on crit isn't crit.

[mrbig]

Alaroxr, on 06 July 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

------------------

Take the Thief's steal for example. When a Thief uses steal, they gain 1 out of (2-3?) possible options. A skilled Thief will have those memorized for each Profession and mentally be ready to react to that item. After the Steal occurs, the Thief is in the advantageous position of knowing exactly what that item is, while the person they are fighting has to guess on 3 possible options. This isn't classic RNG because the Thief knows the outcome of the RNG before the enemy.

In the case of the Engineer, it's purpose is to create unpredictability in an otherwise very predictable game. Like I said above, when you see a Profession with a certain weapon, you know the majority of the actions they are about to perform. When the Engineer comes into play, that's thrown completely out the window.

The Engineer may start with a Rifle or Pistol, but you don't know if they're going to switch to an Elixir Gun, Med Kit, Flamethrower, Grenade Kit, Mine Kit, or Tool Kit. They also have 4 additional abilities that you can't predict as well from their Tool Belt. Even their weapon mechanics have a slight factor of unpredictablity. For example, the Rifle can be traited to, on a critical hit, Bleed, Blind, inflict Vulnerability, and grant Swiftness. This keeps their enemies on edge because it's impossible to know when Vulnerability, Blind, and Swiftness will appear (while Bleed is 100% on critical hits, so it can be predicted).

I think the RNG on the Engineer fits well with what the Profession already has going for it. The Thief's Steal's RNG gives an undeniable advantage that otherwise wouldn't be there if there was only one possible item per enemy.

Oh my, you're so wrong.

Especially with the thief.

First of all, i would say that i'm not against RNG, but the point is that your logic is mathematically flawed.

It doesn't matter how big the stealable items pool is, the only thing able to stabilize the chance of getting X item from a guardian is to increase THE AMOUNT OF REPETITIONS.

Since Steal is on a 45 secs CD, while the repetitions needed to have a stable 33 % chance to obtain X item ( among X-Y-Z items, so 3 items) would be over 90 , ( around it, by following binomial distribution , but i'm too lazy to find out the real outcome) Steal is totally unreliable.

You don't know the outcome. Steal doesn't give any advantage due to unreliability.

Being able to use steal effectively is another story: the smart player will always use it to its advantage, but Steal, mathematically,  doesn't put you in a sure and advantageous situation.

And the same is about Elixir X and elixir U.

And please don't try to argue back, because i'm right and you're wrong, and i have no real intention to continue this discussion.

Arngrim Einheri, on 06 July 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Well mesmers are ENTIRELY affected by the random factor. They dabble with random boons and random conditions all the time, and they can be quite competitive in pvp. Random factor for me means that you won't be able to design perfect builds anymore, insted you will have to reserve more room for more possible different outcomes.

Look above.

Mesmer RNG is far inferior to enge and thief ones. Every staff attack is affected by RNG, so due to the high amount of repetitions, it's pretty stable.

For the enge and the thief, it's totally different.

Edited by mrbig, 06 July 2012 - 03:17 PM.

[Killyox]

Shinimas, on 06 July 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

X happens on crit isn't crit.

But is an effect of said crit which is an RNG because it has x% chance to happen. So it may or may not happen.

[Radiea]

Killyox, on 06 July 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

If there was NO rng at all it would all come down to "ok he is doing A so i will do B because that counters A, he will do C because it counters B and thus i will follow with D"

It would become drastically more predictable. Part of skill is not just whoever clicks fastest but also who can adapt the quickest to suddenly changing situation.

That RNG (properly made/designed rng), will spice things up and create less pedictable moments. For the better.

This is why often fog of war is such a useful tool in RTS. It hides what players are doing, so mindgames are possible. But -- even if fog of war isn't, you can still play mindgames with existing tools, as evidenced in fighting games.

Also:

Radiea said:

The idea behind this is logically sound; but this simply has not manifested itself in countless wholly deterministic games. Starcraft/II, chess (international, Chinese, or shogi), Go, FPSes (there is a slight RNG for scatter but very insignificant, on the level of Starcraft tank RNG in order to prevent overkill), many fighter games (apparently lots of indie fighters have random elements, so I am corrected on that; as far as I know, major titles do not, however, and those with higher luck elements tend to be turned down in favor of those with lower luck elements), all have very deep gameplay while being completely deterministic.

This tells me that yes, while it is possible that matches may become predictable when we have the capability to monitor and control every aspect we can, it is neither plausible - we are human - or has any evidence supporting it. Thus, I think I can reasonably conclude a game that relies on RNG to be dynamic is a failed game, as we have nowhere near reached the level where we must rely on RNG to produce dynamism.

Alch, on 06 July 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

just food for thought,

if RNG completely spoiled competitive play, then how you explain Backgammon?

The same way I explain Warcraft III. If we could remove it, it would be better off for having randomness being removed. While not unskillful at all, there is still a luck component that can sway matches.

Now, it's a bit difficult to remove luck from Backgammon...or, for another example, Magic: the Gathering. The game is built with luck as one of its pillars, so to say. Removing luck from those is to make a new game altogether, while with Guild Wars 2 this is certainly not the case.

EDIT: I accidentally a sentence

Edited by Radiea, 06 July 2012 - 03:11 PM.

[Tevesh]

Limited rng is good. Excessive is not so.

Many competitive games, if not all, have some degree of randomness. Wc3/sc have some randomness in unit damage that sometimes makes the difference between a kill and one additional attack needed. In fps games, you have bullet spreads that sometimes make the difference between a headshot and miss. In MTG - I hope nobody will challenge its competitivness? - random draws are a cornerstone of the gameplay. Your every deckbuilding decision is based on increasing probabilities of good draws. Hell, even footbal has some randomness, as no footbal player can mathematically perfectly calculate the bounces the ball will make and the flight path of a pass.

Moreover, random elements are an absolute must for any competitive game because they make the game exciting to watch, and spectators is what is needed for a successful sport. Compare chess to football, the latter is much more exciting because it's much less predictable. Instead of knowing the outcome of every possible situation beforehand, you have some unexpected turns in the game.

Where the border lies? Well, now that's a tough question. Everyone agrees such degrees of randomness as 5-10% chance of critical with 400% bonus damage is unacceptable. 20% of 200% bonus damage? 30-60% of 160% bonus damage? We have the latter in gw2 and compared to most mmos it's not that significant.

I also tend to believe such random elements as engineer elixirs are fine as long as every result serves a similiar purpose and, thus, does not break the skill focus, and has similiarly powerful effects, thus not breaking the skill usability. They just should affect your character in different ways, so you have to actually change your tactics to adopt to the effect you got. This is also a reason random elements should not be present in emergency skills that are used in a manner that does not give you enough time or opportunity to do something useful with the effect you got. In every situation, the positive side should be emphathised, the player should not be left with the feeling oh crap, if only the other effect would proc..

Speaking about the overall level of randomness, I think that roughly 60% of 'plays' should be average, 20% 'good' and 20% 'bad'. Then, the average result is probable enough to bear some meaning, you have enough opportunities for unexpected results of most situations that would increase the spectateability of the game, and still the edge cases are not so uncommon to break the game.

[mrbig]

Tevesh, on 06 July 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

I also tend to believe such random elements as engineer elixirs are fine as long as every result serves a similiar purpose and, thus, does not break the skill focus, and has similiarly powerful effects, thus not breaking the skill usability. They just should affect your character in different ways, so you have to actually change your tactics to adopt to the effect you got. This is also a reason random elements should not be present in emergency skills that are used in a manner that does not give you enough time or opportunity to do something useful with the effect you got. In every situation, the positive side should be emphathised, the player should not be left with the feeling oh crap, if only the other effect would proc..

The problem relies in elixir U, elixir X and Steal. I would say more in Steal and elixir X, since they're respectively a mechanic ( lol) and an elite.

Steal problem could be easily solved by a significant decrease of its CD ( maybe changing how the mechanic works) and maybe by adding some more pockets in order to keep what you steal. But Steal is a mechanic, so you've indeed more freedom with it.

What about elixirs ?

Elixir X is just wrong. Elites are supposed to be game changing , and indeed they are. What if you obtain "tornado" when you wanted "plague" ?

This skill is mathematically even worse than Steal, it absolutely makes no sense and should be removed asap.

I can tolerate elixir U, but the randomness in this scenario should reward you. And the CD is too high for the utility it provides, even if there are 2 chances of getting quickness.

Edited by mrbig, 06 July 2012 - 03:41 PM.

[Tevesh]

I'm not saying the current form of Steal or elite elixir is fine. Their conception is in line with other skills and is acceptable, rather fun, actually. But the implementation is not there, especially with the elixir X. The effects you gain serve different purposes and are generally disconnected from the rest of your build. The brute is direct damage, plague is condition damage, and tornado is crowd control. Totally different purposes, and whatever my build is, I have a 66% chance of rolling a wrong skill on this elixir. They just need to fix the skills you get or remove this as en ELITE skill, and then it's fine.

[Radiea]

Tevesh, on 06 July 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Limited rng is good. Excessive is not so.

Many competitive games, if not all, have some degree of randomness. Wc3/sc have some randomness in unit damage that sometimes makes the difference between a kill and one additional attack needed. In fps games, you have bullet spreads that sometimes make the difference between a headshot and miss. In MTG - I hope nobody will challenge its competitivness? - random draws are a cornerstone of the gameplay. Your every deckbuilding decision is based on increasing probabilities of good draws. Hell, even footbal has some randomness, as no footbal player can mathematically perfectly calculate the bounces the ball will make and the flight path of a pass.

SC/SCII introduces a slight randomness into weapon cooldown. This is not for the sake of randomness, this is for the sake of reducing/eliminating overkill; otherwise we would have ten siege tanks take the same target and have a ton of overkill, for example. This overkill is seen in Command and Conquer 3, for example; there was a moderate period of time when the dominant tactic as a GDI player would be to mass pitbulls, which had missiles that were good against aircraft, fair against armored ground (tanks) and buildings and understandably not so good against infantry, but could be upgraded with mortars, which allowed them to onehit infantry with a relatively slow nonhoming mortar shell (mortars were good vs buildings as well). One way of alleviating this as an infantry user (I think Nod used them at that time, not entirely sure, I don’t remember CnC3 was kinda shit anyway) was to send one squad in to draw all the fire, then send the rest of the infantry in while the cooldown of the mortar was active. Back to Starcraft/II, the small random seed given to unit weapon cooldowns is to alleviate this (it’s a chore to micro all tanks/marines like this, and is not interesting micro compared to other more tactical things). Starcraft also had a 30% chance to miss if your enemy units were on high ground, but this wasn’t a problem because of the very high amount of trials (a hundred supply of units attacking multiple times up? Okay.), although I might contest making it 30% less damage would be better (although it wouldn’t make sense in any physical sense). SC2 doesn’t even have this (you have no sight of units firing on you on higher ground unless you scan as terran or have a flying unit). Starcraft and Starcraft II units deal a set amount of damage per attack, as well, unlike Warcraft III.

The other random factor that was in SC/SC2 that I can think of is map spawn location. Guess what they did with map spawn locations on maps where different spawn locations (close air vs cross spawn vs close ground etc, for those unfamiliar with the game/genre) actually mattered? They forced cross spawn.

There’s chance involved, often, which involves scouting patterns, for example. But these are player mediated, which makes all the difference.

There are a fair amount of random elements in Warcraft III, from critical strikes, chain lightning bounces, unit attack damage ranges, bash, drunken brawler, evasion…etc. Usually these are quite inconsequential, as they do normalize, as you get to roll for these twice or three times (which is, currently, what a warrior specced for this might need to do to kill someone if they get lucky), but many many times over the course of a single fight (by many units, as well, when we speak of damage ranges). But! It has ruined games before.

I brought an example before of a Warcraft III tournament match. (The rest of this paragraph is copypaste from a prior post.) I can think of one offhand - a Undead vs Orc match - this was the finals of some tournament, WCG or something, I don't remember- that went well into the late game. The match was very well played by both sides, the Undead player using a very unorthodox starting strategy (Crypt Lord first) and the Orc player somehow being able to keep on with an equal footing into the late game.

The game was decided when the Orc's Blademaster (equipped with damage items) decided to triple crit the Undead's Death Knight second hero - dealing 4 times normal damage on 3 attacks, 15% chance on each attack. The chances of getting that triple crit was around 0.3~%.

FPS uses bullets spreads partly because it’s a balancing factor between different guns. I don’t know how they can replace that. Different FPSes also have different bullet spreads; competitive ones generally have relatively minor ones, while more realistic FPSes are, well, more realistic and “random”. Competitive FPSes generally have bullet spreads small enough that – yeah, I think if you could remove it it would be a good thing, but I suppose I can accept it.

Magic: the Gathering is a card game. Luck is built into this system; you cannot remove luck and have anything close to the same game, which is why it’s a shoddy comparison. Regardless, let’s see here – you already say that good deckbuilding is a way to increase the chances that you get a good draw, draws that you want – this is true! And since you can say that, you should understand my point. Look at some of the most powerful spells. Wishes, which give you a specific card. Tutors, which give you a specific card. Card draws, which give you higher chances of getting cards you need (and card advantage). They introduced the mulligan mechanic to decrease the chances that a player might get a shitty first draw and be boned for the game. Players try as hard as possible to fight against the randomness, and even then – sometimes some player gets a miraculous topdeck and wins. Sometimes some player gets a card they have zero use for, even though 25/35 of the remaining deck (or some arbitrary fraction) is something that the player could have a use for, and loses the game because of it. Is this not due to chance? Luckily, Guild Wars 2 is not a card game and is not constrained by the need to draw an unknown, essentially random card.

No football player can calculate, within those few seconds or fractions of a second, how to best kick the ball. But this is the thing – when time constraints are taken out, you can argue about how the ball would be best kicked and how would the ball act, you can calculate the flight path of a pass. Being able to judge these otherwise deterministic things in very short time is part of the skill of playing football, more so than ‘oops I accidentally kicked it 90 degrees towards where I wanted it to go HOW DO I REACT’.

Tevesh, on 06 July 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Moreover, random elements are an absolute must for any competitive game because they make the game exciting to watch, and spectators is what is needed for a successful sport. Compare chess to football, the latter is much more exciting because it's much less predictable. Instead of knowing the outcome of every possible situation beforehand, you have some unexpected turns in the game.

I suspect why chess is boring is because chess is slow (try spectating speedchess – or speed Go, I think Go is much better really), and football is a physical sport, which most people can intuitively get without really knowing much about football strategy (or they have some underlying knowledge of it already, as it is a widely played sport), while the excitement gained from watching chess is directly proportional to how much you know about the game (and many people really don’t know how to play chess). I, on the other hand, find it more exciting to watch chess games, because I don’t know football strategies, while I do understand chess strategies.

Try this – is it exciting to spectate a Starcraft or Starcraft II tournament game? (The GSL is on right now, actually.) I have seen many sports players who previously profess that they ‘won’t get it’ get drawn into watching these RTS games, even if they have a very limited idea of how they play out, and I hear of many examples of the same, and Starcraft/II is one of the most deterministic games (that aren’t board games) I know of. I know I love spectating Go matches, Touhou IAMP matches, Starcraft II matches, et cetera, and these are all as deterministic as they can be.

Tevesh, on 06 July 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

I also tend to believe such random elements as engineer elixirs are fine as long as every result serves a similiar purpose and, thus, does not break the skill focus, and has similiarly powerful effects, thus not breaking the skill usability. They just should affect your character in different ways, so you have to actually change your tactics to adopt to the effect you got. This is also a reason random elements should not be present in emergency skills that are used in a manner that does not give you enough time or opportunity to do something useful with the effect you got. In every situation, the positive side should be emphathised, the player should not be left with the feeling oh crap, if only the other effect would proc..

Speaking about the overall level of randomness, I think that roughly 60% of 'plays' should be average, 20% 'good' and 20% 'bad'. Then, the average result is probable enough to bear some meaning, you have enough opportunities for unexpected results of most situations that would increase the spectateability of the game, and still the edge cases are not so uncommon to break the game.

Let me profess first that I think elixir randomness is a welcome change from straight up all-or-nothing randomness, like crits. I understand where ArenaNet is coming from when they make these skills – skills that have random, but essentially equal, outcomes, which means people must have good reactive play. Thing is – good reactive play is already rewarded quite handsomely (dodge is a good example, proper use of condition removal, etc), and if they want to add more, there are probably better ways. RNG is inferior because it adds a luck component to competition, and should be used as a last resort – and honestly I don’t see ArenaNet backed up to the wall having no idea how to make a better mechanic and having to use RNG as a last resort.

[UssjTrunks]

Arngrim Einheri, on 06 July 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Well mesmers are ENTIRELY affected by the random factor. They dabble with random boons and random conditions all the time, and they can be quite competitive in pvp. Random factor for me means that you won't be able to design perfect builds anymore, insted you will have to reserve more room for more possible different outcomes.

Killyox, on 06 July 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

If there was NO rng at all it would all come down to "ok he is doing A so i will do B because that counters A, he will do C because it counters B and thus i will follow with D"

It would become drastically more predictable. Part of skill is not just whoever clicks fastest but also who can adapt the quickest to suddenly changing situation.

That RNG (properly made/designed rng), will spice things up and create less pedictable moments. For the better.

I completely agree with both of you. The random factor adds some depth to the combat system.

mrbig, on 06 July 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

The problem relies in elixir U, elixir X and Steal. I would say more in Steal and elixir X, since they're respectively a mechanic ( lol) and an elite.

Steal problem could be easily solved by a significant decrease of its CD ( maybe changing how the mechanic works) and maybe by adding some more pockets in order to keep what you steal. But Steal is a mechanic, so you've indeed more freedom with it.

What about elixirs ?

Elixir X is just wrong. Elites are supposed to be game changing , and indeed they are. What if you obtain "tornado" when you wanted "plague" ?

This skill is mathematically even worse than Steal, it absolutely makes no sense and should be removed asap.

I can tolerate elixir U, but the randomness in this scenario should reward you. And the CD is too high for the utility it provides, even if there are 2 chances of getting quickness.

All 3 of those skills are a product of lazy design. However, they aren't game-breaking. You're not forced to use them and both professions have more than enough normal skills.

Edited by UssjTrunks, 06 July 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[Radiea]

UssjTrunks, on 06 July 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

I completely agree with both of you. The random factor adds some depth to the combat system.

Depth that could be otherwise added without needing to introduce luck.

We have plenty of deterministic games that appear dynamic and not solved, after years (and in some cases, thousands of years). In fact, even games with random elements are solvable because you can solve for all outcomes. "Solved" gameplay for nonrandom games assumes perfect play; is it not fair to assume to the same for these "random" games?

Randomness does not add to dynamic gameplay. On the contrary, it is less dynamic, as random skills are unable to serve creative purposes. Besides - even if this were true - another mechanic that is not random can provide for the same depth that randomness would theoretically give, without the drawback of increasing the effect of luck on the game.

UssjTrunks, on 06 July 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

All 3 of those skills are a product of lazy design. However, they aren't game-breaking. You're not forced to use them and both professions have more than enough normal skills.

In competitive PvP, you can potentially win or lose because of a luck-based roll. This affects other people, and is completely against the spirit of skillful competition.

Edited by Radiea, 06 July 2012 - 08:09 PM.

[mrbig]

UssjTrunks, on 06 July 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

All 3 of those skills are a product of lazy design. However, they aren't game-breaking. You're not forced to use them and both professions have more than enough normal skills.

Fine for the elixirs, but Steal is THIEF MAIN MECHANIC.

Initiative is absolutely not a mechanic ( and please, i beg you all to not start quoting me on this part because initiative is not a mechanic and i don't have any will do discuss further about this topic) and it's ridicolous to have shit of such size as a class mechanic.

Maybe it can be fine for random people, it shouldn't be for any reasonable guy using even half of his brain. And the sad part is that those "reasonable guys" are the ones doing tournaments, who want to do those tournaments on his thief instead of another class.

Simple solution: remove it enterely and call it "whateveryouwant" instead of thief because it makes no sense, or make it mathematically meaningful if you still want to have it as a class mechanic.

Because there are people that are not completely stupid and know that steal is a freaking horror.

[coglin]

Draconious, on 06 July 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

As some of you may know there has been a heated debate in the Engineer forums on the randomness of boons for elixirs and the effects it has on you playstyle, build, and most importantly the outcome of a fight. I know that the engineer is not the only profession who has had a conversation on RNG with certain abilities, but it seems to be the most notable case.

Thats simply because a lot of posters their pretend every elixir doesn't have a guaranteed effect. In fact they do. Every elixir offers a guaranteed effect that is a solid boon for yourself or conditions for another, or condition removal, or some other beneficial effect IN COMBINATION WITH an added random benefit. Engineer has a utility slot skill AND a corresponding random benefit. As well the thrown version that accompanies every utility adds an AoE benefit.........  Its not as if the base action of any given elixir is totally random. All the elixirs have valuable and very viable guaranteed effects. Its the added bonus that several are getting upset about. And wrongly so if you ask me. If the total of the elixir effects wee random thats one thing, but the truth of the matter is that it is only the side benefit that is random.

Quote

All 3 of those skills are a product of lazy design.

Now comments like this are pointless if you ask me. This isn't an interview with an athlete where we expect generic non-answers and cliche's. No one even knows what this means. It would be better for everyone if your expressed yourself in specific points of concern.

As well, if were were to demand all RNG gone, then we need to remove some traits. If someone chooses one ot the "X effect on crit" traits or "X percent chance of Z" to happen.

Seems alot are demanding a large amount of of utilities changed, unnecessarily. Demanding traits changed, as well as core mechanic of the damage and crit systems.

If the game is so disliked by you, that your demanding such core changes.......maybe its simply not the game for you.

[mrbig]

coglin, on 06 July 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

Now comments like this are pointless if you ask me. This isn't an interview with an athlete where we expect generic non-answers and cliche's. No one even knows what this means. It would be better for everyone if your expressed yourself in specific points of concern.

As well, if were were to demand all RNG gone, then we need to remove some traits. If someone chooses one ot the "X effect on crit" traits or "X percent chance of Z" to happen.

Seems alot are demanding a large amount of of utilities changed, unnecessarily. Demanding traits changed, as well as core mechanic of the damage and crit systems.

If the game is so disliked by you, that your demanding such core changes.......maybe its simply not the game for you.

Dude, i'm tired of repeating this over and over.

X effect on crit is NOT RANDOM. It's stable.  It's an "if X than Y " function.

When you have "when X than Y OR W OR Z  OR" while having very few repetitions,  you have randomness.

This thread is about randomness, not about probability chance on multiple repetitions that are, obviously, stable.

Some guys here should do some homework before posting, i believe.

edit:

I think your avatar really doesn't suit you, because with the last post you made, you obviously shown you're not that good with math.

Edited by mrbig, 06 July 2012 - 10:21 PM.