|
member
|
member
Joined: May 2017
|
Anyhow, great infograph. CC should take stats into account too, but it's a great start.
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2017
|
Well, I am of the opinion that there should not be a single CC resist. I think there should be CC resist for physical attacks (knockdown, etc), and CC resist for magical attacks (charm, etc). I think I should be able to build a character (and the associated defensive resists) for particular types of CC.
Regardless, whether one CC resist value, or two), some UI feedback would be nice. I don't see why CC resist cannot be your physical/magical absord value (+ other sources such as defensive attributes, etc).
Last edited by AussieKSU; 02/10/17 08:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2016
|
50% lazy casuals 50% hardocre gamers
If u want to be good for all u should create Classic mode w/o RNG for cassuals and Tactic mode or harder with RNG for non-casuals Stop that. It is annoying. Your ideas aren't bad - I agree with some. They are just rather poorly expressed. If you then decide to belittle others as well, well, it makes your posts unpleasant to read - and this is before you add your bizarre hashtags.
|
|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2017
|
I don't see why CC resist cannot be your physical/magical absord value.
because we need more class cooperations to create more simple but not primitive system - 1 is less then 2? and even if u shred full p.armor enemy still have portion of CC resist cos of m.armor - total armor rocks)
Last edited by Roamer; 02/10/17 08:48 PM.
Game Quality Control
|
|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2017
|
50% lazy casuals 50% hardocre gamers
If u want to be good for all u should create Classic mode w/o RNG for cassuals and Tactic mode or harder with RNG for non-casuals Stop that. It is annoying. i will repeat it again and again some people refuse to understand clear things and they are repeating 100 times in a day about "RNG is not tactic" repeat vs repeat btw i tired too
Last edited by Roamer; 02/10/17 08:53 PM.
Game Quality Control
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2016
|
Arguments against RNG:
The current video game market do not like RNG much, Julian Gallop's remake of Chaos: The Battle of Wizards, one of the best RNG management strategy game in history, got bad reviews by players largely because of this.
For singleplayer, the player would usually reload battles lost by bad luck, but not the ones won by good luck. He ends up cheating in a sense even without save scumming.
For multiplayer, to get a fair outcome you may need multiple matches to approximate statistical average, which is several times more time consuming.
Calculation by a player in any complex game is already largely statistical even without RNG, have you seen how a advanced Go/Baduk/Weiqi AI, such as the ones beat the top players work?
|
|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2017
|
The current video game market do not like RNG.
For singleplayer, the player would usually reload battles lost by bad luck, but not the ones won by good luck. He ends up cheating in a sense even without save scumming.
Heartstone? LoL with random mates, etc.? Yes, its gamers mentality - not to solve but to go easy ways. Never to use healing bottles, ressurecting scrolls, granades, dispels... better to load saved game... Anyway almost every game have Hardcore mode to counter save scumming
Last edited by Roamer; 02/10/17 09:24 PM.
Game Quality Control
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2017
|
Arguments against RNG:
The current video game market do not like RNG much, Julian Gallop's remake of Chaos: The Battle of Wizards, one of the best RNG management strategy game in history, got bad reviews by players largely because of this.
For singleplayer, the player would usually reload battles lost by bad luck, but not the ones won by good luck. He ends up cheating in a sense even without save scumming.
For multiplayer, to get a fair outcome you need multiple matches to approximate statistical average, which is several times more time consuming.
Calculation in any complex deterministic game is already largely statistical, have you seen how a advanced Go/Baduk/Weiqi AI, such as the ones beat the top players work? A game that has RNG got bad reviews is not an argument against RNG in games - If anything the market shows the exact oposite, easily checked by looking at which games with tactical combat have a higher player base, and this is not an argument in favour of RNG either, just sales. A player can reload battles lost by bad luck is also not an argument against RNG, you can do the same without RNG, this is just illogical on several levels. Not to mention that savescumming is a player side choice, the game has nothing to do with it. Multiplayer is not the case at hand. But this statement was also false, there are several multiplayer games competitive and not competitive that rely on luck on different levels. That are widely played, and that are not so much. Realism is actually an argument in favour of RNG, combat does not have deterministic results or foreshadowing. Not to mention that those AIs have very specific purposes and you won't see them in complex games in the near future.
Last edited by NeoAnubis; 02/10/17 09:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
|
Anyway almost every game have Hardcore mode to counter save scumming What does that have to do with anything? If players want to save-scum, they probably aren't playing on hardcore mode to begin with, so the existence won't do anything to those who don't pick that difficulty. And making hardcore mode the ONLY mode would be a disaster. Many people, myself included, have no interest in playing an 80+ hour RPG where if you screw up you have to start all over. I would not buy or play a game like this if it could only be played in hardcore mode.
|
|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2017
|
Anyway almost every game have Hardcore mode to counter save scumming What does that have to do with anything? its give me an option to play like i want. And i dont want to think about possibility to save/load every second in fight there is a difference between "save every second on good moves in fight" and "save on checkpoint" or "one save every fight" DarkSouls is good exemple of playing w/o save/loads
Last edited by Roamer; 02/10/17 09:35 PM.
Game Quality Control
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2017
|
It is generally good practice to read the post someone is answering to, or you risk taking things completely out of context. Roamer was answering this:
"For singleplayer, the player would usually reload battles lost by bad luck, but not the ones won by good luck. He ends up cheating in a sense even without save scumming."
Which was portrayed as an argument against RNG, but is completely illogical.
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2016
|
"For singleplayer, the player would usually reload battles lost by bad luck, but not the ones won by good luck. He ends up cheating in a sense even without save scumming."
Which was portrayed as an argument against RNG, but is completely illogical.
I don't think it's hard to understand. Reloading battles would cause statistical bias just like reloading a CC check. And it's difficult to avoid unless the player examine the statistical distribution carefully, or save far apart. He doesn't necessarily cause it intentionally.
|
|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2017
|
You right, qwerty3w Players should understand that even if one party member died or lost to much HP or CCed cos of unlucky roll - game still have many instruments to deal this it (and its not save/load).
Last edited by Roamer; 02/10/17 10:40 PM.
Game Quality Control
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2017
|
I don't think it's hard to understand. Reloading battles would cause statistical bias just like reloading a CC check. And it's difficult to avoid unless the player examine the statistical distribution carefully, or save far apart. He doesn't necessarily cause it intentionally.
The argument is completely illogical for the point you are trying to convey. I already explained why. Savescumming is not restricted to games with RNG. Not only that, but it is also player side issue, not a game issue. Portraying it as a factor against the type of RNG being discussed is dishonest, to be light about it. Note that this is not a critic to what you are pointing out about savescumming creating bias, that much is correct, but it doesn't support what you're trying to say it does, at all.
Last edited by NeoAnubis; 02/10/17 10:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2016
|
Why would I use knock down arrow if I have the same chance to trigger the charm arrow, but better CC?
Or assuming I have no charm arrow, why would I use normal attack if I can always use knock down arrow on every attack and deal the same amount of damage with chance of CCing? The amount of arrow is near infinite in Act 2 anyway.
Why would I bother with non-CC spell if damaging enemies with CC spell will always be the better choice?
There's nothing tactical about RNG CC. All it does is make me maximize my roll by pouring every stat I have into the point that boost my RNG chance while preventing it. Look at games like Pillar of Eternity. What's the strongest strat in the game? Start with immunity to CC buff and Accuracy buff. Have whoever can't deal insane damage just learn Lore master and throw in all the CC scroll to perma CC the whole enemy team. Even if it graze, doesn't matter, keep using it and chain it until the entire team is CC'd long enough for your DPS to wipe all the key targets.
Same will happen here. What will become the best strat? A bunch of ranger using KD arrow on every attack and just restock every hour to never run out. It won't even take a hardcore player to figure this out. Deal huge damage AND chance to CC every hit.
Fights where you cannot perma CC the whole team right on turn 1 will always be more tactical than fights you can perma CC starting on turn 1 with a bit of luck. Just imagine the battle where you start with everyone using earthquake and hope it procs on half of the enemy team after 3 casts.
The game gives the player too many way to gain access to CC with no real trade off for RNG CC to be a thing, just like how Pillars' RNG CC games become a joke once you have access to AoE Paralysis and knock down scroll. The only way to make fight challenging after that is outright giving enemies immunity to CC.
Last edited by Ellezard; 02/10/17 10:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2017
|
U could use your Knokdown arrow all the time in current system too. just do some hits to shred armor in early game and knokdown even with full armor in late game
Last edited by Roamer; 02/10/17 11:06 PM.
Game Quality Control
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2016
|
U could use your Knokdown arrow all the time in current system too. just do some hits to shred armor Only after you shred armor. Which is better than right before you shred armor. RNG CC removes my reasons to play with any Strat that doesn't slap the word "CC" on top of it. Why play any normal oil combo without impalement? you might get a chance to cripple! Or maybe always use lighting attack instead of fire. Burn is disappointing. Go for stunned!
Last edited by Ellezard; 02/10/17 10:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2017
|
Only after you shred armor.
Which is better than right before you shred armor.
All depends of armor given Mobs with high armor dont care about ur 10% chances to CC few first rounds. And dont forget about armor repearing CC chance on spells like knockdown arrow will be calculated before it deals dmg
Last edited by Roamer; 02/10/17 10:56 PM.
Game Quality Control
|
|
|
|
addict
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2016
|
10% chance to CC is stronger than 0% chance.
I already gave you a scenario. 3 Geo mage with Earthquake. That thing is ridiculous with good build.
First one takes away like 30% magic armor with 15% chance to CC everything Then it becomes 30% chance on the 2nd cast And it becomes a 45% chance on the 3rd cast.
While also applying slow.
Each enemy have less than 30% chance to not get knocked down on all 3 casts. You have a 70% chance to lololrolf the whole turn with "Tactical" spam play.
Edit: okay, let's say it's CC then armor.
0%, 15%, 30%,
40.5% chance on each target to get knocked down. That's not low. That's stupidly high on an attack almost guaranteed to hit everything with slow field attached.
And that damage doesn't even count the fact that I can be using a crit build on mage.
Last edited by Ellezard; 02/10/17 10:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Sep 2017
|
Wrong again U are shreding m.armor But alot of p.armor still lowering ur CC chance If enemy have 1000 p.armor and 200 m.armor even if u shred m.armor to zero ur CC chance will be 16.6%
all depends of armor given, of spells balance. Not only of suggested system and my very first topic was with a suggestion to increase all armors from 20% in early game to like 200% in late game in a purposes of new system so u will have the same as it is - few first rounds with good ressists to CC
enemies are in the same conditions - they have low chance to cripple u for example. So if u and opponent are lucky = two crippled in both teams :)))
Last edited by Roamer; 02/10/17 11:11 PM.
Game Quality Control
|
|
|
|
|