RNG is bullshit

He just said that Chess has a finite number of moves, meaning there is no true variation, everyone just memorizes ways to move around Can you refute his argument instead of focusing just on whether he finds the game interesting or not?

Or you could just use PRNG

No. His argument is, and I quote:

I already refuted that with one of the oldest, most popular games in history that is not RNG based. Here's what's going to happen, because these faggots do this every time. Their null hypothesis is always going to be "a fun game that is not RNG based", and since fun is subjective, they will use this to discard any non-RNG based game you list so that they don't have to lose the argument. But that's not how debates work. The moment they try to slip in the "b-but that's not fun" bullshit, then we immediately know where this debate is going to go, and thus there's no point in further engaging them.

League of Legends requires actual skill, though. You may argue that the skill comes from memorizing "counterpicks and static builds", but that is where the challenge comes in. The difficulty comes from the player himself, not the game. That is what makes LoL so timeless and great.
Arbitrary knowledge and memorization are not 'real skill'. If anything, you should have said decision making and critical thinking are the skills involved with chess because of the limited capacity of human players to understand, learn, identify and interact with the incredibly vast, but finite possibilities of the game.

RNG does add variety and you sometimes deserve bad rolls just to see how you cope. But bad roll after bad roll like an entire squad missing their shots in a turn of XCOM just makes you wish it wasn't like that. With the use of modifiers and the like though, the player has a way of influencing the RNG even if they get a bad roll.

WEW LAD

At the same time, if a low-percentage event ever occurs it is considered "bullshit."

I think randomness can work in a few situations, but they require

RPGs originated from tabletop games that used diceroll mechanics as a substitute for "tests." Since a character could not be made to perform difficult actions, a test would determine if they were capable of doing it.

It has no place in contemporary action-oriented video games.

RNG is to approximate chances that would otherwise require constant checks running in the background. Unless you want every god damned thing conceivable to be calculated and thus eat up a lot of processing time and slow games right the fuck down.

Let me guess you're one of those faggots that wants hits to be 100% with no deviation whatsoever, and you're ignoring every other RNG mechanic. And poker and other gambling games use chance as a mechanic and you don't sweem to have a problem with that.

RNG is to approximate chances that would otherwise require constant checks running in the background. Unless you want every god damned thing conceivable to be calculated and thus eat up a lot of processing time and slow games right the fuck down.

You made this up. Why are you making shit up?

There is a reason why those games are called ameritrash among the board game community.

I'm not making shit up, X-COM UFO Defense unlike nuXCOM uses actual constant checks in the .DAT files for things like where bullets go which is why Modders realized the gun itself affects accuracy even if the actual roll was a technical hit or if a UFO is in the atmosphere and cross references stuff constantly at a timed interval. This is fine because of code optimization but then you get to something like Dwarf Fortress and the higher the scale the more it takes up your computer's resources.

Yes, and there's a finite amount of moves or combos an opponent can perform in a fightan game, but only people at the very fucking top can call the games 'predictable'. And if two such people of an equal level were to face eachother, do you think they'd already know the outcome of the match by just the first move? No, it's precisely because they know what the other can anticipate that allows both players to play mind games on eachother, which is what distinguishes winners from losers. Such as "obviously most people would do that to protect themselves, but what if he won't?". Without telepathy, there's no way you can know for certain.

The presence of RNG does not provide infinite possibilities for everything. Rather, it just branches each action or event into a possible win/lose state whose outcome the player cannot predict. This in turn creates a meta around minimizing risks and losses, and preparing yourself just in case a move fails to turn out as you'd hope. While it's possible to get dealt terrible hands for the entire duration for the match, it's still possible to minimize your losses.

I've always considered RNG to be the spice of difficulty; a little bit adds variety, but too much spoils the taste.
Of course, that's not to say that its required. There are plenty of good meals out there that don't use spices in their recipe. Although people have a tendency to get board of food without spices more quickly.

Yes. (R.I.P.)

Are you basing your entire argument in how XCOM does things? You don't need super complex dwarf fortress tier mechanics to make a game non RNG, what you are saying it's a non sequitur. You don't need to emulate a sword at the atom level to check if something hits or not, see: Beat'em up games, fighting games, FPS, etc.

Poker is a card game and gambling is literally trying your luck. Completely different than a shooter m8y.

More often than not games have a pseudo-RNG where it's not really random, but also has a pattern to it. It's bullshit that game devs can't even figure out a random number like they're niggers.

Poker is a mindg ame, user.

Poker is more about playing the other players than the cards you're holding in your hand. It's a social game that requires manipulation and deception.

Are you one those faggot who think this is a good idea?

You think Poker is just about people sitting around a table, drawing random cards as some rando grabs all the chips?
That's a very surface-level understanding of poker, user, even moreso if you think mindgames you see in poker can't occur in other genres of games.

No I'm comparing UFO Defense in contrast to Dwarf Fortress two games that use different levels of complexity vs RNG in the background and I chose them because they're not full 3D games in terms of graphic rendering sine it's simpler to look at how it works while ignoring things like interaction of 3D objects, in which case the demands of 3D rendered graphics and how they're handled is also a major factor even if everything else about the game is simple.

a fat man did barely as much damage as 5 shots from the ass rifle.

trash game

I see where you are coming from, but I still disagree. What you mean is pretty much:
I disagree on the "We wanted to add heart attack as a mechanic", you don't need that shit. If you want to make a simulator, either go all in or just don't simulate that part, don't put the player under the RNG god, it makes everything worse.

RNG doesn't just apply to actions frameskipping is just as much a RNG factor in games where that counts, then there is AI that use RNG and games like Fatal Fury and the infamous Geese Howard who just uses RNG to decide when to throw you and override anything you were doing if you so much as brush up against his sprite or min/max damage values or deciding a winner in mutual throws in SF2. of course arcade games use RNG to deliberately screw you of all your quarters.

Frameskipping isn't intended.
An AI is supposed to simulate another player so it's okay for it to be random, as long as it plays the same rules as you do, this means once you see its action you know what will happen next.
This means you can't pull the "Everything is AI" card, where you put other randomness under "It's just the AI", because then it would be unfair (Aka, a shit game), like if in soccer the goalkeeper was able to say "No bro it didn't went in, sorry", the AI needs to have limited power.

RNG is typically done correctly. Morons just can't into risk management (irl or ingame).

Yes, yes I know about the depth and complexities of the game and how in the case of poker especially you are playing against the opponent more than the cards in their hand, since there is a certain amount of shared information as well as a level of resource management in the form of chips. But you're forgetting a few things that make real life poker different than, say, playing online against people around the world.

Entire books have been written on the art of bluffing in casino card games. Everything about how one carries themselves is important and there really is no way to compare this to a video game because you barely ever look at your actual opponent.

Losing a hand does not put one out. A poker player can allow a massive number of losses and still be the decisive winner. Not a lot of video games do that

it's really not comparable.

Well I overall agree with you, but for the record RNG AI in fighting games are anything but fair Howard is just the peak of bullshit and the AI in those arcade games don't follow player rules whatsoever so no you don't know what will happen next.

*Howard is just the peak of bullshit in Fatal Fury 1

A lot of posts ITT seem to assume that RNG is only ever used in the manner of dice rolls in RPGs. All the best action games Ninja Gaiden sigmas a shit, DMC 2 a shit, Bayonetta, God Hand, etc all use RNG in enemy behavior. Distance and position to player will then trigger an RNG pick of which action to take so that the enemies are not completely predictable even though they have set patterns of various actions. Likewise AI in almost any game requires RNG to function and be fun. Without it in an FPS the computer will always headshot you since it will be able to lock on as soon as your head is visible. Without RNG an opponent in a grand strategy will just execute the exact same script every time and every game would be deterministic given the same set of player actions.

This is hardly limited to a "game dev" problem. Even using local hardware like mics to derive random from atmospheric noise it is still subject to less than random results. So as a game dev you can either:

Wait… My video games are using my mic to generate random AI patterns?
Can I break the game with this?

The correct was to create variance in result is by implementing hidden information that remain deterministic. RNG is generally used to replace skill based mechanics, which makes the game boring as shit.

You're wrong retard.
The opening of chess is a game of routine which is fucking boring, this is even recognized by pros. Skill in chess starts becoming relelvant around the midgame when memorised moves stop being relevant.

Did he not mean this?

Poker's mindgame and social-game aspects coome from hidden information and not from the randomness. Yo achieve the same effect in RTS with fog of war, where no random element is present.

risk management is for unskilled faggots, both IRL and ingame.

I saw this thread and instantly thought "pokemon". Then I saw . Spooky.

In fact, Pokemon without RNG would defeat the whole point. Every pokemon would have the same rarity, and you'd have to define one per route, or one per patch of grass - and who would care to do that?

Not to mention catching pokemon. There would be just no suspense. You'd know if you brought it down to a certain HP, it's caught, that's it.

Also, fun attacks like Metronome or Acupressure wouldn't work. And there is probably more. Pokemon doesn't work without RNG AT ALL.

Git gud

It's not that it shouldn't be incorporated, it's that the nigger developers always do a shitty job at it.

impossible when your chances rely on RNG. Thats the entire point user. you probably think mario kart is a skill based game

There are still more number of moves and possible combinations present in the most simplest fighting game than in Chess. The only solved competitive fighting game I can think of is MvC

RNG works for some things but not for others. It can almost always be done well or badly, but devs usually just thoughtlessly throw things at an RNG function to solve problems so it tends to result in the bad kind of RNG.

Spelunky's level generation is a pretty good example of how to use RNG properly. It doesn't just generate a random dungeon, it creates a path from pre-designed rooms, makes sure there's something you can jump down to, and then uses a little bit of extra RNG to add variation to them (enemies and extra blocks, crates, etc).

I don't know the exact specifics of how it generates, but you could improve it further by making it so that items and enemies are spawned consistently, and make it more likely to spawn crates with bombs if there's rooms that are unavailable from the main path. It's still RNG, but you're directing it into making a suitable level rather than pure randomness.

Miss/hit chance in a turn-based game could be directed similarly too; the more you miss, the less likely you are to miss. If you have a function that handles it properly, your miss/hit chance would be very consistent according to whatever hit chance your stats give you.

RNG is a stupid mechanic in modern videogames and only retards who don't understand why RNG exists would argue otherwise.

RNG came from P&P games, where RNG is used to simplify complex combat situations that would require hours of calculations to determine the outcome, so you use RNG instead to keep it flowing as complex calculations (and precise data) are not really possible in a P&P session. It transferred over to early games like cRPGs partly because they based themselves on aforementioned P&P and because, much for the same reason as P&P, complex calculations were not viable (even if the processing power was there, top down 2D games simply didn't have a reason to track all the needed data like sword position, velocity, etc. to calculate an accurate result).

There is absolutely no reason for a modern game like NuCOM2 to use RNG as much as it does. It has all the data it needs, from muzzle position and direction to gravity to bullet velocity, it has no reason not to calculate at least semi-realistic ballistics and determine the outcome. RNG is just used as a crutch, it makes development infinitely easier, and lazy devs love that. P&P also has the suspense when the dice is rolling on the table and everyone is watching waiting to see the result, that doesn't happen with videogames (and it's worth noting that any GM worth shit will not let the dice tyrannize the session because it more often than not hampers rather than enhances the flow).

inb4 "b-but down in the animations for the sway of the rifle when the soldier shoots somewhere there is some RNG so that's the same as having full RNG like NuCOM!"
Go eat cyanide then, after all it's made from the same sub-atomic particles as the food you normally eat.

RNG is fine as long as it isn't some absurdly low chance to get something needed for progression. Otherwise, I have no problem with it.

RNG in AI routines can usually be fine, or even necessary, and it's useful in RPGs for dicerolls. Action games, shooters, etc. should have the least RNG feasible, though, because RNG in shooting, aiming, physical actions, etc. is just frustrating and shit. ESPECIALLY in multiplayer games.

You're saying some green as grass rookie with a 9mm pistol should be able to hit aliens from a 500ft distance in XCOM with a 100% chance of being able to hit them?

They should be able to do that if the pistol has that tight of accuracy. But I think that is very unlikely. Lower that to 50ft, and then sure, why not?

Wew

Common core at it's finest.

RNG is fine as long as it is used to change up the options or the situation a player finds himself in and does not mess with the way a player can interact with the world(e.g: XCOM % to hit) so that even if a game gives a player a harder time based on RNG but leaves the tools the player uses untouched.

Though the better way to mix up stuff for players is the way the Left 4 Dead games do it where a Director uses multiple Variables(player health, hostiles encountered, items equipped,pace of progress or lack thereof) to constrain the initial RNG to provide a challenge but prevent the "miss, miss, miss" Situations that RNG is so hated for.

Don't lump me in with that bullshit. I only used ft to keep the same frame of reference.

Diablo 3 is similar with the modified RNG idea. There is RNG for getting legendary drops, but the RNG constantly scales up the longer the player goes without getting a legendary. So that ensures that you get some minimum number or drops, rather than having a bad stretch and getting nothing for what seems like forever.

Kill yourself you fucking faggot.

RNG is only good for adding variety, things like enemy placement or random objects in the game world.
Not a single game ever that did
was good.

people get paid a lot of money to manage risks for large companies, stupid.

Best use of RNG and turn based combat is jagged alliance 2. Prove me wrong faggots

As I mentioned before, RNG is a spice that, with the right amount added, can make a good challenge great.

Consider a comparison between the Demi-fiend fight in DDS1 vs the Elizabeth fight in Persona 3. Both are from the same franchize, have the same combat mechanics, require ample amount of grinding and preparation, and require several failures to detect, diagnose, and understand the mechanics of their encounter (unless your a scrub and use a guide). Yet regardless of their similarities, one is heralded as the hardest turn based boss fight in existence while the other, while marginally tough, is hardly noteworthy.

The first main difference between these two challenges is in the execution based difficulty. Demi-fiend requires you to keep track of two separate turn counters (discounting some turns), the health of both his allies, and will very commonly (due to his RNG) put you in situations which draw on your good judgement and past experiences fighting him (eg. healing vs attacking him vs attacking his allies, each decision having its own merits and risks). Compare that with Elizabeth, where all you need to keep track of is her health and what element she's on.

The second big difference between these two challenges is the RNG element. In the Demi-fiend fight, the Dormina/Gaia's Wrath mechanic acts as a soft turn limit. There's a sense of urgency to finish the fight as soon as possible, but no set time limit and thus you have to relay on your own good judgement and past experiences with him to know if you can continue going at your pace or should increases your aggressiveness. Additionally, the large number of skills on his side (notably Mamudoon and Hell's Gate) along with his insanely high crit rate provide tension and randomness to the fight, capable of wiping out some or all of your party in an instant (even in perfect condition). While the odds of getting an instant game over are relatively low (if you prepared properly), you'll still find yourself holding your breath every time its his turn when the past 45 minutes are on the line. Compare with the Elizabeth fight where you know exactly how many turns you have to defeat her, you know exactly what element she'll use on each of her turns, and where the only RNG you have to worry about is getting double physical criticaled in one turn. So lacking in RNG is the Elizabeth fight, you could probably write a simple script to do the fight for you once you discovered the underlying mechanics.

In absence of RNG, the "hardest turn based boss battle in existence" would be nothing more than slightly tougher Elizabeth fight; a complete snooze fest once you've figured out the mechanics and prepared enough.

I'd agree with this if Gaia's rage didn't have a small chance of happening any time during the battle.
Having a possible instant kill happen at any time which you can only avoid being asleep which sets up another instant kill clause isn't fun design.

RNG is okay in Pokemon until the moment you try to play it with other people.

There's no frustration quite like losing a game simply because "Well you did everything right but he got a crit so he gets to win."

Retards always bitch about RNG in Pokemon
But here is why I think Pokemon does do RNG right in a sense, in Pokemon at least RNG can be manipulated to an advantage. You can greatly boost critical hit chances or lay moves that reduce crits or whatever

Plenty of times. You getting triggered because you rolled a 1 doesn't make a system bad.

I'd agree here if hit manipulation wasn't mostly banned in competitive scenes.

rest in peace Holla Forums

Wow, of all the examples out there you chose one where it's fucking retarded.

WOW

...

ctrl+F "Roguelike"
0 results

Nothing but faggots ITT I see.

Now that you are here the team is complete.

Your thread is bullshit.

What do people refer to with RNG these days? Is it simply RNG factors in a game, or a roguelikeliteshit with nothing but RNG? Or just RNG overall? Because I'd say the majority of vidya uses RNG in some aspects.

No OP, RNG is never really okay. There's always a random element to certain gameplay styles but it should be avoided as much as possible.

Fuck RNG

Says who?

Also I think RNG is bullshit when it comes to game completion. If you have to rely on RNG for certain items or enemies to spawn with certain percentages, that's fucked. FFXII was notorious for this.

Everyone who isn't a fucking retard. Growing numb to the bullshit doesn't stop it from being bullshit.

So, not you?

I love how taking HoMM 3 for example where you have multiple ways of moving rng into your favour or away from enemy's favour, where units have damage ranges you have to take into account, this all leading to having the player think, evaluate and consider his moves but then some chromosome collectors on \v\ go "nah, it's bad" and that's it.

Kill your fucking self.

...

And it's cute that you went for
since the majority of faggots here complain that it makes games too hard like X-Cum or Fallout because obviously 95% chance to hit = 100% in morons' heads.
Cool trips tho, kill your sister/

RNG where there is always something the player can do to succeed is good. Enemies using different telegraphed attacks that you can answer in a variety of ways (some ways being better) is what makes the best answer satisfying.

RNG like in Fire Emblem where you can get zero-gain level ups or enemies deal 2% crits is not healthy, because there is little to nothing the player can do to counteract it. The infinite grinding the newer games offer in counter to this is shit too because grinding with randomized progress is just padding.

Another example- PSO2 recently converted a 12-man quest to a solo, which is all well and good because things die so fast they can't even attack otherwise, but you get bonuses albeit minor for clearing it quickly. Both bosses have attacks that make them either impossible or prohibitively difficult to hit- one has a spin attack it might use constantly, preventing you from approaching its weakpoints, and the other can spend a large amount of time dicking around in the background. Clearing in good time is up to chance without purpose, unless you have equipment and skill trees designed specifically for this- which is a game of stats and not of player skill. It is a DPS focused game, so stats are always important, but the negatives rear their ugly head here.

There's nothing wrong with Pokemon and its RNG. The only problem are the autists who play this shit competitively.

If all else is equal, the more powerful/better side would always win. The more randomness you add to the equation, the better chance the weaker side has of winning.

I agree that RNG is like good seasoning. Knowing that even when you have the upper hand, there's still a chance you can lose adds tension to the experience. But when you completely outplay or outmaneuver your opponent and still lose (X-COM) it's not fun any more.

When has this happened in X-Com?

Chess fucking sucks dude, the graphics are shit and the guides are fucking complicated! Play good and balanced games like overwatch instead.

You're right, I just got out-fucking-skilled.

Kill thyself

>no i meant the other x-com

Since OG X-Com and the nu abomination are different like night and day, yeah, it was the other X-Com.

I stand by my trips and statement, off yourself.

Fine, XCOM.

Please do the world a favor and go drink a jug of drain cleaner.

Yeah, it would be fair as long as the same chances apply to your enemy as well.

I assume you mean procedural generation. Procedural generation isn't really RNG as discussed in this thread, you just seed something and get a generated challenge in return.
It may be beatable or not, but it's not like RNG which is in play from start to finish, you just got a procedurally generated game. It may be harder than other seeds, it may be easier, but it will always be the same. It's just a way to replace level design, and was used to lower memory costs. If I give you the seed I used to beat the game, as long as there isn't RNG involved we are in equal terms to measure our skill.
There are even games that use procedural generation with a fixed seed, like Elite originally did a sad modern example will be No Man's Sky, it's much easier to understand my argument when you consider these games.

That's already a thing. It's called pseudoRNG

rng doesnt have to mean luck, what about random enemy attacks but you can counter all of them because they're telegraphed right, there's many other cool applications i can think of, but you'd generally want to avoid randomness in competetive games.
that and visual effects look nicer with some randomness

It's actually an unsolved quandary. Good game design wants to clearly present the threat of potentially loosing while having the upper hand, but not actually have to deliver on it. The only solution at the moment is to mitigate the number of times that the game actually goes and screws you over.

It's easy to approximate randomness to the point where it doesn't matter for video games. True randomness is important for paranoid cryptography but it really doesn't make a difference for video games.

I'm working on a PVP tabletop game with the intention of making good decisions have fair results, so I have to think about RNG a lot in regards to what the players can do and what their options are with getting results. In the game, both players pretty much have the capability to play safely and away from RNG theoretically, however you also have the ability to pretty much throw a wrench into someone playing too safely, similar to how fighting game mix-ups work, which forces the safe player to have to rely on RNG and make critical decisions on where each action they have will work.

tl;dr Players need to have options to play around RNG but still have it around as a looming factor so they're never comfortable, but never be bullshit like 1% chances.

I finally have a reason to use this image again. Wew lad.

...

...

Justification used by nihilistic intellectuals with a wicked sense of humour for players getting punished when making the safest possible choice when they couldn't afford to take the riskier option, when both choices would have lead to death on a bad result.

sounds like you need to git gud tbh.

This is an 18+ website.

Go back to reddit, nigger.

Oh wow i forgot this was used as an actual excuse

maybe for a faggot that can't play for shit (You)

You'll faggots don't even Fischer-Random.

Even without Fischer-Random you're not fooling anyone here. You're not even a master. You haven't even memorized the most common book-openings. Stick to fucking stuffed animals and shoving things UP your ass instead of talking OUT of it.

RNG has been done correctly many times. See: Card Games.
Additionally, games built around manipulating RNG to be favourable. See: Path of Exile.
You're just an idiot and this is a shit thread.

Only losers say this.

You're retarded.

You too.
Chess is a completely different thing. OP is talking about RNG in single player games. Of fucking course, a 2 player game is a different case altogether. Luck in 2 player games is often annoying and leads to unfairness.

Path of Exile has an interesting way to handle accuracy.

You have your general way to avoid damage, from Evasion, which is opposed by your attacker's Accuracy. However, every time they miss, a seed value is increased by their accuracy%. When this exceeds 1.00, the attack is a hit and the seed is reduced by 1. Basically, this is a rolling tally of previous hits and guarantees that if you have an 85% accuracy, you WILL miss every 1 in 6 hits.

There's also a flat Dodge chance which is rarer to find abilities for, but it's like 30% RNG straight up, no counter. So you have a soft and a hard accuaracy, in a way.

funnily enough because of how stupid hard enemies hit, Dodge and armor builds are basically worthless compared to ES.
Mainly because of that stupid "bypasses your armor if it does X damage" that the game has.

true, but not every player is at chessmaster level. some players, even some tournament players will choose to simply go by feel, or to only think two or three moves ahead or whatever. some players know no conventional "strategy" at all and are still pretty good opponents. if we want to put videogame terms on it of course there's an endgame meta and you're not wrong, you're just wrong by implying that every single person who sits at a chessboard knows which "build order" to use

tl;dr i can't believe how often chess comes up on this board and fuck you it's still fun

Then it fucks you over with the item RNG fuck that noise.

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Try Goal Oriented Action Programming, that's the true solution to creating multiple possible functions in a specific task without resorting to RNG.

Any game that skews its rng is badly implemented rng. Being fucked over by nuCOM-tier rigged rng is complete bullshit. Being fucked over by UFO Defense's rng is all part of what makes it fun. 100% OJ is fun too.

Poker is the best game with that has true RNG. Prove me wrong.

yahtzee was here, poker a shit

Armor basically has diminishing returns. I've been thinking about their design philosophy and while some modes are strictly better than others, you basically have avoidance, mitigation, and sponging (eva/arm/es+hp).

So each one actually makes the other two more effective, in a way; but it's awful to go with more than two, unfortunately.

Dice are plebian in general.

So what item is refusing to drop for you user?

...

most rng is bad, because it makes the players skill not matter, you may as well be watching a cutscene.
but for a good example there is enemy behavior, your spotted by an enemy and it has 4 attacks in its arsenal you are in the proper range for, so it picks one at random.
this ensures you have to react to the attack to not get hit by it, after all if there was no chance of failure it might as well be a movie.
of course it also assumes that the player can theoretically react to all of these attacks and also that there isnt 1 action the player can take that would solve all of them, IE its a good game.
what makes it better is if there is a shitload of options you can apply to each that have varying degrees of success, for example in dark souls you can dodge, block, interrupt, trade,parry ect and all of those things have a shitload of factors. dodgeing you need to time it right, manage stamina (both use your gear in calculation so thats more options) keep in mind what the enemy might follow up with and terrain matters as well.
blocking you need to take into consideration stamina management, your shield, how heavy the attack is, what damage type and how much you block that, what the enemy can follow with ect.
and the same for the rest, there are shitloads of things to consider for approaching each enemy that would be rendered moot if you could look up exactly whats going to happen when you approach the enemy.
this is all compounded in PVP where instead of choosing from like 12 attacks at random the enemy is another player choosing from some ungodly huge number of actions at infinitely varying degrees of player skill (and character proficiency at the task thanks to the RPG elements)

TLDR rng like chance to hit is bull

Have you ever tried making a post that doesn't read like something straight from bioware forums?

In single player games, particularly role playing games, a lighly applied RNG is good. In PVP it needs to fucking die, save for slight alterations in recoil patterns.

RNG always reduces the quality of a game. It's okay if you enjoy glorified slot machines, I also like that sometimes, but it's in no way good for the game. It may or may not make it more enjoyable for some players, but objectively, it's shit.
Think a sport like tennis, once the ball comes at your side, there are multiple shots you can do, everyone has a different probability of success based on their skill. If I'm a shit player, the chances will be lower overall, and depending how good I am at different shots, the probabilities will fluctuate. On the other hand, probabilities with RNG in video games aren't based on your skill, your chances of success are always tied to a fixed number.
That's the biggest problem with RNG and no amount of shitty normalfag card games will save you from that.

Good meme.

It's the truth, chess is objectively better than a slot machine, you can pretty much prove it mathematically, there is no way to get better at a slot machine, that makes it a worse game by definition.
I didn't say that any amount of RNG automatically makes a game shit, just that it reduces the overall quality in some way. If it's not a big amount it may be a good trade off to mix it up a little, but the more you add, especially in core mechanics, the shittier it gets.

Keep going.

Then I suggest you play some arcade games first. Run 'n gun shooters and side-scrollers during the 90's era often featured zakos or popcorn enemies (cannon fodder which can be taken out in one hit but can either take you down in one hit as well by just colliding with you) spawning from both sides, because otherwise the games would just be a case of holding down Right+Shoot. RNG would also determine the spawn position of certain enemies and the usage of a certain enemy attack. You could know what is coming and how to deal with it, but you don't exactly know when or where it is coming. That's where your reflexes come into play, else the game would be 100% memorization and it'd lose the element of quickly adapting to sudden situation based on the knowledge of the game you have. Case in point, the Dracula boss fight in CV1 where Drac randomly appears in and out of darkness to either your left and right to strike you. You don't know where he's gonna teleport, and the window to attack/dodge is incredibly tight. RNG for these games allows each run to feel fresh due to circumstances you cannot fully predict beforehand. Games like Daimakaimura (Ghouls 'n Ghosts), Ninja Spirit, and ofc the Contra games do not heavily rely on RNG to dictate a win or loss, but enough to make things feel fresh. You may memorize an entire superplay from Youtube, but executing it precisely step by step is an entirely different beast.

RNG is fine when you can supplement it with skill in gameplay like Rogue Legacy/Binding of Issac etc

It's an absolute assrape when done poorly and if you pass X point with zero excellent outcomes it's quicker to just restart and try all over again like FTL, Risk of Rain, Enter the Gungan etc

...

You can have RNG as long as there are ways to negate, workaround or minimize it. This topic has already been discussed to death and you should probably kill yourself OP.

Natalia is pure, stop the bully!

...

She has a fucking daughter.

You have no proof

Artificial insemination and the doctor was using a blindfold.

She's been divorced once and her current husband is raising another man's kid.

Managing bad outcomes is a skill, you donut. This is entirely what FTL is about. How can you say "luck" isn't a skill?

Can't say if you're uncucked or double cucked at this point.

I played a fuckton of arcade games, and also did play cannon fodder.
The problem you have with that, is that different runs between different players are going to be biased by RNG. One player that has less skill than other player can get lucky and do better, like for example enemies always coming from the same side. And your concern is true also, things like shmups end up being more about memorization than anything else. But this is a way to make it truly fair, where more score means automatically a better play-through.
There are other ways to make it fair without using RNG, for example decide where enemies come from based on player actions. With that, if you get a shit enemy layout it's entirely your fault, and with your knowledge of the game you can use it to your advantage.
You can also use seeds like in brogue, so you can compare two scores with the same seed and they will be in equal terms.
I know that overall, in older games this was also true, since RNG was deterministic There are exceptions, in the NES for example, you could get entropy in the power up state. In these cases, you can pretty much save input and run it again and it will play the same. But it is grasping at straws too much in my opinion.
I'm going to agree that there is no other way to measure reflexes without pure uncertainty, so RNG has that going, but still doesn't make it desirable in my opinion, should save that for multiplayer games.

not a fan of her, but I like this webm.

yeah you just need to build enough control to set the bounds appropriately though if you're using your RNG for generation of lets say animals like No Man's Sky it's difficult to figure out all the cases which could be generated.

you then need to put in special data for each object to prevent such weird generations

Natalia is not for lewd

Skill is something you can control

Luck is something you can't

FTL if you don't get anything good within the first 5 minutes you reset and try again until you do

Enter the Gungan for example if you get bad drops you literally cannot do enough damage to beat the first chapters boss

And Risk of Rain if you don't get good drops within the first 10 minutes you have to restart because you simply will not do enough damage period to progress further

...

I don't know about the other games but you claims about Risk of Rain are complete bullshit.

also

I pretty much hated RoR until I found the artifact that let you choose your drops. Then the game became piss easy even in monsoon difficulty. That's how bullshit RNG is, if you get lucky you win, if you get unlucky you will have a terrible time and probably lose. You simply can't balance a game like this.

A playthrough where you get infusion early and a playhthrough you don't feel like you two different difficulties.

kill
yourself

CHEF
GET DOG HOODS
GET SCYTHES
GET RING THAT LOWERS COOLDOWN ON CRITICALS
YOU WIN
IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT ELSE YOU GET YOU ALREADY WON IN 11 MINUTES

...

Except you can't because it's all RNG, that's the fucking point. If you use Command you can win with any character you like and any combination of OP items you want.

It is if you can control the reason for why that 25% miss chance exists. DOTA 2 is a good example of this where attacking something when it's on high ground has an exact 25% miss chance, but if you are on the same level that doesn't happen. You have to make a choice between the safety of being in a certain location but a (basically) 25% reduction in damage, or being able to do more damage but in a more dangerous spot.

But all that aside, missing 25% of the time can just be broken down to having a 25% reduction in damage. You should be planning around that fact. Unless we're going to start arguing about what's good RNG and what's badly design RNG.>c

gitgud

It's done correctly when I'm the one that gets the rare drop.

...

I like how MH does rng.
It does make it so you HAVE to be looking at a guide at all times to get the mats you want though
And you also have those times where the desire sensor just fucks you over too

Only for catching Pokémon. For battles it's just annoying. You can potentially abuse RNG in your favor, but there's still a chance to get fucked over. It's even worse if you play it competitively, but only autists would play Pokémon competitively.

Or you have games just outright fucking lie to you about the stats you're seeing on screen like X-Com

And yes, X-Com game stats DO lie, on impossible difficulty if you have a 55% chance to hit in reality you only have a 5% chance to hit

But if devs showed the actual numbers people would refuse to play the higher difficulties and them being absolutely fucked over like that, but X-Com is a great way to show how devs lie about RNG values

Same shit with enter the gungan, devs claimed drops on keys were "Not bad" etc until some reddit user hacked the code and found out key drops were fucking abysmally low, to which the dev vowed "To fix it" but all he did was encrypt the game files with a new key so you couldn't see the internals again and has since claimed "It's fixed"

No, Pokemon was always a badly designed game. All of the recent changes are just an attempt to patch a broken system.

You can tell how bad it was by looking at the first 3 gens.

Dragon was always special, preventing Dragonite and Salamence from using it effectively
Dark was always special, while most dark types have high attack stats
Ghost was always physical. Snorlax uses shadow ball better than Gengar. Oh and shadow ball lowers fucking special defense despite being a physical attack.

user is such a faggot

Also user is a newfag who can't into IDs apparently.

my "best" feat in monster hunter was this
If someone would tell me something like this i wouldn't belive and i don't expect anybody to belive it either

Too bad the drop rates are still dogshit. Yeah, you can break a specific part on a monster to increase your chances, but when it's only a 3% or lower chance to get what you want, it's still a horrible grind.

22 hunts to have less than 90% chance of getting ONE of the drop you want certainly isn't good design.

Roguelikes have RNG in every aspect, not just the initial generation. That includes the basic chance to hit or be hit.

First gen pokemon was extremely well designed as a classic RPG.

RNG
Number Generator at Random

RNG IS NIGGER