next »

[s0]

random chance is the worse gameplay mechanic

Unless you have a really good AI, this could be potentially bad for single player though. The game would essentially become a puzzle game with greatly reduced emergence and replayability.

Aside from that, I think chance is a good way to make things more varied. If used in the right dosage, it can serve to force players to reconsider their strategy and make a game that's grown stale interesting again.

[gimymblert]

Listen to C.A.

[The Monster King]

Unless you have a really good AI, this could be potentially bad for single player though. The game would essentially become a puzzle game with greatly reduced emergence and replayability.

AI with random chances in arent too bad, im talking about 5% CRITICAL HIT YOU WIN
or 10% miss chance MISS YOU LOSE

but yeah id rather have a puzzle in single player and a rock paper scissors in multiplayer, it is my opinion that those are the two main gameplay mechanics

the others being reflexes and mastering what you as a player can do, the first doesnt really apply in a turn based game

theres also random chance but i dont think random chance should be used to determine if you win or lose

i dont believe that there is anything else in a game than those five elements

player against other player (rock paper scissors)
player against computer (puzzle)
player against himself (mastering character/reflex)
player against random chance (lol you lose)

i think ill make a post about it

[gimymblert]

I would add player vs random = "balancing against the odd": Chance that does not prevent you to win but stress adaptation

Tetris without the increasing speed, you may have random piece, but you can reason about how to maximise their use against the entropy they generate in your building. It's not about give luck, miss or hit and opportunity are situational (the bloody I bar to make a tetris).

theres also random chance but i dont think random chance should be used to determine if you win or lose

THAT!

[Dead_Modern]

I want to give my units silly names like Joe Goner and B. Hind, and not have too many of them, so I know who is who anyway.

I would like each unit to be important, make it so you don't want to waste a life. That would be interesting.

[The Monster King]

yeah dont mix up my explanation, i agree with neoshaman that having some random ai and situations is fine, im strictly talking about things like critical hits and shit and the possibility that random chance gives you an unsolvable situation

i guess its fine if you set up yourself for defeat, like in tetris if you can only survive if your next piece is a line its your fault, but random chance should never create unfair situations, like an unlucky miss or critical

and in player vs player games that just becomes DUMB

[Alec S.]

Random chance in the effect of your move can work if done right.  Take, once again, X-COM, which does to things to help with this.  First of all, it gives you multiple options that allow you to alter the probability (spend more action points for a more accurate shot) and the fact that the shots could miss and hit something else, meaning if you shoot at a group of enemies, you're more likely to hit something.

I want to give my units silly names like Joe Goner and B. Hind, and not have too many of them, so I know who is who anyway.

I would like each unit to be important, make it so you don't want to waste a life. That would be interesting.

Yes, this is important.  Again, X-COM showed me how this can improve the game experience.

One of these days I'll reference a strategy game other than X-COM...

[The Monster King]

i dont know, i dont like that we could do the same actions and i could win because i was lucky and youd lose because of the random number generator

[SirNiko]

When randomizing a game, the variation should be small (say damage varies by 5%), and the number of random checks should be high, so over the course of a game you tend to get an even distribution of that randomness and even when it's high or low it doesn't quite break the strategy.

Also, whatever random factors occur should be things the players can compensate for (barring epic preparatory failure like stacking pieces too high in tetris as in Monster's example). A weather event that the player can prepare to protect their units by moving them to shelter is great, one that appears and wipes out units with no warning is probably not so great.

It's like in Spelunky, the arrow traps are randomly placed, but when you get killed by one you say "I should have checked for that trap!" instead of "I would have won if that trap wasn't there!". The player should feel like they lost because of their decisions (or failure to anticipate probable events), not their luck.

[magnum_opus]

While this is sort of a "well duh" kind of desire. Good AI.

Lux is great example of a game (Risk in this case) with AI that runs a full gamut between good and bad defensive and agressive with actual strategy; Instead of having "chimp" and "perfect" as the only two settings with maybe a couple of shades in between that are only distinguished by occasionally rolling a die and having them do something programmed to be "dumb."

Worms is a great example of how not to do it. The computer uses grenades and bazookas 90% of the time and difficulty really only effects how accurate they are.

It's one of the hardest parts of a game but being able to actually have fun playing the computer is a hell of feature.

[gimymblert]

When it come to PVP (but can work on pve as well), randomness is tied to psychology. What a player do not want, is when dominated that luck count against them. But when they dominate, a bit of small randomness against them is not much (as long it does not imbalance the power). I think randomness should be tied to how much the player is in difficulty. The more he is, the less randomness play against him.

Then it's all about balance of power, a clearly dominate player may find encouragement when its unit scores critical against the enemy, it help him coming back and closing the gap, but the more the gap is closed, the less luck factor into.

[SirNiko]

I don't see that randomness really means that much in that context, Neo. The same dominated player could win a skirmish with no randomness at all and still feel the same thrill that they're catching up. Or for that matter, just score one more hit than usual even though they lost another match. If anything, the fact that their victory came as a result of random mechanics probably proves more disappointing because the opponent can rightly claim "You just got lucky".

[gimymblert]

Well i was not saying that it's the only way, i was pointing to a possible fair use.

By tying it to balance of force i also leave skill the dominant criteria, the opponent just could not say you were lucky, because the same mechanics apply to him when he was losing, and the effect should not be strong enough to completely unbalance the match. Basically it's a rubber band mechanics.

But I thought about some other use. You may have a push your risk luck. This one can have the claim "you just got lucky" but makes for a gamble like sort of pleasure, especially if you can make it marginally avoidable with skills. Like some very powerful attack that can backfire or succeed with a 1/10

[SirNiko]

I think I agree that improving luck for the disadvantaged is a good way of subtly making a game more balanced (Is that what you are saying?). When it's obvious, like selecting a handicap in bowling or speeding up one player in Tetris, you might feel bad about requiring that advantage. If it's done quietly by making the weaker player roll a little high on their damage, you can make the fights more equal without either player knowing. Assuming both players are playing for the fun of the challenge, this is a good thing for both parties (so long as they don't realize what is happening).

[Giaddon]

I think the "luck as balancing tool" is a really interesting, and one I hadn't considered before. In most symmetric strategy games, one of the design challenges is allowing losing players to remain competitive, since every victory of one player comes at the expense of the other -- each piece I capture in chess leaves you with one less to use, for example. Which is appropriate (there should be a difference between winning and losing, after all), but if handled poorly can make the end stages of a game a farce - when one player has obviously lost and doesn't have a chance for victory, but the continues, turn after turn (much more agonizing in a multiple player, long-form game than in chess). Allowing a "lucky strike" option to keep a losing player competitive could be a good solution.

I'm not sure it's best to keep that hidden from the players, however. Personally, I don't like it when I don't understand/can't predict the consequences of my in-game decisions. Making it (luck bonuses) optional, or tying into a risk/reward decision (like if you're losing you gain the ability to activate an ability for a set cost, and there's a chance it will help and a chance it will do nothing, so the player has to decide if the risk is worth the investment) seems better.

Plus, luck can keep a game fresh. It can definitely be exasperating in single unit/unit confrontations, but if it (luck) is more generally applied (maybe in this game you get a certain unit, and in this one you get another), it can be engaging, I think. 

[SirNiko]

I'm mentally comparing it to a DM rolling dice in D&D. It is common for a DM to fudge a die and lie about the result to give players on the brink of death a chance to fight back, although any good DM will of course never admit to this (I have never fudged a die in D&D).

[The Monster King]

i dont want to play a game where a worse player is given an invisible advantage

lets play chess

hmm youre better than me so your pawn disappears mysteriously!! sorry

i dont want to win/lose because i'm lucky

that's not the fun part of random chances

[RCIX]

i dont want to play a game where a worse player is given an invisible advantage

lets play chess

hmm youre better than me so your pawn disappears mysteriously!! sorry

i dont want to win/lose because i'm lucky

that's not the fun part of random chances

Then it becomes way too easy to tell who's winning by looking for small advantages early on in the game, since there's no aspect of luck that will possibly make it so that the worse player can win. Why do you think people surrender in chess so much?

On that note, Negative feedback. Make sure you work a little bit in, or the game will be over way before the winning condition is met. But not too much, or you have mario kart

[The Monster King]

in a fighting game if im at 1% hp and the other guy at 100% i can still make a miraculous comeback

if you could apply such a principle to strategy game maybe you could have your "worse player still have chances"

but why do you want to cater to bad players

do bad soccer/football/pingpong players suddenly get breaks?? i dont get it

that's strategy though, if the game isnt close yeah the best player will have obvious advantages, what's wrong about that?? he wants to make small scale so i guess if the fights are quick and in rounds it might be better?

[RCIX]

in a fighting game if im at 1% hp and the other guy at 100% i can still make a miraculous comeback

if you could apply such a principle to strategy game maybe you could have your "worse player still have chances"

but why do you want to cater to bad players

do bad soccer/football/pingpong players suddenly get breaks?? i dont get it

that's strategy though, if the game isnt close yeah the best player will have obvious advantages, what's wrong about that?? he wants to make small scale so i guess if the fights are quick and in rounds it might be better?

In fighting games, that's the negative feedback in play. As far as soccer, football, pingpong, etc they do have a ton of uncertainty, like in football players getting injured, weather (depending on the stadium), simple luck in performing strategies, etc. Nothing's wrong with it though.

It's just that in computer games there's a lot less luck by default so more needs to be in there, and a better way of doing it than simple randomness to outcomes is applying negative feedback. Read this article for a better explanation.