691 replies to this topic

[Astral Projections]

mrbig, on 07 July 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

snip

But that would severely reduce the complexity about pets. They are already lackluster, meaning that devs should ADD something to them instead of TAKING FROM them.

I would reduce their skills to 3 instead of 4 and make them all commandable.

Snip

Or maybe let the pets do their attacks as usual but give the Ranger the option to override and make them do any attack on command. That way if your pet is slacking or if you need a certain attack you can get it to do it.

[A Wyatt Mann]

coglin, on 07 July 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Right. Cause elixir H is a standard heal among all classes right?........Wow what a joke.....you think you can exempt other heals for random reasons and have a serious discussion?

They go in the heal utility slot. You can manipulate the facts and back peddle all you like. Those are heals...And you want to point figures about flimsy arguments?

But your argument is that elixir H is special, and that the RNG, is a bonus, and that if there were no RNG, then Elixir H would be on par with the other heals.

That is demonstrably false, because 99% of other heals have bonuses. Just because they are not RNG, does not change anything.

Elixir H, has RNG. You need to accept that. Stop saying that the RNG is a nice inconsequential bonus. It isn't, the skill was created with the RNG in mind as a bonus, much like mirror was created with the reflect as a bonus, and healing surge with the adrenaline.

[coglin]

A Wyatt Mann, on 07 July 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

That is demonstrably false, because 99% of other heals have bonuses. Just because they are not RNG, does not change anything.

I dunno where you went to school, but since I listed over 20% of the heals possible to go in the heal utility slot. your math falls a bit short.

Are you just trying to one up my previous over exaggeration?

[A Wyatt Mann]

coglin, on 07 July 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

I dunno where you went to school, but since I listed over 20% of the heals possible to go in the heal utility slot. your math falls a bit short.

Are you just trying to one up my previous over exaggeration?

20%?

Dude, I disproved most of them, only one of them you listed was correct in having no bonus.

Mirror= reflects.
Troll Unguent= Heals in a regenerative manner+pet.
Power Return= Heals as a mantra. Mantras are not normal spells.
Taste of Death= Pet heals you with its attacks, and gives you a normal heal.
Prayer to Dwayna does not count as it is a racial.

The only one that counts, is Heal as one. Just a regular heal is what it offers. Every other heal in the game, has some other mechanic or bonus.

And even if it was 20%, your argument requires it to be in the majority. So, you would still be wrong

[coglin]

A Wyatt Mann, on 07 July 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

20%?

Dude, I disproved most of them, only one of them you listed was correct in having no bonus.

Mirror= reflects.
Troll Unguent= Heals in a regenerative manner+pet.
Power Return= Heals as a mantra. Mantras are not normal spells.
Taste of Death= Pet heals you with its attacks, and gives you a normal heal.
Prayer to Dwayna does not count as it is a racial.

Now your just plain not making sense. First off, all of the ranger heals can heal the pet. Just because a heal is a HoT does not make it not a heal. its pretty definitive because, well, it is a heal utility and goes in the heal utility slot.

You may be unaware of this, but "just because you say so" really does not define or undefined a heal.....
Mirror didn't say that on the wiki. But frankly, with your "cause I say so" rule, I will have to go with the wiki over your making up of rules, until someone else corrects me.

How exactly did you disprove the necro heal as not being a heal? Geez I need a team of translators to help me make sense of this.

As well, I am sorry, I had no idea racials were not heals. Perhaps you should update the wiki on all of these things. If you have clearly disproved them as "not" being heals, we need to update the wiki. .....You should get right on that.

[A Wyatt Mann]

coglin, on 07 July 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

Now your just plain not making sense. First off, all of the ranger heals can heal the pet. Just because a heal is a HoT does not make it not a heal. its pretty definitive because, well, it is a heal utility and goes in the heal utility slot.

You may be unaware of this, but "just because you say so" really does not define or undefined a heal.....
Mirror didn't say that on the wiki. But frankly, with your "cause I say so" rule, I will have to go with the wiki over your making up of rules, until someone else corrects me.

How exactly did you disprove the necro heal as not being a heal? Geez I need a team of translators to help me make sense of this.

As well, I am sorry, I had no idea racials were not heals. Perhaps you should update the wiki on all of these things. If you have clearly disproved them as "not" being heals, we need to update the wiki. .....You should get right on that.

It is a heal...

I'm saying all those things are heals+bonus.

Necro heal, is a heal+ bonus of pet damage healing you.

Troll unguent is a heal+it has the bonus of the heal being administered over time, which has advantages over a simply burst heal.

And frankly, its rich that you complain that people 'because I say so'.

You have given me not a single shred of evidence, to support your ludicrous claim that engineer utility and heal skills are balanced as one skill. Not one, yet you claim that you are right, because you apparently are. Well find me some evidence.

Edited by A Wyatt Mann, 07 July 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[coglin]

A Wyatt Mann, on 07 July 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Troll unguent is a heal+it has the bonus of the heal being administered over time, which has advantages over a simply burst heal.

That is actually not true at all. Perhaps next BWE you should try it.

By bonus's I would assume you mean an actually boon or condition as with the elixirs. I was under the impression the entire RNG thing was brought up due to elixirs? Was I mistaken? Do we have elixirs who's random benefit is neither a boon, condition,or condition removal??? i have to ask, cause you keep adding and removing rules at the last minute.....Sorry, nut I am getting old, and all this last minute revision you keep pulling mess with my early stages of dementia.

[A Wyatt Mann]

coglin, on 07 July 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

That is actually not true at all. Perhaps next BWE you should try it.

By bonus's I would assume you mean an actually boon or condition as with the elixirs. I was under the impression the entire RNG thing was brought up due to elixirs? Was I mistaken? Do we have elixirs who's random benefit is neither a boon, condition,or condition removal??? i have to ask, cause you keep adding and removing rules at the last minute.....Sorry, nut I am getting old, and all this last minute revision you keep pulling mess with my early stages of dementia.

I'm talking specifically about heal skills. And bonus means something other than a raw burst heal.

The only raw burst heal abilities in the game are: heal as one, and bandage self. However bandage self comes with a kit.

That is the point I am making. You insisted, that the RNG is an inconsequential bonus, and that without the RNG, the elixir H would be equal to the other healing skills. The existence of bonuses in healing skills for ALL professions except the ranger, and then the majority of the ranger, disproves your notion, because it shows you that all other heals in the game, bar one, have some added change that makes them differentiated from the 'burst heal' standard.

Edited by A Wyatt Mann, 07 July 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[coglin]

Wait, another rule change?
I thought we were comparing to elixirs? Did that change now too? Elixirs only added benefits that are random are boons, conditions, and condition removal, Now are we discussing elixirs or heals?

[A Wyatt Mann]

coglin, on 07 July 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

Wait, another rule change?
I thought we were comparing to elixirs? Did that change now too? Elixirs only added benefits that are random are boons, conditions, and condition removal, Now are we discussing elixirs or heals?

No, I'm challenging your claim that the elixir Hs RNG is inconsequential.

You insisted that elixir H was special, because other heals did not have bonuses, and the RNG was on TOP of everything else. Which is false, because other classes have bonuses too, but ones which are consistent.

And take a gander at the thread I made in the engineer forum.

Your claim is hardly 'common knowledge'

Edited by A Wyatt Mann, 07 July 2012 - 10:32 PM.

[coglin]

A Wyatt Mann, on 07 July 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

You insisted that elixir H was special, because other heals did not have bonuses,

that is not what I said. if you want to have a serious discussion that is one thing, but if your gonna make stuff up, Well, it makes it tough to discuss

[Radiea]

Just stop replying to coglin.

It's not constructive.

[mrbig]

this thread has turned from a serious and mathematical discussion about RNG in this game to a silly babbling about minor random issues.

We're losing the topic, please, just stop.



The stuff that seriously hinders this game is Steal, Elixirs U and X and pets with no control. Argue about that, if you really want to argue about RNG, otherwise just leave.

Sorry for being rude, but it's annoying how many times discussions about this pretty serious topic derail due to strawman arguments and ignorance.

Edited by mrbig, 07 July 2012 - 11:06 PM.

[eviator]

Are any of you even good enough to play PvP at the competitive level? And I don't mean having fun with your guild in tPvP, I mean real-world money and real-world titles good. Because unless you're talking about whether RNG is fun to watch in e-sports, it's really the opinion of the competitors themselves that matters.

[coglin]

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

.The stuff that seriously hinders this game is Steal, Elixirs U and X and pets with no control. Argue about that, if you really want to argue about RNG, otherwise just leave.

Yeah, that is kind of what I was getting at the whole time. The other guys is simply trying to drag the engineer threads discussions over to here. He is like mega trolling any post I make anyway.

Anyway, over there, several are suggesting that all elixirs are game breaking. because the have a guaranteed benefit and random additional ones. I personally feel that as long as it had a guaranteed effect then its a solid utility.  But your talking RNG here and its going to be difficult toprefent the conversation from spilling over, as the other discussion is applicable here.

[Hep]

I think we just need to boil things down to their essences. The first one being, there's ALWAYS a negative aspect of the RNG. That, while the argument can be made it's a net positive in some cases to allow luck influence the outcome (because that's what the RNG always introduces more of), there will always be some negative in there.

The second being, the RNG in adding luck has the ability to remove the staleness of predictability, which is a variable in the value of fun. I can buy that, and I believe most who are against the RNG can buy that as well.

So, knowing those two things, the core goal is seen to be removing as much randomness as possible without adding too much staleness.  That, in a perfect game, the game mechanics would introduce zero of the RNG while still avoiding any staleness.

To that assessment, I have a hard time believing randomness that flat-out exists without the game mechanics directly introducing it (things like the opponent's decisions, the differences in positioning impossible to be measured by the naked eye, etc), will not be enough to avoid staleness. And that goes just for the game in general. For competitive play, the very definition of "competitive" means the staleness of predictability is always trumped by allowing skill influence the accomplishment of in-game goals as much as possible.

Hence why the game mechanics should not directly introduce the RNG within competitive play.

[coglin]

I feel some level of RNG needs to exist.

I mean if we are going to push it that far, shouldn't everyone be required to use the same build for each profession? I mean if we are "streamlining" consistency down to where folks are pushing crits to be removed because they are RNG.

[Hep]

But we're not streamlining consistency as a goal. We're trying to do away with game mechanics directly introducing the RNG - and therefore luck. It being streamlined is simply a side effect. Different builds does not allow the game mechanics to directly introduce the RNG, regardless of its side effect of being streamlined being the same.

Furthermore, you're taking it to the extreme, beyond the confines of what I stated. Knowing that "the core goal is seen to be removing as much randomness as possible without adding too much staleness," it's perfectly fine to state crits doesn't take it too far, but forcing the same builds does.

[mrbig]

The rng that should not exist is the RNG forcing different outcomes. Crits are 1 or 0 variables, stable due to high repetitions.

What is unacceptable is stuff like Steal and no control over pets ( in primis) and  Elixir X and U ( in secundis).

I would accept Steal randomness since the thief has initiative, which "should" provide the right tool whenever you need, but this is just finding a "reason" to accept a totally senseless mechanic such Steal: that's why i would have accepted Steal as a mechanic only if it was more consistent ( aka: MUUUUUUUCH SHORTER CD, in order to increase repetitions and somehow "stabilize" the outcomes).

In their current implementations, the things listed above makes no sense, and need to be changed asap.

[Hep]

Well, as I insinuated, the starting point should be no RNG-added mechanics, then add it when it's necessary. That includes crits. No, I don't believe they couldn't have a fun and dynamic game without any of the RNG-added mechanics, including crits.

The only solid rebuttal I see at this point, is that it's just too far into development and too close to release date to make that major of a change. Which I can deal with; I just don't want a developer of the game telling us that  artificially adding randomness helps competitive gameplay.

Edit: that being said, abilities that use the RNG in order to find the result of its major effect need to go. ie, things like Elixir X.

Edited by Hep, 08 July 2012 - 03:56 AM.

[Skyy High]

Adding randomness does help competitive gameplay, though, by encouraging new players to get competitive in the first place. Without randomness, you get games like chess. Chess is a very good game, don't get me wrong, but it's not exactly fun to break into it competitively, because until you get as good as the people you're playing, you're going to get consistently destroyed. A fun competitive game is one in which the more skilled player wins the vast majority of the games, but where the lesser player has at least a chance at winning if they play well and maybe get a lucky break. This is the model of competitive gaming around which games like MtG and poker revolve, and they seem to do quite well incorporating the randomness without trivializing the competitive nature of the game.

Until someone can actually demonstrate how the randomness in GW2 trivializes the competitive nature of the game, I think that all these "RNG shouldn't be in PvP!" threads are missing the vital point that maximizing skill ceiling isn't the be-all-and-end-all of improving competitive PvP. There are other factors that are important enough to be taken into consideration. And, for what it's worth, GW1 had a ton of RNG and it didn't seem to have a problem being a competitive PvP game.

[Hep]

Skyy High, on 08 July 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Adding randomness does help competitive gameplay, though, by encouraging new players to get competitive in the first place. Without randomness, you get games like chess. Chess is a very good game, don't get me wrong, but it's not exactly fun to break into it competitively, because until you get as good as the people you're playing, you're going to get consistently destroyed. A fun competitive game is one in which the more skilled player wins the vast majority of the games, but where the lesser player has at least a chance at winning if they play well and maybe get a lucky break. This is the model of competitive gaming around which games like MtG and poker revolve, and they seem to do quite well incorporating the randomness without trivializing the competitive nature of the game.

See, "fun" is subjective. There are plenty of people who would go in the opposite direction, stating it's not fun to lose a game even though you played better. Some people equate chess to fun, after all. Competitive, on the other hand, is not subjective. By definition, the more luck is taken out of the equation, the more fair assessment of competition it can create. As I stated, the starting point is zero RNG, and then adding when it's needed. You name things that are competitive despite the RNG, but you're not really showing things that are competitive in part because of the RNG.

For that matter, you insinuate that getting rid of artificially added randomness would get rid of dynamic gameplay (the real goal) altogether. That's not true. There are just too many variables to squeeze it out. Not only are there random things such as starting positions on a map, the reactions of opponents (and even allies) is impossible to be assessed in real time by the human brain. Getting rid of the RNG won't get rid of randomness.

Finally, poker is an excellent example of randomness being bad. See, for poker to really show itself as a competitive game, you have to take the measurements over a decent period of time. In GW2, major luck streaks WILL cost you the game. To make the poker analogy fit, imagine if poker tournaments only had 4 hands a table, and whoever had the most money at the end of four hands would advance to the next tier. That's what you get with competitive GW2 - good and bad RNG rolls have a potential of changing the game similar to a single hand of poker, not an entire game of poker.

It's funny you bring up poker, because that was already discussed on TeamParadigm's site:

http://www.teamparad...erss-Dismissal/

It's a giant read, but it details the flaw in your poker analogy.

[Trei]

I did not see any discussion in your link, only an essay with 0 replies, let alone any endorsements by anyone fRom team paradigm. (yet..at time of post)

Edited by Trei, 08 July 2012 - 04:41 AM.

[ensoriki]

Don't think it should. RNG is better as part of the environment than on the skills themselves.
A chance you'll catch fire walking on lava is a more...acceptable(?) form of RNG than a chance you cause fire with your skill.

Randomness is best used when it's been telegraphed beforehand so you can react to it, random as it may be.
As part of a skill it effects the direct interaction between players too much.

Considering that they have systems to split skills into two forms, they should have kept the RNG to PvE, where it helps to combat the boredom that can arise from NPC's.

If they wanted RNG in PvP, they should've put such a thing as secondary mechanic's in one or two maps not on the skills and profession mechanics.

Edited by ensoriki, 08 July 2012 - 04:54 AM.

[Hep]

Trei, on 08 July 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

I did not see any discussion in your link, only an essay with 0 replies, let alone any endorsements by anyone fRom team paradigm. (yet..at time of post)

Not sure why you're taking it so literal, but ok... I just stated "discussed" because if you look at the site, it's under a "general DISCUSSion" header, and I never stated nor meant it to be endorsed. I just didn't want to type out the book when it's already there. But if it was important to you in order to have it pointed out, ok. It's now pointed out.

But while we're at it, the chess analogy is wrong in stating that you'll get constantly destroyed by more skilled players. Ignoring the subjective "constantly destroyed", it doesn't mention you'll also beat lesser skilled players, and have good competition against similarly skilled players. That's the tell of good competition - you beat less skilled players, lose to more skilled players, and have close games against equally skilled players.

[blakdoxa]

Hep, on 08 July 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Not sure why you're taking it so literal, but ok... I just stated "discussed" because if you look at the site, it's under a "general DISCUSSion" header, and I never stated nor meant it to be endorsed. I just didn't want to type out the book when it's already there. But if it was important to you in order to have it pointed out, ok. It's now pointed out.

But while we're at it, the chess analogy is wrong in stating that you'll get constantly destroyed by more skilled players. Ignoring the subjective "constantly destroyed", it doesn't mention you'll also beat lesser skilled players, and have good competition against similarly skilled players. That's the tell of good competition - you beat less skilled players, lose to more skilled players, and have close games against equally skilled players.

And GW2 is not as linear as chess... So not following... Why all the oversimplification?

[Hep]

I was discussing the same rebuttal from my original post. Specifically post 81:

Quote

Without randomness, you get games like chess. Chess is a very good game, don't get me wrong, but it's not exactly fun to break into it competitively, because until you get as good as the people you're playing, you're going to get consistently destroyed.

It insinuates that if you try to play and you're not really skilled, you'll fail and that's that. I was showing that there are all facets of people playing, and you'll win and lose just like you would with the RNG thrown in. The difference is you'll be winning and losing dependent upon your skill and not your luck (or your opponent's luck).

[Havoc]

RNG needs to be in competetive PvP. It adds flavor and challenge. What would any sport amount to without those two things. Anybody who is really any good can deal with it. Those who can't deal with it need to learn to play. That's really all there is to it.

[Liberis]

Havoc, on 08 July 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

RNG needs to be in competetive PvP. It adds flavor and challenge. What would any sport amount to without those two things. Anybody who is really any good can deal with it. Those who can't deal with it need to learn to play. That's really all there is to it.

Most sports do NOT artificially add RNG. Look at Soccer, American Football, Basketball, Hockey, Biking, etc - none of these sports have artificially added RNG elements. They are all about skill, and they are extremely popular. You don't need RNG for flavor or challenge in pvp - you have that already (team composition, skill timing, etc).

Edited by Liberis, 08 July 2012 - 07:01 AM.

[Radiea]

Hep, on 08 July 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

See, "fun" is subjective. There are plenty of people who would go in the opposite direction, stating it's not fun to lose a game even though you played better. Some people equate chess to fun, after all. Competitive, on the other hand, is not subjective. By definition, the more luck is taken out of the equation, the more fair assessment of competition it can create. As I stated, the starting point is zero RNG, and then adding when it's needed. You name things that are competitive despite the RNG, but you're not really showing things that are competitive in part because of the RNG.

For that matter, you insinuate that getting rid of artificially added randomness would get rid of dynamic gameplay (the real goal) altogether. That's not true. There are just too many variables to squeeze it out. Not only are there random things such as starting positions on a map, the reactions of opponents (and even allies) is impossible to be assessed in real time by the human brain. Getting rid of the RNG won't get rid of randomness.

Finally, poker is an excellent example of randomness being bad. See, for poker to really show itself as a competitive game, you have to take the measurements over a decent period of time. In GW2, major luck streaks WILL cost you the game. To make the poker analogy fit, imagine if poker tournaments only had 4 hands a table, and whoever had the most money at the end of four hands would advance to the next tier. That's what you get with competitive GW2 - good and bad RNG rolls have a potential of changing the game similar to a single hand of poker, not an entire game of poker.

It's funny you bring up poker, because that was already discussed on TeamParadigm's site:

http://www.teamparad...erss-Dismissal/

It's a giant read, but it details the flaw in your poker analogy.

lol I posted that

Thought I would have a better time trying to post stuff like that on competitive forums. Guess not.

I had a hell of a time when I posted it on reddit. I am reminded once again why reddit is both theoretically and practically a godawful platform for debate.

though I should remove the FPS examples because I am nowhere near an expert on that subject.

I'm rewriting it right now so it's more accessible and not a huge blob of text.

Havoc, on 08 July 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

RNG needs to be in competetive PvP. It adds flavor and challenge. What would any sport amount to without those two things. Anybody who is really any good can deal with it. Those who can't deal with it need to learn to play. That's really all there is to it.

We haven't nearly reached anywhere near optimum with games such as Go and Starcraft. Go, especially, is dynamic with absolutely zero RNG (other than who goes first).

This has been repeated so many, so many times now. Nobody is arguing that randomness doesn't introduce a skill element when players have to react to it. It is, however, a trivial extension of the existing skillset (as a good player really should be situationally aware); it can be replaced by good game mechanics (a la other genres, fighting games, RTSes); and it invariably introduces luck into the game due to the sheer improbability that a situation will be balanced for all outcomes (no one outcome favors a player/team more than the other).

Thus, because 1) it introduces luck, and 2) we have other ways of adding complexity to the game without introducing luck, we should thus use those other ways of adding complexity.

This has been the primary argument against luck for, like, eternity.


I have made new arguments attacking the premise of introducing RNG (that it introduces dynamism and thus introduces skilled play), by pointing out that luck devalues marginal edges gained by skill, and discourages "just keeping" marginal edges, and the existence of marginal advantage and thin edges are often what makes great games; as well as the too-seldom-repeated argument that random skills are actually more boring. These, however, are secondary to that it simply adds luck.