What will happen if I add some output randomness into "slay the spires"

Yeah, it's never the most popular thing but most competitive shooters i have played do have 1v1 modes that stay active. Again, you don't have to reach the biggest audience as small time developer. You just need to reach some audience. Probably safest to go for the under-served ones where gamers aren't so picky.

 

Don't get me wrong guys, people still play 1v1 games. I mean, people still play tic-tac-toe even. I'm just talking about the really big games and breakout successes and stuff.

And I think part of the reason that shooters have always been so successful is that they generally aren't 1v1, so losing really doesn't feel as personally bad as it does in more dedicated 1v1 settings with no rng, as here you gotta accept that you just straight up got outplayed. And you gotta accept that every single time you lose a match.

 

I don't know, CS:GO has extremely low randomness for a shooter and it's one of the most stable competitive franchises. E.g. the recoil spread patterns are 100% deterministic, you can learn them to compensate better, and pros do that. I do see your point, but chess survived regardless. It just attracts different kinds of people I'd guess. Or the teammates are a big enough factor to mitigate that source for self-doubt. I don't know.

 

Just different crowds I think. I mean, the big e-sport strategy games are pretty damn popular, right? Those braniac kids with the mice with 100 buttons and they're just going full-tilt for like an hour at a time, thousands of clicks per second, thinking 100 moves in advance. That S*** is crazy impressive.

 

I think so. Sure, these things are different for everyone, but when I get killed in an FPS, a lot of the time it feels kinda borderline random. Sometimes I'm just running from a to b and get sniped for example. Sure, a pro FPS dude could avoid getting killed the same way, but after it happens I don't go, "oh man, he is so much better than me", I go "f'n sniper...that's so cheesy".

If it's a 1v1 and the same happens, it just feels different. "How did he get in position that fast?" "Was he tracking me the whole time?" "damn he's good".

Tons of players and tons of stuff happening is kinda like its own kind of RNG.

 

This indicates that you aren't a competitive FPS guy though. ^^^

I would be the exact same way if playing competitive strat game, regardless of number of competitors. Cause they aren't really my thing, I don't really care about or understand the deeper mechanics of how they work. So when dude with massive army stomps me on turn 3, I just say, "he just started with better resources than me. It's random!"

Dude get sthe sniper in halo and headshots me at the spawn, I know exactly what route he took to get there so fast and it's time for revenge, even if theres 30 other players to worry about.

also a huge difference between COD/Battlefield and Counterstrike/Tom Clancy games

 

But, regarding the topic and putting aside "kids these days don't know how real games are played!" I think Frosted was saying that randomized damage, randomness in general, is a way to make a game more luck-based. It can be, but usually isn't.

If you look at just Hearthstone, the card - KnifeThrower - that does 1 point to a random enemy whenever you play a creature - that's random to make the game faster. It would be weird if you had to target a secondary effect (you could play a creature with a targeted ability, then have to target 2 more from KnifeThrowers, which would need to indicate that somehow). That randomness isn't about easier or harder. But a random 4-7 damage card - that's luck. And random targets on a card you cast - that's skill. You have to work harder to make it hit what you want. Hearthstone has lots of streamers and card lists. You could find someone playing the appropriate deck and see how they do it.

It's like asking about the general effects of healing in a game. There's no one answer. You have to look at the exact situation and possible genre (it sounds like BTM and Frosted are working on a Desktop Dungeons style game, where the convention is it will tell you exactly how a fight will go. Your choice is which fight to take, what items to use up, or whether to explore more. Having random damage wouldn't be bad, but would be genre-breaking).

 

I don't agree. It's perhaps a different kind of skill, but it's not "just luck". The skill there is perhaps more subtle and more skill testing than an effect like random distribution of damage.

In order to decide when or how to use a spell that does 4-7 damage, you need to consider the odds, consider what the results are at different rolls, and choose if and when to use the spell. This kind of RNG can be extremely skill testing. The question isn't about skill, it's about how it "feels".

Random target selection generally is far easier to calculate, has a clearer moment when it's correct to use, and a more satisfying result when it all goes right.

The amount of "skill" involved is mostly irrelevant. The relevant question is, does the player feel as though they are skilled.

In the first example, 4-7 damage, its harder for the player to know if they made a good call or not. In the second, it's clearer. The first case will often require more calculation, more accurate calculation and more reward for players capable of making those calculations correctly. But for most people it just seems like luck.

(Maybe that kind of thing has a connection to @BIGTIMEMASTER's comment about how when you're a noob everything feels 'random').

I donno desktop dungeons, but +1 man for making a really solid guess on how the mechanics work.

We do actually have a tiny bit of rng in the damage, but it's only +/- 1 point on the displayed value. That's to keep you on your toes just a bit without feeling like there's RNG.

 

The math for 4-7 is easy, most players can do it. There are 4 numbers in the range. If you use it twice, there are 16 possibilities. Say you target two toughness 5 creatures with 4-7 damage. there's a 1 in 16 chance both survive. The odds of killing both are 3/4*3/4 = 9 out of 16, which means roughly a 50% chance one survives. Use it 4 times, you expect 1 to live, and can work the standard deviation. Serious players of Magic:The Gathering use programs to run complex odds like: if I need one of 8 cards within the first 10, of a 60 card deck, with a mulligan, what are the odds it won't happen? What if I gradually add cards for Searching? Or maybe you've seen the site "Elitist Jerks" where they run the math for World of Warcraft with +1% crit vs. +1% damage for an exact build. Top-rank gamers learn stats and learn to at least use the hard ones. Some learned to program just so they could roll the dice and check.

The trick for a constant effect with random targets is you can completely eliminate the randomness, getting full effect, if you wait until the only targets are the ones you want. With a 4-7 you can never eliminate randomness. Suppose you use it with back-up to finish them off on low rolls. That seems like you've eliminated randomness, but on a lucky roll you save your backup. On a series of bad rolls, you waste too much on cleaning-up. The luck is still there.

You can imagine players who cast a "kills random creature" when there are 2 they want dead and one worthless critter. And sure, that's as random as random damage -- 66% change of hitting 2 out of 3 is the same as 4-6 damage with 66% chance of a 5 or 6. But the better players work the odds and know waiting for a sure thing is better. Even a 15% failure chance is like a tax, and loses too many games.

 

The skill testing in 4-7 isn't so much in calculating the odds, its the risk management operation after. "do I have a backup for if the roll is too low, how bad/good is using the backup, when exactly does playing this card increase my odds of winning" - the problem is that knowing if your judgement was good or bad on this is extremely hard if not borderline impossible to know.

The result is that people can't judge if the usage was good or bad.

Developing the skill level required to have a good idea of exactly when something like that is a good play or bad play requires exceptional skill at both calculation and game knowledge. The vast majority of players will feel that "its just luck". Some, really top tier players will have a deeper understanding, and really top tier among the top tier will probably be able to be reasonably definitive about the correct line at any given time.

The thing is - that's not what actually happens in most cases. You take a card like "Arcane Missiles" the classic random damage card. You don't need to do an odds calculation on this at all in order to find a "feels good" moment to use the card.

You look for a chance to set more than one enemy to one health and you fire it off. If they hit the 1 health targets, you feel smart, if they don't you still "did the right thing, but got unlucky".

If that was a good play or bad play doesn't really matter. It's that there's a clear situation where using the spell is "good" and you can feel smart about your play if you used the card when the right condition was met.

I'm not sure how else to really explain this. But the most important thing isn't the randomness or the skill, its if the player can feel good about themselves for using something in a "good" way.

Basically, whats most important is that there are clear, simple rules of thumb for when something is a good move or a bad move. Even if the move, in truth, increased your odds of losing, you still can feel good about your decision, and feel good about your skill.

 

Ahh -- frosted is describing scrubs. "Hearthstone scrubs" brings up lots of articles. I only played Hearthstone when it first came out for about an hour (years earlier I had played the original Warcraft card game, with actual cards). Maybe it is all scrubs. Maybe it's too easy to buy upgraded cards and every rank is filled with big-spending fools. Beats me. But there are many, many people of all sorts of games who know how to do the math and ignore "feelings" - not just elite players.

But one incidental point: in computer games no one trusts the odds. If a card does 5-7 damage and rolls 5's the first few times it's played, many players assume that it favors 5's. We know games often don't roll uniform odds. In fact, if damage rolls are 5, 7, 6, 7, 5 ... some players might assume it never rolls the same twice in a row - that might be a trick the game makers wanted you to discover. We also know games have cheated on "random" rolls to help or hurt us.

Whenever you show a random range, players assume you're not telling them how it really works. Not unless you've made a point to always use fair rolls.

 

I'm really not trying to describe scrubs or disparage HS players.

Let me give an example from the game me and @BIGTIMEMASTER just worked on.

We have a mechanic where an archer can provide "cover" fire for a guy who's attacking a neighbor. This is probably our best "feels smart" mechanic. As in, it rewards the player for lining up his dudes in a specific way.

Now, getting a "cover fire" trigger feels good. Whenever I arrange my guys such that an archer makes that shot, I feel clever.

It doesn't matter if it was a "good" move or not. See, there's a difference between making a move that is the best move (the mathematically correct move) and making a move that makes the player feel clever.

The problem with 4-7 damage is that it's very hard to feel clever for playing that card or making that move. The criteria for judging the mathematical correctness of the move (the skill level) is far beyond the skill level of a normal player (or even the normal legend player. It's really hard).

What's worse is that there is no super clear, super simple board configuration that is "ideal" for the card, so there's no quick and easy rule of thumb for when it's generally a good play. Compare this to arcane missiles, where seeing a few 1 health enemies means lights flash on in your brain "PERFECT TARGET!!"

What's even worse is that the situations where you're getting max value out of the play are also the situations where you're most likely to be disappointed: shooting a 7 health dude with a 4-7 damage spell will end usually in disappointment. The most reliable play: shooting a 4 health dude, is also the lowest value play likely to most leave a bad taste in the players mouth.

There are tons of problems with "Crackle", but I don't believe that "skill vs luck" is anywhere near the top of why its a bad design, nor why it was disliked by the community (despite the community generally believing that is the case).

 

Never played HS, but when I do play games, I don't look at numbers. I have zero interest in numbers. Even in our own game, I dunno know what some of the numbers mean TBH. I do everything by feel and learn through repetition. Watcching some playtesters, it is clear that they really get into the numbers and sit there and really calculate. But.... they don't do any better at the game than I do (though, perhaps in time they would reach a higher degree of skill than somebody like me just wingiing it.)

Anyway, my point is, probably a lot of gamers don't care about the numbers and the theories behind the numbers (certainly not as much as the geeks writing it ), they only see the thing as an experience of feelings, not mathematical calculations.

 

I think this is pretty correct. The vast majority of players don't really even understand the mechanics of most games. They use rules of thumb and visual cues mostly. Green numbers = good. Red numbers = bad. Bigger number = good. Etc.

I'm a numbers guy, and there are still tons of mechanics in tons of games I don't totally understand or care about.

In a lot of games there are overpowered effects that go unnoticed for a long time because they lack good visual effects, like auras and passive effects that, in many games, only change the math. These tend to do very little visually are often crazy undervalued by players because they don't have enough visual impact. It's hard to "feel" the effect, so people don't notice they're there.

That said, some games are really math games, especially if you play at high level. For example Poker, for a long time was thought of as a "gut feel" game, but most top modern poker players are really just walking calculators.

 

[QUOTE="BIGTIMEMASTER, post: 4669259, member: 1400768"I don't look at numbers. I have zero interest in numbers.[...] I do everything by feel and learn through repetition. [...][/QUOTE]

There are two legitimate ways this works, in a game with numbers. One is with all hidden formulas. Fireballs "often" kill skeletons. The equation might use range, your level, your invocation skill, a secret stat you gain from casting fireballs over and over ... . You can argue on the forums about any of these, and no one can say you're wrong. The point of the game is to learn by doing. Lots of these were really run.

I feel like those aren't as popular now. Some would describe numbers vaguely as low, medium, or high but players begged to see the numbers. Often the game is just as good or better with real numbers and formulas.

The other type, which isn't so different, are the ones where the formulas are so complicated and poorly explained that a general feeling is the best you can do. I'm sure you've seen them: an attack power of 400 hits a defense of 300 and does about 200-250 damage? Except your other skill that hits twice does about (150-200)x2? You increase your turn power from 100 to 101 and somehow seem to turn about 10% faster? One I play sometimes "Space Arena" has lasers that do 200 damage, in a 0.3 second burst with a firerate of 3. Well, a solid hit does nowhere near 200 damage and they fire at best twice a second. And another laser with similar stats is much worse. Players math-out other weapons, and are often correct - high statistical DPS = better results for real - but they just trial&error the lasers.

I feel like some of those overly complex games are meant to be where you only know what works by playing. The game make some people happy by showing the exact numbers, but deliberately made them unusable for min-maxing purposes.

 

Yeah, complex is never good.

When I play, I want to be able to look at enemy and know if I can finish them in one or two hits with accurate predictions. Small chance for something unexpected to happen is fine, but 99% of time, once I know how games works (as in, i've played it for twenty minutes), I don't want surprises in the numbers like that. Surprises should be in the large situations presented. Like, Oh crap theres new enemies, there's a new scenario I haven't seen before, etc. But whacking the enemies and having to pull out the calculator to figure out whats going on isn't fun. Not for me and probaby not for anybody besides a select few super nerds.

But i never played straight up ccard games like HS where all it is is numbers. So I dunno that audience or genre. I'm more of an action games guy.

 

I'm claiming that if you don't want to do math, complexity is good. If no one can work out the math - too hard, too random and too many secret parts, no one has an advantage over you. If the math is easy, the game-makers assume players will do it, and will balance the game around it.

For example, suppose you do 8 damage, have a "+1 damage to each hit for this fight" scroll and are fighting a 28 health monster. The scroll won't help. 4 hits to kill either way. Vs. a 27 health monster, it will. Since the math is so easy, the game expects you to have done it - the game will be about doing that math. It expects you to have more health and saved scrolls to fight the boss.

On the other hand, I've played plenty of games where the stats make no sense, I can't even explain them. Don't know if attacks do closer to 100 damage or 1,000. But I know my tough guy should always hit a fresh monster, since anyone one else can finish it off.

 

Even in your simple math example, I ain't doing it. I don't do numbers. That's zero fun (for me). What I do is read the design language and trial-and-error. I learn how much health bar damage my dude does against another dude not by memorizing any numbers but by learning how many hits it takes before enemy dies. That just comes naturally after playing a few times.

That's just me. One type of gamer. I'm the type who played Dark Souls naked and did soul level 1 runs. I learn the game through repetition and intuition. Then you got the numbers-gamers who love stats and love to reverse engineer. They build the magic-builds where they figure out the perfect combination to make a one hit attack to kill the toughest boss. I'd never figure that out and have no interest, because for me gaming is about feel and intuition, not rigorous scientific testing. Different strokes for different folks.

Take that game Factorio. That looks like the opposite of fun to me. I'm not sure if there was a job paying people to play that game I would apply. But it's a hugely popular game.

 

In general I agree with your post - but for some games you really got nothing but numbers. Like Sudoku, just columns with numbers. HS is mostly a game of basic arithmetic with numbers between 1 and 5 (which doesn't really feel like "math" because as long as you stick to adding and subtracting fingers on one hand, everyone can do it easily).

HS is a great game, there's a reason it was making like $200 million a month or whatever at peak. No players anywhere would describe HS as "a game of basic arithmetic with numbers usually between 1 and 5" - but if you just look at the raw core mechanics, it's actually a pretty fair description.

 

My eyes glazed over at this example also. The numbers were too big. Like 5 fingers = easy math. 10 fingers = hard math. In your example, you got past all my fingers and all my toes, that's like rocket science crashing into brain surgery.

 

I'm not calling you a liar or trying to convince you to enjoy math games. That's an example of how a game with simple math hugely favors anyone who enjoys multiplication. Intuition won't have time to get a feel -- too many variables and things change too quickly (find a new weapon, level up the spell, meet higher level skeletons). But the math is still fairly easy and gives perfect results.

Adding complexity and randomness drops the usefulness of math. Instead of telling of you the 100% right call, math now gives you odds. If you don't explain the equations and add hidden variables, math gives you vague mostly useless odds.

 

I didn't think you were implying anything of the sort.

I'm just relating my sensibilities as a gamer. I expect, on the side of doing math versus not doing math, the majority would be on my side or worst. As in, they just don't even want to see numbers unless its like - 5 bagillion health from the monster they shot in the face and + 159293592 points to their xp. Numbers like that simply translate into "you dun gud you genius!"

I'm not following exactly what you mean about intuition not having time... maybe we are both thinking about different types of games? As I said, I never played HS or any games remotely like that. I never enjoyed card games either. I mostly grew up playing action and rpg games, and I simply never had any interest in the numbers as I've always been able to crush games without bothering with them at all. My dream RPG has always been a game with zero numbers, zero stats, and zero UI, in which player learns every thing visually by looking at things in the game world directly. Zero abstraction. This is what Shenmue tried to do, and although I'm generally not interested in Japanese culture stuff or story based RPG's, its like my all time favorite game.

 

Jus that it takes a few fights. Sometimes it's seeing how the randomness shakes out: I kill a few skeletons with 1 hit. Then some take 2 hits. After a dozen I figure out skeletons are "mostly 1-hit" monsters. Maybe seeing the numbers would have made that obvious, or maybe not.

Another is strategies. Skellies now come in packs of 4. I figure 1 area effect spell to soften them up, then 1-hit kills. I try that, try different amounts and types of AoEs, and check my health bar afterwards. Maybe looking at numbers would have told me that immediately, or maybe not. Maybe my math would have been wrong.

Then sometimes it's uncertainty. I have a shotgun, I run into a guy with a machine-pistol at close range in the open, and he dies. But maybe he was wounded or distracted. I do it a few more times, I don't think I'm messing up or hurt for most of them, and I tend to die. I'm now pretty sure that machine-pistols beat shotguns in the open.

For any of this to work, the situation needs to be stable, without too much variation. Intuition needs time. Math, when it's possible and works, is instant.

 

right. But for me, replace any of those scenarios with "heres some numbers, ccrunch them real quick and tehn you can win with certainty" is zero fun. That's not a game, that's doing work.

 

Do you like puzzlegames? E.g. stuff like Infinifactory by zachtronics?

 

never heard of those. But no, I generally don't like puzzles. Wife loves em though. Only thing she'll play is puzzle games on her phone. And loves Sudoku too, which to me is like, the worst game ever invented.

 

Interesting! I think there's a puzzle-like aspect to numbers in combat games and I very much enjoy when turnbased strategy combat essentially turnes into a puzzle that has multiple solutions. "Into the Breach" is a lot like that. The zachtronic games aren't about combat, but they are also puzzle games with multiple solutions that can be measured and improved on at least 3 different scales.

 

From seeing the way you play TB games I gathered you like to slow down and really think your way through things. I expect thats probably how the majority of strategy gamers like to play. Kinda goes with the genre. I like to go fast and break things. Not the smart way, but funner for us dumber people.

 

Thing is, most good strategy games try to do both. They try to be fun for people who want to go fast and break things, but they can also be "crunchy" for people who wanna dig in and puzzle it out.

IMO, appealing (at least to some degree) to both kinds of gamer is the mark of a well made strategy game.

As a gamer, I usually am a "go fast and break things" guy in single player strategy games, in multi-player strategy games I tend to do more math -- cuz i wanna win, cuz winning is fun.

So like XCOM, I tend to play more by 'feel' (single player). When I played Bloodbowl 2 online vs other players, I did a lot more calculation, cuz I really wanted to win.

What a great game Bloodbowl 2 was... still the only game I know of that had persistent competitive multiplayer with permadeath. The opponent could down your best player, surround him with guys and 'foul' him to death. Brutal. And so fun. Leveling up a guy could take a hundred hours, so you were really invested too.