What is your opinion on RNG in competitive video games? - Games

[QUOTE=shotgun334;52406167]if you're in a fair fight, you fail at strategy forever. if you're in a competitive game and you're engaging your opponent on fair grounds in an even matchup, then you are bad at tactics and bad at planning. now, I'll concede that the standing inaccuracy/spread randomness in CS:GO is dumb, because it's adding RNG to a fundamental mechanic that doesn't make things more interesting. but RNG in a competitive game doesn't have to be stupid shit like that [i]or[/i] the kind of thing that instantly swings rounds. you may be thinking, "well, what about DOTA"-- and the fact of the matter is, the RNG doesn't inherently swing a game, the RNG has the capacity to swing a game because a DOTA match is a very fragile ecosystem where one wrong or right move can instantly determine the game in the long-term. this is the case for all MOBAs, by the way, except maybe Heroes of the Storm, but that's not even really a MOBA in the traditional sense because of how far it deviates from the manner in which MOBAs function. but, again, you shouldn't be [b]at[/b] the point where RNG swings a game in someone's favor. [i]if you are at that point, you are bad at the game.[/i] even furthermore, randomness in competitive games is rarely of the type where it's just "LUCK OF THE NUMBER GODS". usually, randomness decides between a small set of outcomes with relatively similar overall results, and the exceptions to this occur either because: 1. you're in a bad strategic position where you weren't able to successfully respond to the possible set of outcomes 2. the game is intentionally designed to be a fragile ecosystem and you most likely already fucked up earlier on[/QUOTE] Ah I see what you are saying-- strive for the upper hand. But then, shouldn't the game focus on getting that upper hand rather than hoping your attack's RNG swings the game into your favor? [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ashxu;52406113]Obviously RNG shouldn't be in games that are taken seriously but it's there and those games are still who is the best. I mean card games will always have luck especially. It exists to give weapons an effective range. Don't cry about RNG if you're trying to headshot someone down Long in dust2 with a Deagle and it misses from goose to pit. Because you know that it won't be accurate yet you took the dice roll anyway. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] No one is that lucky, RNG in popular competitive games is very minimal or not enough to make a bad player beat a good one. You cannot rely on luck in those games so your point is invalid. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] Also CS:GO games are FT15 so if you can somehow hipfire down mid and win the entire set then you should go try the lottery because you would probably get like 1 or 2 kills at best by just relying on luck.[/QUOTE] But I was that lucky. Multiple times actually. I didn't rush down mid or anything I came up behind them cat, or in tunnels and just sprayed as they were rushing in and sandwiched them. They were in a tight spot but I did kill them insaneley fast without moving my mouse-- they didn't *run* into my crosshair, just the inaccuracy was enough to basically aimbot all of them. I almost bought a lottery ticket because it happened 3 times in a game. But then for a couple games after that, it didn't happen. My point being that if I was in a pro match, and THAT worked, it would have been absolute bs. Just like how ColdZera got like a 4k jumping awp because of luck, and KQLY got a single tap jumping headshot-- although he was cheating. That actually brings up a pretty good point as well. KQLY was cheating. He got a jumping USP headshot, winning the first match for him which dictated they have a very good chance of winning the next 2 games, which gave them a 3 round advantage. But then ColdZera gets jumping shots and he isn't cheating. Because of luck someone not cheating looked like someone who was cheating. I could understand skill-- but luck? That doesn't seem fair because that isn't skill getting you there its luck. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] And actually futhermore in reply to ashxu, that is a fair point-- but why shouldn't you be able to hit the deagle shot if you aim right at their head? Because a deagle shouldn't outperform an AK at that range? Okay, simple. Reduce the pistol 1-tap headshot range. You getting the aim and drop needed for a well placed shot like that should be rewarded with at LEAST DAMAGE. Not just a miss because the game decided "hey okay so 1 in 10... I pick 3. Sorry buddy." when other times it says "1 in 10 I pick 1, you killed the enemy". And 1 or 2 kills should be too much. 1 kill off RNG should be too much. Getting damage with RNG in a competitive game should be too much-- in a game like CSGO where 1 person can be the difference between winning and losing, you shouldn't be using luck as a factor of who wins or who loses.

There is no chance that a worse team will beat a better one due to luck in CS:GO, I'm going to say it again, FT15 dramatically reduces the chance for that to happen. You can use personal anecdotes all you want. Even in games that on the surface look like 100% luck (e.g Poker) there is an element of skill involved and good players will consistently be on top. [editline]28th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=JasonChang55;52407702] And actually futhermore in reply to ashxu, that is a fair point-- but why shouldn't you be able to hit the deagle shot if you aim right at their head? Because a deagle shouldn't outperform an AK at that range? Okay, simple. Reduce the pistol 1-tap headshot range. You getting the aim and drop needed for a well placed shot like that should be rewarded with at LEAST DAMAGE. Not just a miss because the game decided "hey okay so 1 in 10... I pick 3. Sorry buddy." when other times it says "1 in 10 I pick 1, you killed the enemy". And 1 or 2 kills should be too much. 1 kill off RNG should be too much. Getting damage with RNG in a competitive game should be too much-- in a game like CSGO where 1 person can be the difference between winning and losing, you shouldn't be using luck as a factor of who wins or who loses.[/QUOTE] There is already drop off damage in CS:GO. It's a non-issue, you should know about the weapon spread at long range so don't try it in the first place. The deagle does over 200 damage at point blank to the head so it has a large threshold for a 1hit kill. It's a lot of effort to recalculate the entire gameplay mechanic just to please new players who get triggered at rng.

[QUOTE=JasonChang55;52407702]Ah I see what you are saying-- strive for the upper hand. But then, shouldn't the game focus on getting that upper hand rather than hoping your attack's RNG swings the game into your favor? [/QUOTE] it does. if you're in the position where you're hoping for attack rng, git gud.

[QUOTE=ashxu;52409071]There is no chance that a worse team will beat a better one due to luck in CS:GO, I'm going to say it again, FT15 dramatically reduces the chance for that to happen. You can use personal anecdotes all you want. Even in games that on the surface look like 100% luck (e.g Poker) there is an element of skill involved and good players will consistently be on top. [editline]28th June 2017[/editline] There is already drop off damage in CS:GO. It's a non-issue, you should know about the weapon spread at long range so don't try it in the first place. The deagle does over 200 damage at point blank to the head so it has a large threshold for a 1hit kill. It's a lot of effort to recalculate the entire gameplay mechanic just to please new players who get triggered at rng.[/QUOTE] The keyword is "Dramatically reduces the chance". Still a chance, it still happens. Why should a game where I bet money or a game where I have a multi-million dollar prizepool for the taking be based off chance integrated arbitrarily into the game itself? Furthermore, I am not talking about a worse team winning in a manner consistent enough to sway an entire match in their favor. That is a small chance (but with RNG at the table anything is possible) but I am referring to games where the players are EQUALLY matched, and because of RNG the game is swayed in a specific direction. And yes, I do agree- games like poker do have elements of skill and while I do agree it is probably not worth the effort to rearrange the games, this discussion is still nice to talk about it for the hopes of influencing future games. But back to my situation about two equally skilled players-- let's say this match is 14-16. They are dueling Dust2 long. One has an awp, and the other has a P90, awp guy has only 59 HP left. But then the p90 guy gets a lucky headshot while spraying around the corner and wins the game. He knew about the odds. It should be a non issue because you shouldn't be able to kill at that range but because he pulled a peekaboo he won. How is that fair?

Whoa hey I'm really late to this discussion so I'll just toss my 2 cents here and be on my way. I'll speak from a dev standpoint. RNG creates artificial variation in an otherwise constant environment, which can either lead to a butterfly effect, or not have any significant outcome (losing a already lost cause). "Chance" isn't exclusively limited to RNG, elements such as 50/50 mixup in fighting games exist as well. Furthermore, unpredictability is addicting to the audience, which leads to better spectators. Games that are 100% symmetrical skill are very boring to watch. Uncertainty is a powerful basis in all games, while decisions and execution should always still be the prime component, RNG can enhance that if implemented correctly. Nonetheless, it boils down to the significance of the dice roll, whether it triumph over other aspects of competitive play (which are a lot of factors). If a critical play is decided by Jesus and NOTHING else, then it is going to produce a lot of sodium chloride; but if there is a 35% chance to slightly turn the favor, in additional to human error, then it is good, because there is more incentive to risk taking. Educated guesses and calculated risks are always preferred over blind luck, and also a lot more exciting than binary predictions (which leads to a lot of turtling). In the end, RNG is a tool. It has a place. Too much of anything is never good.

[QUOTE=shotgun334;52409137]it does. if you're in the position where you're hoping for attack rng, git gud.[/QUOTE] So what if you aren't gud but RNG dictates you get a headshot or something and you win? [editline]28th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Noob4life;52409417]Whoa hey I'm really late to this discussion so I'll just toss my 2 cents here and be on my way. I'll speak from a dev standpoint. RNG creates artificial variation in an otherwise constant environment, which can either lead to a butterfly effect, or not have any significant outcome (losing a already lost cause). "Chance" isn't exclusively limited to RNG, elements such as 50/50 mixup in fighting games exist as well. Furthermore, unpredictability is addicting to the audience, which leads to better spectators. Games that are 100% symmetrical skill are very boring to watch. Uncertainty is a powerful basis in all games, while decisions and execution should always still be the prime component, RNG can enhance that if implemented correctly. Nonetheless, it boils down to the significance of the dice roll, whether it triumph over other aspects of competitive play (which are a lot of factors). If a critical play is decided by Jesus and NOTHING else, then it is going to produce a lot of sodium chloride; but if there is a 35% chance to slightly turn the favor, in additional to human error, then it is good, because there is more incentive to risk taking. Educated guesses and calculated risks are always preferred over blind luck, and also a lot more exciting than binary predictions (which leads to a lot of turtling). In the end, RNG is a tool. It has a place. Too much of anything is never good.[/QUOTE] This is an extremely well explained post I love this post. So shouldn't it be the developer's responsibility to make the game on it's own unpredictable? Level designs with multiple but fair entrances to attack, flank, and duel at? Shouldn't it be up to the developer to turn "peeker's advantage" into something negatable? Flashbangs, smoke grenades, big entrances to allow rushing, etc.?

[QUOTE=JasonChang55;52409418]So shouldn't it be the developer's responsibility to make the game on it's own unpredictable? Level designs with multiple but fair entrances to attack, flank, and duel at?[/QUOTE] Unless it is designed with extreme amount of variables (hundreds of combinations leading to polarizing strategies) in addition to elements that can be dynamically altered (example, all walls are destructible), nothing becomes unpredictable in the long-term as players will eventually figure out everything and de facto best strategies become the go to. It is still a battle of skill and wit, but stale. Add: This is for asymmetrical games Of course, there are also the possibility of the devs altering the game every once in a while so there is never enough time to develop an unbeatable strat. It comes at a cost but this is a topic for another time. [editline]today[/editline] All games are inherently "unpredictable". Simple concepts like hidden information such as vision and opponent's train of thought, coupled with human error, already makes for unpredictability on your average non-pro games. [QUOTE=JasonChang55;52409418]Shouldn't it be up to the developer to turn "peeker's advantage" into something negatable? Flashbangs, smoke grenades, big entrances to allow rushing, etc.?[/QUOTE] What does peeker's advantage (assuming you are talking about CSGO) have anything to do with RNG?

[QUOTE=Noob4life;52409474]Unless it is designed with extreme amount of variables (hundreds of combinations leading to polarizing strategies) in addition to elements that can be dynamically altered (example, all walls are destructible), nothing becomes unpredictable in the long-term as players will eventually figure out everything and de facto best strategies become the go to. It is still a battle of skill and wit, but stale. Add: This is for asymmetrical games Of course, there are also the possibility of the devs altering the game every once in a while so there is never enough time to develop an unbeatable strat. It comes at a cost but this is a topic for another time. [editline]today[/editline] All games are inherently "unpredictable". Simple concepts like hidden information such as vision and opponent's train of thought, coupled with human error, already makes for unpredictability on your average non-pro games. What does peeker's advantage (assuming you are talking about CSGO) have anything to do with RNG?[/QUOTE] I was using that as a way to secure my point home with the need for the developer thinking up ways to have counter tactics-- for example a good sniper on defense. But I was always under the impression that peeker's advantage was negated with standing inaccuracy to some extent, at least in long range engagements.

I have no comment on that, other than I think that peeker's advantage is an oversight rather than design, made detriment by the demands of split-second reactions. It's just the unfortunate result of how cameras and latency work, although I would love to see devs try to alleviate or even utilizing it.

[QUOTE=Noob4life;52409599]I have no comment on that, other than I think that peeker's advantage is an oversight rather than design, made detriment by the demands of split-second reactions. It's just the unfortunate result of how cameras and latency work, although I would love to see devs try to alleviate or even utilizing it.[/QUOTE] Which was what I was trying to elaborate on when I explained about flashbangs, smoke grenades, and other forms of making the receiver wish to fall back or change position and give up their angle.

reply to an earlier post: if you're in the position where a single headshot is going to decide a win or loss, that's the point where random elements in games are supposed to make things tense and exciting. it's just that random spread is a bad manner of implementing randomization, but that doesn't inherently make RNG in competitive games a bad system. furthermore, cs:go isn't the best example of a game with heavy RNG because there really is only one major RNG element (the spread) that is pretty badly implemented and even then it won't completely sway a match unless you fail at strategy forever/suck dick at aiming

[QUOTE=shotgun334;52412179]reply to an earlier post: if you're in the position where a single headshot is going to decide a win or loss, that's the point where random elements in games are supposed to make things tense and exciting. it's just that random spread is a bad manner of implementing randomization, but that doesn't inherently make RNG in competitive games a bad system. furthermore, cs:go isn't the best example of a game with heavy RNG because there really is only one major RNG element (the spread) that is pretty badly implemented and even then it won't completely sway a match unless you fail at strategy forever/suck dick at aiming[/QUOTE] My point being it could sway a single round-- which in the event of a 14-15 match, could sway the outcome of the entire game. Is there any games with a good implementation of RNG? Rainbow Six Siege I don't think has a good implementation of it on it's own, but it is better than CSGO because you can 100% negate it (ADS)

[QUOTE=JasonChang55;52412302]My point being it could sway a single round-- which in the event of a 14-15 match, could sway the outcome of the entire game. Is there any games with a good implementation of RNG? Rainbow Six Siege I don't think has a good implementation of it on it's own, but it is better than CSGO because you can 100% negate it (ADS)[/QUOTE] the example of dota has been raised a good few times. 1. losing a single round due to randomness is an unlikely situation that relies on the kind of fair fighting that you should avoid participating in at all times in CS:GO. 2. losing a single round due to randomness is annoying, sure, but that's an extrapolation not inherent to the relatively low delta of randomness present in CS:GO. 3. if you believe that you're consistently losing due to "randomness" (not stating that this is you), then you're losing because you're shit at the game, and you should git gud.

[QUOTE=shotgun334;52412428]the example of dota has been raised a good few times. 1. losing a single round due to randomness is an unlikely situation that relies on the kind of fair fighting that you should avoid participating in at all times in CS:GO. 2. losing a single round due to randomness is annoying, sure, but that's an extrapolation not inherent to the relatively low delta of randomness present in CS:GO. 3. if you believe that you're consistently losing due to "randomness" (not stating that this is you), then you're losing because you're shit at the game, and you should git gud.[/QUOTE] Right, I don't think losing to randomness is quite a possiblity on a large scale-- on a round-by-round basis, it's extremely possible. But not enough to mean you should be at GE when you're at GN2. I think at this point it is clear that CSGO does have a fairly bs implementation of RNG for a fully fair and unbiased 1v1 duel. But shouldn't the game in a fair fight, regardless of how your strategy plays out (I have seen pros miss shots standing perfectly still, retrain sights, fire again, and miss again-- all on a standing still enemy) and how bad you are in terms of planning strategy (it takes two to tango and if it's even they are as equally bas as you), shouldn't the odds still be equal?

[QUOTE=JasonChang55;52412862]Right, I don't think losing to randomness is quite a possiblity on a large scale-- on a round-by-round basis, it's extremely possible. But not enough to mean you should be at GE when you're at GN2. I think at this point it is clear that CSGO does have a fairly bs implementation of RNG for a fully fair and unbiased 1v1 duel. But shouldn't the game in a fair fight, regardless of how your strategy plays out (I have seen pros miss shots standing perfectly still, retrain sights, fire again, and miss again-- all on a standing still enemy) and how bad you are in terms of planning strategy (it takes two to tango and if it's even they are as equally bas as you), shouldn't the odds still be equal?[/QUOTE] randomness works both ways, and it could've been the guy being shot at who fires and misses due to randomness.

[QUOTE=shotgun334;52412871]randomness works both ways, and it could've been the guy being shot at who fires and misses due to randomness.[/QUOTE] Right, and that is fair, but not everyone has the same gun-- some weapons are more accurate than other weapons. CSGO is the only game I really play other than R6S in a competitive scene, so I do apologize that I keep coming to this example.