Why do Developers insist on pairing these two mechanics together? They do nothing but make games frustrating. Nobody has fun and there's no skill involved when your most important character is dropped with one hit before you can react.
On top of that, it isn't 1983. We don't need random crits in video games- they're acceptable in tabletop games because there's usually a GM to rule out obnoxious bullshit.
Other urls found in this thread:
Tradition, and sometimes for the sake of making their game "hard". No good reason, really.
That being said, I love playing critseekers
Maybe when your balls drop you'll understand. Reported for being a little bitch.
Is summer over yet?
...
Cute. My point was that modern technology can create more complex mechanics than random critical hits. It may have been understandable when RPGs were making the transition from tabletop to computers, but it's nonsensical today.
Name one game that was enhanced by the presence of random critical hits. Not forced critical hits, but random.
If random crits are acceptable, so is regenerating health, two weapon capacities, and procedural generation.
What game triggered you? I know something prompted you to get off the "Game Over" screen and post this thread.
All of them. Accommodating for luck is a skill.
Git gud you spineless little shit.
I just got party wiped in Darkest Dungeon as well, user. I know what made you make this post.
Mordheim, Darkest Dungeon, Team Fortress 2, take your pick.
Random crits are an easy way to implement a feature that screams "THIS IS AN RPG" without expending any real effort. It's become a standard and so people adhere to it without ever asking why; to do anything else is borderline heresy. Borderlands was fucking shit but I'll give it props for not having random crits despite being a worse Diablo but with guns. Random crits are a garbage mechanic and I can't believe people unironically defend them but I guess it's the only way shitters can win sometimes.
...
I'd agree but really can't, enjoy maximizing crit damage in games too much.
I fucking knew it
you have to be making a humourous intent on me
MORTALITY CLARIFIED IN A SINGLE STRIKE
Here's an anecdote. I threw an Ogre at a group of level three characters in a D&D game I was running a couple years ago. It was level appropriate and the entire team had just set out on their mission.
Round 1, it hit the Halfling Rogue with a lucky crit and dropped her from full health to -12. Tell me how the player was supposed to react to that?
In this scenario, I told the group that the Ogre only dropped her to -8 hitpoints. That's the difference between an AI and a human mind.
Want some more? UFO Defense, X-Com, Wazhack, Stone Soup, Xenonauts, Fire Emblem.
It's an infuriating mechanic that should have been culled twenty years ago. It's at its worst in games that have perma-death or similar, but it's obnoxious regardless. There's no opportunity cost to it and the AI always has less at stake than the player. You kill a monster with a random crit, it'll just spawn three more. You lose one of your core members due to a bolt from the blue, you'll have to invest time and resources into rebuilding what you lost.
A DEVASTATING BLOW
I don't care if you call me casual scum, this shit makes a game unnecessarily frustrating instead of hard and it needs to go.
For what fucking PURPOSE
Cry some more fag.
It's not even a very good unit.
...
inb4 le gitgud meme
...
Come on Deck-5 that's just silly.
Faggots.
Kill yourself my nigga
its risk management, some people do great a playing blackjack even though that's a RNG bullshit game.
todd pls
It's not risk management if a single crit can bring even the tankiest classes down to death's door in veteran missions onwards.
heroes sometimes die
Heroes die because of their inherent flaws and ill-preparedness, not because a random mook somehow rips their heart out.
maybe you should kill faster/train more instead of pretending like you're a god
...
On the old road, we found redemption
That was the day OP learnt that not everyone shared his shit taste.
Holy shit people suck at playing video games, get the fuck out of my hobby.
w-whats the appeal?
...
It's grindy, repetitive, random, and tedious. Why do you think so few people actually finish the game?
Nigga what does a completely random event that both the player and AI have access to have in common with free HP?
Why is everyone bumping this piece of shit thread? Have this board's posters really sunk so low as to take such obvious bait?
In some games, like Isaac, it's a means of progression.
In most others - just to waste time.
Bump :^)
People bitch about regenerating health constantly. It's one of Holla Forums's litanies of fury.
user, if you didn't want to see wrongthink, you should stay on Reddit or Tumblr.
I know, but I don't understand the idea of somehow comparing the two. Apples and regenerating oranges.
Clearly, you do not understand critical hits.
The implementation in may games is wonky, but that doesn't make the concept worthless.
Why do you equate a critical hit with one-hit-kill?
In old wizardry like games that's what it meant.
Criticals could only be done by certain weapons, and they were just flat instakills
stay dry pupper
Talking about old wizardry-likes. I'm playing Stranger of Sword City and I'm fucking pissed off at the insta-kill mechanic that I cannot diminish odds of getting (at least I of which I know) and to regain life-points, after buying out all possible items that do this, I would have to spend 7 days of walking around in the labyrinth for them to heal up. This along with other grindey factors makes the game a slog to play and I've resorted to just restarting from a save every time one of my guys gets killed.
yeah, it's incredibly stupid because the penalty is so enormous. Honestly if you're playing on PC I'd just Edit your money to do the instants just to save you from walking back and forth for however many battles
Maybe the rogue should've kept out of the reach of a fucking ogre
etc.
Holy fuck /tg/ get the fuck back to your containment board you shitposting whore.
DOTA 2 is a broken game
Prove it, then
How fucking new are you?
Is that the original two party members?
I commend your autism and patience
...
I hate rng critic. someone with 5% can crit 5 times in a row while someone with 99% crit can not-crit 5 times in a row.
This is one of the biggest problems with RNG style crits, and if meme magic is genuinely a actual thing and not just a joke it makes it even worse due to the way human biases work.
...
Some games do it better than others. You just have to get rid of the mindset that it's supposed to be fair. If there's a chance that you'll get 1-hit, you have to level until it's impossible or use buffs and keep your health high. Risk aversion is something you have to account for. It's a game mechanic.
You have yet to explain where skill comes into play for accommodating random chance. Are we supposed to predict the future?
And "risk assessment"? Seriously? It we're doing risk assessment for random crits, we're not gonna be playing at all.
well actually they just used the same system from warcraft 3. arent controlled/more consistent crits better then seemingly random crits?
I like those better too. It makes it a skill based system not a luck based one since probably both you and your opponent can guess when's the critic is coming.
are from 20 years ago, but that aside, their entire point is how fucking dangerous fighting aliums is
you have to be smart, abuse any luck you get, and compensate for failings and bad luck, and scrape by to survive to the next mission
that's what living is
you'd be surprised how many generals died to stray arrows or gunshot
dungeon crawling isn't meant to be fair, getting gud entails manipulation of odds and carefully weighting decisions, not charging forward because you SEEM stronger
stands in line with X-Com, but this one is even more focused on fluid battles, nothing's meant to be set
there's no magical shield protecting your guys from instant death when it's simulating real life, where people instantly die from fucking tripping over if they get a "bad roll", let alone being fatally attacked
yeah I've got nothing here, you can still out-maneuver and out-play the opponent, compensating for random crits with unit placement, heals, and rotations, but it doesn't really add to your tactics
same justifications as above but this one could have been a little bit more fantastical
"wow bugged mace mechanics"
risk and reward you retard
how much are you willing to miss out on, exp or items or otherwise, to avoid a chance of death
you should maximize that amount and still be able to progress
whether it's stalling for hp, healing up and making more defensive plays, or even taking a loss and abandoning for the greater good of the team, you have to be prepared to do things other than win nonstop because fuck you that's why
skilled players continue winning despite lady luck kicking them in the nads, not whine because their favorite buttslut got killed in X-Com
hold on the rogue wasn't even at 10 yet
literally the stupidest shit I have ever read
Why
Mount & Blade models damage based out off the relative velocities of the weapon and the victim as well as hit location. There's your proof.
Fuck chance.
When a character is going to try something have a minimum skill check requirement. That way I don't have to pray to the luck gods and no one save scums.
Is far better than
How? In alot of these games there is nothing to assess since the percentage of weather or not your attack hits is just shown to you, you can't minimize it since the game tells you to go fuck yourself and you can't prevent it since the game is designed so that you are forced to go through it.
While I sort of agree with the statement, but there's lots of asterisks that need to go with it.
If you have a constant idea of how much a critical hit can do and the percentage chance of it. Then I'd agree that judging luck would be a sign of a good player, Take Fire Emblem for example, if you see the opponent has an inflated critical hit chance (>20%) then you'd need to consider that the critical hit is a real thing to happen and plan your movements around that.
However, in a game like Team Fortress 2, there's no accurate way to track critical hits so in this instance, it wouldn't count and doesn't add skill into the equation.
Going back on Team Fortress 2, critical hits I feel add to the game by forcing stalemates to break quickly rather than relying on forced pushes by Medics. For example, both teams at the point unable to cap since they keep being taken out before the timer finishes, a Critical hit pushes the balance towards one of the teams and allows them to cap to continue the game. The skill becomes less judging or planning around but what to do now you have the upper/lower hand.
That isn't the only thing to assess.
But you generally have the choice of how you're getting through it
Depends on the game mostly, but yes
What?
But at the end of the day, when I eventually have to fight an opponent in lets say xenonauts the rng will control the fight. I can make good tactical decision and still lose my men because the opponent got a lucky shot and I missed every time. Other then save scumming, what should I do?
Hmmmmmmmm.
Even XCOM:EU which is dumbed down as fuck has more things for you to pay attention than your hit percentage like your enemies, how much guaranteed damage you have, your positioning, how many moves you got left (and that goes triple with games involving TUs instead) etc
Literally the only way to not "minimize risks in a game like X-COM/XCOM and others is to shoot on sight without thinking about what you're doing, hence I'm led to think that if you really think you can't minimize risks you do exactly that.
Xenonauts plays off the notion that a few losses are perfectly acceptable at any level of the game (and you always should take 1 or more meatshields anyways) unlike say XCOM:EU there losing one of your high tier soldier very early on or very late is a death sentence
That doesn't happen that often and you should always have a plan B and a plan C, because you really don't want to go to plan D.
Plan better, actually getting 100% fucked even with a good plan is so exceedingly rare that it shouldn't happen to you more than a couple times in several hundred hours of playing
Acquire gudness, starting by not savescumming like a little bitch, don't even need to go all muh ironman tryhard 1 save before the missions are rolled so you never get the same missions twice and no save in missions is more than enough.
I did just that on XCOM:EU and managed a clean impossible run without party wiping once and not because I got lucky or some such bullshit (and yes a 9x% shot miss four times in a row can be frustrating but it doesn't matter if you play well)
tl;dr yes you can get fucked by RNG but if it happens enough that it's a problem to you then either you're being a salty little bitch that shouldn't play those games or you're playing like shit.
"Git Gud" originated in Dark Souls, a very tightly tuned game with very little random noise. It's application is hugely limited when talking about random chance.
The issue with random crits is that they can leave all your plans in shambles. In competitive games, it allows for an entirely inept player to dominate a competent player due to chance. If you've ever had a coordinated push wrecked by a Gibus Soldier getting three consecutive crockets, you'll understand.
The other issue is that random crits can make even the lowest level encounters feel nerve wracking, especially when done poorly. Fallout and Fallout 2 are prime examples of this- crits are dangerous throughout the game. By the time you're suited up in Power Armor, they're just about the only things that threaten you, too, even when fighting Nightkin or Wanamingos. Saving every ten minutes is practically a necessity since combat is so fucking swingy.
Oh? I thought that random crits were patented by Graham Bell in 1892.
Did you have a bad game of Darkest Dungeon?
Then stack health, buffs or defenses until you can't get 1 shot anymore. This is fucking basic RPG shit.
Every time you launch darkest dungeon you are going to have a bad time
Except you can actually git gud at XCOM or you wouldn't see any player being able to repeatedly obtain a favorable (or less terrible outcome than most other players) outcome, hell you can do that with nethack and that's a whole new league of bullshit because there getting good means that instead of ascending 1 in 1000 tries you'll ascend 1 in 100 tries and if you actually becomes a top tier player you can hope to approach 1 in 10 or start doing conducts runs with some consistency.
Yes and that's why it shouldn't be put there because actually competitive games play on such a level that even a minor amount of randomness can blur the perceived skill levels of players.
But that's not to say a competitive environment cannot coexist with RNG see speedrunning
Actually, the last save I played was amazing. Didn't have any losses or bad dungeons really. Probably because I increased my roster size instead of avaible people.
...
I haven't played it since shortly after release. I bought it near the beginning and had such high hopes, only to be dashed when they listened to the Git Gud Dark Souls Memelords and nerfed everything fun into the ground. I remember when you could take a group of four Jesters and actually survive with all of them (mostly) intact.
Then the nerfbat swung again and again and again until the core design was a bloody pulp.
Name one game enhanced by Random Crits. Nobody has so far- if a mechanic doesn't improve a game, why have it at all? Because it's tradition?
Pure fucking autism and has nothing to do with actual gaming. Those people are masochists who do it for fame instead of any enjoyment for the game.
RNG actively works against "Git Gud," it's an equalizer. Newbies always love RNG while veterans hate it.
And that why in an RNG heavy environment you don't define "being good" the same way.
If your tactics were so good then you'd minimize the impact chance would actually have on your success - so every time you're unlucky it wouldn't ruin your game. This is basic risk management, and another skill to get learn to - in other words "git gud".
If the game itself doesn't support this and makes chance unpredictable and uncontrollable then it's bad implementation of it and bad game design, not an inherent problem with the mechanic.
That's what games with random crit chance, 1hitko and perma death are. That's why FFT with it's random damage numbers, crit chance and chance to knock people off of cliffs is infinitely better than FE: if you get fucked over the by the RNG in FFT you can just rez the guy or finish the mission really fucking fast before perma death kicks in.
DCSS doesn't have random crits.
Dark Heresy
Combat without RF - stale mechanic abuse.
Critical hits are bad design. Imagine tuning a WoW raid boss that can pump out large, unmitigated, RNG criticals. If you want to tune it to be right on the edge of peak player performance, what damage value do you tune it for? Average damage means the best raid group right on that edge will be dealing with a 50% chance of a RNG bullshit wipe. Min damage will mean they have to grind through a ton of RNG wipes each week. Max damage means shitty guilds will be able to luck their way into a kill and the good raiders will faceroll it.
This is why WoW minimized criticals. Steelbreaker was the last fight I can remember being crit BS leading to RNG wipes and they fixed it about a month or so in.
...
Depends greatly on the type of game.
If you have multiple playable characters permadeath turns them into a consumable resource that you actually care about loosing.
Other games like FTL use it to make the game more difficult and force you to be more careful than you would be otherwise.
In survival games it makes perfect sense as the goal is survival and if you fail that it's a game over.
you play rpg, so you are already a faggot
whats the difference here
youtube.com
If he played it any other way, he'd have lost.
You sure addressed his argument.
That was done long ago.
Are you aware, that all those raids are soul-crushing, mindless ritual?
They have nothing in common with words like "good design" or "gameplay".
He could learn to play piano with the same set of skills.
How do you git gud with this shit?
You quit playing children's games.
literal reddit threads like "wat gaem is lyk ur sex lyfe XDDDDD" are being bumped, but this is your breaking point.
Kill yourself.
well i think a point this thread is missing is that criticals fall under a dps modifier when you use large numbers. so depending on your build you can get a higher average dps or a lower dps based upon your
base damage * attack speed * (1+ (critical bonus /critical chance))
now if we also have to factor in chance to hit or a doge modifier. it turns into
(base damage * attack speed * (1+ (critical bonus /critical chance))) * (to hit modifier) {between 1 - 0}
and if we introduce flat armor we get
((base damage * (1 + critical bonus/ critical chance))- damage threshold)* damage resist{witch can be modified with armor pen} * attack speed * to hit
not only does this make you think about how you build your character to hit base damage attack speed critical chance & bonus and (to hit) but also changes how you deal with the incoming damage. by making any of the values 0 wither it is debuffs or stacking armor / doge shenanigans.
with the more complicated formula for dps changes how hard it is to find the -=Optimal build=- for an encounter and depending on your opponents build your build may fail if you to hit modifier goes to 30% you lost 70% of your dps if the game uses damage threshold your critical hit may be the only way to deal significant damage even if your damage is up. so you can optimize your build to attack different opponents and change to defend against different opponents. if you have a party you build glass cannons dedicated to attacking different types of opponents. and tanks dedicated to defending against them or you build a little of everything.
Nobody gives a fuck when crit becomes a DPS stat. What people complain about is when crit become a random damage modifier that can't be accounted for where the game's systems translate crits into a reload or losing a valuable unit.
Fire Emblem is the worst case of this as far as I know: there's a weapon triangle that determines accuracy and units have a crit chance. You can have a heavy armor unit go up against an enemy unit where the heavy armor wins the weapon triangle and thus has an extremely favorable hit% while the enemy has a very low hit%. The enemy can still land a hit with like 30% chance to hit and get a crit with 1% chance to crit and 1 shot your armor unit. And you don't get replacement units in FE, once a unit dies it's gone for good so you either reload or continue the game with a crippled force.
It's not like in some MMO where you get crit and die and you just respawn. It's literally 1 in 200 chance of losing and you can't prevent it or play around it in any way, shape or form. You can't equip an item that gives crit immunity, you can't grind, you can't do anything to prevent it outside of only using units that 1 shot enemies. Which the game doesn't give you. It's like playing X-COM, luring some unit in a crossfire, have all your units miss and have the enemy 1 shot one of your veterans that's behind cover. You can't "play around it", it just happens and it's shitty game design.
crits are a shitty deus ex machina for shit players.
they only exist to facilitate success for potatoes who cannot reliably achieve consistent results without the presence of them.
Make up your fucking minds.
...
Minds is plural.
Learn to read.
...
Because real life has perma death so there will be random critical hits. It's how life works.
you're still implying Holla Forums is one person
...
...
low quality b8
That's the problem I had with xcom aswell. The random chance was good when you could bring 30 rookies to a mission. But when you are limited to only 4 rookies, losing a 80% is a make or break a mission.
And fuck why give the enemy a free action upon detection. sometimes they move, and sometimes they get a free overwatch. This only results in a overly defensively play that isn't really that much fun.
Oh and they can only spot you by direct line of sight. They dont care if they stand in fire or see their friends get blown up. Getting to keep conceal was the best upgrade in the game due to this.
what said
I enjoyed it quite a bit. But then it just became a grind. finally got into the last dungeon, beat the boss without problems and now I got to waste 4 hours before I can even try again. No tnx I had my fill.
The game kinda went shit after early access. The new panic system as a second healthbar ruined the purpose of the sanity meter, and all the items became shit
Glad I don't have any intentions on playing that bullshit
I'm not implying Holla Forums is one person simply by the fact that two diffeent people have two differing opinions and the fact that they're equally retarded and fueled by perception and emotions rather than actual arguments
and
and that's being nice it likely is more along the line of "abloobloo how dare that other guy kill me with a crit when I'm so hardcore"
You still responded didn't you
Grenades (you get 4 of them and most early missions don't even feature 4 squads of enemies), by the time they're not useful anymore you have lasers and at the very least 2 (likely 4 or more) officer with decent ranks and no excuse to faceroll everything until the base mission, unless you're playing impossible but if you're whining about muh RNG and playing impossible the real question is, what the fuck did you expect exactly?
And no I don't mean spam grenades, the most basic plan is get 3 shots off then use a grenade if applicable.
After that you use your brain to figure out who is the most apt for grenading while keeping in mind that he's getting shot if all else fail to reduce the threat to zero.
And for fuck sake do not ever use run&gun as you thiunk you should at first it's a recipe for disasters
In XCOM:EU/EW (dunno about XCOM 2) they cannot engage in any hostile action (including overwatch) when first discoveredunless you discover them on your absolute latest possible move, and most of the time them having a "free move" works in your favor because the AI is dumb and move towards you.
If you're too dumb to figure out that you're supposed to discover enemies while you have most of your team totally ready then the problem is on you.
fucking up consistency with a dice roll is fucking unforgivable and only the most petulant "no child left behind" enthusiasts will defend it.
you are in a weird mindset that when you respond to someone, they are just wrong and bad and you have to teach them the correct way. You are even arguing against something I never brought up in the first place.
If you never ever were in a position where missing a 80+ percentage chance would be bad, I don't know what game you're playing.
And of course I know grenades are good early on and I use them regularly for guaranteed damage.
and for your last point, I think you misread what I even wrote. You argue if I had a problem with it being too hard. I never said any of sorts. I just said due to how it works, defensive play is required. Even moving up one grid to better flank the enemy can trigger an entire new squad. So unless I want to take an unnecessary risk of triggering a sectopod too early, I just play defensively.
All due to how they get their free move. Though the free move feels more to counteract AoE.
...
If it's single player there's literally no reason to cry about it you're never in an unwinnable situation purely by RNG if you're even half decent, unless the devs make it a mission to remove anything that would help you counteract RNG in any way obviously, yopu also don't have to play it if you can't accept an external factor fucking up your efforts.
And if it's a multiplayer game and has randomness it's not worth your time so why even bother acknowledging it?
to clarify what I meant.
Yes I know about risk managing. But it feels like xcom wasn't designed for 4-6 units, but 20+. So when the remake they lost focus why the chance mechanic worked so well
Because fuck Fire Emblem
No you're not because you should realize that 80% isn't 100% thus you can fail and thus you have a backup plan, if your plan hinges on a single shot it's bad by definition and the game might be a bitch but missing two 80+ shots in a row is a rare occurrence and more than that is a once in a play through experience at most, and even after doing a 4 men squad playthrough on impossible (in both EU and EW) I still didn't encounter many situation that I couldn't handle with proper planning even if I shat my pants a little when I got to my first EW sectopod after the joke that were EU sectopods
Let's take an hypothetical situation, you have a force that outguns and outnumbers you, you don't know the exact location but you have a vague idea of what exactly you're up against
Do you
A. go in guns blazing
or
B. Approach carefully
And yeah I would agree that it's not fun for everyone but it works for me and how they tried to fix it in XCOM2 is fucking atrocious and retarded (now you gotta sprint every turn or you're fucked but we haven't changed the main gameplay elements so now you have to throw yourself at the RNG without having any opportunity to really manage it probably me just not adapting to the new meta though, so I guess that makes me one of the whiner I complain about too
And I suppose you know that too but there are still option to play very aggressively if you really want.
Yeah that can happen but normally if you play your moves right it shouldn't And even then you can still get the situation in your favor because the AI is retarded and groups up making the AoE damage even more effective
Well that and you would just get a bunch of targets in the open and probably flanked too that can't do anything about it if you played defensively so they had to skew the system to make it fair instead of actually ficing it and making it so that at the very least some alines have a concept of moving in cover even when nothing is here or at-least once you discover one group and they have time to tell the others that you're here then again it glitches out every once in a while and activates an out of sight groups because reasons
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that XCOM is a game that isn't really any hard but most of how you play to win comes from bad decisions with how the game was made and f that way of playing doesn't suit you then though shit, I don't have a problem with it so I still enjoy it and at first I thought you were complaining about it being too hard when you really where just complaining about the things that aren't good with the game despite being able to play it fine.
Well yeah but they fucked everything by also removing TUs and changing the diceroll system to something that they actually had to skew in favor of the player for it to not retarded, so sadly you can play pretend with LW (which isn't bad by itself but at that point you're really just wanting to play X-COM / Xenonauts but giving yourself pretexts not to) or just play the older games which have more actual risk management and don't need to skew the system at various points for it to work.
Fire emblem doesn't lie to you at least. All the odds it gives you are legit
Meanwhile pokemon manages to make quick claw+sheer cold strats work because fuck you, the ai can do whatever it likes
If I remember correctly, the high-level AI doesn't modify chances but """only""" predicts the RNG.