Thoughts from a game dev in the industry ...

"

johnKeys wrote:

"

scale_e wrote:

"

johnKeys wrote:

for fuck's sake Mark, D2 didn't drop you Skull Caps from Hell Mephisto.

just one line. sums up my sentiments perfectly.

yeah D2 had RNG. and then GGG doubled... no fuck that: octogintupled it.
deified it.

...and?

...and since you are dealing with living, breathing players here, you need to decide if you value their time and effort even so slightly, or care enough to at least give the illusion of their effort meaning anything, in your ... game... pardon the expression.

if PoE did not have it's absolutely brilliant character and skill system, well then for me personally there would be very little reason to play it.
the fact I do - for so many years and so many hours - is a testament to just how brilliant that part of the game is, and how good some other aspects are such as mechanics and lore.

can one game be among the very best in one aspect, while being among the worst in another?
GGG proved it possible.
well done. mission accomplished.
so now they can - and should - focus on improving that weak point, to make the game even better.

your opinion is just that you do not speak for us all i like the RNG system always have and will

"

johnKeys wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It's a self-regulating system. The Economy is the yang to RNG's yin, smoothing over its spikey edges. Why do you not love it more?

I don't see PoE RNG as balancing the PoE Economy.
rather, I think it is feeding it. enhances it at the actual game's expense.

Somehow in mid-sentence you went from your usual RNG stance to 1) RNG and "the actual game" are equivalent and 2) RNG is worth defending (from the economy).

RNG and "the actual game" are not the same thing. RNG is a part of the game; in most discussions, RNG refers to loot, which is part of the game's feedback to players.

The entire game, like almost all games, is best described as a hierarchal series of loops, some big and some small; each loop consists of a cycle of 1) players modeling the game in their heads, trying to figure it out, 2) players acting on the game, 3) applying a set of rules, 4) providing feedback in the form of visuals and RNG-based loots, then back to 1) players revising their model. Thus, feedback is but a fraction of the game, and RNG is but a fraction of that feedback.

Second, RNG doesn't need to be protected from the economy. Nor does the economy need to be protected from RNG (she's a tough gal and has absolutely no problem defending herself).

Also, as a wise man once said, it is the other way around: The economy balances RNG. Although I'll add that the economy doesn't generate items, it merely redistributes them, and without farming it would have nothing to work with.

"

Second, RNG doesn't need to be protected from the economy. Nor does the economy need to be protected from RNG (she's a tough gal and has absolutely no problem defending herself).

xD

"

JacobJackel wrote:

your opinion is just that you do not speak for us all i like the RNG system always have and will

Fair enough.

Would you like it less if it had elements of risk/reward and allowing players to somewhat control their fate, rather than seemingly pure-random?

Yes this is a trick question.
If your answer is "yes" then you probably don't like anything from RPG - all kinds - to basic D&D, where a Dragon tends to guard better treasure than a Goblin.

In the work of fiction which has had perhaps the greatest influence on the medieval fantasy type of setting, the best loot in the entire world goes from being possessed by a random short hairy-footed dork originally from a rural village, to another random short hairy-footed dork from a rural village, to that random dork's short hairy-footed son, who also lives a rural village.

I can 100% get behind a tougher enemy giving players more rolls, and thus better loot on average, but it's a little crazy to believe that the tougher enemy should ALWAYS have better loot than a weaker one, because then 1) from a gameplay perspective, everything weak would be even more boring than it already is, and 2) it just doesn't line up with the pseudorandom distribution of goods which permeates our real world to such an extent that it permeates our fiction as well.

"

johnKeys wrote:

"

JacobJackel wrote:

your opinion is just that you do not speak for us all i like the RNG system always have and will

Fair enough.

Would you like it less if it had elements of risk/reward and allowing players to somewhat control their fate, rather than seemingly pure-random?

That was pretty much the purpose of Forsaken Masters. Take some of the rng out and let players have deterministic crafting. And I think it eliminates at least some of your arguments criticizing rng.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I can 100% get behind a tougher enemy giving players more rolls, and thus better loot on average, but it's a little crazy to believe that the tougher enemy should ALWAYS have better loot than a weaker one, because then 1) from a gameplay perspective, everything weak would be even more boring than it already is, and 2) it just doesn't line up with the pseudorandom distribution of goods which permeates our real world to such an extent that it permeates our fiction as well.

actual implementation is still to be decided. more rolls or not. better loot ranges/tables or not. biasing of existing randomization or not etc'.

sadly, there is no "magic formula" to risk/reward. every game should have its own version which fits it.
for example Grim Dawn's system which I pretty much worship at this point, cannot fit PoE simply because there are no "factions" and there are no relics, specifically-themed crafting materials or monster-themed items.
also - and this is a very old anti-risk/reward argument I actually agree with - PoE is probably the single toughest game when it comes to answering the question, what is "harder" anyway?
the sheer amount of possible builds is just staggering... and well some can face-tank Core Malachai which is just insane, and heck I'm not even mentioning that guy named Mortezzah.

but I believe if there's a will there's a way.

and as Mark just said, GGG already did some steps to give more power to the players.
I appreciate these steps, but would like more of the same.
maybe we can take one page out of Grim Dawn's book, which in my opinion is best described as:
the more stuff you have in your content, the relatively easier it is to make RNG fun for the player, rather than feel like nine circles of randomized punishment.
Divine Comedy of our lord and savior RNGesus.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I can 100% get behind a tougher enemy giving players more rolls, and thus better loot on average, but it's a little crazy to believe that the tougher enemy should ALWAYS have better loot than a weaker one, because then 1) from a gameplay perspective, everything weak would be even more boring than it already is, and 2) it just doesn't line up with the pseudorandom distribution of goods which permeates our real world to such an extent that it permeates our fiction as well.

I would like to add, that the situation of tougher enemies providing more and potentially better loot is pretty much what we currently have. I am primarily referring to rares and bosses in lvl 82 maps. They drop ilvl 84 bases, which is something worth pointing out. This also applies to the first ilvl 74 bases the player gets his hands on. Most likely, they are boss/rare drops.

What counteracts this "phenomenon" and its perception is sample size. Maps *can* have over 1000 enemies, comfortably at times. So all things considered, the question is, how often do you get to kill a rare, or a map boss in comparison? Encounters with certain rares might stand out gameplaywise, and are more "memorable". But these encounters account for far less than a 200th of any players actual "bodycount", unless you are so rich that you can slap on "Nemesis" all day.

Bottom line is: Bosses and rares do have better loot and possibly better rolls on average, but we do not quite perceive it that way, because the time between these encounters is relatively long, with a lot of things happening in between.

"

johnKeys wrote:

and as Mark just said, GGG already did some steps to give more power to the players.

players already oneshot t15 8 mod maps while 5 others collect loot.
even more power?
mm.
ok.

"

mezmery wrote:

"

johnKeys wrote:

and as Mark just said, GGG already did some steps to give more power to the players.

players already oneshot t15 8 mod maps while 5 others collect loot.
even more power?
mm.
ok.

"power" meaning "control" or "illusion of control" in this context.
feeling like one's actions influence one's "luck".

one-shots? hah I'm usually at the receiving end of those.
and... what's a t15 map?