4 
Posts: 951
I am not ludicrously competitive type, yet I still hate RNG.
Your comment also implies that reason game is fun is because of RNG.
Game can be just as fun without RNG deciding games randomly and doing things that are out of players hands.
That nullifies your entire 'fun' argument
4 Posts: 951
I would in fact suggest you hold the majority view.
Posts: 9
That's not exactly how it works. PRD is generally implemented so that the first proc chance is actually lower than the desired average value.
http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Pseudo-random_distribution
Furthermore, there are still elements of pure randomness, such as bash, evasion, Ogre Magi's Multicast mechanic, Faceless Void's Backtrack, etc.
I'm talking about both games. If a player puts himself in a situation where he needs to rely on random chance to win a game, he's fucked up somewhere along the line. Every time you rely on a single roll of the dice, you're taking a huge risk. Good players know that if, over the course of a game, you take only those risks that have a positive chance of resulting in a favourable outcome, you won't have to rely on a single instance of RNG luck to win you the game.
Games aren't decided by single decisions, they're decided by the culmination of all decisions in the game. If you're focusing on a single instance of bad luck and blaming that on a loss, you're neglecting to consider the several hundred other decisions made throughout the game that ultimately brought you to a situation where you were forced to rely on luck to win.
There's no such thing as a 100% chance to win a game, especially when you're talking about a game between two players of similar skill. All you can do is give yourself the best possible chance of success. That's why best-of-1 games in tournaments and single ladder games don't really tell you anything about the relative skill of two players, because in a single game anything can happen. That's just how competition works. It has nothing to do with RNG.
I'll give an example from CoH1, because that's the game I know best. In CoH1, snipers only had 50% accuracy against regular infantry targets that were moving, including other snipers. That meant a countersnipe attempt against a moving target had a 50% chance of success. 50% chance isn't very good when you consider the cost and game impact of a sniper, yet many lower-level players relied on countersniping and got very angry when they missed, and blamed their losses on RNG even though it was plainly clear that countersniping was unreliable.
Good players, however, realized this and adopted different tactics. Rarely in high-level games anymore do you see players building snipers and hiding them while they wait for an opportunity to countersnipe. Instead, they realized that the best thing to do was to use your own sniper as a deterrent, draining manpower at a similar rate to the opponent's sniper and using tools like flanking, vehicles, and artillery to limit the enemy sniper's effective time on the field. If you can keep your sniper at the front for more total time than your opponent's, you're going to kill more infantry and drain more manpower, which is the primary use of a sniper in the first place.
In adopting this style, players were able to avoid the inconsistency that comes with relying on low-probability RNG as a cornerstone of your gameplay. By controlling the sniper rather than going all-in on a countersnipe, players were able to rely on their positional and tactical skills instead of putting the outcome of the game on a random element that was out of their control.
There are always alternatives to consider when dealing with random elements in a game. The best players will find ways to minimize their exposure to high-risk-high-reward plays and naturally gravitate to the "safest", most consistent style possible.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
That's not exactly how it works. PRD is generally implemented so that the first proc chance is actually lower than the desired average value.
http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Pseudo-random_distribution
Furthermore, there are still elements of pure randomness, such as bash, evasion, Ogre Magi's Multicast mechanic, Faceless Void's Backtrack, etc.
15 
Posts: 1708 | Subs: 2
He might wear a Tesco fleece on the internet
4 Posts: 951
It was cold in my house.
Posts: 3293
Of course. Why else would you wear it?
Failure is always an option. 
It's a happy massacre?! (yes, yes it is!)
Caffeine illegal for WiFi's to ingest in 48 states, 2 colonies, and 1 providences. 
To make most awesome thing in universe combine Bears and Nicholas Cage! 
and remember kids, we didn't start the flame-war!
8 Posts: 2470
I'm talking about both games. If a player puts himself in a situation where he needs to rely on random chance to win a game, he's fucked up somewhere along the line. Every time you rely on a single roll of the dice, you're taking a huge risk. Good players know that if, over the course of a game, you take only those risks that have a positive chance of resulting in a favourable outcome, you won't have to rely on a single instance of RNG luck to win you the game.
Games aren't decided by single decisions, they're decided by the culmination of all decisions in the game. If you're focusing on a single instance of bad luck and blaming that on a loss, you're neglecting to consider the several hundred other decisions made throughout the game that ultimately brought you to a situation where you were forced to rely on luck to win.
4 
Posts: 640 | Subs: 1
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
i agree with that but CoH2 games can very easily be decided by a single plane crash or pathing (not actually RNG as far as i know but could be for all the consistency it has) or a heavy tank being abandoned.
RNG isn't inherently bad but it has to be limited in order to prevent it from changing games too much.
4 Posts: 951
8 Posts: 2470
That's fair. But in that instance, the problem is being unable to react to the randomness, not the fact that the randomness exists. For example, if you could reliably dodge the plane crashes, it wouldn't matter where they randomly crash, because you could still react.
It's just an important distinction to make. Random gameplay elements aren't inherently bad; they can actually add a lot when used correctly.
Posts: 2819
Do you think Dota 2 esports players care about cosmetic costumes?
Do you think Counter Strike esports players care about gun skins?
If making mountain dew skins for 4v4 scrubs allows them to hire more balance designers, I'm all for it.
Posts: 122 | Subs: 2
Actually yes, CSGO trading is one of the biggest of the net. The skins is what it sets apart from other games. Sorry mate, your argument is rekt.
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
Posts: 2819
Can you link me a quote from an CSGO pro player that says something like "If this game didn't have skins, I would never have gone competitive in it".
8 Posts: 2470
Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1
Haha dude, it's not about not playing it, it's about making it 10 tons more interesting.
Posts: 721
Posts: 829
That'll be why I used the phrase tend to be.
RTFP
You didn't understand my post or you just can't grasp more then one sentence?
 |
|
|
128 | ||
 |
|
|
35 | ||
|
|
|
|
20 | ||
 |
|
|
8 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
