Seems to be an abundance of vitriol in the above post at the expense of reason.
Mhmm, false accusations about "vitriol" because you dont like what im saying. Without even understanding it.
Nice projection mate.
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?
You want an RPG game to be chess?
So we have 16 characters against the enemy 16 characters which have no ability but to move in specific way on a limited field and kill eachother?
I would rather have an RPG game myself.
There is no RPG game in existence that is not dependent on different percentages of success of each action. If you remove that then every action has 100% chance of success and that can only obliterate any sense of a RPG game.
And is especially not applicable to a Turn Based system.
The only thing in OS games that isnt working like that are these hard CC effects.
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.
No, the exact opposite is true.
The less of percentage based skills and stats there is applied to a character the more of an action game with real time combat it becomes. Because then everything of influence is transfered to the player skill, not the character skill.
Because in that case the character always has 100% chance to succeed. So the only one who can make any difference is the player.
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.
thats what happens when you remove any stats and skills from the character, whcih happens once a character has 100% chance to succeed in anything.
Then you cannot have any difference in character stats at all.
I find it absurd that someone cannot understand this.
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.
Well what are you then complaining about?
How is that logically consistent with nonsense you just wrote above?
And btw, all i see as arguments against making hard CC more percentage based instead of absolute are complainst about "RNG" as if all of such mechanics are completely random - which is absurd nonsense.
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.
No, if your character has 100% chance to cause hard CC every single time THEN it is something you have no influence over and it is "done by a computer" in a turn based game.
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.
EXACTLY! Its mindless and boring because the chance for it is ALWAYS 100%.
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?
Yup, the removed something because a few posters cried about it. Instead of making it better.
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?
How many mods is there around that are high quality (not just some skins and superficial stuff) and how long do you usually have to wait for such mods?
It takes time and dedicated capable people to make really good and valuable mods.
