lifebaka wrote:
Just to drop in some math here, Dill's suggested system results in a 1 - (.7 * .4) = 72% chance that the enemy is frozen after two hits (and, presumably, with a 90% chance on the third try, a 1 - (.7 * .4 * .1) = 97.2% chance after the third). Searz is right that just having the freeze take place after two consecutive hits is probably reasonable as a non-chance-based alternative.
Oh yeah, I guess showing off the math isn't a bad idea.
I wasn't necessarily writing about Freeze, because two turns is a little low for something that could potentially make the opponent skip his turns.
Quoted:
Making inferior players feel powerful is really important, actually. It's also reasonable if you're doing a faithful port of a non-video-game system that already includes crit. And, as long as it isn't going to create balance problems, such as in XCOM or Fire Emblem, I don't think having crit as a game mechanic is actually a problem. Lazy, perhaps, but not actually a problem.
It sure as hell is lazy.
And I do think it is a problem. But I guess we disagree on the magnitude of the problem.
DillButt64 wrote:
eh my stance on chance in video games is still the same, it shouldnt be taken out completely but like i previously said there are cases where it should not be applied (like the XCOM thing, there is no master marksmen that can instakill someone with such conditions) i feel like things like crit chance, accuracy(where it makes sense), and status effects landing can have a chance of happening
Yeah it is; willfully ignoring all the problems with it.
Come back when you have a valid counterpoint.
Pheyniex wrote:
Regarding chance in games, i think it is fine as long as it takes no major influence upon a player's inteligence in playing by the game rules (being chance one of them, btw).
... You're making no sense..
How could chance influence the player's ability to play by the game rules when chance is one of them?
lifebaka wrote:
I think you're on drugs, Phey. If you don't like making choices and interacting with your media, you don't like playing games. 'Cuz games all include that sorta' stuff. It's an interactive medium. It's inherently interactive. If a game doesn't let you interact with the story in any way, it's actually not making use of a really powerful tool that games have.
And no, it's actually NOT like telling George R.R. Martin not to kill characters. Because A Song of Ice and Fire is written media, not interactive media. There's no simple parallel between the two, because they are totally different things.
+1
"Moral justification is a powerful disengagement mechanism. Destructive conduct is made personally and socially acceptable by portraying it in the service of moral ends." - Albert Bandura
"Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our futures." - Edward Snowden
"Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our futures." - Edward Snowden
lifebaka wrote:
Just to drop in some math here, Dill's suggested system results in a 1 - (.7 * .4) = 72% chance that the enemy is frozen after two hits (and, presumably, with a 90% chance on the third try, a 1 - (.7 * .4 * .1) = 97.2% chance after the third). Searz is right that just having the freeze take place after two consecutive hits is probably reasonable as a non-chance-based alternative.
there is a considerable difference in gameplay regarding this, that is acceptable for me: the game was made to make it happen the second or 3rd time, not forcing at second.
the alternative can make the game very dull if you are perfectly sure you get a free turn.
Searz wrote:
... You're making no sense..
How could chance influence the player's ability to play by the game rules when chance is one of them?
yes, i am. when you look at a percentage chance (you have an habit after playing for a while) you take the decision to take the risk or not. making that decision requires an interpretation of the rules (objective or not), being chance one of them.
Searz wrote:
Yeah it is; willfully ignoring all the problems with it.
Come back when you have a valid counterpoint.
it is valid. A game with no chance options has to appeal in other aspects, since playability will tend to be rather repetitive and linear (basic "use this against that").
Searz, do you have issues with control? Randomness keeps you from taking a decision? Are you overzealous? then please, deal with it. (btw, don't play any kind of card game or table game. or maybe even live.) <3
Pheyniex wrote:
there is a considerable difference in gameplay regarding this, that is acceptable for me: the game was made to make it happen the second or 3rd time, not forcing at second.
the alternative can make the game very dull if you are perfectly sure you get a free turn.
Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here.
Please explain properly. You're being really vague.
Quoted:
yes, i am. when you look at a percentage chance (you have an habit after playing for a while) you take the decision to take the risk or not. making that decision requires an interpretation of the rules (objective or not), being chance one of them.
You don't seem to understand what it is that you wrote before. Your previous statement directly contradicts itself. That is what I was pointing out with my comment, which you apparently didn't understand.
Quoted:
it is valid. A game with no chance options has to appeal in other aspects, since playability will tend to be rather repetitive and linear (basic "use this against that").
It's clear you're just being obstinate here; trying to directly oppose my statements. A proper response to my comment would be to either bring up the specific point you're mentioning or write "they are valid", because 'it' means nothing. The comment is so vague it almost lacks meaning.
""Toshabi took thy **** and strucketh Hotshot in his face 'thou art no god'" Toshabi 3:16" - Toshabi
"And then, TheJohn said something so Brazilian that it made all the Brazilians in Brazil turn to look at him" - Toshabi
"abloobloo ur triggering me" - Toshabi
"And then, TheJohn said something so Brazilian that it made all the Brazilians in Brazil turn to look at him" - Toshabi
"abloobloo ur triggering me" - Toshabi
Searz wrote:
It's clear you're just being obstinate here; trying to directly oppose my statements. A proper response to my comment would be to either bring up the specific point you're mentioning or write "they are valid", because 'it' means nothing. The comment is so vague it almost lacks meaning.
have it your way, searz.
bringing a specific point is a mere example, not a compeling argument. if you can't think of the logic withing the argument, i can do nothing for you.
if you don't like different opinion's , don't discuss them. I stated mine. If you want a game that predictable with nothing else to look for, enjoy it, because i won't.
Pheyniex wrote:
bringing a specific point is a mere example, not a compeling argument. if you can't think of the logic withing the argument, i can do nothing for you.
if you don't like different opinion's , don't discuss them. I stated mine. If you want a game that predictable with nothing else to look for, enjoy it, because i won't.
Which is not the issue here. I have nothing against differing opinions as long as they are explained properly and don't contain errors in their logic. Lifebaka and I disagree on one point, but we've both made our reasoning clear and now accept our differing opinions. But then again.. I doubt you've read the entire thread, so you wouldn't know that.
The issue is in your logic, don't divert attention elsewhere. This honestly seems more like ad hominem than anything else.
"Nothing says I like you more than letting you drink my filtered urine." - deityignis
"MY WHOLE LIFE IS A WANK." - WTTNHK
"There are boobs...LOTS OF BOOBS. And then Obama comes out of no where." - JEFFY40HANDS, on Air Gear
"MY WHOLE LIFE IS A WANK." - WTTNHK
"There are boobs...LOTS OF BOOBS. And then Obama comes out of no where." - JEFFY40HANDS, on Air Gear
Chance, randomization, etc. hardly has a place in modern gaming anymore. Random numbers used to be very useful toolbox for game developers to "simulate" natural phenomena. The CPUs weren't powerful enough to actually do real-time simulations so (precalculated) 'random' numbers were a solid alternative because a lot of these phenomena seem chaotic to us anyway.
An example of this could be calling for artillery at a designated area in a strategy game. Simply applying damage to all targets in the area leaves for little counterplay and isn't realistic. Simply marking multiple random targets within that area solves both issues. It still remains strategic because enclosing more targets is still likely to deal a lot more damage. However, these days we have computers that can handle the projectile calculation of every single shell within that barrage, including all external factors. Hence, the need for random numbers has become obsolete.
Making a game behave predictable is a good thing. It allows the game world to make sense to the player which allows a player to study it. If chance is a big factor, it doesn't matter how long you study because eventually it's out of your control anyway.
Any form of randomization is bound to screw over a player at some point - the less randomization, the less chance of this happening. This can be a random stun duration or a random spawn position of a monster. Randomization is an archaic way of making a game replayable and/or less predictable and that's why it shouldn't exist.
An example of this could be calling for artillery at a designated area in a strategy game. Simply applying damage to all targets in the area leaves for little counterplay and isn't realistic. Simply marking multiple random targets within that area solves both issues. It still remains strategic because enclosing more targets is still likely to deal a lot more damage. However, these days we have computers that can handle the projectile calculation of every single shell within that barrage, including all external factors. Hence, the need for random numbers has become obsolete.
Making a game behave predictable is a good thing. It allows the game world to make sense to the player which allows a player to study it. If chance is a big factor, it doesn't matter how long you study because eventually it's out of your control anyway.
Any form of randomization is bound to screw over a player at some point - the less randomization, the less chance of this happening. This can be a random stun duration or a random spawn position of a monster. Randomization is an archaic way of making a game replayable and/or less predictable and that's why it shouldn't exist.
Pheyniex wrote:
I can make a game, to your concept, with a fixed plot (read, all games before this mainstream gaming nonsense). It will still be a game and the only interactive part is the walk and jump (read: your beloved side character is dead and there is nothing u can do).
Yeah, of course you can make a game without letting the player interact with the plot. But you also can. And that's a powerful thing. Games are different from movies and books in that it's entirely possible for the player to have a real role in literally creating the story, and not allowing the player to interact with plot elements and make meaningful choices is ignoring a real strength of the medium. Games have a unique ability to tell interesting stories in ways that aren't even possible in more traditional media.
Pheyniex wrote:
there is a considerable difference in gameplay regarding this, that is acceptable for me: the game was made to make it happen the second or 3rd time, not forcing at second.
the alternative can make the game very dull if you are perfectly sure you get a free turn.
There's a lot of room to tweak the system Searz suggested. First, let's assume that the freeze condition won't take effect until the end of turn, so even if the enemy is slower they'll have a chance to react. Then: what if how many consecutive turns it takes is based on a given enemy Pokemon's base body temperature, so it takes more turns to freeze them? What if a Pokemon's body temperature always tends to move back towards their base body temperature at the end of turn? What if the frozen condition only lasts while the Pokemon is at 0 degrees C or less? What if the end-of-turn body temperature changes apply even if your Pokemon is in a Pokeball? What if a Pokemon using fire (or some other) moves raises their body temperature? What if your best ice move for lowering body temperature can't get the enemy body temperature low enough to actually freeze them? Things like these would help avoid making the game too predictable, because it would introduce options for counterplay. And hiding the systems from the player would also help on that front, because the player wouldn't know exactly how much any given move cools or warms by.
Pheyniex wrote:
it is valid. A game with no chance options has to appeal in other aspects, since playability will tend to be rather repetitive and linear (basic "use this against that").
I mean... No? A system doesn't have to be random to be complex and deep. See: The entire grand strategy genre.
GrandmasterD wrote:
Chance, randomization, etc. hardly has a place in modern gaming anymore. Random numbers used to be very useful toolbox for game developers to "simulate" natural phenomena. The CPUs weren't powerful enough to actually do real-time simulations so (precalculated) 'random' numbers were a solid alternative because a lot of these phenomena seem chaotic to us anyway.
I think it has to do with what kind of simulation a game intends to be, though. Random mechanics make a whole lot more sense in some contexts than in others. A game like XCOM or Fire Emblem would have to be reworked from the ground up to remove the random mechanics; their genre is kinda' based on that sort of pseudo-dice-based systems. (I'm not going to argue that such games shouldn't be reworked, I'm just saying that their current form is kinda' married to their chance-based elements, and versions of those games without those elements would be different enough that I think they'd be better as fundamentally different IPs.)
GrandmasterD wrote:
Making a game behave predictable is a good thing. It allows the game world to make sense to the player which allows a player to study it. If chance is a big factor, it doesn't matter how long you study because eventually it's out of your control anyway.
I'm not sure. Some chance-based games allow hit chances and such to go all the way up to 100% or down to 0%. You're not taking a risk in those circumstances. Unfortunately, most of the examples I have of this kind of thing aren't really good, because you don't reach those big numbers through the use of real skill-based mechanics that interact with the chance-based ones. Still, I think the basic ideas behind positional-based accuracy bonuses (like flanking in D&D or ganging up bonuses in WH40K Roleplaying), aiming accuracy bonuses (such as in WH40K Roleplaying), and ability-use accuracy bonuses (like the spell Bless in D&D) have some real potential to make a very skill-based game that still uses chance-based mechanics.
I think a lot of it depends on how much any individual chance-based result actually matters. The less impactful any given bad result is, the less the chance-based mechanic is going to behave unpredictably in the long term. Getting screwed over by a bad RNG result is, in my mind, a result of poor encounter building, poor game balance, and overall poor design. And I think these last three are the real cause of the problem. Take away the random game elements and the game will still have problems; they'll just be different problems.
Pheyniex wrote:
bringing a specific point is a mere example, not a compeling argument. if you can't think of the logic withing the argument, i can do nothing for you.
Yes, but also no. And mostly no. Specific points are, like this short paragraph and the one below it, specific things in an opponent's argument that you disagree with. For specific reasons. Which you enumerate.
Also, while examples aren't actually the meat of an argument, they're a really, really good way to help people understand what an argument actually is. Don't discount the use of examples. They kinda' rock.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
I'm not saying random chance is something we should completely get rid off but it's often implemented in the wrong places. A card game like Yu-Gi-Oh! or MTG have an aspect of chance and you can't really avoid this. As a result, any card that breaks this aspect (Search and Draw cards) are generally considered very strong or even broken however they make for strategic moves that work with that particular element of the game. It allows the player to still take control of the game and/or influence it in a way. Both games require a minimum amount of cards to be present in a deck but while Yu-Gi-Oh! has a maximum of 60 cards, MTG doesn't even have a limit because adding more cards decreases the chance of drawing specific cards.
I can't argue with D&D or other roleplaying games because I haven't played them and thus am not familiar with their core mechanics. However a game that's based on the draw of a card or the roll of a die are notable exceptions to my statement. As long those games still offer the player to take control of the game, it's not a big deal and it becomes a core aspect of the game itself.
Games that do not employ random chance to be a core element should keep the occurance of random chance to the absolute minimum.
I can't argue with D&D or other roleplaying games because I haven't played them and thus am not familiar with their core mechanics. However a game that's based on the draw of a card or the roll of a die are notable exceptions to my statement. As long those games still offer the player to take control of the game, it's not a big deal and it becomes a core aspect of the game itself.
Games that do not employ random chance to be a core element should keep the occurance of random chance to the absolute minimum.
lifebaka wrote:
Yeah, of course you can make a game without letting the player interact with the plot. But you also can. And that's a powerful thing. Games are different from movies and books in that it's entirely possible for the player to have a real role in literally creating the story, and not allowing the player to interact with plot elements and make meaningful choices is ignoring a real strength of the medium. Games have a unique ability to tell interesting stories in ways that aren't even possible in more traditional media.
Completely true and I totally agree however I do not think linear storylines are necessarily a bad thing. I hate it when a character is like "this is of utmost importance" but you can, while you're at it, take your time to go fishing, chase chickens or play minigames to win stuff. (Legend of Zelda anyone?) I like playing games where I want to keep playing just to discover the story, to find out what's going to happen.
Nothing annoys me more than games who implement choice just for the sake of implementing choice. In a lot of games it doesn't even make a difference or simply isn't done in a realistic fashion. A good game can hold a multitude of different stories based on what choices the player makes. This would not only create a replayable game but would also make a player aware of their choices. However, often a game just narrows it down to good, bad or neutral which is not only boring but also completely unrealistic. Additionally, games that do make choices count often reward the "good" choices with an ally or companion and "evil" choices with more money, weapons or other resources just to make "evil" more attractive in some way. If gamers are offered strategic choices then the choices itself would mean something and then I'm talking about true choices. Mage players will always go for the choice that benefits mages so splitting the choices up in class-based won't change anything either.
I don't think I've ever played a game with true choice. KOTOR has impressed me in the past but that's the exception rather than the rule. Fable started off well as it introduced something that was fairly unique but its sequels completely ruined it as the choices made don't really influence much.
You need to log in before commenting.
I think you're on drugs, Phey. If you don't like making choices and interacting with your media, you don't like playing games. 'Cuz games all include that sorta' stuff. It's an interactive medium. It's inherently interactive. If a game doesn't let you interact with the story in any way, it's actually not making use of a really powerful tool that games have.
well, i mean, making x y and z choice leading to ending A, plotwise, is pretty much an annoyance for me. ofc you have the when to jump and punch and whatever that defines the progression in gameplay. I meant for the plot. Events only have an outcome in this matter. having the idea of having to play it again f0r an hypotethical different ending is a bit of nonsense for my conception of spacetime continuum. Regardless, some of those choices may induce moralistic consequences that are very subjective, or even force a player to go for realistically impossible choices (or that he'd never do), if not simply have the player not play to his best ability. Either way, of course i meant beyond the basic "i have to prss buttonz to plai, hurr durr".
I can make a game, to your concept, with a fixed plot (read, all games before this mainstream gaming nonsense). It will still be a game and the only interactive part is the walk and jump (read: your beloved side character is dead and there is nothing u can do).