Chess has no ‘RNG’ and is one of the most tactical turn-based games in existence – certainly more so than D:OS – so how exactly does RNG’s absence or diminishment make a game less tactical and more action-orientated?
If anything, the more RNG in a game, the less tactical and more action-orientated it becomes, since the reliance on a computer for calculations removes the need for human calculation. The game consequently becomes turn-based Diablo, where you don’t have to think – you just have to click on the enemy and let the slot machine do its thing.
Regardless, I can’t find the post that advocates RNG's complete removal from the game. My own post on RNG focuses on its relationship to CC in D:OS1, in which it qualified as only a tiny fraction of the overall RNG that went into the game.
My argument is that a return to an RNG solution to CC means assigning a critical aspect of the game’s tactical gameplay – CC, in other words – to the computer, not the human. It’s boring. And mindless. CC is currently too prominent a tactic for the computer to have so much power in deciding its fate during battle. All other RNG mechanics are perfectly fine, and never stand out as a barrier to strategy.
I’m not sure, either, where the devs turned out to be ‘absurdly sensitive’ to what you’ve articulated as ‘complaints about the market’ – presumably you mean complaints about the game, but when has that ever been the case? They removed durability when the topic generated enough heat, and nobody misses that, do they? So great – they obviously do read the forums, and do act. And the majority benefits.
Likewise, I’m not clear on your argument against modding: if the modder is skilled enough to enact all of their own ideas about the game, how are there any 'problems and issues' there?
Seems to be an abundance of vitriol in the above post at the expense of reason.
Last edited by smokey; 27/04/17 08:49 PM.
