How much randomness do you like in your strategy vidyas?
a fair bit, but battle brothers can lick my taint.
>>2140480I'm gonna be honest, not a fan of big swings. Like attacks doing 5-7 damage I can live with, yeah sometimes you''ll get cucked with an enemy on 1 hp, but it's fine and maybe exciting.13% chance to crit and the enemy crits?FUCK YOUFUCK YOUFUCK YOUPercentage crits are the gayest shit fuck off. If you want a skill to be able to crit require a pre-req like, you use expose weakpoint or something THEN your next hit will crit.
>>2140480If you can't handle randomness you're just solving puzzles, not playing strategy games
>>2140480I think some randomness is needed, but it needs to be managed right.Having a chance based outcome to actions that can cause a huge shift in a game can be fine, but only if those actions are numerous enough to reward good decision making. For example, take the difference between new XCOM and old XCOM's gameplay. In the new XCOM, your soldiers have pretty good accuracy and are fairly powerful, but missing even a single shot can have huge ramifications during a turn, let alone missing multiples in a row. In old XCOM, you have over a dozen soldiers that can attack multiple times in a turn--each of those attacks has a discrete chance to hit, and it's usually fairly low, but the way the game works you can leverage the fact that if every soldier fires three shots per turn with a 30% chance to hit and you have 12 soldiers, you're going to get an outcome pretty close to 10 hits.In another example, randomizing a player's challenge but not theirs or their enemy's toolset is good too. FTL does this by sending different enemy ships at the player. although each ship can be better or worse than its peers. You can potentially get a string of very easy ships, or if you're unlucky, a bunch of hard ones. But every fight is within your grasp to win.
I love BB but I would probably gamble all my life savings away if I didn’t play RNG vidya
There are two types of randomness: Input and Output. Input randomness generates a random situation (random map, random item, random event) and has you deal with it. This is fine - it tests your preparedness and improves replayability.Output randomness decides the outcome of actions (chance to hit, chance to crit, chance to avoid detection). This is hit and miss, literally. It's good enough for casual party games to test your luck, but in singleplayer it just wastes your time and encourages savescumming.
>>2140637Do you actually have a gambling addiction? That's tough man
>>2140480Not much and that's why I enjoy brain using games such as battlebrothers and into the breach
>>2140830maybe he's just asian
Y'all cowards would instantly commit sudoku if you ever had to play a Blood Bowl tournament. Better stick to crossword puzzles.
>he didn't appease nuffle and preload his dice pathetic
>>2140877they're soft, and weak
>>2140480I think attacks doing damage within some range rather than always doing a set amount is fine. Same with some secondary effects having a certain chance to trigger is also ok.But I'm not a big fan of random hit chance and especially when attacks are very impactful. Battle Brothers and I guess also XCom are fun games but I think the early game in both suffer from how big an impact a single hit from an enemy can have. You can set up a series of good attacks but they all miss and then one of your guys get oneshot because your dudes are weak early on. If missing an attack is a common occurence for both player and AI then I don't think a single attack should have battle deciding power.
>>2140480Strategy games need some degree of variation for them to truly qualify as strategy games, ideally you want to have complex systems that appear "random" to an outside observer, but RNG can be an acceptable replacement for simplicity's sake.My problem is with pure random chance mechanics, usually based on dice. Board game cancer has held back strategy games for decades and we need to get away from it.
>>2140480Without any chance, it becomes a puzzle game and strategy games aren't supposed to be puzzles. It also adds some excitement. Getting a crit or doing better than expected is a nice feeling.The winds of fortuna are always omnipresent in our lives and to deny that is to deny reality.
>>2141148>>2141145>>2140540>a strategy game requires randomnessunfortunately, the dullwitted on this board are more numerous than previously believed
>>2140657Why do people like you get upset at chance to hit so much?
>>2141357I missed once
>>2140480I want to combat my opponent, not my luck. The less RNG the better.
>>2140540This would be true if the game state was simple enough that you could just "solve" everything. Generally it isn't. If your game relies on randomness then you're just rolling dice, not playing strategy games.
>>2140480games with a RNG mechanic should always allow the player to mitigate or recover from negative RNG
>>2141425Mitigating risk is a skill
>>2141451Yeah just like being born in a nice family is a skill.No.
>>2141454Real life has luckReal battles involve luckReacting to luck is a test of flexibility A game with no luck may as well be a process diagram
>>2141456I don't care about real life. I just want to focus on the game.
>>2141357Depends how well it's implemented. Battle for Wesnoth is an infamous example - getting stuck in a cave level and having slap fights in tight corridors while on a time limit is just not fun. There's a mod that replaces hit rates with damage reduction, making the battles quicker, more reliable and more brutal. Jagged Alliance was nice, though. You could choose whether to aim carefully or fire off more shots. The hit percentage also wasn't shown, which made the system feel less gamey and relied more on player's experience.
>>2140540>implying puzzles games do not have randomnessHave you ever played TETRIS before?
>>2141357There are games where there's place for it and games where there isn't.Losing a crucial battle just because of insanely bad RNG is not fun.
>>2141357I will say that there's games where the punishment for missing enough is having to reload a save and that's bad if you can't do something to adjust your strategy for the fight
>>2141933There's some games like underrail that let you make some risky melee builds where you rush your opponent and fuck them up but if you roll badly and can't kill enemies which are right next to you there's literally nothing you can do outside of loading a save and trying again.
>>2141818A well-designed strategy game won't be that swingy.
>>2142620ur moms a swinger
>>2141495>There's a mod that replaces hit rates with damage reduction, making the battles quicker, more reliable and more brutal.It also turns all units that can inflict the slow status OP as fuck.
>>2140480depends on whether i'm winning or losing at the momentreal answer is, as always, that it depends, and either could be the right choice, or any point in between the two absolutes. though i disagree with some others here about big swings. that's what creates risk, tension and stories. if you don't have single big rolls, and instead have many, it becomes a game of averages and statistics -- if i have dozens of attacks per turn, you may as well just have each attack deal 3.5 damage instead of d6 or whatever, because outside of extreme freak scenarios that's what you're playing around. bloodbowl is peak rng-game btw, if you dislike that kind of stuff you're just a pussy.
>>2142620Ah yes, the mythical well-designed strategy game with chance to hit. If it existed I'm sure it would solve every problem inherent to shitty RNG laziness.Troubleshooter gets pretty close though
>>2140877I only played BB(in vidya format) with a friend before and neither of us knew much of the rules and strats.But man I fucking loved it.
>>2143474I played BB a little with the steam games tried to organize some fumbbl games with my friends but I couldn't get them into the game.It's annoying because I don't care to grind ladder or join online tournaments with people I don't know
The problem is that strategy games need some predictability. RNG is fine as long as it's predictable. You can't have a large variance in outcomes.
>>2140480I can tolerate a large amount of randomness as long as you can work around it and it doesn't lie about the %. Working around would be like planning to lose a certain amount of forces or increasing the number of chances or using aoe attacks and so on. Something that happens 10% of the time should happen fairly often but if it is constantly happening or not happening because something is at play like balancing pity hit chances or it not taking into account effects then it's bullshit. The game shouldn't be entirely hit or miss chances anyway, which goes back to being able to plan for and work around randomness. Besides battles, I feel randomness of the environment, environmental conditions, and your starting situations are necessary for a good game.
>>2140480Damage differences are fine, preferably no more than 20% from the base value.Critical hits shouldn't be random and certainly shouldn't boast a huge damage boost, at most it should be 150% damage.That said having randomness to things like maps, enemy layouts and team compositions is something I always look forward to as it requires you to think on your feet without relying on glorified gambling, or just learning the layouts
>>2140611How the fuck did "2 Actions, at most 1 attack" per turn become popular for squad-sized games? It's horrible. Like in the shadowrun games they can get away with it because the gameplay is balls anyway, but why the fuck did they stick with it for nucom
>>2144446It's simple, and it was popularized by nu-XCOM.Turn units are too complicated for normie gamers, despite the fact they give the most options.
>>2144446simple sells
>>2144446It's very discrete and makes turns snappy. Having 1 move+1 attack is easier for people to parse, plus it causes big effects for every action (Good or bad) which is more exciting to most players. The problem is that it's incredibly affected by the roll of the dice and losing through no fault of your own is extremely frustrating.And think of it this way, those big swings don't happen as much on lower difficulties where you can take multiple hits. The majority of people play on easy and normal and so they rarely see something like a soldier dying to two critical hits through heavy cover because their soldiers likely can just tank the shots. As you go up though, suddenly a single bad roll is enough to wreck your entire mission.The short answer is XCOM wasn't made first for old grognards, it was made to be something the masses could muddle through, similar to games like Fire Emblem and such.
TUs suck ass, it's just RTWP with extra cope
Using CoH as an example for good RNG:>Mortar teams shell targets but their mortars land in a random area around them>The chance of the very first shot causing high damage is virtually zero, but the longer a target holds still in the firing zone the higher the chance of them taking a direct hit becomes>However, the damage progression isn't discrete and fixed, so the opposing player has to make a gamble how long their HMG/AT team can continue to fire at their targets before they retreatSame game but bad example:>All tanks have a certain amount of armor and weapons have a certain amount of penetration>If penetration is higher than armor, shots always deal damage>If penetration is lower, there is a chance equal to (penetration / armor) the shot will penetrate and deal damage>Cue frustration when your T-34's shell bounces off a Panzer IV three times in a row despite having an 80% chance to deal damage each time>There's also a miss chance added to tanks in motion, so sometimes the crew just completely whiffs a few shots against a stationary targetTank duels were always a game of chance in it, but it felt so wrong when the WFA dropped and Americans were putting out two or three tanks compared to the Germans or Russians. At least on that though there were so many shells flying that you got a nice bell curve distribution of hits.
>>2143474It's unironically one of GW's most fun games, but man is it RNG-heavy. I can't think of any other game where your dudes can just randomly die from running too fast. It's more of a risk management game than an actual sports game.
>>2144641>It's more of a risk management game than an actual sports game.If you play ladder on the steam version you will sometimes find kill teams that solely exist to murder your guys in the hopes you resign.
>>2145019There's actually a legitimate strategy called the "2-1 Grind", which focuses on just killing the enemy tearm as much as possible, that slow but strong teams can use to force a win against much faster and more agile teams.Basically in the half where you receive the ball, you spend the entire half murdering the opponent's team and only try to score a point on the very last turn of the half, giving the opposing team no time to even the score. And in the half where the opponent's team is receiving, you still murder the fuck out of them but you also ignore the ball and leave them a way to score very easily. Hopefully they will score in like 2 or 3 turns, leaving you most of the half to score your 2nd goal and win the match against whatever's left of their team.
>>2145043>athe only. what are you, an elf?
>>2145074It isn't a great strategy against other bashy teams who will gladly go toe-to-toe with you, or even defensive teams like Dwarfs who won't give you the time you need to score that second point and aren't as scared of injuries. Even Elf teams can potentially beat it by playing keepaway and stalling on their drive so you can only get a 1-1 draw at best. If you're not careful enough or simply unlucky, they could even score on your drive which kills the entire strategy. Bashy teams rarely have the skills to quickly come back from a turnover and if an agility team manages to get a 2-0 you're entirely fucked, especially since after that they can just spend the rest of the match dancing around you and avoiding unfavorable engagements. The best you'll likely to get at that point is a 2-1 loss, so they don't really care about playing the game "properly" at that point. Yeah you might've hurt their team for the next match, but that doesn't help you if you're knocked out of the tournament.It's a good strategy in the right circumstances (I actually like it more vs Skaven than vs Elves) and some players will find it very hard to counter, but if the 2-1 Grind is your only strategy you're going to lose a lot.
>>2144446I'm not a fan of it but it does fix some problems of turn-unit-based games, like the heavy reliance on overwatch and the advance-shoot-retreat gameplay style.
>>2145147>fix some problems of turn-unit-based games, like the heavy reliance on overwatchIs this a joke? Overwatch crawl was such an unbeatable strategy in nuXCOM that they added time limits to nuXCOM2 just to prevent people from spamming overwatch.
>>2145101very interesting, please continue writing things i'm absolutely reading
>>2145158Don't be a loser all your life.
>>2145147>heavy reliance on overwatchJust reduce the reaction fire chances to make it unreliable?>advance-shoot-retreatMap design and AI issue. If the map has enough cover and AI can push semi-intelligently, you can't camp.
Rng is fine but most of it should happen before player decisionmaking.If your game has both to-hit and damage rolls, any kind of planning is pretty much impossible because the spread of possible outcomes it too great.
>>2145459Ill help you since you're stupidYou should make a plan for when you dont hit enough and for when you get hit too much
>>2145543>build your plan around the .01% lowrollDamn, do you give lessons?
>>2141447Dungeons of Nahelbeuk did this right.Fumbling rolls (and enemy crits) filled a meter that granted abilites.
>>2145663The first lesson is stop blaming the rngThe second lesson is git gud
>>2146022>git gud at dice rollsYou should write guides.
>>2144446that and the dogshit pod spawn system or whatever it's called made me never touch xcom2I tried phoenix point which was slightly better but dropped it for other reasons
>>2145101>if the 2-1 Grind is your only strategy you're going to lose a lot.not ere ta winjust ere ta krump
>>2140480RNG should be big enough that it forces you to change your plans but not enough that it can cause swings between I won and I lost.A 90% chance to hit when it takes 4 attacks to kill or die is perfectly fine. It gives you multiple turns to solve the issue. A 90% hit chance when it takes 1 attack to kill or die isn't, you either play like you will hit that 10% every time or you will lose when you hit that 10%, and if you play around it then hit that 10% twice you alt+f4.
>>2140480I fucking despise hit probability. Mostly because it's always dumb shit that makes missing too likely and you sit there watching your unit carefully and slowly fuck up all of your planning and timing by whiffing three shots in a row after you gave him every possible situational advantage. Otherwise I like most RNG elements because it adds variety and luck.
>>2140480In my games in gneral I prefer randomness of scenario, i.e. having the dice decide on relatively equal setups of map layouts or neutral army compositions, natural features or assets.What I strongly dislike is randomness of outcome, becoming worse with greater deviations, especially if the scenario or campaign expects of you to work with tight resources with no room for contingencies and still pull off a perfect run in order to get the best outcome.For example, Panzer Corps or Panzer General has some scenarios in which you can at times only pull off a decisive victory if every attack goes as predicted. If one or two units are especially lucky in avoiding damage or even inflicting damage, you need to spend more turns dealing with them and even more to repair, therefore missing the goal. That has nothing to do with strategy, if the same setup leads to a wildly different outcome the next time when RNGsus decides to not throw a massive wrench into your plans.Civilization V did well to limit the influence of randomness in combat. I think it was limited to 10% or 25% deviation of the predicted result and you most often had enough resources, i.e. space or time to trade to heal a badly damaged unit or enough production to build a new one.>>2140657That is a nice and concise way of putting it. Thank you.Good game design doesn't encourage save scumming and possibly even removes the possibility of it by generating a random seed at the start of the game and then keeping it throughout its course.
>>2146869donald krump
>>2147931krump yourself
>>2140480I think the best use of RNG was in World of Tanks (an otherwise shit game, don't play it).Armor Penetration was a boolean result, you either bounced and did no damage, or pierced and did full damages.Armor thickness was constant, but shell's armor penetration had some RNG.The game was balanced (probably more by luck than anything) so that in 90% of all situations there was effectively no RNG: you were either guaranteed to pierce due to big gun/good angle/weakspot/etc or you were guaranteed to bounce.RNG was only there when you picked a target that you should be able to 100% pierce, but decided to not wait for an optimal angle & distance.For a XCOM/BB/etc type of game, it would like if hit% was pretty much always 100% or 0%, and the in-between an edge-case that could be solved by moving one just more tile.
>>2147931that's the new Ogre player in the Bögenhafen Brawlers isn't it?
>>2146189Fortuna is a skill.
>>2149312Yeah and get this... he's... ORANGE!
>>2140510The original skirmish demo of battle brothers is great. Watching "good" battle brothers players on twitch use the most bullshit min/max and coward exp mooching tactics is hot garbage. They also likely mod the difficulty down because the computer misses far more often against them in brand new games.
>>2141495Wesnoth difficulty is artificial. Trying to jog across a map full of enemies, that are more or less mobile land mines, and milk exp is silly not difficult. Maybe you win, maybe you die, most people save scum. The best campaigns give you a fighting chance without scumming, farming, or hoping the campaign isn't going to end if you spend more than 5 turns on a map.
>>2140877Is that like mutant league football?
>>2149629can't blame a lad for getting a bit jaundiced with all those niggles to drink away
>>2150879it's the game MLF is ripping off (no the genesis game doesn't count)
The problem with battle brothers is grindiness, not randomness. Getting your unit randomly decapitated is not a big deal if they're appropriately expendable in regards to the player's time investment. Battle Brothers uses statistical outliers as an excuse to tax the player's progression moreso than to create interesting combat situations.
>>2150943retro genesis is all I know. You had to be very good at certain skills to avoid attrition in the tournament. If you're not playing as the best teams your linemen tended to get greased.
>>2144446Games haven't been made for gamers (or thinking human beings for that matter) in decades, in case you somehow missed that.Old/indie games have been better for the longest time, and now the mainstream gayming industry has even fucked up graphics&optimization so there's no reason to bother at all.
>>2146189It's called game theory.Ever wonder why top players of any traditional roguelike have high and consistent win rates? Despite the extremely RNG-heavy mechanics coupled with high difficulty?Remember when casinos started banning card counters? Remember MIT blackjack team?
>>2151174Where do high level players of traditional roguelikes congregate? There must be some informal leaderboards and video evidence. I actually want to see that.
>>2151664Most popular roguelikes have ladders where people upload their wins, and DCSS has an annual online tournament if you wanna look at winstreaks, this year highest was 17
>>2140877I love blood bowl and I feel like shit whenever the dice say Fuck You on basic rolls over and over againI wish 3 never came out because it was made in the current era of shitty ugly graphics + incredibly poor UI/UX + bland sameyness + even more extreme whaling macrotransactions, and the current GW political conformity era of "We hate everything we once stood for".I also hear fans of 1 wish 2 never came out (I am envious of having more than one grass pitch to play on).I wish I could play it IRL but model games are for children with friends (and a lack of video games). A shame because the Chorf models are amazing.
>>2140480I like how slice N dice does it. On each turn, you roll which actions you get to play, but there is no more randomness when you play them.
>>2151174>Ever wonder why top players of any traditional roguelike have high and consistent win rates? My guess is they can be played extremely safely, playing to the worst possible outcomes and avoiding risks.
>>2145686it's impressive how nice that game was, considering the origin material.
In bloodbowl, while you're playing each turn differently, you are going through a mental checklist to layer things from most important to least important and less risky to most risky every turn.I argue that it doesn't really count as RNG-based because the whole gameplay is about calculating odds. Sure bad rolls might lose or win you the game but both sides are equally affected by chance and consistently good plays should win regardless.Meanwhile in something like nu XCOM your opponents are NPCs that aren't meant to have equal odds of winning the encounter. So it generally doesn't matter if you kill a sectoid in one shot or two, or if a sectoid lands a low damage hit or misses, it's specifically when you can't finish an enemy despite 80%+ hitchances or a lucky roll lets them hit a 10% hitchance crit on an otherwise perfectly safe soldier that it becomes annoying.
>>2140480>too much randomness, and player cannot improve>too little randomness, and game becomes too predictableIMO sweet spot is 50% random
>IMO sweet spot is 50% randomHalf of the time the game is random and the other half it's not?
>>2155796When you issue an order your unit has a 50% of doing that order or something completely different. 50% random sweet spot.
>>2156512keksounds like real life
>>2156512Radio commander had an optional thing were sometimes your soldiers reported the wrong coordinates.So there was no RNG in the outcome of your orders but if you weren't paying attention and misinterpreted the situation you could end up giving wrong orders.Cool idea but the game itself is not that interesting.
hating rng is a sign of a low iq autist. someone who needs concrete structures but also too dumb to integrate randomness into their plans. you know it's true and it's ok but don't pretend that your opinion counts for something
>>2146969ever heard of a fallback plan?
>>2141240>>a strategy game requires randomnessYes.>If, therefore, we were to give fixed results for fire effect we would arrive at a very unnatural situation. It would be possible to calcualte results in advance, and an important argument for forming a reserve, for instance, would go by the board. Such unnatural fire results would cause a thousand other mistakes to creep in, and the game would become more like a calculation exercise than a battle study.Although really it's not actually randomness thats required but 'unknown' factors. Without unknown factors it is a calculation exercise, not a game of strategy.Randomness is an easy and effective unknown.There's a golden point. Some randomness combined with unknowns(such as fog of war) create the right conditions for a game that isn't just a series of puzzles with a definitive and calculable answer.
>>2145459>the spread of possible outcomes it too great.I'm sorry Mr Hitler I simply can't plan out this engagement, the spread of outcomes is too great.My men may or may not hit their shots.
>>2157062>hadthey removed it?
>>2157388don't think so
>>2157236Well then we'll just have to guess. Let's invade Russia, what's the worst that can happen?
>>2159538>what's the worst that can happen?I don't know there are too many variables. I couldn't even begin to guess what might happen
>>2159591Take a guess, man! Will we make it before winter?
>>2157236>I'm Hitler's top guy! Adolph Hitler chose me!
>>2159602Yes. I am confident we shall succeed.
>>2159648Very well.To the little tank!
i brought the big gun
>>2159664Success is all but assured.
>>2157190a what?
>>2159680Don't listen to him, anon is just making up words at this point.
>>2157236Again, fortuna is central to everyone's lives. The application of RNG in strategy games is just a natural reflection of that. Anything less is just a puzzle, waiting to be solved.
>>2140480>How much randomness do you like in your strategy vidyas?None, I prefer them to be completely deterministic. A good strategy game is already a complex enough system to make it unpredictable without needing random number generation. If random number generation is the difference between your game being "boring and predictable" and not being "boring and predictable" then your game is just boring and overly simplistic.
>>2160152A strategy game without RNG is called a puzzle game.
>>2151174That's just codified gambling, more math than strategy. Playing to the averages, calculating the best lines then rolling the dice to see if you won.
>>2160171Most strategy games are too complex for that to apply, so no, your argument is just as retarded as it was when you bleated it at the start of the thread.
>>2160432Complexity is just obfuscating the correct solution.If you can write a guide that details a sequence of steps that guarantee a win, your game is a puzzle game. If you can't, there's RNG somewhere along the way.
>>2150872>They also likely mod the difficulty downSomething I've noticed about other games as well in the past. Everything is fake and gay.
>>2140877We play good games, not warhammer slop.
>>2160152can you name some strategy games that you consider to be completely deterministic?
>>2160432>Most strategy games are too complex for that to applyIf its turn based then its really easy.If it's real time, potentially not.
>>2159664cute
>>2140480Something I've heard Fire Emblem games do (but haven't verified, I'm not a big fire emblem person) is that it will roll any chance twice and take an average.This means that values will fall on a bell curve. A 50/50 chance will still happen 50% of the time but the expected outcome will happen more often (a 90% chance actually becomes more like a 99% chance).I feel like games that rely on "chance to succeed" mechanics should apply that type of formula just to make the randomness "feel" better. Critical hit mechanics may need to be reworked but it otherwise shouldn't affect balance at all.
>>2162830if (cth > random.nextGaussian()) { // etc }
>>2162830But that's just as random, it's rolling with a different hitchance than what the roll says it is.What's the point of making the player success 88% of all 75% rolls when you can make that roll a 88% in the first place? Maybe if it only applies when it's advantageous to the player.
>>2163404It makes an average roll more likely and an excellent/terrible roll less likely, rather than having an average, an extremely poor, and an amazing roll, all be equally likely. This feels much better and reliable, imo.
>>2163433But I don't want the game to lie to me because bad rolls hurt normie feelings
>>2162830Sounds fine to design a game like this as long as the game tells you that's how it works. If it says 90% hit chance but the actual hit chance is 99% I find that kind of dumb.
>>2163475Yeah even if it's something like a unit with a strength of 5 points winning against a unit with a defense of 1 point more often than 80% (4 out of 5 times), then I'm fine with it and it can even make sense logically. But if it's the game telling you 80% chance of winning but its straight up lying and it's higher than what it says, that's pretty stupid.
>>2163433An average roll is already more likely than an outlier roll on average, by definition.a 35% hit chance using an average of 2 dice becomes something like a 25%, at that point you are just lying to the player
>>2163595>An average roll is already more likely than an outlier roll on average, by definition.take an ordinary six-sided die, average roll 3.5. look at it for a bit. tumble it around in your hand. roll it a few times. think about what a complete fucking idiot you are.
>>2163653An average roll is already more likely than an outlier roll on average, by definition.
Speaking of Battle Brothers and RNG, how's the MENACE demo?
>>2163404It's just for ease of maths (130 hit vs 60 avoid = 70% displayed hit because 130-60=70 instead of 82, which good luck figuring out how it landed there) and correcting for internal bias. It's no deeper than that.
>>2163713Very fun. The RNG is a lot more forgiving compared to Battle Brothers because your units are squads with several soldiers all shooting several rounds per action.Same genre of game as Battle Brothers but combat plays very differently.
>>2163704When you’re rolling a single die (e.g. a single d20, as in DnD) you’re producing a flat distribution where all results are equally likely, rather than a normal distribution.
>>2163782Yes, we know. Doesn't change that an average roll is already more likely than an outlier roll on average, by definition.
>>2163796... flat distribution has no outlier, by definition.
>>2163802We're discussing about whether or not a game should tell the player that a roll is 75% when it's actually 88% because it's rolling twice and picking the average to "feel more fair". My point was that, since rolls fall on a normal distribution and you will roll many times during a tactics match, your rolls will feel fair on their own. Fudging rolls by using an average of two rolls only serves to lie about the actual real percentage and it's immediately easy to see if you imagine a scenario where the player is rolling many low chance hitchances, because a 35% (1/3) hitchance actually being a 25%(1/4) hitchance will feel less fair, not more.I understand your point:>individual rolls have an equal chance of rolling any result!This is a bad arguments for a couple of reasons:1 - You are not rolling for a specific result, you are rolling for a range. A 75% chance of success has a 75% chance to be at or under 75, it does not have equal chance to fail or succeed. 2 - The whole point of using hitchance in tactics games is usually to maximise your odds through gameplay. Lying to the player about rolls goes against game design and can potentially confuse them.3 - It fucks with potential bonuses because a 10% improvement in your odds will actually be way stronger the closer you are to 50%: Eg 45% to 55% goes from an actual 40% to an actual 60% while an 85% to 95% goes form an actual 95% to an actual 99%4 - Unless there's a player bias both sides are rolling using the same system so the player will both hit more and be hit more, equalizing whatever benefit lying about the rolls might have.Again, my point is that if my 85% is actually a 95% just tell me it's a 95% and roll for that.So to be clear if this "roll two dice and use the average" system is going on under the hood and the player is told the real chance of the average roll succeeding then it does not matter, except for points 2 and 3 still potentially applying if it's not explained properly.
>>2163433Unless the value of the roll matters, which often it doesn't. Then its irrelevant.The idea that more dice creates a 'more average' result is only true if the degree of success matters.1d12, aiming for a 6+. 58% chance. It doesn't matter if you roll a 7 or a 12, its entirely irrelevant. Adding in more dice makes it more likely you result in a 7 than a 12, but doesn't alter the odds of success. It does nothing.2d6, aiming for a 7+ is effectively an identical chance.I don't know why this isn't intuitive to people. But I also run into 'but you're less likely to get a string of failures as you're rolling more dice.'This is also false, the chance of failing a 7+ on 2d6 twice in a row, and failing a 6+ on 1d12 twice in a row is the same. Around a 17% chance.If degrees of success matter then it's more relevant as results to the extremes are less likely. But the odds are ultimately in the designer's control and it doesn't matter what dice they use. Using dice with a curve just means that chance of success/failure increments logarithmically rather than linearly when you increase the TN if that matters.For example, if a crit is achieved on a 20 on a d20, 5% chance every roll. Then a 2d6 with crits on 11s and 12s, which is around 8%.The 2d6 will crit more often than the 1d20, and a streak of crits is therefore inherently more likely.Choice of dice type is about feel more than any 'better form of RNG'. D6s are better if a large number of dice are required as they're easy to acquire and roll enmasse(Shadowrun, a lot of wargames etc). D100 has huge granularity over chances and bonuses, but it also is very transparent with odds of failure / success without doing the odds. Systems that use dice strange symbols can make the odds more opaque, where its harder to figure a chance of success on the fly for someone.In video games most of this stuff is entirely irrelevant.
>>2140480>PvEtoo much can be frustrating but if you can savescum or games are quick it doesn't bother me either way. I enjoy playing around it.>PvPI think a fair dose is absolutely crucial or you'll get lots of *very* one-sided matchups and that's not fun for anyone (at least until you're going over your replays after)
>>2164130You fundamentally don't understand what's going on here. Under 2RN, anything above 78 is all 90%+ hit rates. Rather than being screwed 22 out of 100 times on average, you only get screwed 9.5 times out of 100.Even in your 2d6 example you failed to tell the truth: There are far more combinations that make up a 7 or higher than make up a roll 6 or lower. 7 alone is the most common roll in a 2d6 because it can be made from>1+6>2+5>3+4>4+3>5+2>6+1Six different rolls. Whereas rolling a 6 specifically is>1+5>2+4>3+3>4+2>5+1Five different rolls.The number of valid combinations gets lower as you get towards the edges. With 2d6 there's exactly 1 combination out of the dozens of possible results that will come up for a roll of a 2: 1+1. If you need a 3 or higher to hit with a d12, there are 2 results that will cause you to miss: 1 or 2, and there are 10 results that will cause you to hit: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.If you tried the same thing with 2d6 and you needed a 3 to hit, there is only 1 roll that will cause you to miss: the double 1s. Meanwhile all of the other dozens of combinations of rolls will mean your attack is a hit.
I want /tg/ to go back to /tg/.
>>2140480Bumping
