72 réponses à ce sujet

[DigitalOrigami]

I would like it if say taking A and B gave you a 70% of X or a 30% chance of Y, taking A and C gave you a 50% chance of X or Y, etc. In other words, more than one event affecting the probability of a given outcome. A little complicated depending on the itterations required, but would definitely add some individuality to each playthrough (assuming of course EA goes back to writing games that invite multiple playthroughs...).

[hexaligned]

MichaelStuart wrote...

relhart wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Why is getting hit randomly ok, but random endings are not?

Because they are different things. 

But why?
Surely choices on a small scale, shoulds be just as improtant as one on a big scale.

I'll entertain your trolling, since I'm waiting for something to DL. 
1.  You are talking about two different mechanic systems.
2.  Combat isn't random to begin with, it's governed by specific rules that you can influence.  You can make a character unhittable using the ingame mechanics, it just isn't as simple as mashing a button.

[eyesofastorm]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Such a system would take the uncertainty that should be experienced by the PC and forces that uncertainty upon the player.

But only in the case that you can say with 100% certainty that you are able to separate yourself from your pc.  You are almost certainly the exception and I still believe that you cannot do this without coloring the perceptions and decision making abilities of your pc at least to some infinitesimal degree.  Anything less than 100% and it actually cements the uncertainty that the pc faces.

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 08 novembre 2012 - 11:23 .

[eyesofastorm]

relhart wrote...


2.  Combat isn't random to begin with, it's governed by specific rules that you can influence.  

It isn't random right up until the point where you roll the dice to determine whether you hit or not.  Same concept.  You can influence outcomes with choices, but you can't guarantee them.  In combat, if you have built a character that is unhittable, as you suggest, then you have broken the game.  Same concept here.

[the_one_54321]

I dislike the idea because it removes decision based control from the player's hands. I would endorse, however, a system that led to stat based percentage checks triggered by choosing a nebulous path over a certain path. This was already brought up in terms of Connor maybe making a fortitude style saving through against the demon possesing him if you leave Redcliff to go get the mages.

[eyesofastorm]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I dislike the idea because it removes decision based control from the player's hands.
 

It can, I agree, but only to a degree.  You still make a decision and I contend that that decision can have more importance now because you cannot know the outcome.  I think the degree to which you stricly loose control is easily overridden by the gravity that can be added to each decision.  It makes the game more like life and continuously dramatizes situations that might otherwise be ho-hum.

[Kahpya]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Why is getting hit randomly ok, but random endings are not?

I dont think that your hit are random they are generate from a table that consider str and dex and char lvl vs the enermies def, dex, lvl and block chance. So they are not random they are calulatet through a series of fix variables. 

[MichaelStuart]

relhart wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

relhart wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Why is getting hit randomly ok, but random endings are not?

Because they are different things. 

But why?
Surely choices on a small scale, shoulds be just as improtant as one on a big scale.

I'll entertain your trolling, since I'm waiting for something to DL. 
1.  You are talking about two different mechanic systems.
2.  Combat isn't random to begin with, it's governed by specific rules that you can influence.  You can make a character unhittable using the ingame mechanics, it just isn't as simple as mashing a button.

Trolling? I assure you that I am very serious.
I honestly can not understand why its ok for hits/misses to be random, but endings are can not.
If outcomes of entire games should be cause of player actions, why not allow the outcome of combat to be the same?

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 08 novembre 2012 - 11:33 .

[eyesofastorm]

nikihap wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Why is getting hit randomly ok, but random endings are not?

I dont think that your hit are random they are generate from a table that consider str and dex and char lvl vs the enermies def, dex, lvl and block chance. So they are not random they are calulatet through a series of fix variables. 

All utlimately added in to a dice roll otherwise you would either hit or miss each enemy 100% of the time depending on their stats and yours.  It's the same concept I'm pushing here and everyone seems to be missing that... or just not reading the thread.

[the_one_54321]

Available statistic analysis vs pure random would play rather importantly into this. This contrast is why roleplay combat works, and strategy game combat works. It's not entirely uncertain.

[Navasha]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Navasha wrote...

I wouldn't want pure randomness as in a dice roll to get an outcome. To me that means your decisions was basically meaningless.

Not pure randomness.  Percentages.  Percentages!  You can nudge an outcome, but you can't guarantee it.  It makes the act of making the decision more meaningful, not less.  

Gonna disagree about it being more meaningful. 

If I mix 2 shots of gin, a capful of vermouth, and 2 olives I get a perfect martini.
If I mix 5 shots of gin, no vermouth, and 2 grapes I get an awful tasting concoction.

No matter what..   if I mix X quantity of item A with Y quantity of item B, I get result C.

I don't get a 60% chance of result C, a 20% chance of result D and 20% chance of result E.

To me thats random, even if the randomness is weighted differently.   Sure, there are examples of your method in real life, say a health nut eats healthy and exercises heavily every day hoping to live a long life and they are killed at a young age in a car accident.  

However, that kind of randomness isn't really for gaming.   It simply causes player frustration.    If I did everything right and solved some amazing puzzle, I don't want a RNG determining if I get the prize or not for all the hard work.

[eyesofastorm]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Available statistic analysis vs pure random would play rather importantly into this. This contrast is why roleplay combat works, and strategy game combat works. It's not entirely uncertain.

Was that a tepid endorsement of the idea or did I misunderstand?

[eyesofastorm]

Navasha wrote...

If I did everything right and solved some amazing puzzle, I don't want a RNG determining if I get the prize or not for all the hard work.

I understand what you are saying, I really, REALLY do, but Bioware, and really the whole game industry has been working from the standpoint lately that there isn't a "do everything right" option.  I endorse the idea.  Games should explore the shades of grey because black and white almost never are.  Saying that, introducing that percentage based ambiguity to the action/consequence equation only reinforces the notion that there is no right or wrong or perfect solultion... only tough decisions and a roll of the dice.

[the_one_54321]

I don't think the potential for statistical analysis that you presented is "available" enough. It's still to close to truly random. At the least, each decision should have one option where you know what will happen. Stay with Conor and sacrifice his mother, for instance.

[Kahpya]

eyesofastorm wrote...

nikihap wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Why is getting hit randomly ok, but random endings are not?

I dont think that your hit are random they are generate from a table that consider str and dex and char lvl vs the enermies def, dex, lvl and block chance. So they are not random they are calulatet through a series of fix variables. 

All utlimately added in to a dice roll otherwise you would either hit or miss each enemy 100% of the time depending on their stats and yours.  It's the same concept I'm pushing here and everyone seems to be missing that... or just not reading the thread.

while i somewhat agree that it is sort-of-the-same then its not atleast for many people.  The story has more meaning so some choice always give the same outcome, than if you miss X numbers of hits on the enermy than Y numbers of hits. 

[Darth Death]

Ricky (the protagonist) romances Julia.

50% chance Ricky may obtain a STD if he doesn't wear the ring of "omg I'm being protected from STDs".

0% chance of pregnancy if Ricky performs surprise buttsex on Julia.

99.9% chance Julia may slap Ricky for performing surprise buttsex.

Semi-random right?

[Kileyan]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Currently in Bioware games, taking path A leads the player to outcome A and taking path B leads to outcome B.  How would you feel about playing a game where, in certain cases, taking path A might give you a 70% chance of getting outcome A and a 30% chance of getting outcome B and where taking path B might give you a 40% chance of getting outcome A and a 60% chance of getting outcome B?  Basically, the choices you make ingame would tilt the odds of different outcomes happening, but not guarantee them.  I think this idea might be used to great effect in matters of moral ambiguity, really making you weigh decisions since your decision to exsanguinate the virgin in order to save the village instead of saving her and her virgin goodness might actually backfire with the village getting destroyed anywy.   Also it could potentially make additional playthroughs more exciting because choosing a different path might or might not lead you to a new destination.  Thoughts?  Would you support losing a little bit of control as the protagonist to invite a level of uncertainty into your game?

I can see where you are going, but it seems like a bad idea. Already the limitations of fully voiced main protagonist is leading to dialog choices where you mean to say one thing, and the character says something totally different and in a totally different tone than you expected.

Wouldn't randomazing the outcomes of choices just exaccerbate the feeling that you have little control of "your" character?

Honestly I think it would just lead to tedious reloading save games. If, for example I played through the game with no spoilers the first time, chose things from my gut, then the second playthrough I chose opposite choices but getting the same outcomes, I'd just end up reloading over and over until I got to see the differing outcomes......hope that made sense.

[Sylvius the Mad]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Such a system would take the uncertainty that should be experienced by the PC and forces that uncertainty upon the player.

But only in the case that you can say with 100% certainty that you are able to separate yourself from your pc.  You are almost certainly the exception and I still believe that you cannot do this without coloring the perceptions and decision making abilities of your pc at least to some infinitesimal degree.  Anything less than 100% and it actually cements the uncertainty that the pc faces.

What if the PC doesn't have uncertainty?  Then you're creating the problem you claim to solve.  If the PC is absolutely certain that something will work, but the player knows there is no certainty, wouldn't that also colour the PC's perceptions exactly as you describe?

Even if we accept your reasoning, this change is a lateral move of neutral value.

[eyesofastorm]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Such a system would take the uncertainty that should be experienced by the PC and forces that uncertainty upon the player.

But only in the case that you can say with 100% certainty that you are able to separate yourself from your pc.  You are almost certainly the exception and I still believe that you cannot do this without coloring the perceptions and decision making abilities of your pc at least to some infinitesimal degree.  Anything less than 100% and it actually cements the uncertainty that the pc faces.

What if the PC doesn't have uncertainty?  Then you're creating the problem you claim to solve.  If the PC is absolutely certain that something will work, but the player knows there is no certainty, wouldn't that also colour the PC's perceptions exactly as you describe?

Even if we accept your reasoning, this change is a lateral move of neutral value.

Mitt Romney was certain he was going to win the Presidency.  But was he really?  Really?  We may have gut feelings that lead us towards believing there is a very high probability for success, but deep down, we all know that nothing in life is certain.  You of the cold, hard facts have to know this... right?

[sully.nathan]

I would like multiple outcomes that factor in previous choices.

[Navasha]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Navasha wrote...

If I did everything right and solved some amazing puzzle, I don't want a RNG determining if I get the prize or not for all the hard work.

I understand what you are saying, I really, REALLY do, but Bioware, and really the whole game industry has been working from the standpoint lately that there isn't a "do everything right" option.  I endorse the idea.  Games should explore the shades of grey because black and white almost never are.  Saying that, introducing that percentage based ambiguity to the action/consequence equation only reinforces the notion that there is no right or wrong or perfect solultion... only tough decisions and a roll of the dice.

Don't get me wrong I would love for games to explore grey aspects.    I fully endorse having outcomes that are darker or unexpected.   Say, like choosing to save the innocent girl might seem to be the right thing to do only to learn later that she butchered her parents or something.    Its just the randomness of your suggestion that bugs me, I guess.    Seemingly random outcomes never work.

Let me try to explain how I am viewing it.      Say you are trying to train your dog to fetch a ball.   You throw the ball, the dog brings it to you.   You praise the dog.   If they do again, you praise the dog.   Eventually the dog learns that fetching the ball is what they are supposed to do.

Now throw in randomness of consequence.   The dog brings you the ball.   You roll a dice...  On a 1,2,3, or 4 you praise the dog.   On a 5 or 6 you scold the dog.    Now it doesn't matter that you praise the dog the majority of the time.   The dog will stop bringing you the ball.   It isn't learning that its actions matter.   It learns that the consequences of its actions are unpredictable and will grow fearful of performing the activity because the possibility of a negative outcome is present. 

This might seem a silly analogy, but in terms of players and gaming its actually a similar idea.    Players will not enjoy a game where decisions result in a random consequence. 

[eyesofastorm]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I don't think the potential for statistical analysis that you presented is "available" enough. It's still to close to truly random. At the least, each decision should have one option where you know what will happen. Stay with Conor and sacrifice his mother, for instance.

I don't think every choice has to have a variable associated with it.  But I think the variable could be a valuable tool and that's all I'm saying.  For instance, in the Connor scenario, maybe you can go to the mages tower so no one has to die, but there is only a 30% chance that something catclysmic hasn't happened before you get back.  Maybe you haven't done the mage quest yet and now you are faced with a new probability.  Go through the mage's tower now and because you spent the extra time, the chances of you returning without some terrible happening go down to 10%.  Or go back before helping the mages and resolve the Connor situation, but face the possility that the situation has worsened at the mages tower because of your delay in dealing with that problem... also based on a percentage.  I'm just saying that there is a lot to play with here that could really liven things up.

[ledod]

Navasha wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Navasha wrote...

If I did everything right and solved some amazing puzzle, I don't want a RNG determining if I get the prize or not for all the hard work.

I understand what you are saying, I really, REALLY do, but Bioware, and really the whole game industry has been working from the standpoint lately that there isn't a "do everything right" option.  I endorse the idea.  Games should explore the shades of grey because black and white almost never are.  Saying that, introducing that percentage based ambiguity to the action/consequence equation only reinforces the notion that there is no right or wrong or perfect solultion... only tough decisions and a roll of the dice.

Don't get me wrong I would love for games to explore grey aspects.    I fully endorse having outcomes that are darker or unexpected.   Say, like choosing to save the innocent girl might seem to be the right thing to do only to learn later that she butchered her parents or something.    Its just the randomness of your suggestion that bugs me, I guess.    Seemingly random outcomes never work.

Let me try to explain how I am viewing it.      Say you are trying to train your dog to fetch a ball.   You throw the ball, the dog brings it to you.   You praise the dog.   If they do again, you praise the dog.   Eventually the dog learns that fetching the ball is what they are supposed to do.

Now throw in randomness of consequence.   The dog brings you the ball.   You roll a dice...  On a 1,2,3, or 4 you praise the dog.   On a 5 or 6 you scold the dog.    Now it doesn't matter that you praise the dog the majority of the time.   The dog will stop bringing you the ball.   It isn't learning that its actions matter.   It learns that the consequences of its actions are unpredictable and will grow fearful of performing the activity because the possibility of a negative outcome is present. 

This might seem a silly analogy, but in terms of players and gaming its actually a similar idea.    Players will not enjoy a game where decisions result in a random consequence. 

In life, how truly random is any outcome? With exception to certain biological phenomena, cancer/mutations, are not most events explained by some predetermined set of contexts? In other words, what may seem random is actually entirely predictable if one had all of the unknowable information surrounding an event?

[eyesofastorm]

Navasha wrote...
Don't get me wrong I would love for games to explore grey aspects.    I fully endorse having outcomes that are darker or unexpected.   Say, like choosing to save the innocent girl might seem to be the right thing to do only to learn later that she butchered her parents or something.    Its just the randomness of your suggestion that bugs me, I guess.    Seemingly random outcomes never work.

Let me try to explain how I am viewing it.      Say you are trying to train your dog to fetch a ball.   You throw the ball, the dog brings it to you.   You praise the dog.   If they do again, you praise the dog.   Eventually the dog learns that fetching the ball is what they are supposed to do.

Now throw in randomness of consequence.   The dog brings you the ball.   You roll a dice...  On a 1,2,3, or 4 you praise the dog.   On a 5 or 6 you scold the dog.    Now it doesn't matter that you praise the dog the majority of the time.   The dog will stop bringing you the ball.   It isn't learning that its actions matter.   It learns that the consequences of its actions are unpredictable and will grow fearful of performing the activity because the possibility of a negative outcome is present. 

This might seem a silly analogy, but in terms of players and gaming its actually a similar idea.    Players will not enjoy a game where decisions result in a random consequence. 

edit to reword:  But what I'm suggesting is not true randomness.  In your scenario, you throw the ball and you throw the ball and you throw the ball, all the while, a squirrel is off in the distance eating acorns .  An element of randomness means that even though you have trained your dog with positive reinforcement and he brings the ball back almost every time, there is a chance that on one occassion he will see the squirrel and chase it rather than bring the ball back to you.

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 09 novembre 2012 - 12:21 .

[Vaeliorin]

I would endorse this idea if, and only if, I was able to do everything I could think of to shift the dice in my favor. For example, in the Redcliffe situation, I should have been able to leave some or all of my party behind in Redcliffe in order to keep Connor/the Desire Demon under control. That's a very simply example, however. More complex situations would have to allow for more complex solutions.

The likelihood of game companies being able or willing to follow through on that, however, is very unlikely.