Poll: RNG in Gaming Combat

[The Enquirer]

NOTE: For whatever reason it isn't letting me edit the title of the poll, just know that it is directed towards combat in games in general, not just online.

So in short, do you approve of RNG during a game's combat? That being things such as random critical hits, or even having a range of base damage entirely dependent on the role of the dice?

To elaborate a bit further, I'm specifically directing the focus of the question towards online gaming in specific (feel free to chime in with single player experiences as well!) because those are obviously more competitive by definition than single player wherein the game is most times at a fixed difficulty.

For me personally, I'm heavily against RNG combat. It doesn't mean I don't find it enjoyable, however for a competitive setting granting the ability for a player to outright outperform someone else at any given moment simply by luck just irks me as it takes a lot away from the player who managed to come into the fight with an advantage because they positioned themselves better, or have slightly better aim, or even a better team.

Also note that I don't absolutely abhor RNG, some of my favorite games such as KOTOR have it.

 

[Zhukov]

Not a fan, personally.

It can work alright when the rolls on a given set of odds are extremely frequent since the high frequency will average out the randomness.

However it just sucks to win or lose because you got a string of lucky or unlucky rolls that are completely beyond your control. For example, missing four 90% shots in XCOM or winning a TF2 duel because you got a random crit.

If I wanted to fight with a RNG I'd go play pokie machines.

 

[MHR]

There's nothing like busting up 3 people with a randomly critical rocket. It's worth eating one a few times. Random sometimes means more interesting.

 

[Summerstorm]

Random means you can't be totally sure of something.

While it can be frustrating if everything seems to go wrong (If it is truly random you can lose a 50/50 chance uncountable times in a row) But usually in games things are not totally random (Usually it gives you a bonus if you had bad luck for a longer time)

Overall it adds some uncertainty which, in my opinion, improves gameplay. It creates chances for underdogs. Rewards risky behavior (Which spices up the game)

For example if there are crits in the game, it is always better to attack as much as possible. Which encourages jumping out and blast away, even though you are one vs. three or something. (Team Fortress 2)

Also it switches up the game - forces you to adapt und rethink your approach. Oh noes, we lost 2 Dudes the last jumps, but found a good beam-weapon... but i was doing the boarding approach. (FTL)

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I don't have a problem with randomness as long as it's applied across the board. I mean, my main interaction with such is in Wargaming's World of Tanks/Planes/Warships, where you're simultaneously balancing simulating crews, ammo irregularities, guns and internal components of varying qualities, and the need for still having a relatively fast-paced arcade game.

The idea that my shot may not end up exactly where I want it or that one shot will set someone on fire while another won't just kinda makes sense.

Skill, in a game that has RNG, means that you manage your potential outcomes better than your opponent. Poker has far, far, far more RNG than most video games would even dream of, and yet skilled players rank higher and win more than randos.

 

[StatusNil]

I kind of don't approve of online in RNG games.

But I guess if the rules are explicit and people want to play that way, why not?

 

[Smooth Operator]

It's an alright filler for mechanics when you can't do better, and obviously adds a sense of gambling as anything wacky and crazy can happen at any time... but not really.
I would prefer if games slowly phased that out, or at least put it as an option because other people will want random over definitive mechanics.

 

[Mikeybb]

Dependent on the game I suppose.
Even then, I prefer it within a limited range rather than a complete wide spectrum.
It lets you feel like you have a controlling element over the odds.
For the most part though, I like them.

 

[Aetrion]

The poll isn't very good IMO because there is more to it than just yes/no.

Personally I can't stand it if success or failure of an action is randomized in a game, even if the primary challenge to the game is manipulating the odds.

I don't mind at all if a game has a little bit of randomness in the outcome, like having a range of damage to attacks, that often makes the game a bit more interesting, for example by making it so that the exact number of attacks it takes to kill any given enemy isn't always the same.

I really like games that randomize on the front end, before you do stuff. Like if monsters can have a variety of weapons, and what they happen to carry makes a difference in how you fight them.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

If it's a strategy game, especially one based on a board game, then I have no problem with it. Games like Warmachine: Tactics and Blood Bowl are played with dice, so the randomness already factors in before it ever got translated to a video game medium.

The ones I do have an issue with are the ones in which it will never go to 100% certainty (I think old school D&D set a 95% certainty limit on any action, for example). I get the idea that "well anything can happen!", but to a certain degree the chances are so infinitesimal that it's not even worth factoring them in.

I mean, if you put a little league Football team up against a professional NFL team, is there a chance the little league team will win? Yes, in a giant, cosmic sense, there is, but the chance is so insignificantly small it shouldn't even factor in to the RNG for the purposes of making a determination. Likewise, in X-Com, is there a chance that my highly trained and experienced soldier armed with a shotgun is going to miss the gigantic Sectopod standing right next to him? Theoretically yes, but the chances are so minute it shouldn't even be a factor in gameplay.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I like all the "Random Mage" and "Random Priest" deck concepts from Hearthstone, so I approve of RNJesus.

EDIT: I also like the Sci-Fi Handgun's secondary ricochet fire from Timesplitters. Just not when my brother has the same weapon. >_>'

 

[sageoftruth]

I have a friend who is really into games with randomness, mainly because he's into board games. He made an interesting point about randomness. His favorite kind is the kind where randomness determines what you're up against, rather than whether or not you'll succeed. So basically, you roll the dice and then make decisions, rather than making decisions and then rolling the dice.

 

[bigwon]

I think it has it's place in gaming.

The practical implementation of it in games from what I understand is "Risk Management"

It's lining/positioning all of your variables in the way to boost the chances as high as you can and being able to think ahead and mitigate any failed rolls. I think this is were games can be made or broken regarding dice rolls.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I cannot say it's my favourite mechanic per se, but I certainly don't dislike randomness in either loot or combat. It may not work in all games, but among the many I've played that do have an RNG mechanic in combat, I've found it generally fair, well implemented and sound. In particular, the "D20" games of yore, like BG2, NWN, KotOR and so on implement the RNG element very well. Skills and feats make a difference and in the context of the game, the player does get gradually stronger with levels and skill investment. The hit/damage/crit ranges can be increased/decreased/widened/narrowed as appropriate.

It also serves in a way to reflect the freneticism/chaos of combat. While "In real life" isn't the best analogy, given combat in any context between two people, especially if life is on the line, there will be misses and dodges, glancing blows and weapons jamming, ammo depleting, parries, deflections and so on. RNG in games, when tuned well, can reflect a dextrous character's ability to avoid hits, a master archer's unerring accuracy, a nimble knife-fighter spotting an opening/opportunity, etc. And of course, sometimes plain ol' blind luck.

Some games take it too far. One of the main reasons I disliked Wasteland 2, and couldn't bring myself to even finish it, is how they implemented the randomness (the terrible skill system doesn't help either). At any given time, for any given party member, they could panic (losing control of them and their actions for the duration), have a weapon jam, run out of ammo, miss, lack enough action points, be out of range, etc. There were so many ridiculous factors at play that combat was a long, drawn out, over-complicated chore.

 

[Gray-Philosophy]

In short, no.

Depending on the type of game it can work in making an otherwise static combat system more interesting, if done right.

I've always had a strong preference towards games with a more skill based type of combat system though, like many FPS games. Where you can beat your opponent because you were better at controlling the mechanics rather than having a lucky streak of crits or otherwise overwhelming numbers.

Still, I tolerate it. I play a variety of games that have RNG combat systems and I'm not too bothered in the long run, as long as it's not outrageously unpredictable or inconsistent.

Moving slightly off topic though, something I absolutely despise is RNG based loot systems. Motherf#@!i&! £¤!?+?#aaargh!

 

[Mister K]

Depends on a combat abilities that are affected by the RNG. If, for example, the ability does damage but it also has a chance to stun a target, then it's fine. However, if it's either an ability that stuns target but if you aren't lucky it stuns you, that it's not okay.

 

[BytByte]

TF2 has been the worst offender, as random crits, especially crockets and Medic saws seem to happen more often than regular shots. Thankfully, servers can turn it off, but when you do everything right in terms of tactics and get blasted, it sucks.

Also any RNG in RPGs where monsters have insta-kill moves immediately turns me off because SERIOUSLY?!?

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I really dislike RNG.
I don't want a game where my skill is less relevant than my luck. I'm a really unlucky guy (I will lose in a board game absolutely always, in Monopoly people will make 2 rounds around me map before I manage to make a single round, I will throw a dice 20 times and it will be less than 3 all 20 times, that kind of bad luck). I dislike it, I hate it.
A PA in DotA will hit 3 crits in a row on me, I will miss 8/10 attacks on her.

If I didn't want my skill to count, I would start gambling, and not play games that claim to be competitive.
Helping the underdog? Why? Why doesn't the underdog get better? Why doesn't the developer make a better matchmaking system? Because of laziness. And how would it help the underdog in the first place? We both have the same chance of getting screwed over by the RNG if we ignore my 0 luck stat.
Make it more interesting? How? How does some random shit that ruins any kind of competitiveness make the game more interesting? Maybe to watch, but certainly not to play. It's just frustrating. By adding better skills you can remove the RNG from the game.
There isn't really much use for RNG in games that can and will change the outcome of a fight. If I'm playing better, I should win, if the opponent is playing better, he should win. Simple as that.

And lets not open the can of worms that is Monster Hunter and the 1 bazillion of Pink Rathian that I've killed and didn't get the one item I absolutely need but can't get. Sure, I love hunting, but if it ends up more of a chore than playing, then the RNG looting is broken as hell.