Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
I HATE THE 'MISS' MECHANIC
Posts
Linkis
View playlists
CloseOK, I think it's time all you people making games for my pleasure need to update all your old games so I can play them without the fear of death or missing with a well aimed bolt of magic :)
Thank You Kindly,
Linkis
Thank You Kindly,
Linkis
author=LockeZ
Variance isn't a reason, it's the thing he's asking you the reason for. Also, variance and luck are the same thing. You can't have one without the other. If the variance/luck doesn't actually DO anything then you might as well accomplish it by randomly having different battle animations instead. That would be far more interesting than showing a meaninglessly different number.
What I mean is that I don't mind RNG when it has an insignificant impact, like a small variance in damage so you doesn't see the same number over and over, but I think it is bad when it has a large impact in the outcome of the event like a chance based decisive move.
Also it's easier to add a small variance than to make different animations, but it's up to the developer.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
No, you said that part already. What we're asking is why. Why do you like variance in numbers that does literally nothing whatsoever
i think part of it is from rolling a die. i think it's pretty silly to use that in a digital game unless it's meant to mimic d20 or oldschool games (which were meant to mimic dice). my befuddle quest entry is a mash-up of Dragon Quest I/II and Desktop Dungeons, so i included some very slight variance in damage as a throwback to dragon quest's +-1/16 but Desktop Dungeons proper has no variance because, uh, it's a very skill-based puzzler that could suffer heavily from variance. THINKING HARD!!!
btw everybody play desktop dungeons, it's half off right now
http://www.gog.com/game/desktop_dungeons
btw everybody play desktop dungeons, it's half off right now
http://www.gog.com/game/desktop_dungeons
Dang, I haven't played Desktop Dungeons since the very very first free version, it looks huge now >_>
I don't really mind tiny bits of variance in damage when it's just for effect, like in most RPGs. Dealing 423 damage or 427 damage almost never matters in any relevant way, and if it did, the player probably didn't notice - but maybe it would feel weird to see an attack always do exactly 427 damage.
But yea, if you're going to put random misses or variation in your game, do it large, commit to it, and design your game around it rather than just throwing it in to keep tradition. That's the only way it's gonna feel fun :P
I don't really mind tiny bits of variance in damage when it's just for effect, like in most RPGs. Dealing 423 damage or 427 damage almost never matters in any relevant way, and if it did, the player probably didn't notice - but maybe it would feel weird to see an attack always do exactly 427 damage.
But yea, if you're going to put random misses or variation in your game, do it large, commit to it, and design your game around it rather than just throwing it in to keep tradition. That's the only way it's gonna feel fun :P
I dunno! If I had to guess, I'd say that it might seem oddly specific for a large number. Or maybe it's one of those things that was originally designed to mask the fact that the first RPG battle systems were... lacking. If you know the boss has 9000 HP and you do exactly 427 damage, you know it should take 21 turns to finish them. But I'm going to guess that some older RPGs kinda fall apart when you analyze them that closely, and suddenly bosses' random attack patterns seem much more broken. This is all just me guessing, though.
I don't actually think it would feel that weird to scrap that tiny randomness. I prefer really small, reliable numbers like the kind you get in Paper Mario because I can actually be bothered to track the math - you can know beforehand that your attack is going to finish off a boss if you land both your Timed Hits.
I don't actually think it would feel that weird to scrap that tiny randomness. I prefer really small, reliable numbers like the kind you get in Paper Mario because I can actually be bothered to track the math - you can know beforehand that your attack is going to finish off a boss if you land both your Timed Hits.
I like the idea of a completely deterministic RPG. That is, the outcome of every action has 0 randomness. Now that's when you could really call a battle a puzzle.
CashmereCat
I like the idea of a completely deterministic RPG. That is, the outcome of every action has 0 randomness. Now that's when you could really call a battle a puzzle.
Craze
btw everybody play desktop dungeons, it's half off right now
http://www.gog.com/game/desktop_dungeons
author=LockeZ
No, you said that part already. What we're asking is why. Why do you like variance in numbers that does literally nothing whatsoever
I don't know why................
You know what, that's a good question. Give me some time to try to find that out for you.
edit: doublt post my bad
edit: doublt post my bad
author=Frozen_Phoenixauthor=LockeZI don't know why................
No, you said that part already. What we're asking is why. Why do you like variance in numbers that does literally nothing whatsoever
I also like the variance, and can't explain why. I can't justify it, as a developer. I was just raised on games that have it, so it's a mild preference.
In fact, ridding games of that variance could be beneficial, especially when your equipment load-out changes your damages. Then you could rule-out the variance and get a more clear-cut feel of the damage.
Even with that said, I don't think the variance is necessarily terrible, even if I can't justify it. While I think it would be neat to see more games without it, I don't think having it is bad if that's what the developer wants.
i don't think that it's horribly detrimental to most games, either. i just always want to promote people thinking honestly about why they do things in their gam mak!
Yeah, I agree with promoting that mindset. Doing things "just because they've always been done" without thinking about it has the chance of missing out on a lot of innovative ideas.
So I asked around and these are some of the answers I got.
Basically, a lot of it is a mental thing. I think game makers underestimate that. Even if something doesn't have a hard number, pragmatic reasoning, understanding how to invoke a feeling in players is still a very important aspect of design.
to simplify the process of the variables that occur when you swing your battle axe at someone. you don't always swing the same way, from the same position, to the same location, at the same position, with the same set of circumstances surrounding their ability to avoid or mitigate the attack
Okay, let's play the strongman carnival hammer game in real life. No limit, no ring the bell, just high score.
Swing the hammer. You get 75. Swing the hammer. You get 68. Swing the hammer. You get 81. In real life, when you do any demanding and dextrous action, there will be some variance.
I think the main reason this feature was implemented in the first place (which probaly was in a PnP RPG and not on PC) is to make combat less predictable and thus more intense feeling. However there are systems that work without random damage numbers and still are quite interesting
You, nor your character, will ever swing a sword, fire a bow, throw a spell, whatever, the same way twice. There will always be subtle variations of force applied, angle of impact, effectiveness of armor, that sort of thing. The number variance is a simple way of reflecting that.
Basically, a lot of it is a mental thing. I think game makers underestimate that. Even if something doesn't have a hard number, pragmatic reasoning, understanding how to invoke a feeling in players is still a very important aspect of design.
i mean, to play devil's advocate, this is what the average traditional rpg battle looks like:
It's all a great abstraction. The enemy is ridiculously large in comparison, you have a girl named Foxy (FOXY) and a giant named Ture traveling with you (you being a one-eyed master swordsman), you do battle two yards away from the enemy, and everything is turn-based.
do we need realistic fireball directional variance? do we care that gold is too soft for armor? do we care that WE have a GIANT on our team and the lizardman enemy is still four times our size!?
there's no real answer to those questions, and everybody on this forum would answer each one differently. (i'd say no/no/no but w/e.)
also that carnival hammer game example is slander. i always get 100, every swing, every time. #swole
It's all a great abstraction. The enemy is ridiculously large in comparison, you have a girl named Foxy (FOXY) and a giant named Ture traveling with you (you being a one-eyed master swordsman), you do battle two yards away from the enemy, and everything is turn-based.
do we need realistic fireball directional variance? do we care that gold is too soft for armor? do we care that WE have a GIANT on our team and the lizardman enemy is still four times our size!?
there's no real answer to those questions, and everybody on this forum would answer each one differently. (i'd say no/no/no but w/e.)
also that carnival hammer game example is slander. i always get 100, every swing, every time. #swole
Feld got it! It's not about being realistic or not, but some weird psychological effect. I just like seeing varied numbers instead of the same one as damage for some unknown reason.
