>>324181238 >Just that they are trash, because the player who has more skill can lose due to factors outside of either players control.
I can see it now, you're one of those obnoxious faggots who blames everything but himself when he loses. >This game is fucking bullshit, you beat me by luck! Fucking RNG! >The lag made me lose! Fucking lag >Fuck that map, it's not far and balanced!
>>324181918 to be fair though, lag can drastically alter ability. try shooting fuckers with 120+ ping, and then try doing the same with 30 ping. may not seem like much but it makes a massive difference.
>>324181918 Only way I ever lose is with bad team mates. I'm 99% of the time the best player on my team and usually have a 5-7% higher win rate than everybody in the game and consistently out farm, and die the least on my team. But alas my team will just feed and make me lose. Classic doto
>>324181238 Except a good player can accommodate and play around RNG nine times out of ten. From the way you're talking, you sound like you just lost a Hearthstone game or some shit. Just need to learn that better players have a higher win percentage by far.
>>324182385 Who gets to play white? Coin flip, 50/50 >b-but not best of one Of course, the next round the opposite player gets white. Then the 3 roun- Oh OH Oh damn Oh shit FUCK oh my god Cunt WHHHHHHAAAAAAAT IS HAPPENING ITS 50/50 again
How do you convince your friends to take some time into learning fighting games with?
In my opinion it's the most rewarding feeling when you are playing with someone better than you and end up getting good enough to beat them, yet my spergy friends drop the game after losing 3-4 games like op's pic without trying anything different
>>324182612 Voting system is fucked, promotes karma whores who only post inane, LCD bullshit to get votes. There's no reason not to join the hivemind because if not your posts are going to be buried/deleted within minutes. It's literally an echo chamber
>>324182227 >try shooting fuckers with 120+ ping, and then try doing the same with 30 ping
If you chose to play the game with that much lag on your end, that's on you. Don't chose to play with a handicap and then blame the handicap when you lose. If it's a lag spike that causes you to die a couple times, then deal with it. That's the RNG of playing with a trash internet connection. Again, these are all things you know going into a game.
>>324182354 >Only way I ever lose is with bad team mates
You lose because the other team played better than your team.
You're on that team, and you're just as responsible for the loss as your team mates. Seems like you're a piss poor team player and care more about your personal score rather than actually winning. You should stick to non-team based games.
You're being dense on purpose. There is no rng in chess. Only various statics combinations of moves. Someone who is good at it will never lose against somebody who isn't because of some outside bullshit that is out of his control.
Also Rng means random number generator, there is nothing randomly generated in chess, again.
>>324182609 With Fighting games you need at least a solid grounding in the game to even understand WHY you are losing and how to do something about it. So if you don't have that grounding it's just a frustrating one sided stomp where you never really stood a chance.
So in your mind you're trying to share an activity that you find rewarding and fun, and in their mind you're a huge asshole that just wants to kick their ass for your own enjoyment.
But the problem is that single player in fighting games is an absolutely terrible way to learn the game. Fighting AI is completely different from fighting players, strategies that work in arcade tend to only work in arcade so they don't actually get any skill. But if they aren't into fighting games and you are then playing against you ALSO won't teach them anything because your skill levels are too far apart.
>>324179613 Pictures like that annoy me. A game like chess is 100% pure skill and out thinking your opponent. Majority of online video games are nothing like that. Skill is involved to certain extents, but RNG, bad or buggy hitboxes, latency, ticks, wonky mechanics, and sometimes just cheesy tactics can easily influence a fight or a game.
>>324183583 >Someone who is good at it will never lose against somebody who isn't because of some outside bullshit that is out of his control.
That's literally the bench mark for what is and isn't a competitive game. RNG doesn't negate the ability of a skilled player to best an unskilled player.
RNG exists for both players, and both players need to be equally skilled at capitalizing upon RNG when it's in their favor and mitigating it when it's not. Just like a good poker player isn't going to go broke against an unskilled player. The cards are random, but how you play them is not, it's strategic. There are mind games, there's reading your opponent, there's risk assessment, etc.
Poker is a hell of a lot more of random game than any video game is, and it still can be played on a competitive level where skilled players triumph over lesser skilled ones.
>>324183667 That's the thing, if they actually took a few hours to sit down and play the game with me they would get used to it, but they give up on the first speedbump.
I want them to be good, I explain helpful things where I can, I don't go try-hard when I know I'm better than them. I always explain that it's super fun to play someone on your level, but they only button mash and give up because "you're better than me so there's no point."
>>324182730 He right though, he just isn't explaining himself correctly. Knowledge of probability is in fact a skill, it's why all truly good player learn about a games stats and probably distribution. For example: Dota has PRNG, if you know this and the values used, it effects every decision you make in the game. It's like if you played CS and didn't know the difference between Hit-scan weapons and missiles.
>>324184597 >That's the thing, if they actually took a few hours to sit down and play the game with me they would get used to it, but they give up on the first speedbump.
Because losing to someone over and over in a game where you're fighting your controller more than your opponent is an overwhelmingly frustrating experience for most.
Executing the correct inputs every single time is difficult, and so when a player keeps losing because they can't even make their character do what they want it to do, it's discouraging.
That's why most people don't get into competitive fighting games because it's too frustrating trying to get to the point where you have a good enough handle on your character and inputs that you can actually execute strategies.
>>324184936 The first game in the first set, one person has an upper hand, which will always dictate the rest of the set. The player with one win up can play more recklessly because they can 'tank' the loss. On the other hand, the player who is down a game is forced to try and make up for that, so they'll either risk more or play defensively. Either way, the choice between white or black, will affect the outcome.
I will bet if they simply asked, "who wants white first" both players will say "I will be white"
Where did i say that every game should end in a draw? And no, it's impossible for players to always play perfectly. That's called someone fucking up/doing a bad read/play/getting outwitted by his opponent.
I don't even grasp the meaning of your last sentence. You talk as every game played in chess ended in a draw, which is, of course, dumb to say. The fact that people wins and lose makes it competitive. And no exterior element influence the win except the player's skill.
>>324185021 Hes not right though, randomness is randomness, it dosen't matter if you know you have a 50% chance of being stunned on the next hit or not because there's nothing you can do about it your only option is to roll the dice and pray.
I don't think he would like a word with me. A skilled player might lose 1, 5, even 10 hands in a row to an unskilled player, but he's likely mitigating his loses on those losing hands and eventually if you play enough hands the more skilled player will win.
If the most skilled player doesn't win then how did he win 14 championships? Did he just happening to get lucky a lot of fucking times? That's the point though, RNG can fuck you on hands here and there and it's possible to get on a losing streak for a little while, but RNG is RNG and it'll swoop in your favor too. It's how you capitalize on and mitigate RNG that plays a big part in whether or not a competitive player is successful.
>>324180704 >specifically generating numbers, that is, a Random Number Generator, is "every instance of randomness in a videogame" HEY IDIOT IT'S NOT ABOUT "GETTING RID OF RANDOMNESS" SINCE YOU HAVE TO CODE THE RANDOM IN TO BEGIN WITH.
>>324185459 if you know that X character might 50/50 stun you on the next him, and you are smart enough to know you can't kill him before he hits you 3 or 4 times then you are less likely to just roll the dice. Know when to make that decision is key to any sport. Hail Mary plays don't just happening with people that have no idea how the game works. Sometimes you bank on luck when you have good odds, and it does pay off. It may be random, but you allowed that randomness to make or break a play.
RNG really is the antithesis of competition when it comes to a virtual space like videogames where it can be effectively abolished. When you make plans, you should be able to make them based on facts and constants, not based upon guesswork and predictions.
With RNG >Does my opponent have X? Then he is capable of Y, which will require Z to counter, but he might get lucky and proc a chance based effect, meaning that having Z is useless for me if that happens.
Without RNG >Does my opponent have X? Then he is capable of Y, which will require Z to counter.
>>324186351 >you have no decision to make other than "never engage anyone with any RNG ever"
Or you build a game plan around the fact that any hit has a 50% chance to stun you. So any kind of attrition based strategy would go out the window and you'd focus more on camping and strict zoning to chip away at them without taking hits that could lead to you being stunned. In this scenario the opponent is likely balanced around their 50% stun ability so if you fight them with a proper strategy and are good you will win.
If their character is identical to yours, but just has that extra buff, then the game isn't balanced or competitive.
>>324186351 I don't think you understood me, If know that someone has a 50% chance to stun on hit, especially in dota (a game with PRNG) i'm not going to engage on him If I don't think I can kill him before he hits me multiple times. I'm going to use my knowledge of the game to outsmart and outplay him, rather than banking on good or bad luck of not getting stunned. In some circumstances, I will try to exploit my luck when it can be exploited, this requires me knowing enough about the game to know what these circumstances are.
>>324186616 >how can I reduce his RNG, and increase mine? I'm going with dota because it's the classical example >PA has evasion which means my attacks can't hit her sometimes I buy MKB negating that evasion >PA has crits which can randoms do massive damage to me I buy ghost scepter which negates physical damage and crits when activated
>>324187298 But you do, especially in dota, if they can right click you for a 50% chance to stun then buy a ghost scepter and they can't right click you. If you are that character then you are like to buy Attack Speed to increase the amount of stun you can get off.
>>324186934 You keep saying the same thing as if there's a set number of times you need to be hit before RNG kicks and and you get stunned, this is not how it works, you can be stunned from the first attack, your chance to be stunned is RANDOM.
you cannot "exploit luck" random is random you ave no control over it.
The best you can do is try and weigh up risk vs reward. >"If he stuns me i die but if not i can kill the whole team." 1 potential death for 5 potential kills, however how this plays out is still completely down to RNG
>>324187387 What? That's exactly how planning works. You take into account the capabilities of your opposition and go from there.
>>324187428 And what about Ogre Magi? BKB? And when that is on cooldown? Just don't get into casting range?
The fact of the matter is that RNG, just by existing, forces you into making certain decisions, reducing the amount of actual strategy needed. Just like you said, if the enemy team has PA in Dota, your first instinct is to buy a MKB so you can bypass a part of her RNG. Now take any hero that doesn't have RNG in their kit, and countering them isn't as clear cut.
>>324187743 Let me spell this out for you first off, in dota everything is PSUEDO RANDOM, that means every time you get hit and do not get stunned the PRNG chance increases meaning you are less likely to be stunned on the first hit, than the fourth. I'm going to assume you mean that he some how has a straight 50% chance to stun you every time he hits without some cooldown on this ability. In that chase there are many items you can buy, strategies you can use etc. to counter his RNG based ability.
>>324188132 >And what about Ogre Magi? BKB? And when that is on cooldown? Just don't get into casting range? uh yeah, exactly. why would you even walk into the casting range of a stun you could avoid, that's just god awful positioning.
Look it's simple, good players adapt to situations that arise, bad players don't.
>>324187298 >Dosen't matter, your game plan boils down to a 50/50 RNG coin flip, you have ZERO control over it.
There is no RNG until they hit you. What the fuck game has a character that stuffs half the time and there's no way to avoid taking hits? You're describing a shitty game, that's all. That's not an argument for RNG being bad, it's an argument for that execution of it being bad.
>Even fucking worse, the entire character is based on a 50% RNG number
I can't really think of a fun way that could be implemented, but having a character with RNG moves like that isn't a bad thing. For example, if an opponent has a move that 1/9 times fucks your ass up super hard. If they get you with it, that's going to scare you. If you're scared of that move, you're going to make sure they can't get you into a situation where they can hit you with it. However, now you've limited the number of moves you will make and your opponent can capitalize on it. It's like playing rock, paper, scissors, now where you've scared your opponent into never using Rock. If your opponent will never use rock then you can spam scissors.
>>324179613 >not knowing that bouncing a ball on the ground is in itself rng
there are realistically only a few things for it to do, however only a fool would say with any certainty that he could accurately predict those things 100% of the time, largely things are left to chance or "rng"
all rng means is there are a set of possibly outcomes and the computer randomly generates which outcome will come, the difference is in real life we can use intense drawn out math to sorta figure things out and make them less "random" a midfielder is not doing those equations in his head during the game though it is impossible therefore he is subjecting himself largely to randomness
you might say its different but if you just knew someone would crit you 70% of the time you can factor in about how much damage that means over a period of time, now if you are the baby that goes "WOW OMG I DIDNT CRIT HIM EVEN THOUGH IT ISNT A 100% CHANCE FUCK THIS RNG" then you are just dumb man, no hope for you
>>324188789 It entirely depends on the circumstances. If I get 4x mulitcasted and die, but because I positioned myself correctly I was able to blow all my spells and my carry lived, then I'm not exactly going to be angry. It's like in poker if all you have is a fucking pair of 2's then you can't be angry when someone wins with a full house. I know ogre can do a lot of damage with multicast, and I'm going to build my items and play the game around that.
>>324188658 >For example, if an opponent has a move that 1/9 times fucks your ass up super hard. If they get you with it, that's going to scare you. >If you're scared of that move, you're going to make sure they can't get you into a situation where they can hit you with it. Gief does this better in SF with his SPD and no RNG, Adding RNG into the mix only dumbs it down and makes me less scared.
>It's like playing rock, paper, scissors, now where you've scared your opponent into never using Rock. No its not because Rock Paper Scissor is still player choice while having a 1 in 3 RNG activation has no player choice what so ever.
RNG is cancer and only servers to remove skill from the game and let bad players occasionally defeat good players, that is LITERALLY why its there, to limit the skill gap and throw a bone to shitty players.
The worst is when RNG is thrown in to artificially create "hype" moments.
A good example of this is GGXrd's danger time. It's a mechanic where when two moves clash with one another, there's a small chance that the screen will pause and a timer will count down from 3. After that, for the next ten seconds any time you hit the opponent, the hit is considered a "mortal counter" which increases its hitstun and damage by a metric ton, as well as any combo you follow up with dealing significantly more damage. It can result in situations where one player could be outplaying the opponent for an entire round, but at some point they clash and a danger time happens and all of a sudden that player who was doing well before just lost all of his life because he got hit once.
Danger time makes an otherwise excellent game markedly worse. What's even worse is that GG Xrd Revelator, the sequel, still has it. They had a chance to change the mechanic or remove it completely and they chose not to.
Every game has RNG from your perspective. If your opponent can move left or right, you have a 50% change of knowing what direction they'll move. Your opponent puts in an input and it happens exactly how they had intended and knew it would, but from your perspective you are guessing what they'll do. You're looking at the options and playing the odds.
Will they high kick or low kick? You guessed high and they went low, you got hit. Was it random? No, it wasn't random as a whole, but from your perspective you just played a 50/50.
Now, if the kick has a 50% chance of stunning you then that's just another RNG element. Now, you 50/50 if it'll be high or low, and then it's 50/50 if it'll stun you or not. The only difference is the stun chance is random from both players perspectives.
If you're fighting another opponent, it's all random. You don't know what they'll do, what options they'll pick, etc. You're guessing, and you're playing probability based on a number of factors.
What difference doesn't make if the opponent meant to low kick you, but didn't mean to stun you? From your end of things, both options were random. However, if high kick can't stun, but low kick can, then you're better off guarding low in most cases. So forth and so on, this is how mind games work and everything your opponent does has a element of randomness.
>False, its a very bad thing.
Explain how it's a bad thing. If you think games are won and lost by someone using an RNG based move, you're retarded and should hang yourself.
>>324190281 >RNG is cancer and only servers to remove skill from the game and let bad players occasionally defeat good players
Name me a single fucking fighting game where a bad player can beat a good player because of one lucky RNG move.
That's the biggest load of horseshit you could spew. A bad player doesn't win as Peach in Smash Bros just because she pulled a bomb omb with her turnip grab and hit you with it. That's super RNG, but even then it doesn't take all of your opponents stocks and end the match. It's just a really powerful item you sometimes pull by random.
If the match was decided by the bomb-omb pull, it's because the Peach player was also a good player and the margin between you two was small enough that a single bit of good RNG over-came the gap.
There isn't a single competitive video game where you can win just because you're lucky.
>>324190951 During the 3 2 1 countdown of danger time, both players can input whatever they want and it'll basically cancel whatever they used to clash INTO that normal. So what most players do is just mash on a fast hitting thing like crouch jap or kick, in hopes that it'll beat out whatever they opponent chose. You can also choose to cancel into a block.
It's weird to explain, this video kind of shows what I mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKpxZLsVeBE
A strawman argument is where I argue against a point you're not making. If you say any game with RNG in it is bad without first defining the perspective you're speaking from, then it's fair game to argue against that from any perspective.
From the perspective of player A, everything player B does is random. You're not privy to what they will do, you have to guess.
If I throw out a move with a 50% chance of working, I intend for it to work. I intentionally used the move with the intent of it working. If it fails, how then is that any different from me failing to guess whether they would block high or low?
You can shit post all you want about how computer generated RNG is bad and ruins games, but player generated RNG doesn't, however it doesn't make for a compelling argument.
>>324181060 >Well I guess that's all card-based games out the window
That's correct, that's why Poker is labeled a "game of chance" and therefore gambling and therefore illegal outside of sanctioned venues (if played for money, obviously)
>chaos theory Most sports try to reduce randomness by setting standard conditions for the field, swapping sides half way through the game, playing indoors or only during certain favorable weather conditions, and two teams playing against each other multiple times in a series to try to rule out one team "getting lucky" or "having a bad game".
Randomness is a design limitation, it's a poor substitute for a complete system, it exists as a quick and dirty way to derive an outcome without doing complex or time consuming calculations or activities.
There's absolutely no excuse in this day and age to have randomness determine anything (not even who goes first, do a mini-game or some shit for that).
>>324192512 >The stakes are the same for both. >Player A just spent all his time outplaying Player B >Can reasonably take more risks because he played better and has more health in reserve >But nope danger time out of nowhere >Is now on even footing with Player B who did jack shit to earn it This is the definition of a bad mechanic
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.