RNG determinants that result in gameplay factors that can't have an effective response assuming an ideal strategy are necessarily flaws compared to the ideal.
RNG determinants that require a strategy that requires less skill overall to provide the best response for every eventuality that is a result of said determinants are necessarily a flaw compared to the ideal.
RNG, for the purpose of providing variety, should either be counterfeited in a manner that is either predictable by dedicated players, or the results of the RNG should be sufficiently telegraphed so dedicated players can determine the best response to them.
The point of all these principles is that the application skill, not luck, should always be the determining factor in succeeding in a game scenario. For some games, this is perhaps totally unfeasible, especially with unpredictable player interactions, but the ideal is that a "winner" always demonstrated sufficient skill, or, at least, (in the case of multiplayer), blunders on the part of opponents were exploited by the winner.
What's a better manner to determine the mastery of a skill: asking people to guess a randomly determined number, and the winner is whoever comes closest, or asking for the sum of two numbers, and the winner is whoever gives the correct answer first?
Clearly, winning in the first case is entirely dependent on luck, and in the second case, luck would hardly be a reliable method as opposed to mental calculation.
Logan Howard
But it was luck that determined how fast one would be able to calculate
Carter Phillips
rng is only required because the babbys mode of games (turn based games) are all solvable without it
Adrian Richardson
Counterpoint, Pokemon is bullshit, even at advanced play, which is why certain moves have to be banned.
These conclusions actually occurred to me as I intently considered how Pokemon could actually become a genuine and consistent skill-based challenge in a single-player game, and one preventative factor is RNG, (among other things).
Pokemon speedruns are fairly uninteresting to me because of how largely they are based on luck, and success is largely determined not by persistence in the acquisition of skill, (after a certain point), but persistence in getting achieving a favorable outcome that isn't determined by skill.
If people in speed runs of a game have to frequently turn off their game to get a particular result, this is a flaw with the game.
Meant to reply to
Ethan Stewart
You have a very, very narrow view on what RNG is. Example there's a massive difference between having a 50% chance to win or a 50% chance to react to a different attack. The first determines your fate while the second one tests how you adapt to change.
Robert Edwards
sneed
Ethan Evans
Well, to the extent that in one case. you have to chose one hand of two which contains a marble, given no indication of where the marble was, and another case of having to chose where the marble was, and both hands were open, the first case would be entirely determined by luck, and the latter case would at least involve the skill of knowing what a marble looked like.
David Parker
I'm not against RNG, but if you do everything right, adapt to unfavorable situations as optimally as possible, and you still end up losing, then there's clearly something very wrong with your gameplay design.
Eli Parker
that's a learned skill
and yet, competivive aspects like switch prediction, shadow tagging and evade clauses stand on their own, despite bans and restrictions It has less to do with rng and more about switching team staples, but can't have that on a hazard meta
Compared to pokemon would be b), as some amount of understanding is needed at higher levels (single player is a mess though, i'll give you that)
Elijah Bell
>Example there's a massive difference between having a 50% chance to win or a 50% chance to react to a different attack. I don't think I was equating the two instances. The first case is certainly not ideal, (unless it indicates a poor strategy of the player), and in the latter case, the game should allow that an ideal strategy could properly response to that eventuality.
The speed runner that is applying the best strategy, and has to shut off the game because of a particular attack, reveals a flaw in the game design.
Charles Ross
>It has less to do with rng and more about switching team staples, but can't have that on a hazard meta I don't understand any of this. Would you please explain it differently? >as some amount of understanding is needed at higher levels No doubt, but RNG should be limited to the point where it's always a matter of displayed skill that determines the results. I'm so ignorance of the meta of Pokemon that I don't know how the rock-paper-scissors aspect of element advantages and weaknesses is treated, but I would be surprised if that teams if it could be said that any team at advanced play couldn't face another team which just happens to have stats which make the match balanced in the favor of one player.
I could go elaborate, but I think you get my point. Every game should more closely resemble chess, where the only change involved is who moves first and and on whose side is the clock placed, (both aspects have a very questionable affect on the outcome).
This doesn't proceed from an admiration of chess as such. I would say the same thing for a fighting game with two of the same characters on a symmetrical field, where in a 3D fighting game, chance doesn't even determine on which side the fighters are placed.
Xavier Price
well tough luck nigger I disagree What you gonna do?
Jackson Evans
all i'm saying is banned strategies could still be viable just by reserving a slot on teams for counters, sadly bans haven't reached stalling strategies and all counters now revolve around them It's just a matter of how the meta evolved, and not flaws on playstyles on their own
All around, it's still a game of luck, i guess
Chase Peterson
luck adds to the game aspect of the entire namesake medium, and games are primarily designed to bombard your brain with feel-good chemicals, or in other words, entertain you. Making everything formulaic detracts from the overall experience because it peels off the most primal layer in a game -- beating the odds stacked against you, being rewarded in a by chance which ultimately brings thrill. in short, determinism isn't fun, and the entire reason why gacha earn metric fucktons of money.
>All around, it's still a game of luck, i guess Well that's why I think it's a worse test of skill than chess, or the fighting game I described. Then at the very least, the game should either be designed to simulate this effect while actually being predictable, or there should be a mode for games where randomness isn't a variable. >determinism isn't fun Believe it or not, some people find chess fun, and strictly, this isn't an instance of determinism, because it's the result of a battle of wills, where your skill or the lack thereof, determines the result. >and the entire reason why gacha earn metric fucktons of money. True, but better games should never use those types of games as ideal models in almost any aspect of their design.
Anthony Cox
The whole conception of you was rng so you better start accepting it.
Nolan Martinez
stall is fucking terrible in the current OU meta what are you talking about
David Ross
I just savescum constantly. lol
Tyler Thomas
Conception is totally predicable if you break the variables down far enough. It doesn't become random just because you might not have access to the tools necessary to observe it.
Chase Hill
I've thought a lot about this in regards to Pokemon, but this was the video that prompted me to write this tirade against RNG:
Now, admittedly, RNG is probably a problem for Halo 2 on Legendary because of bad design choices, and the extra aggressive enemies, but examples like these seem as close to objective examples of faults in games as one could possibly get. It would be one thing if the results of randomness were always superable regardless of your object, but if they aren't. this is a flaw.
Ideally, regardless of what your object is, is should always be determined by skill, so everybody would be on even playing field, and nobody could achieve something special just because they "got lucky."
Evan Thomas
I would object to these, but it seems like two smartasses are negating each other, so I won't bother.
