I've been replaying the GBA games (Binding/Blazing Blade, Sacred Stones) and I've realized just how terrible they are.These games are not difficult, the only difficulty comes from them throwing bullshit like reinforcements that catch you by surprise, spawning a gorrillion enemies to overwhelm you or the RNG screwing you with a crit.Pic related, I somehow missed with a +70% hit chance.
>>3562613>I've been replaying the GBA gamesWhy are you playing little kid games
>>3562613This is the moment when I realized how bullshit these games are, when this mf wielding an AXE somehow hit my unit with a weapon triangle advantage and high evade rate with only a 24% to hit.Brava Intelligent Systems
>>3562613Reinforcements fucking you in the ass is a valid complaint only on Blazing Blade due to the trigger zones and same turn.For the other two ,especially sacred stones, it's borderline a nothingburger.
>>3562616I don't get it. He had a 24% chance to hit you. It's a low chance, but it's still a chance.
>>3562616if the enemy is attacking, 1%=100%. if you're attacking, 99%=0%.
>>3562613>has a 28% chance to miss>misses>"Woooooow, was a I supposed to know that could happen!? Bullshit accuracy mechanics."
>>3562616Nigger you are retarded. Go play FE4/5 for actual single RN and see how many times AI will still hit low %. GBA games littleraly added true hit and we have faggots like you still complaining about RNG.
>>3562622It's littleraly the opposite, the hit rates depicted aren't accurate. It's skewed to be more for either direction(high and low). You and OP are littleraly subhuman.https://serenesforest.net/general/true-hit/
>>3562615
>>3562613>>356261670% accuracy is badStone edge has 70% accuracy and is called Stone Miss among Pokefags
>>3562613>>3562616Statistics make people stupid. If you're in Vegas and you have a 98% chance to win, you'd be stupid not to bet on it, but if you're playing Russian Roulette and have a 98% chance to live, you'd be stupid to play. It's not about the chance. It's about the impact. Sure, you have a 98% chance to live, but IF you're the 2%, you die. If you're playing Fire Emblem and initiate an attack that has a 1% chance to kill your character and your character dies, womp womp. That was on you.
>>3562613>gets tilted by bad rng>makes a thread to inform us
>>3562613>>3562616Over a long enough time period all of the 1% scenarios happen. Don't take engagements if you can't handle the consequences. Skill issue
Fire Emblem was always a rubbish franchise and I'm sick of people acting like it's king of the genre because it's on nintendo.
>>3562869There are people who still think that if, as an example, something has a 1 in 100% of happening then if you do it 100 time it will happen. Not understanding that each roll is effectively a massive reset. It doesn't stack.
>>3563050You have to understand, that when it comes to strategy, there aren't very many good games from Japan. There are some, but the drought is most noticeable in Nintendo related things. Because despite all the tendie moaning, Nintendo games are mostly marketed towards children(and now manchildren). So most SRPGs on Nintendo systems are horrible shit like FF tactics and the massive amount of uninspired clones they made. They have next to no level design and only have elevation play(copying FF tactics).There are a handful of other good strategy games in old Nintedo consoles but they are all one offs at best. Fire emblem is simply the only halfway decent one that retained regular releases.
>>3562613From friends I have heard that started with these, they rage that they died to RNG, and my caveat to that is "Yes, but...*"What you're doing between enemy turns are significantly different. There is more to this game than just mindlessly attacking enemies. Until then, I'd say they played far too aggressively and gambled on bad odds. Do not rely on luck. If it happens, it happens but play it safe.MY recommendation is to use Seth. The game teaches you that Seth exists.
>>3563051More people have trouble with the opposite. If you try that thing 69 times you have a 50/50 shot of it happening at least once. Fire Emblem has a lot more than 69 battles.
>>3563075Please tell us your top ten SRPGs, learned one.
>people falling for obvious bait ITTI’d call OP a retard but he’s demonstrably smarter than most of /vrpg/ now
I had an axe user defending a bottle neck. He was holding off 3 enemies. He managed to crit on a 2% chance, killing two of them in a row. Third one attacked and killed him. That was bullshit.
>>356261624% is roughly 1 in 4. Those are bad odds if you're counting on not getting hit.
>>3563090>Do not rely on luckThat's the fun part. Take daring gambles and leave dead allies behind. You get more dudes. Otherwise what would be the point of permadeath in the game?
>>3563050This, honestly. Fire Emblem leaning in on a bunch of goon-worthy designs is all this franchise ended up being good for in the end.
Of all of Fire Emblem's flaws, the RNG is one of the least noteworthy.
>>3563215No one ever tells retards like you that people respond to obvious bait anyways? It doesn't matter so long as there is actual discussion as a result. No one cares.
>>3562613>I somehow missed with a +70% hit chance>somehowjesus christ humans are so dogshit at probability
>>3563576It's an interesting point about designing games to please players.If a 50% hit chance was unbeknowst to the player programmed to always hit on first hit and always miss on the second and so on, players would more likely perceive that as a fair chance. Real chances are unfair when they happen to be unfavorable.
>>3562869>Statistics make people stupid.this, desu. Sometimes I'm baffled by discourse about something, and then I realize that the act of representing probability with clear, numerical values only confuses people more because most people are fucking braindead and can't have two thoughts at once.>if you're playing Russian Roulette and have a 98% chance to live, you'd be stupid to playI think that depends on what you win. The problem with using Russian roulette as an example here is that the "win" condition is the same as choosing not to play.
>>3563613% to-hit is a very bad system when it involves few attacks that are also high stakes. The small sample size for individual encounters also means that the probability will never feel or be accurate.In an encounter a character might attack 10 times with a 90% chance to hit. Does this mean the character will generally hit 9 times out of 10 in every encounter? Not at all. In one encounter that could be 5 hits out of 10, in another 2 or even 0 hits out of 10, in the encounter after that you might hit 6 out of 10 hits.You could then do the opposite for enemies, where they hit and crit several times in a row with a 25% chance to hit attack.Since attacks to-hit is by the very nature also an RNG roll that happens directly after your decision point, you could consistently make the best possible decisions but then get screwed by RNG which in turn makes that a "bad" decision. In some games that could even lead to things like perma death of a character.While there are elements some people like, in particular the slot machine' winning pulls' where you can get some lucky streaks or land some 20% to-hit attack and crit, the overall design concept is too flawed and ill-fitting.There are even games where devs use hidden bonuses for the player and such, yet players will still run into the "shitty RNG" issues constantly because of the inherent issues with to-hit based RNG design and small sample size.
>>3563847>the overall design concept is too flawed and ill-fitting.In theory, "bad rng" adds excitement to a game, even when played perfectly. Shit happens, now let's see how you deal with this scenario. It's highly enjoyable if you accept it as intended, roll with it and have fun with the consequences.But many players prefer predictability and optimizing the fun out of games.Turn-based strategy with informed decision making is easy to play perfectly, and RNG curveballs are a great way to break the monotony.
>>3563878It's not a bad roll breaks it, it's that there are too many inherent problems with to-hit based RNG which there is absolutely no fix for. To make matters worse, this to-hit system is frequently used in games that are supposed to be more tactical/strategic, but it directly contradicts that.The main appeal of RNG is the unpredictability, but you're better off putting that RNG elsewhere. Things the player has time to react to and make decisions around. Or at the very least, making the hit itself guaranteed as a baseline, but the damage being within a range (unless the enemy or you has some evasive ability or armor, the hit will hit for 2-8 damage). >Shit happens, now let's see how you deal with this scenario. Which as I mentioned can be done better without any problems. It's uninteresting to have to "react" to several shitty dice rolls on your part after you make the best possible decisions with a good plan and the enemy pulls off a string of lucky hits. It actively makes it less tactical and strategic and can actively reward bad play from the player if they get lucky/enemy unlucky, which also gives false data. to the player. There are just an endless string of issues with RNG based to-hit that there is no solution to.One of the best designed turn based combat systems to date is in Midnight Suns. They intricately understood all the issues I'm talking about and more stuff I have yet to mention. It's a very dynamic and balances randomness with tactics while also having great pacing despite being turn-based. The ability to set up combos also makes combat less rigid.
>>3563902>putting that RNG elsewhere. Things the player has time to react to and make decisions aroundWe will have to disagree here. I've grown bored of perfectly executed plans, it quickly puts me on autopilot. Having the rug pulled underneath is effective at waking me up, and often leads to memorable, intense moments of thinking on your feet to salvage the situation.Of course it depends on the game, how wild the RNG is and the effects etc. Fire Emblem in my experience has had a pleasant balance.
>>3563943>We will have to disagree here. I've grown bored of perfectly executed plansRolling dice until you succeed is not a very cerebral exercise. It's a slot machine. >autopilotThere is nothing more boring than the bog standard turn-based combat system using grids, rng to hit and a static encounter setup. When the only thing players have to react to is a diceroll you know your combat system is crap.
>>3563968>Rolling dice until you succeed is not a very cerebral exercise.Uh, are you talking about some specific game, or savescumming, or.. literally throwing dice?
>>3564009RNG to-hit is effectively a "dice roll". 0-100% to hit chance is effectively a D100. >savescummingIs a direct result of just some of the unsolvable problems caused by RNG to-hit. You can't blame the player for savescumming either since you as a dev not only drive people to do it but also allow it.
>/vrpg/ will defend thisI'm wrapping up with Binding Blade and the late game is almost pure cancer.Lazy copy paste nomad trooper and wyvern spam out the ass and mages sniping you with berserk or sleep and arbalests making your fliers completely unviable.Cheap, unfair design, which is a shame because the one map in the lategame that doesn't pull out all the bullshit gimmicks is actually challenging and fun to play.
>>3563968If you're winning purely through luck, then your tactics are terrible.
>>3563968You don't have to attack first, you bloodthirsty brute.Make the enemies movement part of your movement. Let them come to you, because if you can kill in two rounds, let them attack first on enemy phase and you finish them on your phase means you will likely only get attacked once, and may not even get hit.If you did, you will still have the chance to heal any lost HP. Healing can also be made part of your movement to approach the enemy! >not attacking first is a waste of timeThis is not a normal turn based rpg. Stop treating it like it is. There are tactics that you can use to mitigate the RNG.If the hitrate of the enemies were 100%, would you do it then?? Because that would be the only way you could survive then because most characters can only tank one hit before healing. And that's basically how it is in the Tellius games because of how high the hitrate is.
>>3562613the only difficulty in these games is playing around the rng>>3564039binding blade is as good as fire emblem ever gets, sounds like you have a skill issue, maybe don't play on hard difficulty next time.
>>3562613There is a fire emblem were the Hit % was so fuck bad done that 72% was less accurate than a 30% or something like that
>>3564033>You can't blame the player for savescumming either since you as a dev not only drive people to do it but also allow it.Nah, RNG or no, savescummers will savescum. Let them, it's not worth trying to design a savescumproof game. It's their problem.
>>3564042That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if the only excitement you get and the thing preventing you from being bored of the combat system are the random slot machine pulls from the RNG to-hit, that's a really telling sign that the combat system and encounter design isn't good.>>3564058I'm not specifically talking Fire Emblem. If I was then that opens a whole can of worms of new problems.I was specifically talking RNG to-hit and how it's a legitimately bad design to use that creates a mountain of unsolveable problems for no actual benefit. It's an archaic system tracing back to really old games and P&P with dice (which were used because of limitations).Also as mentioned above in this post, if a game's combat and encounter suddenly become "boring" if you remove RNG to-hit, then the combat and encounters themselves are bad, since the only excitement comes from triggering the "gambling" center of your brain. That the combat is a skinner box.
>>3564068>Nah, RNG or no, savescummers will savescum. Let them, it's not worth trying to design a savescumproof game. It's their problem.People wanting to savescum (even if they don't) just illustrates one of the many problems. It feels random, it doesn't align with the probability being shown to them, it can invalidate good decisions and reward bad decisions, it can often feel like bullshit, strings of bad luck severely punishing you when it was out of your control and so on.There is no upside to this system apart from it being a skinner box for some. It's legit bad.
>>3564072Savescummers always have excuses.>There is no upside to this systemI disagree. It keeps the game fresh and unpredictable, and increases complexity by requiring backup plans, prepared or not.
>>3564064there is not
>>3564080>Savescummers always have excuses.I'm speaking from a game design perspective.>It keeps the game fresh and unpredictableIt really doesn't. It's like a sleeping pill for me because that gambler's part of my brain is basically non-existant. So all that remains is the surrounding actual gameplay and systems, and if I don't get excitement or something interesting from that boredom sets in quickly,Unpredictability from RNG to-hit is the lamest shit, because it's not actually unpredictable. It's not like enemy reinforcements or some bonus oppurtunity arising. It has 2 known binary outcomes. You know the 2 outcomes that will happen. Either your (or the enemy) intended action randomly fails or succeeds and that's it. It's a known factor. A "backup plan" isn't even a thing and can randomly not work anyway ("it's ok, I only need to hit with 1 attack and I have 4 attacks from other characters").If we're talking Chess or Go, that isn't even looking 2 turns ahead.Systemic randomness from events and other things happening during a fight is an example of something that actually makes combat encounters more interesting and "unpredictable".
>>3564099>So all that remainsYou're thinking in binary.>It has 2 known binary outcomes.Nope.>A "backup plan" isn't even a thingNope.Seriously, what game are you talking about? Or is this some meaningless generalization?
>>3563878The problem with Fire Emblem isn't so much the lack of predictability as it is there's not really a way to fix a bad situation. If you get a bad string of stat growths you can fix the problem with items. You may still end up under optimized that way but it's workable. In battle though if you goof up or get RNG'd to death there's no real reason to do anything BUT start over. It takes too long to build a character to where your other character was and even if you use items to match like my previous example you don't get the personal pleasure from getting another character up to speed as you do when fixing a character you like. Games like FFT or Valkyria Chronicles will give you a few turns to try and save that person which actually adds an interesting sense of urgency and strategy as you now have to plot how to save them if you can. You can say it's the players who don't like randomness but there's not really anything the randomness ever adds beyond some annoyance.
>>3564107>You're thinking in binary.Most games that have RNG to-hit only have hit or miss results, not grazes or similar. So a binary outcome, hit or miss.>Nope.Maybe you consider "I'll try and save 2 other characters shots in case the first one misses" or something as a "backup plan", but that doesn't even qualify as a backup plan to me. It's passive. Automatic. Boring and uninteresting, requiring zero thought.Stacking several misses in a row on multiple enemies and such still doesn't make it unpredictable, since you can easily factor in outcomes like "if all of my attacks misses and all enemy attacks hit, this is the outcome" which isn't an unknown, but something you can imagine and visualize. The pieces on the playing field is a known factor.Which is why if that's the main thing that gives your combat system "excitement", then it's a bad combat system and encounter design. Because the excitement just comes from the part of your brain that enjoys gambling and skinner boxes. RNG to-hit is in fact the most casual approach you can take, which is ironic since some people delude themselves that it's hardcore.
>>3564114Again, what game are you pulling these simplistic imaginary scenarios from?
>>3564119I am speaking broadly about the system itself that is shared by a lot of games. Doesn't really matter if the focus was on one game since they all share the same problems because they're inherent to the system. Be they Fire Emblem, Wasteland 3 or whatever.If you start focusing on individual games, then you'll open a whole can of worms of other issues as well.But the point remains the same, RNG to-hit is an inherently flawed system with big unsolveable problems and no real upside, that also makes combat less tactical and strategic.But too many devs just copy what came before it or what's similar to what they've played, retreading the same problems and improving nothing.
>>3564126>I am speaking broadlyRight. Well your arguments and imaginary scenarios have been unconvincing. Again we'll have to disagree.
>>3564033Typically when people complain about "dice roll" combat what they are actually complaining about is dnd style combat where the neutral hit rate is 50%.Nobody complains about jrpg style dice roll because hit rats are rarely below 90% outside of special mechanics.
>>3564126There is nothing inherently wrong with RNG accuracy, only bad systems that create combat scenarios with 2 combatants missing for 5 minutes straight. Final Fantasy tried fixing this by increasing the number of attacks per turn to smooth things out. Over the course of 4 games the tweaked the mechanics and fixed low accuracy style combat pretty well, but ultimately they decided to drop it for a more reasonable and modern system in ff5 and onward
>>3564126this shit was my biggest beef with enchant farm. your first 2-3 hours are literally just flipping a fucking coin and praying it lands on heads so you don't miss. the only upside is that it can be heavily abused in your favor once you realize how overpowered shit like blinding and paralyzing enemies can be, but holy shit, until it clicks, it just fucking sucks dick.
>>3564208>your first 2-3 hours are literally just flipping a fucking coinYour fault for playing rpg maker slop lol
>>3564215i know, learned my lesson. i just wasn't expecting any game let alone some jank ass rpg maker shit to be so goddamn brutal with the accuracy. it really puts other games to shame in this way.you have almost no choice except to spend the early game grinding for agility levels, which is such a huge design mistake. and some slow ass characters never make it out of the missing salt mines.
>>3562613>Pic related, I somehow missed with a +70% hit chance.70% chance to hit is nearly a 1/4 chance to miss.
>>3562613>game is bad because RNG
>>3562613I once somehow hit with a +30% hit chance. RNG literally makes no sense.
>>3564153>Right. Well your arguments and imaginary scenarios have been unconvincingDoesn't matter what you think, since I'm talking about reality. RNG to-hit does have unsolvable problems which stem from inherent issues. Things such as>if you have a character on average be able to attack 10 times or less per encounter, whatever probability you have will never be "accurate" because of things like the law of large numbers (basically means the probability only averages out with a large enough sample size, which is at the minimum 100 if we're being very very generous, but ideally a min of 1000). a lot more to unpack here>if you have hidden modifiers you will mess up people's perception of the probability even more while not actually making a big enough dent to compensate for the small sample size>putting an RNG roll directly after the decision point means your decision being "good" or "bad" is left up to chance, which can punish initially good decisions and reward bad ones, randomly>just thinking of saving a few extra attacks doesn't even qualify as some "backup" strat. it's something basic everyone does. it's the equivalent of just thinking "maybe i'll move with my rook next turn" in chess and not even considering multiple options or several turns in the future. >if you have a hit or miss result for an attack, you can easily visualize what might happen even several turns down the line by working through different scenarios, not making it "unpredictable". what is more unpredictable is if say a group of enemies would randomly spawn behind you, which would also be more interesting and actually force you to re-adjust and adaptdoesn't matter if you don't want to hear this. It's just how it is, even if you don't like it.If you don't think so, then try and convince yourself with arguments (don't have to post it). If you can't then maybe re-consider your position.
>>3564923>doesn't matter if you don't want to hear thisLike... how you keep ignoring our advice and only want to hear something that reaffirms your flimsy whining?
>>3564161There are no good RNG to-hit systems. Just ones you overlook because everything surrounding it compensates for it and carries it.If you want RNG for to-hit I think it works better when used selectively and sparingly. Like a buff that gives evasion or a miss chance to the enemy, while normally all attacks land. You can then tie this into the character, like a character that is less durable but use dodge chance as damage mitigation and might have abilities that proc effects on dodge (like a counter attack). So if someone really likes that RNG aspect a player can go all in on characters like that, while still resulting in a more stable and less flawed system.
>>3564926Your "advice" consists of posts like >>3564153 which is just someone saying "uh... you're wrong" with zero arguments or facts. Nothing but logical fallacies.Maybe this is a first for you, but how about you try using actual arguments next time.
>>3564923>RNG roll directly after the decision point means your decision being "good" or "bad" is left up to chanceRNG is part of decision making.>just thinking of saving a few extra attacksAssuming you can afford it. You might need to rethink your whole strategy, depending on the complexity.>what is more unpredictable is if say a group of enemies would randomly spawnAgain you're thinking in binary. You can have both.Try harder.
>>3564935>RNG is part of decision making.No it isn't and it's clear I'm talking about concepts you're not aware of, such as input and output randomness. I suggest looking it up if you want to discuss RNG design.>Assuming you can afford it. You might need to rethink your whole strategy, depending on the complexity.What? No. If you've played chess or go even semi-seriously you would realize that what you're describing is beginner level. You're blowing it out of proportion, like someone trying to tell people that making instant mash is very difficult.You're trying really hard to oversell it to try and desperately sell the idea that you need to make big brain planning and decisions with RNG to-hit, which isn't the case at all.>Again you're thinking in binary. You can have both.Congrats, but you can also skip the RNG to-hit and make a better combat system and then have the more interesting and better designed RNG (that is actually "unpredictable") take place as well.But the point was that you or the one you're piggybacking off said that without RNG to-hit combat becomes too predictable (which as already stated, it doesn't). As you trying to sell the idea that RNG to-hit is needed, which it isn't.>Try harder.You're the one that needs to start trying to be less close-minded. You're approaching this with a biased mindset, with no intention of changing it regardless of what anyone says.You don't even like hearing factual problems being listed about RNG to-hit. It wouldn't even surprise if you fell back on the overused logical fallacy on this board "you got filitered", which is just code for "I am too close-minded to accept that I'm wrong and can't even convince myself that I'm right, so I'll just plug my ears and insult other people instead".
>>3562613>Pic related, I somehow missed with a +70% hit chance.You should've used a spell with a better accuracy. Druids can cast anima spells too.
>>3562613>>3562616>filtered by the GBA gamesThe shit I get to see on this board, holy shit
>>3564952>you trying to sell the idea that RNG to-hit is neededNope, I just like it in the case of Fire Emblem. It adds another layer.Like I said, depends on the game.
>>3564957Knoll is a Shaman when he joins you.After his abysmal performance I permanently benched him.
>>3564977Oh I assumed OP took the screemshot, where Knoll is a druid. IIRC he joins with a promotion item on him.Regardless, Flux would've had a better accuracy than Nosferatu.
>>3564971Fire Emblem does not need it and would be improved without it. The rock-paper-sciccor:eque system they have is also not needed and just dumbs things down and pigeonholes.As I said, games are good in spit of RNG to-hit, not because of it. Because not a single game has implemented it well because it has so much inherent bagage you can't get rid of.
>>3564981All right, we'll just have to disagree on this.
>>3564980I am OP, using the Master Seal on him was a mistake, he still has an E in anima tomes after he promotes and by that point I already had Mage Knights like Ewan or the purple haired nerd dishing out damage with much better mobility.
>>3565001>Mage Knights like EwanYeah that's probably more optimal. I did make Ewan a shaman once, since he had good stats for it. Those shades he could summon ended up being useful a couple of times.
>>3562613>i somehow missed with a 70% chance70% doesn't mean 100% you dumb fucking nigger. you will miss 30% of the hits that say 70%. Dumb fucking sub human.
>>3562622is the opposite you fucking cry baby faggot
