Mhmm, false accusations about "vitriol" because you dont like what im saying. Without even understanding it.
You’re telling me your prepubescent labelling of the dozens of posters on two 20000 view durability threads as ‘crying’ isn’t vitriol? Maybe ‘butthurt’ is a word you can relate to better: it’s certainly crass and silly enough. Saying the majority is ‘crying’ when they reach a consensus on the removal of a boring, tedious feature in a computer game is the most bitter thing I’ve read to date on these forums.
If anyone’s crying, it’s the guy who’s yelling at everyone else for supporting a good idea that got implemented, when all of his own ideas go wholly ignored – this couldn’t be more cliché of the jealous little fellow in the corner bad-mouthing the crowd because no one ever listens to him.
‘You want an RPG game to be chess?’
I must have missed the part where I wrote that I wanted an RPG game to be chess – can you pick that out for me please: I’d like to see it.
Chess is a turn-based game where opponents take turns to move pieces within the limits of their movement capacity, in an effort to destroy the pieces of the opposing army. Let me know if you need further help with the comparisons.
Combat is a tactical element of the game. RPG is ‘role playing’ – a completely separate feature, where you choose races and classes and dialogue options, and role play, if that’s your thing, as the characters involved. The combat is not dependant on any part of that whatsoever.
At any rate, I specifically stated I am not against RNG in GENERAL – I’m only against RNG as a solution to the current issue with CC.
‘Because then everything of influence is transfered to the player skill, not the character skill.’
You’ve done my work for me with that sentence. What does tactical mean? Using human/player skill to decide the outcome of an engagement. What’s the opposite of tactical? Using a calculator to take the place of human/player skill to decide the outcome.
In a game that features hundreds, even thousands, of stat allocation options, you could make a case for such investment being tactical – although only in a mathematical sense (we’re strictly talking about human cunning when it comes to D:OS’s combat). D:OS features only the simplest, most basic of stat-allocation systems – clicking a few points into bodybuilding for a % chance of not getting CC’d is hardly a stroke of tactical genius.
Far better to move dealing with CC to the player, as the game is substantially more tactical as a chess-like, turn-based grid system than it as a stat-based mathematical game where stat allocation is so all-encompassing that the computer plays the game entirely for you without the need of combat or turn-based gameplay.
Stat allocation is simply too simplistic in D:OS for it to be called tactical. By comparison, the turn-based combat is much deeper.
‘I find it absurd that someone cannot understand this.’
Eh – ironic, much? A slot machine is something you put coins into and pull a lever. The machine makes a calculation and gives you a random result. There’s no strategy. A CC status based on RNG is where the machine makes a calculation and gives you a random result.
How does the slot machine analogy equate with a 100% chance to hit every time? You’ve completely misunderstood the English there. I’m saying its mindless because you click on an enemy and a ‘slot machine’ (random computation) decides the result.
‘ How is that logically consistent with nonsense you just wrote above’
I hope we’re clear now on who’s talking ‘nonsense’.
‘complainst about "RNG" as if all of such mechanics are completely random - which is absurd nonsense’
All right, buddy: ok. You’ve just written here that all complaints about RNG being random are ‘absurd nonsense’ – well, I guess the clue is in the letters. Hint: RANDOM number generator. It’s always random. Jesus Christ...
‘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.’
Have you read back over my sentence that you quoted? It clearly counters the argument you’re making all along that I’m somehow completely against RNG. I’m saying – no, I’m not against the MAJORITY of RNG, I’m only against RNG being used to determine CC.
‘EXACTLY! Its mindless and boring because the chance for it is ALWAYS 100%.’
You’ve misread the entire paragraph again. I said RNG being used to determine CC is mindless and boring because the computer does it for you. Nowhere do I say 100% chance to produce CC is the solution. I’ve stated multiple times that my proposed solution to CC is to rework it completely in favour of the suggestions quoted in
this thread
‘Yup, the removed something because a few posters cried about it. Instead of making it better.’
Now you’re back to saying everyone was ‘crying’ because they all agreed on something you had no say in. Salty much? You provided no reason in your follow up post as to why durability should stay in the game, except to vaguely note it adds to the ‘seriousness’ – in what sense? You want authenticity in a game with talking lizards, cannibal elves and people called sourcerers?
Guess what? Everyone else just wants to play a computer game for entertainment. They don’t give a bloody toss about the inclusion of a boring mechanic like durability for the sake of authenticity. It was a great idea to get rid of it.
‘It takes time and dedicated capable people to make really good and valuable mods’
Your point being? We shouldn't do it because it takes time? Now who’s talking nonsense.
I tell you what – they pay me to code for a living, so I'm well up for building my own mod with my own ideas someday. I propose a little challenge. You build your mod, with your ideas. And I’ll build mine. And let’s see what the majority decides. First rule – you can’t say everyone’s crying if they ignore something you did.
