I put down no because I hate RNG in most things BUT I really do think it depends on the genre, for example in a FPS I think RNG mechanics are for the most part BS, but in a card game like Hearthstone, well it's a card game RNG is kind of the point, then again I don't really like Hearthstone because of RNG, I think there is a place for it in some instances BUT overall I hate randomness in general, especially when it comes to a games combat
Poll: RNG in Gaming Combat
- Thread starter The Enquirer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think truly random is a good idea in general, but more a weighted random that aims to balance things out to prevent frustrating dry spells and such.
Oh god yes. I prefer the old CRPGS with THAC0 and damage die far more than those based on newer, MMOey, DnD editions.
Uncertainty is fun. The chance for something to do more or not do anything leads to exciting situations. Will my last party member actually hit the tough enemy who has only a few hp left? Is this spell that'll let me win the fight going to fizzle or will the enemy save vs it?
Certainty is fucking boring. It's certain. There's no mystery, no doubt. It turns everything into simple math. Character damage x number of characters - enemy HP = dead boss. Yay. How stimulating.
Uncertainty is fun. The chance for something to do more or not do anything leads to exciting situations. Will my last party member actually hit the tough enemy who has only a few hp left? Is this spell that'll let me win the fight going to fizzle or will the enemy save vs it?
Certainty is fucking boring. It's certain. There's no mystery, no doubt. It turns everything into simple math. Character damage x number of characters - enemy HP = dead boss. Yay. How stimulating.
I love it, if it's implemented correctly. Interesting games are always more fun for me than simple games.
Games can be won or lost based on whether or not the dice rolls in your favour, and if it is something that you cannot directly control or influence, then I just think that it is silly, at least in a competitive setting.
RNG has a place in gaming, especially in single player experiences, but I just don't think that it has a place in competitive gaming.
RNG has a place in gaming, especially in single player experiences, but I just don't think that it has a place in competitive gaming.
I don't mind a certain degree of randomness. It's why I like playing deck-building games, like Netrunner. Randomness is a key part of the game design. The various identity cards tell you how many outside faction cards you can use and how small your deck can be. So the game itself takes randomness and makes it a core concept of gameplay. Meaning that deck optimisation = deck 'consistency' (giving you the right card at the right time) is king. Streamlining strategic draws and implement the deck itself as a game concept that can be played with and should be taken into consideration.
That's why I quite like Chaos Theory as a Runner ID card. As her minimum deck size is 40 with a respectable 15 influence ... meaning with Chaos Theory you can play a heavily consistent deck. So I like the idea of randomness in games in general. Dice-rolling is a good way of adding in a little bit of randomness that represents the living existence pretty well.
I specifically like games that use randomness and play with it ... as then you can also play with risk-reward systems that are quite fun to begin with, and add a whole lot of diversity to how a character plays. RNG is good, if you're allowed to tweak it and turn it into a risk vs. reward sort of thing.
That's why I quite like Chaos Theory as a Runner ID card. As her minimum deck size is 40 with a respectable 15 influence ... meaning with Chaos Theory you can play a heavily consistent deck. So I like the idea of randomness in games in general. Dice-rolling is a good way of adding in a little bit of randomness that represents the living existence pretty well.
I specifically like games that use randomness and play with it ... as then you can also play with risk-reward systems that are quite fun to begin with, and add a whole lot of diversity to how a character plays. RNG is good, if you're allowed to tweak it and turn it into a risk vs. reward sort of thing.
I like some RNG. I like RNG Looting, because I'm a loot whore. I like RNG in online, because crits can be fun or sons of bitches.
I hate RNG in something like XCom. Where my up close 95% shotgun blasts whiffs twice in a row, but their low level grey scrub can crit two of my heavies from across the map.
I hate stacked RNG. Either we all are random and have the same shitty odds with poor weapons, or remove it from the fucking game.
I hate RNG in something like XCom. Where my up close 95% shotgun blasts whiffs twice in a row, but their low level grey scrub can crit two of my heavies from across the map.
I hate stacked RNG. Either we all are random and have the same shitty odds with poor weapons, or remove it from the fucking game.
Ideally it's replaced with mechanics in the players hands, and the randomness is in the game in the form of strategic erraticity, not enforced random. But that would be too much to expect from multi billion dollar companies like blizzard and valve.
I don't know!
Too much of it turns everything into a diceroll so what does it matter. Winning only proves you had luck.
It makes for interesting stories with crazy outcomes though and for all the times some rng based bs happens to you, you have the hope that this time, it is you who will make some crazy, unexpected stuff happen.
None of it turns it into a game of breaking points, a 101 health target will always need 2 100 damage shots to be killed, the predictability can become dull.
It's fair though, you only have your skills and tactics to blame if you lose.
But sometimes, people don't like that and need something else to blame.
Too much of it turns everything into a diceroll so what does it matter. Winning only proves you had luck.
It makes for interesting stories with crazy outcomes though and for all the times some rng based bs happens to you, you have the hope that this time, it is you who will make some crazy, unexpected stuff happen.
None of it turns it into a game of breaking points, a 101 health target will always need 2 100 damage shots to be killed, the predictability can become dull.
It's fair though, you only have your skills and tactics to blame if you lose.
But sometimes, people don't like that and need something else to blame.
"If it weren't for luck, I'd win every hand." - Phil Hellmuth
Luck is the Grand Equalizer. You can execute everything flawlessly only to get slapped down by Lady Luck.
I think an RNG can have its place in competitive games, but there has to be something to balance out how...ahem..."random" it can be.
For example: if I'm playing Risk Factions with some friends on XBLA and I invade a country with 2 defenders with a 40 man army, it's not acceptable that I roll straight 1's for 10 rounds in a row.
Another example is in League of Legends. I pretty much exclusively play ARAM (All Middle All Random) which, as the game mode implies: gives everyone a random champion to use. I like this format because it's still PvP so it's challenging, but it's not a game mode that can be taken seriously since - in the vast majority of cases - the RNG decides who is going to win before the game actually starts. If your team gets dealt 5 melee champions while the other team is dealt 5 champions that excel in poke, burst, aoe, and lock-down...yeah, your team never stood a chance to begin with. Every now and then you do get a genuinely good game, but the randomness of the RNG for champ select should have something to help temper it to ensure that the vast majority of games don't end up being completely one-sided.
Luck is the Grand Equalizer. You can execute everything flawlessly only to get slapped down by Lady Luck.
I think an RNG can have its place in competitive games, but there has to be something to balance out how...ahem..."random" it can be.
For example: if I'm playing Risk Factions with some friends on XBLA and I invade a country with 2 defenders with a 40 man army, it's not acceptable that I roll straight 1's for 10 rounds in a row.
Another example is in League of Legends. I pretty much exclusively play ARAM (All Middle All Random) which, as the game mode implies: gives everyone a random champion to use. I like this format because it's still PvP so it's challenging, but it's not a game mode that can be taken seriously since - in the vast majority of cases - the RNG decides who is going to win before the game actually starts. If your team gets dealt 5 melee champions while the other team is dealt 5 champions that excel in poke, burst, aoe, and lock-down...yeah, your team never stood a chance to begin with. Every now and then you do get a genuinely good game, but the randomness of the RNG for champ select should have something to help temper it to ensure that the vast majority of games don't end up being completely one-sided.
The RNG has some useful functions. It can introduce a lot of variety into the game if things are randomised at the start, and bad start positions tend to be less frustrating than being struck down late game by an RNG "act of God". It's still kinda fun to play at a disadvantage, as victory gets more rewarding as it becomes less probable.
Giving bad players a chance to win against good players is arguably a good thing for the overall health of a game. Any group of players will have some who are less skilled, and if those players always lose then they will quit, until the playerbase essentially disappears. However, this doesn't need actual randomness, for example short health bars in brawlers allow a bad player to win with a few lucky hits, even without a real RNG, while long health bars tend to guarantee victory for the stronger player.
Another thing RNGs do is smooth out numerical weirdness. For example, the Protoss Reaver in Starcraft has an upgrade that allows it to do 125 damage instead of 100. But there aren't any units in the 101-125 hitpoint range that would require the upgrade to 1-hit, so it is a lot less useful than it might seem. Other units get upgrades that do let them go from 2-hitting enemies to 1-hitting them. With a random damage range, a 10% damage boost tends to kill enemies 10% faster. However this is not really RNG from a game design perspective because it is intended to average out and make the game more predictable.
It should be noted that there are types of luck beyond RNG luck. There is execution skill, for example a good golf player is more likely to get a hole in one but is still lucky when it happens. There is rock-paper-scissors luck, where mind games can happen but it's mostly just guessing. There is also luck in unclear outcomes, for example in chess you can see all the pieces but you cannot fully calculate the consequences of moving them, so there is an element of guesswork.
Question: Why do you rage if you call heads and the RNG says tails, but not if you pick paper and I pick scissors?
Giving bad players a chance to win against good players is arguably a good thing for the overall health of a game. Any group of players will have some who are less skilled, and if those players always lose then they will quit, until the playerbase essentially disappears. However, this doesn't need actual randomness, for example short health bars in brawlers allow a bad player to win with a few lucky hits, even without a real RNG, while long health bars tend to guarantee victory for the stronger player.
Another thing RNGs do is smooth out numerical weirdness. For example, the Protoss Reaver in Starcraft has an upgrade that allows it to do 125 damage instead of 100. But there aren't any units in the 101-125 hitpoint range that would require the upgrade to 1-hit, so it is a lot less useful than it might seem. Other units get upgrades that do let them go from 2-hitting enemies to 1-hitting them. With a random damage range, a 10% damage boost tends to kill enemies 10% faster. However this is not really RNG from a game design perspective because it is intended to average out and make the game more predictable.
It should be noted that there are types of luck beyond RNG luck. There is execution skill, for example a good golf player is more likely to get a hole in one but is still lucky when it happens. There is rock-paper-scissors luck, where mind games can happen but it's mostly just guessing. There is also luck in unclear outcomes, for example in chess you can see all the pieces but you cannot fully calculate the consequences of moving them, so there is an element of guesswork.
Question: Why do you rage if you call heads and the RNG says tails, but not if you pick paper and I pick scissors?
Depends on the pace of the game.
Randomness in faster paced games, other than a changing map. I'm pretty meh on.
Games that are of a much slower pace, however? Where you can stop and think like the old Gears of war, or NeoTokyo, if anyone even remembers that thing... Go for it. Strategy games? Fuck, it's practically needed.
IMO, the less likely two games are going to be the same, then the better. RNG achieves this perfectly.
Randomness in faster paced games, other than a changing map. I'm pretty meh on.
Games that are of a much slower pace, however? Where you can stop and think like the old Gears of war, or NeoTokyo, if anyone even remembers that thing... Go for it. Strategy games? Fuck, it's practically needed.
IMO, the less likely two games are going to be the same, then the better. RNG achieves this perfectly.