tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064325214589649535.post498067886581022190..comments2024-03-28T06:52:15.545+01:00Comments on Joost's Dev Blog: The surprisingly many subtleties of designing critsJoost van Dongenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00569566310604620045noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064325214589649535.post-23717258399326453332014-01-19T22:21:20.326+01:002014-01-19T22:21:20.326+01:00Awesome, thanks! :) I have added it to the blogpos...Awesome, thanks! :) I have added it to the blogpost on random.Joost van Dongenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00569566310604620045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064325214589649535.post-33989520244230657002014-01-19T14:34:20.886+01:002014-01-19T14:34:20.886+01:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY7aRJE-oOY&t=1...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY7aRJE-oOY&t=18m24s<br /><br />It's the actual Sid Meier Keynote part about it...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11059420198139663030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064325214589649535.post-25025836788580479782014-01-13T23:22:49.996+01:002014-01-13T23:22:49.996+01:00It's interesting to read your thoughts about a...It's interesting to read your thoughts about a game design topic for once. The way you look at scapegoating in games seems awfully correct. It is also the reason I'm looking at co-operative game concepts.1000 Gibibithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16508004663029107242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064325214589649535.post-65846884956903025022014-01-13T02:41:51.991+01:002014-01-13T02:41:51.991+01:00This made me think of a post about damage calculat...This made me think of a <a href="http://www.redblobgames.com/articles/probability/damage-rolls.html" rel="nofollow">post about damage calculations</a> that I read recently at Amit Patel's game development blog.Daniel Erathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13320957163729425518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064325214589649535.post-88578775224465208642014-01-12T20:18:14.961+01:002014-01-12T20:18:14.961+01:00"I think that "RNG" is a very good ..."I think that "RNG" is a very good system on a non-competitive game."<br /><br />"This is why I think that, a randomized system is the best in a non-competitive game"<br /><br />This is nonsense about competitive games not having RNG. Pure and simple: all fps's (good example) are by nature competitive, all the popular ones(afaict) have RNG, mostly it is used for things (especially) like bullet spread. As to how you let RNG influence a game you make is entirely subjective because you must decide for yourself what is fair.<br /><br />In the end it comes down to this. Did you make RNG on your client or did you put it on your server.<br /><br />This is why peer gaming is intrinsically flawed. Because the single hub (if using this peering model) can control how the game is influenced by this ENTIRELY. Even the meshed and parity model can be influenced by a single person.<br /><br />Private servers are rubbish for this reason. Because if an admin can cheat and add plugins to his server, he will. Private server cheats are EXTREMELY OVERLOOKED in modern games. Why do you think ppl is always lobbying to have private hosting?<br /><br />Securing a game can take years and too much money, so I'm not bashing.<br /><br />The best and easiest way to fix RNG is to simply make it predictable in some sort of way so that it can't be used as the source of contention. Which means, removing ALL the randomization fxns from the game and replacing it with conditionals.<br /><br />RNG is a huge hole. The next biggest would be the guys who code or admins the servers for these games. Think LoL and DOTA2.<br /><br />After you secure this part of the game (moving everything you can to your server to make it fair), you must turn back to the client once again to deal with the behavioral aspect and analysis since there are countless idiots making bots for every game.<br /><br />So, I know you don't want to hear this because its so easy to use Randomize() and int rng etc, but it is truly just an excuse for lazy.<br /><br />For all these reasons, your intuition about making it fair by reducing the impact of RNG is correct. These are realizations that the majority of gamers don't come to understand. For most of them, random is the santa claus they always wanted to believe in.<br /><br />Thanks for making such a cool game and sorry for going a little off-topic (crits vs fairness vs rng)! You probably know this stuff already Joost.<br /><br />In summary: crits can and should be done without using rng, fairness is subjective, and rng is bs.<br /><br />These are big and easy things to take care of next to hardware equality, latency and scheduling, and of course the handicaps of the players.<br /><br />-GAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064325214589649535.post-27904116897958483122014-01-11T22:08:40.356+01:002014-01-11T22:08:40.356+01:00I can never take critical hit chance into account ...I can never take critical hit chance into account on a weapon because it's too unpredictable. So 1 in 20 times I kill an enemy in one hit instead of four hits -- I still have to approach every enemy as if he's going to take four hits. I'd much rather have your "hit number 20 is a crit" thing, as then I could count on it being "due" or even tactically make sure it hit the enemy that counted. Genius.<br /><br />Another reason regular crits suck is they might as well just say "your weapon deals +0.3 damage". Pathfinder does it way better with their "critical feats" -- when you get a crit, based on your character build the enemy will start bleeding, or be staggered or fatigued. Something you will actually notice instead of just a different number floating up.Noumenonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01597461989960782762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064325214589649535.post-49855187707903773302014-01-11T11:27:39.342+01:002014-01-11T11:27:39.342+01:00Interesting essay, thanks for sharing! :)Interesting essay, thanks for sharing! :)Joost van Dongenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00569566310604620045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064325214589649535.post-52877889129168633892014-01-11T00:28:00.358+01:002014-01-11T00:28:00.358+01:00I think that "RNG" is a very good system...I think that "RNG" is a very good system on a non-competitive game.<br />The reason is that, when you have a game with opponants and luck is involved, the range of emotions a player can get is wider than a predictable system.<br /><br />With a predictable system, if you lose to another player, the only thing you can think is "He is better than me". In Awesomenauts, a player can still get a "lucky kill", but that player was ultimatly here at the good time, at the right spot, and used what it took to take the kill, lessening the "luck" effect. The losing player can think he was unlucky, but kinda knows that it probably won't happen again if it was a "real" lucky kill, and the fact that this kill was /maybe/ because of the opponant skill.<br /><br />On the other hand, a "RNG system" have a double effect on the players feelings. First, since the randomness is clearly the main thing here, luck is the primary reason a player got a loss. It's the opposite as a predictable system: luck is first, skill is second.<br />Secondly, players feelings are amplified by a simple fact: if he lost, he will think "I'm unlucky" AND "The other player is lucky", thus implying some sort of injustice. Not especially imbalance, but mostly "injustice". Something happening which isn't just. Which isn't /fair/. Unfair.<br />On the other hand, the player who benefits from the RNG will have the exact opposite feelings. "I'm lucky" AND "my opponant is unlucky".<br />Even if this player is not skilled enough, he will praise his luck and will be more confident.<br /><br />This is why I think that, a randomized system is the best in a non-competitive game, because you can't get this "my opponant is lucky and I'm unlucky, which is unfair".<br />Accepting that a computer got lucky is more doable than accepting it from a human opponant, because we don't "compete" against a computer, while we do in this kind of human interractions.<br /><br /><br />Try to think, in Awesomenauts, about a character only based on RNG. He got his main damage skill going as follow: "Does 30 direct damage OR 50 slow DoT damage, on a 50% chance". He can also apply debuffs such as "Apply a Slow OR a knockback on your attack, on a 50% chance". And so on.<br />Everything he does is based on RNG.<br />Well, it's pretty obvious that playing against or with this character will considerably amplify the fellings of the players on a win or a loss, because luck will play such an important role that it's not really controllable anymore (whilst simple crits kinda still are). This character will be the ultimate scapegoat everytime he's in a game. Once blamed for the loss, or praised for the win.<br />This range of emotions, while fun to code and to see in action, is not something players want in a competitive game.<br /><br />and the only reason to that is: when humans compete against each other, they want to see how strong /they/ are, not how lucky.<br />Tossing a coin to see if they are able to overcome the challenge brought by another humain is not something people want. A good example of this is by playing Shifumi (Rock-Paper-Scissors). The first thing you will try to do is to play a mindgame with your opponant instead of relying on luck only. But against a computer? No, mindgame with a computer is irrelevant, in that case. You'll accept that luck will determine your fate.<br /><br /><br />I'm currently making a boardgame out of a dice-based system, and RNG is why I'm doing it. In the original game, the outcome of who win and who lose is only determined on luck, AND the first player has an advantage.<br />By making it a boardgame with some decisions involved and by allowing the players to alter their luck in some way, the game feels more "fair" and you're not only competing against luck, but against human decisions, which is way more satisfying.Warpnoreply@blogger.com