Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

  • "ARE5R06" started this thread

Posts: 943

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

1

Thursday, July 21st 2016, 1:25pm

Forcing RNG into Aspects of the Game. What's the Philosophy behind ?

Hi guys,

this is a question, which makes me think for a very long time:

What's the Philosophy, which leads Game-Designers to implement RNG Elements into the Gameplay ?

[*] e.g. the OP R8 Revolver was released as a shock-therapy for CSGO players, because the more substantial spread (RNG Element) on AK, M4 were introduced (That's the information I have, I might be wrong because I dont play this game)

Why is this introduction so important for the Game-Designer, that he decides to apply a shock-therapy on the Community, in order to implement it ? He must be very confident in what he is doing and have good reasons for this move, But I am unable to get an idea what they might be ?

[*] e.g. BF4. Multiple Layers of RNG for every weapon. Recoil: RNG, Spread: RNG. I actually like this approach, because it makes the weapons feel "authentic" as iRL the shot never hits exactly where you aim (I suppose), but the result is a huge effort with probability calculations in order to counter the Randomness again. The most interesting example are shotguns:

Shotguns in BF4, use RNG to distribute the pellets. But in order to fight their inconsistency, DICE LA increased the pellet count. Why to use the RNG element in the first place, if steps need to be taken to counter the Random Element. A pre distributed Area of Pellets would have had the same effect to fight inconsistency.




I know that a good player knows how to control randomness into his favor, but developers include RNG elements, in order to counter their effect. So why even start introducing it ?

Maybe some game developers on this site can teach me, I cannot grasp it on my own.
still playin' Motorstorm

Miffyli

Symthic Developer

(6,927)

Posts: 3,742

Date of registration
: Mar 21st 2013

Platform: PC

Location: __main__, Finland

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

2

Thursday, July 21st 2016, 1:46pm

Especially when talking about random-ish recoil/spread I see it as a variables that allow creating more different weapons, and also force other guns being "worse" than others. If spread/recoil was somehow 100% learn-able people would stick with the leet guns with highest damage output instead of balancing between accuracy and damage (and other factors). Maybe some games want to do this, but Battlefield takes the route of having multiple viable options instead of few superior ones.

About the shotguns: Especially in their case it's more of a technical issue. They wanted to make shotguns have spread-out damage, but they had to use discrete samples (pellets) due to game mechanics. More pellets = closer to distribution they wanted = Shotgun damage more consistent.

Other area where randomness feels stupid you can kind of come up with logical sense behind it: Your level in competitive modes (eg. Overwatch, CSGO).
At least some of these seem to work simply by "win X number of games to progress". It sounds stupid that it doesn't include other variables. However if teams' relative performance in competitive matches has expected value of zero, the effect of team should disappear and only leave behind your personal performance after maaany games.
Links to users' thread list who have made analytical/statistical/mathematical/cool posts on Symthic:
  • 3VerstsNorth - Analysis of game mechanics in BF4 (tickrates, effects of tickrate, etc)
  • InterimAegis - Weapon comparisons/scoring.
  • leptis - Analysis of shotguns, recoil, recoil control and air drag.
  • Veritable - Scoring of BF4/BF1 firearms in terms of usability, firing and other mechanics.
  • pmax - Statistical analysis of BF4 players/games.
  • Miffyli - Random statistical analysis of BF4 battlereports/players and kill-distances. (list is cluttered with other threads).
Sorry if your name wasn't on the list, I honestly can't recall all names : ( . Nudge me if you want to be included

Posts: 3,674

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

3

Thursday, July 21st 2016, 2:34pm

Because.
Somewhat suggestive, personally wouldn't open at work -Miffyli


^ Really? How? I... am confused by that. ?(
Who Enjoys, Wins

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "BleedingUranium" (Jul 22nd 2016, 1:06am)


  • "ARE5R06" started this thread

Posts: 943

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

4

Thursday, July 21st 2016, 2:37pm

Especially when talking about random-ish recoil/spread I see it as a variables that allow creating more different weapons, and also force other guns being "worse" than others. If spread/recoil was somehow 100% learn-able people would stick with the leet guns with highest damage output instead of balancing between accuracy and damage (and other factors). Maybe some games want to do this, but Battlefield takes the route of having multiple viable options instead of few superior ones.


As above, I am not against this system, I just couldnt come up with a better example

About the shotguns: Especially in their case it's more of a technical issue. They wanted to make shotguns have spread-out damage, but they had to use discrete samples (pellets) due to game mechanics. More pellets = closer to distribution they wanted = Shotgun damage more consistent.


But the distribution of the pellets themselves is calculated by a RNG all at once. Its not like other weapons, one RNG each trigger. For shotguns its multiple RNG each trigger. A developer must have coded this special behaviour of shotguns. Someone must have told him to do so for a reason. What's the reason.


Other area where randomness feels stupid you can kind of come up with logical sense behind it: Your level in competitive modes (eg. Overwatch, CSGO).
At least some of these seem to work simply by "win X number of games to progress". It sounds stupid that it doesn't include other variables. However if teams' relative performance in competitive matches has expected value of zero, the effect of team should disappear and only leave behind your personal performance after maaany games.


I doubt that's a good reason for a gameplay, where a single death already means the end of the match. It fits for games with a respawn mechanic e.g. BF, CoD, where the better player can be evaluated by statistical number of wins of engagements (aka KD or wins vs a different player). In a death=lost_the_match gameplay, for both sides this seems like cheating by fortune, rather than sporty competition.

Where are Random Elements in Overwatch, other than the Loot Boxes ?

I have found this article: Randomness and Game Design but it doesnt gave me a satisfactory answer to my question.

More an indication, that the designer tries to develop a "depth" for his game because the player couldnt predict the next events from the events in the past. However, this doesnt seem to work out as well. IMHO CSGO is still a game for trained monkeys, rather than players. The randomness didnt add depth in this case.
still playin' Motorstorm

C0llis

Up and down. Bounce all around

(3,334)

Posts: 3,100

Date of registration
: Apr 15th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Sweden

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

5

Thursday, July 21st 2016, 2:46pm

Including random elements into the game ensures that the game isn't solvable. If the game becomes solvable then it degrades into memorization and frame perfect execution (which may in some cases be desirable, but not in BF4 and CS:GO, judging from the developers inclusion of random elements).

When you add in random elements you force the player to be adaptive. It's essentially about decision making vs. mechanical execution - what type of "skill" the developer wants the game to be about.

Here's something from Sirlin on the matter:

"There's also some irony there. If I told you that a certain game had perfect information (you know the full state of the game at each moment you have to make a decision) and that it had no randomness, then you'd probably say it sounds very skill-based. If you like skill-based games, you'd say we're off to a good start. But actually, we just guaranteed that this game has a pure solution and that it will necessarily become LESS about skill (decisions in-the-moment) and more about memorization as the game develops. A similar game that had some unknown elements, hidden information, and/or randomness could actually be more skill-testing, not less skill-testing.

So in creating a design, I recommend looking for what those unknown elements will be. What that hidden information will be. What that random element will be. Randomness has a real stigma, but it's important to understand that it's a valid tool to keep your game out of the dangerous pure solution category."

Things people said

And reading Youtube comments still gives me Turbo Cancer.

It really is quite frustrating when Helen Keller sets up her LMG in the only doorway in/out of an area.

What kind of question is that? Since when is cheese ever a bad idea?

Hardline is a fun and sometimes silly Cops and Robbers sorta thing and I think that's great. Or it would be if it didn't suck.

Posts: 7,809

Date of registration
: Feb 25th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: italy

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

6

Thursday, July 21st 2016, 3:08pm

Somewhat suggestive, personally wouldn't open at work place -Miffyli Because.

somewhat ot: how is that "suggestive"? actually, what does "suggestive" mean? miff plz.

also yeah, what collis said, it really depends on your definition of skill, but by logic, skill isn't something you can calculate, but something you can witness(random wordchoice because i write as i think), meaning that something you will expect to be able doing 100% of the times in all situations isn't skill, it's just being able do whatever you want in the game based on your knowledge of it, and not of the enemy as well, the game i picture in my mind now is the kind of game you would be able to be a master at by never playing against an enemy, but only learning how (in case of an fps) aim and move around the maps without being a huge target; true skill is when you understand the limits of something and manage to choose what to do and succeed in your idea 100% of the time, but not in the action itself, a flawlessly precise system won't allow that, but a more systematic approach to gameplay that will favor patterns and muscle memory more than mental skills.

basically, this is where the line breaks between sports(mostly mechanical skills) and games(mostly mental skills)

the solution in my eyes is to choose on what part to focus more when looking at the competitive scene of a certain game, the mechanical skills(counter strike, street fighter) or the mental skills? (battlefield, and i guess mobas, not sure as i never played any)
the first would fall in an e-sports category and the latter in pro-gaming, even though they're the same thing as of now, i feel like they should be separated to favor choice between gameplay style so that people can choose what to look at before trying, so that they can get a better idea of what kind of competetitive game they're going to look at.


tl;dr aiming isn't a skill but rather """memory"""*, knowing that you can or cannot do certain thingat certain moments isnstead actually is skill, mental skill to be precise, but people still can't make a clear cut distinction between the two.

*muscle memory
"I'm just a loot whore."


stuff mostly unrelated to BF4 that interests nobody



bf4
on 13/05/2016
23rd M320FB user on pc(13/05/16)
rush mode score RANK:2794 TOP:2% OUT OF:215398
obliteration mode scoreRANK:994 TOP:1% OUT OF:159466
handgun medals RANK:2236 TOP:2% OUT OF:143874
longest headshot RANK:9512 TOP:4% OUT OF:257589
recon score RANK:10871 TOP:4% OUT OF:274899
general score per minute RANK:10016 TOP:4% OUT OF:294774

bf3
31/3/2012 4:58:

Headshot distance RANK:493* TOP:0%
Revives per assault minute RANK: 6019 TOP: 3%
Headshots / kill percentage RANK:25947 TOP:13%
MVP ribbons RANK:18824 TOP:11%

*= 6 if we not count the EOD BOT headshots

@kataklism

ARGUMENT DESTROYED 100

ENEMY KILLED [REASON] JSLICE20 100


WRITING SPREE STOPPED 500

link to full-size old avatar:
http://i.imgur.com/4X0321O.gif



This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "iota-09" (Jul 21st 2016, 3:14pm)


Miffyli

Symthic Developer

(6,927)

Posts: 3,742

Date of registration
: Mar 21st 2013

Platform: PC

Location: __main__, Finland

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

7

Thursday, July 21st 2016, 3:20pm

somewhat ot: how is that "suggestive"? actually, what does "suggestive" mean? miff plz.

Big breasty anime characters from one of those roleplay games? I dunno exactly what to call it but like I said, I wouldn't want to open such stuff at work (or at least I would like to be warned about the contents beforehand) :v

@ARE5R06
I am not quite sure what you are asking. The dev wanted to make shotgun have pellets spread out in somewhat large cone (larger than normal spread), but also have more pellets hit the middle instead of outer edges of pellet spread. If the pellets were fired in fixed pattern the distribution of the pellets wouldn't be the original "anywhere in this area but focus on middle", altho it could be considered 'close enough'. In the end it's probably just easier to do it via RNGs and it makes sense when compared to how shotguns work in real life (granted BFs seem to favor for better game mechanics instead of realism).
Links to users' thread list who have made analytical/statistical/mathematical/cool posts on Symthic:
  • 3VerstsNorth - Analysis of game mechanics in BF4 (tickrates, effects of tickrate, etc)
  • InterimAegis - Weapon comparisons/scoring.
  • leptis - Analysis of shotguns, recoil, recoil control and air drag.
  • Veritable - Scoring of BF4/BF1 firearms in terms of usability, firing and other mechanics.
  • pmax - Statistical analysis of BF4 players/games.
  • Miffyli - Random statistical analysis of BF4 battlereports/players and kill-distances. (list is cluttered with other threads).
Sorry if your name wasn't on the list, I honestly can't recall all names : ( . Nudge me if you want to be included

R3per_Inc

Unregistered

8

Thursday, July 21st 2016, 3:21pm

I have found this article: Randomness and Game Design but it doesnt gave me a satisfactory answer to my question.

This article is all over the place and quite alot of stuff is just wrong.

Alone this goes against everything I learned in automata theory and discrete mathematics:

Quoted

I attacked your unit, and I rolled the dice. It came up as a “miss”, and then next turn you killed that unit. That event – you killing my unit – is not deterministically linked anymore to the actions I took beforehand.

Miffyli

Symthic Developer

(6,927)

Posts: 3,742

Date of registration
: Mar 21st 2013

Platform: PC

Location: __main__, Finland

Reputation modifier: 17

  • Send private message

9

Thursday, July 21st 2016, 3:30pm

Alone this goes against everything I learned in automata theory and discrete mathematics:

Hmm what's the argument against that quote? I can see the problem with part "...is not deterministically linked anymore...". While yes, your action+"miss" lead to the state where the other guy killed your unit is not deterministically linked due to dice, it's not linked deterministically backwards either unless your action+"miss" was the only path to the state.
Links to users' thread list who have made analytical/statistical/mathematical/cool posts on Symthic:
  • 3VerstsNorth - Analysis of game mechanics in BF4 (tickrates, effects of tickrate, etc)
  • InterimAegis - Weapon comparisons/scoring.
  • leptis - Analysis of shotguns, recoil, recoil control and air drag.
  • Veritable - Scoring of BF4/BF1 firearms in terms of usability, firing and other mechanics.
  • pmax - Statistical analysis of BF4 players/games.
  • Miffyli - Random statistical analysis of BF4 battlereports/players and kill-distances. (list is cluttered with other threads).
Sorry if your name wasn't on the list, I honestly can't recall all names : ( . Nudge me if you want to be included

  • "ARE5R06" started this thread

Posts: 943

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

10

Thursday, July 21st 2016, 3:36pm

Then BF could deserve more randomness. Weapon RNG effects are used to balance engagement distances. They do not force the player to be adaptive. They force the players to use the weapon they are most effective with (most likely engagement distance).

Players are forced on adaptability by the map and even the maps have just a few tactics.

e.g. Dragon Valley 2k15: Backcap flags and keep/get the IFV flag.

But oh wait, that's basically the strategy of every map.

Actually then the only Factor to test the adaptability is the enemy player and his options.

Fine, I understand the "pure solution" is bad design. Unpredictability good ! But as the RNG is implemented, it doesnt provide the "randomness" you say it should do. Maybe the Mortar and the deviation of the shells, but this gadget is a story on its own.
still playin' Motorstorm