Hit Chance Poll

What hit rate do you prefer?


  • Total voters
    62

Frostorm

[]D[][]V[][]D aka "Staf00"
Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
574
Reaction score
350
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
In my game, base Hit chance is 95%, but is increased by Dexterity (Agility renamed). However, this 95% + bonus from stats/gear is then calculated against the target's Evasion chance, which is also increased by the Speed stat in my game. The player's stats will almost always exceed that of normal trash mobs of the same level so the resulting net Hit chance is usually close to 100%, if not greater when there's some level difference. I also have a mechanic where if the player is dual wielding, they will suffer a penalty of -15% Hit chance, but gain an additional attack (so 2 numbers pop up when u strike). So even if 1 of those 2 attacks sometimes miss, overall you're still doing more damage over time. It also helps that dual wielding characters will typically aim to stack Dexterity, which also increases Critical Strike and Counter chance as well as Hit chance. I personally believe setting it up this way makes it feel more realistic, especially when it comes to how the primary stats (Strength, Dexterity, Intellect) affect your character. Just think about it, being more dexterous means you are better at handling your weapon, which includes landing an attack (Hit), hitting a vital area (Crit), and parrying an incoming strike (Counter).

For reference, Strength (Attack renamed) increases your Critical Strike multiplier in addition to the usual increase to raw damage. Intellect (Magic Attack renamed) is kinda like Strength & Dexterity wrapped into one for spells, in which it increases spell damage and spell Critical Strike chance as well as reducing the Mana cost of spells. Hit is ignored for spells in my game since they are guaranteed to land. Keep in mind, 1 point in one of these stats wouldn't even be noticeable. For example, 10 Dexterity would grant +1% Hit/Crit/Counter.

Also, I am using Yanfly's Hit Accuracy plugin.

When it comes down to it, I want the player to be able to influence their Hit chance. Whether it be from stats, skills, gear, or a combination thereof. Imo, theorycrafting should be as much part of a game as playing the game itself. Having RNG built in via Hit/Miss (among other things) adds another layer of customization to their characters. For those arguing RNG Hit/Miss has nothing to do with skill, I beg to differ. The mental battle outside of combat, where the player should be using their brain to plan their characters' stats/skills/gear are just as important as the encounter itself.
 
Last edited:

Basileus

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
296
Reaction score
431
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
On one hand, I agree with @Tai_MT that RPG combat is so easy that giving the player perfect accuracy is a bad idea. Final Fantasy VIII gave Squall perfect 255 accuracy from the very start of the game and it served to make an already easy game even easier (and more breakable). Removing an option for character customization also seems like it would hurt more than it helps - with no need to itemize for hit rate, then the only thing that matters is raw damage. Having players and enemies play by different rules and only allowing enemy attacks to miss also seems like bad design, in addition to the aforementioned problem of making easy games even easier.

On the other hand, I don't think hit rate should need to be based on some universal constant that is the same in every battle against every enemy. A 5-10% chance to miss on all actions probably doesn't offer enough interesting choices. I personally would prefer stat-based hit/evade. This allows for a stat that players can opt into for their build and make it easier to design different enemy types.

The Hyperdimension Neptunia games use a system like this, with Agility used to calculate evasion rate and Tech used for hit rate. Against an enemy with an Agility stat much higher than yours, a lot of your attacks could miss and sharply reduce your damage output. This can be mitigated by buff spells and bonuses from equipment (and levels of course). The player shouldn't ignore Tech completely, but it's a valid option to focus on damage stats and rely on Tech buff spells against evasive targets. It also helps that all of the stats are important and there are enough of them that the player can't easily itemize everything.

As for the "fun factor" behind it - it's the same as it is in tabletop games. Nobody remembers a session where everyone rolled decently and nothing went wrong. Everyone remembers that time someone rolled a 1 and everything went to hell. Meticulously planning everything in advance and everything just playing out by raw math is one of the reasons that a lot of people don't like RPGs, and even RPG fans get bored of the combat after a while.

Missing causes game state changes that the player would never intentionally choose to make and keeps things interesting. There's a thrill to winding up in a bad situation and needing to work your way out of it. Relying solely on enemy skills to make this possible 1. sacrifices the enemy's first turn and can often make them unintentionally easy; 2. makes those situations expected since the player sees the gimmick being applied.

Things going off the rails can be fun. A "sure thing" suddenly blowing up in the player's face can be very entertaining, especially in a social setting like on a stream. I really don't think many players would up and quit a game just because an attack missed in an RPG where you aren't expected to start as the ultimate monster slayer and are expected to start weak and become strong over the course of the game.
 

velan235

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
67
Reaction score
35
First Language
Indonesia
Primarily Uses
I don't hate evasion/hit chance, but most games that apply hit chance to be part of their mechanic are the one that gives you the most penalty (Darkest Dungeon, Persona/SMT series, FE with permadeath)

I kinda like how Double Roll in FE, basically it gives you better chance when hitrate 50++ and actually lower chance when hitrate is <50
Code:
https://youtu.be/irQu9pvGb0Q?t=206
I'm okay with missing an attack (80-99 + states and buff that dynamically change), but if most combat are determined within 3 attacks, then 1 miss means 1/3 whole damage is loss. You can negate this by using non-0 damage penalty on miss, or make an attack roll a multi-hit so 1 miss in 5 rolls only net you 20% damage loss rather than 100% damage loss.

I think RNG factor still needed to shake things up a little.
 
Last edited:

Riazey

Master of None
Veteran
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
109
Reaction score
111
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
For me, I like for most moves to have 100% with a few harder-hitting chance moves that hit lower.

You don't want to be stuck in a position where you are 1hp away from wiping and have no surefire moves to save your butt and leaving it completely up to rng. That being said, having too many rng moves can just be heccin' annoying in general because you end up in a situation where two battles can be completely different depending on your luck!

You don't want people feeling like they have to grind out levels so battle is easier, but also want to give them a challenge. It's a thin line that will usually take a few playtesters in the end to figure out!

Taking pokemon's model for hit rate into consideration is probably a good idea! They start with a lot of 100%-90 moves and then introduce stronger less likely to hit moves as the game progresses. This also introduces a level of difficulty progression throughout the game <3
 

Tai_MT

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
5,421
Reaction score
4,729
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
@Tai_MT My worthy rival, you out-wall-of-texted even me! :guffaw:

Then it's quite literally Imaginary!! Unless you have a single game in mind that you're directing advice to when you see a question like ideal hit rate, what you're using is an Imaginary amalgamation of games that you think fit a useful "average". (I don't disagree about it being somewhat ubiquitous, though!)

Nothing wrong with that at all (I think it ends up working better when giving general advice), but you can see how both of us came up with different constructions of "general" or "average" in our mind's eye, and were each giving useful advice for the imaginary game we were thinking of.
I wouldn't call it "imaginary" as much as "generalized". The games are very much real, I'm just not talking about a specific one and am instead talking about an undisclosed multitude.

But, maybe I'm just not familiar with your usage of "imaginary" in this case?

I've explained some of the other benefits of a 100% default Hit Rate already - it allows the player to employ a strategy in a deterministic environment (I used my own game as an example for this one), removes the chance of getting a game over purely due to bad hit/miss RNG, and maintains the sense of agency (which is important for immersion).

But I want to point out that even saving 5 seconds per combat (multiply one miss by 500 battles and that's nearly an hour of the player's time that would have been wasted!), and making the dev's design easier to nail, are absolutely worthwhile benefits!! (After all, you still have to do the transitions to/from battle even in the scenario with Misses! You just have to endure several seconds of utterly wasted time mid-combat, too.)


That's true enough, and I don't disagree with the benefits of a 100% hit rate. I just disagree with using it as a blanket system to use across every game.

But, for me, losing an hour in 500 battles sort of pales in comparison to losing 30 seconds in transition to battles that are foregone conclusions. I mean, we're talking 1 hour of lost time versus 6 hours of lost time with transitions to battles you're already going to win.

In a 20 hour game, 30% of your game dedicated to transitions into and out of combat you are guaranteed to win is more significant than 5% of a game spent on misses. It's more difficult to notice something that happens 5% of the time in comparison to something happening 30% of the time.

To that end, players aren't going to really notice a miss here or there. They'll notice the big events. Like several misses in a row.

I know I'm more stubborn about my designs than most, too, but even I get a lot of benefit from feedback. Often I've come up with a cool system, but I have a blind spot and I don't see that it's too clumsy for the player, or too confusing despite written explanations, or doesn't properly show off why it's rewarding so it's ignored. Seeing that actually happen to players, and getting their feedback, then it creates a great puzzle for me of how I do I deliver on its promise while also avoiding these pitfalls? I love working that stuff out, and sometimes it's a long road to get there.

Most people around here though, I think they take good advice more readily than I do. Sometimes I give advice like "this mechanic is working, but this sub-mechanic isn't because you're actually encouraging the player to do that, and that isn't enjoyable at all" - and the designer refines the entire system to accommodate it! Seeing a system become so much better based on just a bit of feedback is really cool. (Seeing games sometimes go into development hell because of me is less cool.)
There's sort of a difference in mindset there though. A person seeking advice is more willing to listen and accept that their own ideas aren't probably all that great. A person weighing in to give advice (which is what most of us are doing in topics like this) are far less likely to be "open minded" about differing opinions.

Personally, I look at the common complaints and issues against my point of view on systems and such, and then start seeking to minimize those issues. Even if I don't agree with the people leveling the complaints against the system in question.

That, or I just start designing a new system entirely in my head to be all the things people want it to be and "store it" for later. I have a lot of great ideas for things I hate. Visual Encounters, Crafting Systems, Minigames, Puzzles, Grinding Discouragement Systems, etcetera. That way, if I ever decide to work on something I hate... it'll still turn out pretty awesome. And, I just might decide to work on something I hate, because I love to play "Devil's Advocate" and defend the indefensible.

I'm not sure whether I should feel adored, insulted, or both! ;)
I'm not sure how you should feel about it either. For me, personally, it's quite frustrating to not see game design as you do. I begin playing a game and as I'm playing it, I'm picking the entire thing apart in my head. I'm pulling all the pieces off, examining them, and looking for weaknesses and exploits. I also begin examining my own state of mind, "am I having fun? If so, why? If not, why?".

I can't just play a game and be playing it. I'm constantly pulling that game apart to examine it and comparing it to other games that have done what it is doing... better.

So, my tolerance zone for "having fun" seems to be far smaller than most people. For example, you had a blast with Trails in the Sky. I got 5 hours in, maxed out my Orbment and discovered it allowed me to steamroll enemies... and quit playing because the story hadn't hooked me by that point. The game offered me a chance to grind for power, it didn't look like it would take that long, so I did, and discovered that even though that power wasn't direct like "gaining a level", it was still enough to push combat into the realm of "wow, this is no longer a challenge or interesting to engage in."

So, I sometimes wish I didn't have this habit of taking something that many people found fun or exciting and easily reducing it to its core components that aren't all that fun.

Ah, I know how to explain it.

It's like when you go to see a magic show and everyone is impressed with the performance and going, "wow! That was amazing!". But, I'm in the crowd, sitting fairly unimpressed because I've figured out every single magic trick on display. Not only that, but I've figured out several ways to improve on the tricks I saw and am wondering why they weren't put together better.

That's what it's often like for me to play video games. Because of it, I have a very difficult time "having fun" while doing it.

Completely unique mechanics are awesome, but I don't think they're strictly necessary (and they open a designer up to tons of blind spots, precisely because there are no "best practices" for the mechanic yet - there's no body of work to show off what works, when it works, and why).
I prefer the magic tricks I've never seen before just because they're an indication that the person is trying something new. Even if it doesn't work, I find value and amusement in watching it crash and burn.

But, still, I do agree that not every game needs a unique mechanic. They aren't always necessary. A frequently used mechanic that is executed extremely well can be a lot of fun. I have several "guilty pleasure" games that I loved playing despite how "stock standard" everything in them was.

It usually just comes down to "execution". Or, failing that... "presentation" [cue "Welcome to the Jungle" by Guns and Roses playing for dramatic effect].

Interesting question I've got - Do you think that anyone actually aims for a boring, simple, non-challenging battle system (maybe because they think that's what an RPG "should" have, or because they see it as enjoyable via some form of abnegation), Tai?
I think few people intentionally set out to make boring games. I think what happens is that most people begin to see how much work something actually is and then just "call it a day". They declare "good enough!" and move on, otherwise they'd never finish. They put more emphasis on just getting a product out the door rather than on getting a superior product out the door.

This is pet peeve of mine. Mostly because I've built my entire personal career out of never saying, "good enough". "Good enough" is what caused so many problems in my jobs before I was told I had to do them. "Good enough" is what gave me so many annoying projects I didn't want to do in order to fix oversights. "Good enough" is what caused me to do more work because someone didn't do the job right the first time.

I understand the mindset, I just don't like it. Sometimes, you hit the limit of your abilities or tolerance for dealing with something and you just declare, "good enough" so you can move on and do something else. We all do it. Even I do it, despite hating it so much.

But, that's the reason "Animations" have me stuck on my game design. I hate doing them. I've done like 490+ of them and declared each as "good enough" because my skills just aren't going to make them look that good... and yet I go back every so often and rework the ones that I'd declared "good enough".

Even when I give up, I don't give up. It's difficult to see something in a game where the person making it said to themselves, "Yeah, it's probably terrible and has a lot of flaws, but whatever. It's fine. It's good enough. It does what it needs to do." because of this mindset of mine.

Right on!! And not only does the 6-hit design create more player engagement than the 30-hit design, it also opens the door to micro-level tactics (such as building speed and using disables) that might genuinely reward you by saving one hit!

On the flip side, though...

I usually find short-term (I always call it "Acute") challenge to be more enjoyable than long-term ("Chronic") challenge, too. It presents more immediate, and more visceral, obstacles and consequences.

But fully-Acute setups tend to work best when you get, say, a full heal after each encounter (this allows the designer the room to create actual kill threat in each encounter), or have a really easy way to heal up after combat.
I'm not really a fan of the "you are healed immediately after combat" unless we're doing something like an MMO where it makes more sense to do so. In a singleplayer RPG, unless every single fight is "Dark Souls" level of hard, I don't see the sense in making the erasure of your mistakes super easy to do.

By and large, I end up using such systems to grind out levels and power and then selling most of my consumables for the same reason. The dev rendered the game too easy for me and rendered several of the other systems employed absolutely redundant.

I don't need more potions or MP to heal, I need more damage output. I don't need more defense, I need faster speed to go first and more damage output. I don't need to visit Inns, I need to end combat much quicker.

The most efficient way to do most of that is just to gain levels, no matter how nerfed the dev makes gaining levels. I usually just find a way to "work around" whatever nerfs are in place, which ultimately just makes the systems doing the nerfing really really really really really really super annoying and sap the fun out of the game.

The issue, then, is in whether it's worth it to think hard in order to save one hit (see above), or whether it's better to just mash attack or spam your most powerful skill to win in the quickest amount of real-world time and then just heal afterwards. If you're not actually subjecting yourself to a possible game over by mashing/spamming, you might as well do that in a fully-Acute system.
The problem is that the player will likely have to "think hard" just once to save that hit. Once they discover a tactic that works, they'll continue to use that same tactic as long as it continues to work. They won't be "thinking hard" every single fight.

You see this in action in Dark Souls, actually. The game itself introduces an insane variety of enemies, all with their own attacks and movement patterns. The player is meant to "think hard" on how to defeat each one and once they figure out the optimal way to defeat the new enemy, they just go on to defeat that enemy a lot and take no damage in doing so.

A system where a "miss" isn't a thing just leads such players into "robotic play". Even the "hardest" of games, Dark Souls, has players resorting to this "robotic play".

I even noticed this in myself while playing Hollow Knight. Engaging in robotic play. Find optimal pattern for fight, execute optimal pattern for fight until I win and take no damage. Sure, this sort of gameplay feels very fair... but it also gets... tedious. I'm emulating a robot. Hooray for me.

I think the real argument about any system is whether or not a dev thinks it's okay for a player to experience a little frustration.

Personally, I don't think anything is worth doing unless there's challenge in it. The possibility I might fail. Even if that failure isn't entirely in my own hands. So long as that failure isn't frequent or permanent, I don't see it as any sort of problem. It's a momentary expletive thrown at the screen, then I reload and do it again, and succeed. Or, maybe throw expletives at the screen a few times and succeed and feel even better for having succeeded because I perceive it as a bigger obstacle I've overcome.

So, a "miss" isn't that big of a deal to me. No, not even in X-Com where people complain about it a lot. "How can I miss 6 times in a row at a 90% hit rate?! NONSENSE!" I find this frustrating, but also fun to a degree. My plans just went pear-shaped. I've now got to salvage what I thought was going to be an easy mission. Some of my guys might die, or maybe some already did. Now I have to spend some time training up new guys as well and play even MORE carefully for a while in the game so they can level up. That frustration is exciting!

Now, if I were missing 6 times in a row every single combat and having to pick up the pieces like that every single time... That's frustration I don't want to deal with. But, a game over every once in a while from just sheer bad luck? I don't mind. It's bad luck. It's momentary. Fleeting. It doesn't ruin the entire game experience for me.

I think devs often put too much emphasis on "minimize frustration to the player" and they make design decisions based on the thought that a player getting frustrated just once means they aren't going to finish your game and will leave you negative reviews and you won't make any money. Gamers are incredibly resilient when it comes to failure. They tolerate a lot of frustration and failure in order to seek out fun parts of games. Many deaths and losses don't really mean much to most gamers. Even if those deaths and losses aren't within their control and can only be slightly mitigated.

When minimizing frustration, I think it's more important that a player don't experience frustration as a "constant". That is, it's okay that they lose every so often. It's okay that they spend an hour here or there being angry at the game or the dev and continuing to try to win until they finally do. It's okay for a player to "rage quit" your game for a day or two and come back more level-headed with new ideas to try. I think the only thing that isn't okay is having that frustration present through the entire game and constantly wearing on the player.

A player can handle a little loss every now and again. Yes, even if that loss isn't entirely their fault. A player can't handle losing constantly for long periods of time.

That doesn't sound too bad, but my concern is - what is the player supposed to do besides shrug, cry, or curse when RNGesus hands them a really bad beat - say, four misses in ten attempts on a 95% hit chance? Is there enough skill expression inherent in your system that the player can still win against that boss, yet enough challenge that the battle still feels exciting when the player only has one miss the whole combat? And if so, what are you using to nail these almost-contradictory dynamics?
This might sound silly. It might even sound like I'm a backwards dev who doesn't know anything about anything and just wants to "return to the golden age of gaming where being a gamer meant you could withstand any challenge!", but I promise you I'm not that type of person.

What should they do when they miss 4 times in a row? Deal with it. If they can't handle this happening to them once in a while, they are welcome to look for a much easier game.

Part of "having skill" in a game comes from how a player deals with failure. "Skill Expression" isn't just about minimizing failure and trying to play perfectly. "Skill Expression" is also about how a player deals with their plans falling to pieces, or how they deal with unforeseen circumstances. Even if those misses result in losing that battle and seeing "Game Over", a skilled player will postpone that loss as long as possible and try anything they can think of to avoid it.

And, hey, sometimes, just like in real life... you can't stop a bad thing from happening. You can sit down and cry about it, shrug your shoulders, or throw obscenities at the sky and anyone else around you... But, when you're done, you still have to come back and deal with the problem. Or, give up.

There's no rule in game design that says we can't have players using real life skills they've acquired in order to play or enjoy our games. There's also no rule that says we can't teach players to obtain real life skills (dealing with loss and failure and risk) through our gameplay and design.

I've put in as much Agency as I'm comfortable allowing in my game for payers to minimize loss and risk. I drew my line at that point and said to my player, "grow a pair or get out". I do not intend to prevent "Game Over" as often as possible. I simply intend to give my player the tools and training to avoid as many "Game Overs" as possible and leave it in their hands as to whether they fail, succeed, give up, or conquer.

But, yeah, there's probably more than enough "Skill Expression" in my game to mitigate four misses in a row. I mean, combat is designed for "four actions to take down any new monster, and 1 action to take down that monster once you know how to defeat it". It isn't perfect as players can figure out an enemy quickly, or they may not have enough power despite knowing the weakness, or they may fall somewhere between 1 to 4 actions. There's no guarantee, only opportunity and careful player planning. Meanwhile, my characters are meant to go down in 5-6 hits as well, so... you know, bit of leeway in there provided players are "keeping up" with their resource management.

You and @bgillisp have mentioned that the most important thing is giving the player Agency over the characters' Hit Rates. I don't necessarily disagree; letting the player opt into a more deterministic playstyle or a riskier boom-or-bust playstyle can be really neat. What do you do for the players that want that 100% default Hit Rate? Do you offer equips/bonuses that let the player get there pretty quickly? How do you offer this reliability without forcing them to sacrifice so much power that it's unreasonable to go for the "hundo" (100% rate)?
I offer the player equipment to get there and that's about it. There's very little "gameplay" associated with the Hit Rate in my game. Rather, I don't deal with it all that much and don't expect the player to deal with it all that much either. Not unless it takes a steep dive (like having Blind inflicted on you) or you use the "Great Axe", which automatically nerfs your hit rate by 25% in exchange for being nearly twice as powerful as any other weapon in the game.

The options are there for players who want more Hit Rate, but it's not an aspect of gameplay I'm emphasizing. More often than not, you're dealing with it when you choose to equip something that lowers your accuracy or when a state is inflicted on you.

I'm not building a game like Diablo where you can pick a stat and emphasize it for great returns. Most of it built around changing equipment to suit your needs. Players aren't meant to hit "optimize" and win everything. They're not meant to pick a stat to improve, maximize it, and win everything. They're meant to be swapping armor and accessories to fill the needs of the locations they're in. Or, to accentuate playstyles. It's a game of "trade offs". That is, if you're doing one thing exceptionally well... you're failing spectacularly in another area. A player can have 300% Hit Rate if they want, which makes them immune to being Blind... But... What are they missing out on for this Hit Rate? Maybe their defenses aren't as good? Maybe their equipment options are far fewer because of Sealed Slots? Maybe the enemies in this area never use Blind, so 300% Hit Rate is useless?

I don't know, I just don't emphasize Hit Rate all that much in my game. A miss now and again is something that happens and Blind is a state that is so annoying the player must spend an action to get rid of it. Or, they can equip some things to minimize risk of being Blinded or minimize risk of missing attacks.

After all, the "miss" is just meant to stumble a player on a perfect run. It isn't meant to destroy them outright.

I know this is just a shotgun example and not actual marketing copy you plan to use (and it certainly sounds more appealing than "tatcial combat!!1!"), but I really hope you find a more brief way to advertise your game's features! :p I might focus on what the player can do, not necessarily what they can't do (or what is likely to happen to them).
I was using it more as an example of what I'm looking for when I shop for a new RPG than what I'd actually put in my description. Not necessarily large blocks of text, but what the system is and a short description of how it works or some details on how it's different from every other game on the market.

BTW, I'm not sure what you mean about grinding rendering combat in the game a breeze. Combat is balanced on the easy side to start with, but the EXP system is designed so that once you're above par for an encounter, your EXP gains are halved with each level above par, dropping your EXP gains to near-zero very quickly if you're grinding a lot (the main reason to grind is more variety in Orbments you can buy). I meant to show you this in another topic which I never got the chance to respond to, but I took a screenshot to illustrate the point:
As you can see the EXP gained by characters for their penguin slaughter hard-earned victory is halved for each level they have, basically rubberbanding the characters' level. (I actually think this is a pretty good idea for games that are worried about having their balance ruined by players that grind too much or fight too little.)
By "grinding", I meant the Orbment stuff. It didn't take me long to unlock all the slots or to get stuff slotted in there that rendered combat fairly easy. It provided a lot of options in combat and some pretty good tactics. The problem is that I didn't need the levels once I had grinded to unlock the slots and fill them, because the Orbment System all on its own had this knack for destroying any difficulty or strategic thinking the game may have had.

Maybe it gets better later, I dunno. But, in 5 hours I'd grinded all the slots open and filled most of them and then proceeded to rofl-stomp what enemies did exist.

We're getting really off-topic with this so I'll just state briefly why I think your argument doesn't hold water here:
I'm not going to quote the whole thing as it'll drag us even further into the weeds here. No, it's not the guy's job to figure out how to market it either. The problem is, the way he describes the business... it's run by incompetent people who do not understand how it works at all.

Ideally, while you're pitching your game, you're meeting with the marketing department to begin with. That is, the people who are ultimately going to decide whether or not they can even sell your product. After all, that's their job. It isn't some no-name low-level manager who needs someone to market the game at him to decide whether or not to publish. He's ill-equipped for it and the fact that he's the one having to make that decision speaks either to the incompetence at his own company... or that he's a liar and put on his resume that he was in Marketing and is the one you make the pitch to as a result... at which point, he's the incompetent one at his job.

Anyway, in the talk he was giving, he literally said:
"I don't care about your story."
"I don't care about your battle system."
"I don't care about your artwork."

And followed it up later with something implying he wanted to know how your game was "chasing current trends" and "could compete with what is already on the market". Ignoring entirely that the things he "doesn't care about" actually answer those questions for him.

Dude was an idiot. His company should put his skills to better use and let the Marketing Department for the company deal with new acquisitions instead. The company would be far better served.

Okay, so I think I understand what you're getting at - the Miss is just meant to arbitrarily swing combat slightly in one way or another (possibly compounding an advantage that already exists), and isn't meant to directly set up significant changes in combat flow from hardship to advantage or vice-versa.

I guess this hearkens back to something we've argued about a bit in the past - the idea that combat becomes so predictable that it turns into a "reverie", and that players need a bit of shock (something entirely unexpected and sudden) to awaken them from that sleepwalk. I don't know. Some combat systems do fall into that sleepwalk territory, but it just seems so damn easy to not make that. I've played my own game(s) hundreds of times by this point and I still don't zone out when making decisions each turn.
I've found that spending any significant amount of time with any combat system that isn't setting out to actively and constantly engage the player falls into this trap. Players look for the easiest things to do to complete as much of the game as possible. If I can cast a single spell for every encounter and win it, why would I do anything else? Then, I zone out.

Or, if I have to engage in a specific set of actions over and over and over again, I zone out as well. Even if those actions are "debuff, attack, heal a couple times, finish them off".

Engagement is often keeping the brain from remaining on a single thought process. There's a marked difference between "doing a job" and "fight or flight". If you're winning every combat without issue and you've learned all the ways in which to do it... You're "doing a job". You're just going through the motions. But, if every once in a while that "doing a job" is interrupted with something potentially catastrophic... Well, now "fight or flight" kicks in and your brain goes into overdrive to solve the problem.

At my own workplace, this is the part of it I love the most. Not the usual "humdrum" of my typical job. Oh no, I enjoy the stress and pressure of when everything goes wrong. When I have to stop and solve a problem. When I have to use my intelligence and experience to fix an issue, even if it's one I didn't cause.

So, I seek to make games as little like "doing a job" as possible. Especially since the person doing the job is the one paying to do it instead of the other way around.

Anyway, for me, most combat systems fall into the "sleepwalk" territory. They remind me too much of the real life job I am doing, except I've paid someone else to have this experience. If I'm going to pay for an experience, I want the one I enjoy from my job where I'm solving problems and overcoming obstacles and my "fight or flight" response is engaged.

I imagine you get the same engaging experience out of your own game? You already have mechanics like Revenge and Game-changing Ailments to keep players on their toes, and decent outplay potential (as you describe below) that sets up reward for thoughtful, attentive play anyhow. Does your system really need to turn to RNG Misses (and the frustration they bring) to keep players from sleepwalking?
Not sure I understand the question. It doesn't really "turn to" or "rely" on them. They exist to potentially provoke the "fight or flight" response in a player. Or, failing that, shake the player momentarily from the reverie. Though, honestly, a miss is just as easily ignorable in my game if it doesn't hinder the player at all. A miss could do nothing. A miss could swing the pendulum back the other way. A miss could allow one side of the fight to maintain its advantage.

It is just potential. Opportunity. Possibility. It's design runs no deeper than that. A chance for the status quo to change. A small chance. That's all.

And yeah, even with my own game I go into "zone out" when doing combat. Easy to do when I know all the best ways to beat all my enemies. I think the most fun I have with it is when I'm "testing for failure". That is, completely stacking the deck against my characters and seeing what I can do, if anything, to get out of it. Though, that answer is usually "nothing", so you can take from that what you will. I'm comfortable with players making every wrong decision possible and being unable to win as a result. That's part of the deign. I don't give the player a bridge, I give the player all the tools to make the bridge themselves. Log their own trees, carve their own wood, set their own beams, whatever. There's no value in the bridge if I give it to you, but you place value in that bridge if you had to go through the work to build it yourself. Even if you did a shoddy job.

Anyway, the reason for all the outplay and game-changing behavior is mostly for my own benefit. As a dev, I can do more things to the player if they have more options. Especially if those options are overpowered to some degree. I can do devious things then. I can jack up difficulty. I don't have to "pull punches" on them. I can think, "the player can do this and completely destroy the encounter, so how do I make an enemy prepared for that or counter it, or use that strategy against the player?"

It unshackles me. I can bring my best when it comes to encounters if players have powerful ways to change the flow of combat. I don't have to worry that I might kill the characters. I don't have to worry so much that I'm being "too harsh".

Maybe that's not the right way to design a game or try to balance it. Maybe I'm wrong. But, I have to say, designing combat this way feels a lot more fun than number-crunching and trying to balance stats and skills around hurting the player, but not killing them.

When Poison can kill your boss in 5 rounds, you can pull out all the stops as a dev and look for ways to wipe the party in 5 rounds as well. The same applies to misses. If a miss can alter the flow of combat in one direction or another, then you get to make sure each action executed is as impactful as possible.
 

Wavelength

Edge of Eternity
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
4,398
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
As for the "fun factor" behind it - it's the same as it is in tabletop games. Nobody remembers a session where everyone rolled decently and nothing went wrong. Everyone remembers that time someone rolled a 1 and everything went to hell. Meticulously planning everything in advance and everything just playing out by raw math is one of the reasons that a lot of people don't like RPGs, and even RPG fans get bored of the combat after a while.
One of the very few times I've ever found myself strongly disagreeing with you!

Long strings of bad rolls in tabletop games can be a lot of fun because they allow (and even force) your group to turn them into storytelling hooks. You get to act out the bad results and the GM gets to be a little creative with it. Whether you hit, crit, or miss, it creates a new state of battle the next turn that everyone gets to act out, and in the less game-like tabletops you're even expected to try something different. Even dying in a tabletop game can be a "good", memorable experience - and an opportunity to play another character with a different point of view.

In fact, with one RP'ing group, I rolled 1's so often at critical times that "Wave Rolls a 1" became a running joke someone would make almost every session. And of course it had to become a card when the GM decided to make a TCG out of the game's lore. :guffaw: It was fun because every time it happened there was that shared moment of "uh oh, what's going to happen now?"

Videogame RPGs are completely different. Missing in combat (especially easy battles) mostly just means you're going to try the same exact thing next turn, and hope that the RNG doesn't screw you again. Long strings of bad rolls on hit calculations aren't interesting - in a normal encounter they're likely to be a mere waste of time, and in a boss encounter they might cause a Game Over. Unlike in tabletop games where defeat means you keep playing through the story (maybe with new characters, or some other bad consequence), in video games it almost always means "do the whole thing again". You get to replay the last half-hour of gameplay except this time nothing is an interesting surprise. Yay! If that happens to players that are doing everything right because of pure RNG, and gamers are remembering it... most of them aren't going to be remembering it fondly. No one likes a Luck-Based Mission.

That's the worst-case scenario. I think the more likely outcome is that a player will curse a bit, retry, and (hopefully) beat it the next time. What they're more likely to remember is whatever interesting bit of story, character interaction, or environment comes after they beat the boss, because the act of missing a bunch of times and then reloading and replaying everything isn't exactly a story hook.

I do very much like your idea of using the comparison of buildable stats like AGI or LUK to determine hit rates (instead of a single "extra stat" like Hit Rate), though.
 

Basileus

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
296
Reaction score
431
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
@Wavelength
I don't think this is your intention, but it sounds like you are arguing that it should be impossible for attacks to miss period. Not just due to hit-rate, but also enemy evasion. If the player's attack misses because the enemy succeeded a dodge roll, then it is the same effect as the player missing their hit roll. I really don't like the idea of evasion being a player-exclusive mechanic as it imbalances the game in a way that overly favors the player. Again, making an easy system even easier for no real reason. You could remove all hit/evasion from the game, but that leads into my other problem of stripping out customization options and reducing combat to just smashing big attacks until the biggest damage number wins.

If the problem with missing an attack is players doing the same action again next turn, then it sounds like the combat is not doing anything interesting after that miss. The miss did not sufficiently change the game state to make the player need to alter their decisions. If missing an attack gave the enemy target an extra action, or applied a 1-turn debuff to make the player take more damage, then it could help create a situation where the player needs to do something different in order to make a comeback.

The reason I like stat-based hit-rate is because it provides a reason besides "bad luck" for the player to get into trouble. Something like a "Marksman Charm" accessory or a "Focus" buff spell could be used to give the player options to overcome an evasive enemy. You can also make enemies that are just too slow to dodge and need to be taken out using magic or heavy attacks. Being stat-based, and using the same stats the player uses, helps the player understand what is happening and why it is happening.

I also want to avoid the "luck-based mission" element, but removing the ability to miss seems like it hurts more than it helps. Final Fantasy X did a pretty good job of handling this. Flying enemies were very hard to hit for most party members, but Wakka rarely missed because he specialized in fighting them. So the solution to missing constantly was to try different party members and find Wakka was better at killing them. This worked similarly for small ground enemies that dodged a lot but could be countered by Tidus because of his high speed. I feel like FFX was built too much on these hard counters (each enemy archetype was pretty much instantly killed by the 'correct' party member) but it makes sense and is easily understood by the player.

Again, I'm not in favor of pure randomness on every action the player ever takes. I'm in favor of a system that makes it possible for the player to fail at something. As long as the player understands what caused the failure to happen and has the tools to fight back, then I don't think many players will hold it against you or quit your game.
 

Dororo

Villager
Member
Joined
May 24, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
17
First Language
Italian
Primarily Uses
RMMV
One thing to note is how the math is perceived: probably a lot of '100% hitters' will be perfectly fine to have a 3% chance the monster will BLOCK the attack, while they feel cheated if the main character got only 98% to hit XD.

I'm about a natural 75% rate + equipment modifiers, with a cap on hit of 97% (
scores above can help against buff or compute hgiher criticals).

Dragonquest system

DragonQuest gave characters a flat 3% of evading everything, so monsters have a 97% chance to hit.
Characters got a base 100% attack chance - opponent evade rate, that's usually 3-5%, so the chance is an average of 97/95%.
Buffs can change this, and so the whole thing is about the buffs you'll play. The butterflies casting fog to reduce attack rate to 35% was an example -defeating them before the dragon is a strategy to keep in mind.
I think a good rate is 95% of success, with exceptions and tactics on the player side.

Of course you should compensate somehow, so adding a critical range of 3-5% to deal the damage you missed before is a correct equalizer.

Final Fantasy system
Final Fantasy was WAY MORE punishing before grinding each area. The formula is:
randrange(0, 200) < (168 + Chara Hit%+ Weapon hit%) - Enemy Evasion
As enemy evasion progress thru game and characters like White Mages practically never grow their Hit% substantially, a White mage got only 75% (or less based on equipment) to hit a Sahagin with his stick.

The game was more about grinding than finding some fighting strategy - you can efficiently end the whole game with 4 warriors and goodbye to magic and buffs. Monsters too barely do something different than normal attacks.

...
SO...
A compromise of
75% + weapon bonus + class/stat modifier - opponent defence bonus with a cap of 97% on actual hit landing
look fine to me - taking the best of two classicals.
 

Wavelength

Edge of Eternity
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
4,398
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
@Wavelength
I don't think this is your intention, but it sounds like you are arguing that it should be impossible for attacks to miss period. Not just due to hit-rate, but also enemy evasion. If the player's attack misses because the enemy succeeded a dodge roll, then it is the same effect as the player missing their hit roll.
You are correct that I think it should be impossible for attacks/skills to miss by default. Exceptions can be made for certain states/enemies that are meant to change the entire nature of combat through RNG misses, or for certain classes of weapons where the player specifically opts into a miss chance, as I described here.

(And my belief is limited to the scope of Videogame RPGs, of course. Pen-and-Paper RPGs are different, and competitive videogames against other players are also different.)

I really don't like the idea of evasion being a player-exclusive mechanic as it imbalances the game in a way that overly favors the player. Again, making an easy system even easier for no real reason. You could remove all hit/evasion from the game, but that leads into my other problem of stripping out customization options and reducing combat to just smashing big attacks until the biggest damage number wins.
I think a big problem I have is with your assumption that the system is easy and brainless to begin with. It's certainly true that some RPG combat is that easy and brainless, but if that's the case, we have much bigger problems to worry about than Miss/Evade rates! A combat system should allow room for the player to play, counterplay, and outplay - which is a fancy way of saying that there should be multiple viable options at any given time, and "good moves" or "bad moves" should be based on context, not just which number is biggest.

I don't think this is just a quixotic ideal, but something we see in (what I consider to be) decent combat systems. As a few examples even in turn-based games:
  • Epic Battle Fantasy puts a lot of emphasis on large stat buffs/debuffs that degrade over time, creating a dynamic where you need to be very flexible about when to attack, defend, or use utility to change the state of those de/buffs.
  • Persona allows characters and enemies who hit at least one foe's elemental weakness to take an extra turn ("1 More"), and since enemy troops often have a mix of creatures, it can often be smart to leave some vulnerable enemies standing to trigger additional 1 Mores instead of unloading your strongest attacks, or to tactically Guard (reduces damage and denies the 1 More) if multiple enemies can exploit a character's weakness.
  • Trails in the Sky presents a CTB-style system with copious options for manipulating turn order, and bonuses awarded on certain turns (e.g. automatic critical on Turn 9, 20% HP heal on Turn 12). Therefore, actions that deal less damage but create a favorable turn order can be far more beneficial than just using your biggest damage actions.
  • My own game uses cooldowns, large MP/TP costs (along with naturally regenerating those resources), and some sort of Utility on nearly every skill in the game to make it so that timing and situational awareness, rather than picking the highest damage number, are the key to making good moves. I detail a good example of a turn with tough, interesting decisions in the second half of this post.
Now, I suppose it's worth noting that all of those examples except my own also include hits/misses in their system (Trails allows only attacks/physical skills to miss; magic is auto-hit). But I think they'd be even better without RNG Hits/Misses, because the Misses take away from your ability to be rewarded for putting together unique, situational gambits. You can see it in bgillisp's frustration over Persona 5, where nearly everything he did (such as trying to chain 1-More's) was rewarded with an RNG Miss!

If the problem with missing an attack is players doing the same action again next turn, then it sounds like the combat is not doing anything interesting after that miss. The miss did not sufficiently change the game state to make the player need to alter their decisions. If missing an attack gave the enemy target an extra action, or applied a 1-turn debuff to make the player take more damage, then it could help create a situation where the player needs to do something different in order to make a comeback.
...Again, I'm not in favor of pure randomness on every action the player ever takes. I'm in favor of a system that makes it possible for the player to fail at something. As long as the player understands what caused the failure to happen and has the tools to fight back, then I don't think many players will hold it against you or quit your game.
I agree that "do the same thing" also implies my own assumption of problematic, too-easy design. However, I come to back to a similar argument I made when discussing with Tai, which is: if the player getting one Miss is enough to change the state of combat next turn, then how are you going to leave any agency in the player's hands when the RNG can easily hand out another Miss, or even two or three Misses, next turn?

Maybe you're on your back foot after a miss and what the player needs to different is have one character heal, and another use their quick skill that deals trivial damage but debuffs the enemy's attack... but surprise, that quick skill Misses! Boss deals lots of damage, party is wiped, play the last half-hour of the game again. An interesting and engaging tactical decision goes up in smoke.

I'm all for challenging combat that can have varied results, but I feel that the player should be able to put most of the "blame" for the defeat on her own decisions, not on an RNG that happened to give her the middle finger.

The reason I like stat-based hit-rate is because it provides a reason besides "bad luck" for the player to get into trouble. Something like a "Marksman Charm" accessory or a "Focus" buff spell could be used to give the player options to overcome an evasive enemy. You can also make enemies that are just too slow to dodge and need to be taken out using magic or heavy attacks. Being stat-based, and using the same stats the player uses, helps the player understand what is happening and why it is happening.
I do like the stat-based hit rates too, because it gives the player some ability to influence a random, risky element, and also (like you said earlier) because it offers extra depth in how you build your character (big hits, or more reliable hits?). The approach has its limits, of course, depending on the formulas you use. If I really need a character's attacks to hit, so I build the stat like crazy and increase her hit rate against a speedy enemy from 62% to 85%, and then the RNG still rolls a 0.0784... well, that's really frustrating.

I also want to avoid the "luck-based mission" element, but removing the ability to miss seems like it hurts more than it helps. Final Fantasy X did a pretty good job of handling this. Flying enemies were very hard to hit for most party members, but Wakka rarely missed because he specialized in fighting them. So the solution to missing constantly was to try different party members and find Wakka was better at killing them. This worked similarly for small ground enemies that dodged a lot but could be countered by Tidus because of his high speed. I feel like FFX was built too much on these hard counters (each enemy archetype was pretty much instantly killed by the 'correct' party member) but it makes sense and is easily understood by the player.
Ah, FFX's infamous flying enemies :D While I think the system you're describing is a creative and somewhat engaging use of RNG Evasion, is it possible the game might have still been better off with a 100% default chance to hit (with enemies like Flying and super speedy grounded enemies being exceptions to the rule), and/or some kind of other mechanic in place of RNG Evasion such as counter-damage which you needed some characters or some specific skills to get around?
 

TheoAllen

Self-proclaimed jack of all trades
Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,266
Reaction score
6,008
First Language
Indonesian
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
Personally, I'm more into RNG input (situation) than RNG output (result). The way I see the reason behind the miss/evade is "to make your brain work". Well, no...

There're various ways to make this work that does not involve missing an attack (which leads to wasted time and frustration), although all boils down to the randomized enemy attack pattern. Granted, I do not fully dislike attack misses but I don't think I'll design a game around hit/misses.

Here is how I attempted to design mine
- All attacks are absolute hits (with exception). This is the compensation of the RNG input described below.
- The enemy attack is randomized, nothing is one-hit-kill (except for HP trigger if you did not mitigate this, boss only). If you're at low health, what you can do is switch to defense mode and recover or try your luck to pray that the enemy will not use a move that exceeds your current HP.
- There is a chance that the enemy would retaliate/react to your action. This on itself would screw your plan and you had to rethink what you're planning to do without straight giving miss or even worse, giving side effect on a miss.
- There is a chance that the enemy would do an additional effect from their attack such as buffing itself, the entire area, debugging your party, or do a random heal.
- The enemy troop is randomized. You could have various enemy compositions with their unique ability in an encounter, so you could choose which you would take down first. The dangerous one, the healer, or the easy to kill one.
- There is no absolute enemy attack pattern like "turn 1 do this, turn 2 do this", but "every x turns, there is x% chance of the enemy to do this attack". To be able to mitigate whatever the RNG situation is given to the player, the player must have an ability to deal with whatever situation without randomized output. That way, I hope it will create an interesting choice to pick.
 

Basileus

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
296
Reaction score
431
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
@Wavelength
The problem I see might just be a limitation of menu-based combat. If all the player has to do is select the 'correct' attack from the menu and everything is guaranteed to work out, then I don't think combat can stay engaging. Perhaps if the game is short and the encounter rate is low. There is a very good reason that people hate grinding in RPGs - the combat just isn't that fun when you have to repeat the same thing over and over.

I don't like it when enemies become a mindless formula where I input the same skills in the same order and win the same way every time. Spell cycling with buffs/debuffs can be fun in a boss fight but tedious in a regular battle. Turn order manipulation can be extremely broken if there are multiple sources of turn delay/acceleration. A system like 1 More can end battles in a single turn once the player knows the weaknesses of the monsters in the area. It can all be fun in short bursts, but using the same strategies over and over gets boring.

I'd also prefer if player's didn't have to lose an hour of progress just because they lose a fight. One of the reasons people demand "save anywhere" is so they don't have to repeat all the boring bits in case of a bad fight. An alternative to "Game Over go back to main menu" could solve some of the frustration.

The issue I have with enemies needing to use their turns to set up their essential gimmicks is that it can render them pointless if the player is able to prevent the skills from being used. I don't see any reason that enemies can't have inherent traits so their challenge can be present from turn 1. You can even make it more visual by having a status effect bar show the buffs the enemy starts with if you don't want to have the effect be a result of their stats.

I think it's important that enemies don't become some rote checklist of what skills to use in what order every time. If every fight with an enemy is going to play out the same, then the game better not make the player fight that enemy too much. A way to prevent the player from mentally "solving the equation" every fight seems necessary. A way to do this without RNG would be nice, but I will take RNG over nothing any day.
 

Frostorm

[]D[][]V[][]D aka "Staf00"
Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
574
Reaction score
350
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
I also wanted to add that if your game forgoes the use of a hit/miss mechanic due to RNG, then why keep Critical Strikes for the same reasoning? Isn't that also RNG, except instead of losing an attack you, in essence, gain one? (assuming 2x multiplier...well the multiplier is beside the point tho)
 

TheoAllen

Self-proclaimed jack of all trades
Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,266
Reaction score
6,008
First Language
Indonesian
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
I also wanted to add that if your game forgoes the use of a hit/miss mechanic due to RNG, then why keep Critical Strikes for the same reasoning? Isn't that also RNG, except instead of losing an attack you, in essence, gain one? (assuming 2x multiplier...well the multiplier is beside the point tho)
If you miss an attack, you feel bad
If you land a critical hit, you feel good

In my game, only actors can land a critical hit with a very slim chance. You can not increase the chance to land a critical hit or increase the damage dealt. And the exact value is hidden. By doing this, I never promise my players about doing critical damage. So far, no one complains why they couldn't land a critical hit in my game, it is unreliable in the first place, so instead, they should rely on every available option and the skill choices they have, but when it actually land a critical hit, it feels good.

The same feeling could happen when the evasion is exclusively on the actor side by default.
 

jonthefox

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
504
Primarily Uses
The following has happened to me many times:

Me: "Hmm, 90% hit rate still hits pretty much every time! The missing shouldn't be a big deal. I'll give mages 85%, regular characters 90%, and dexterous characters 95%. My game's classes are unique. This will be so cool."

Then, when I play-test....

Me: "How the heck did I miss the bat 2x in a row when my hit rate is 90%? This feels awful. I'm changing everyone's hit rate back to 100%."

***I agree very much with the idea that missing can still be a thing, if the player has ways to cope with it, and if these ways create fun gameplay. Using skills to negate or surpass the evasion of particular enemies, or harmful status effects that are inflicted by particular enemies. It must be executed artfully, of course!
 

CHKNRAVE

I don't end projects, I start them.
Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
30
First Language
French
Primarily Uses
RMMV
I'm a sucker for 100% hit chance and 0% variance on skills. And crits are either at 0% or 100%, no in-between. I'm often tempted to make status effects just as deterministic.

I like it better because it allows the player to have a precise idea of the damage they'll do, of the damage they'll take, so it enables a more strategic approach to combat.
 

Redeye

Chronicles Creator
Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
423
Reaction score
218
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
I wonder how a player would feel if, instead of a Miss, their attack instead has a chance to result in a Glancing Blow, which halves damage dealt instead of outright not dealing any damage at all. My guess is that it would significantly reduce the harsh negative feedback of outright missing an attack, since your attack still does something, just at a crummy effect. You could still have total damage negation chances in the form of Evasion (although you would definitely have to abolish natural Evasion chances to make it fair).
 

jonthefox

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
504
Primarily Uses
Oh, how I WISH that was an option in rpg maker! whenever someone evades an attack --> damage is halved, and no states are inflicted. So it's the same kind of effect as a dodge, but the player doesn't feel like the turn was completely wasted.
 

CHKNRAVE

I don't end projects, I start them.
Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
30
First Language
French
Primarily Uses
RMMV
If you're ready to lose critical hits, you could set them up to have a damage multiplier lower than 1.
 

Frostorm

[]D[][]V[][]D aka "Staf00"
Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
574
Reaction score
350
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
Damn Glancing Blows would be really cool to have, but I'm not willing to sacrifice Crits for it lol.
 

jonthefox

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
504
Primarily Uses
I have a question for @Wavelength and the other people who are in the generally non-RNG camp. I know it was discussed a little bit already, but what is your take on RNG that favors the player? For example:

Let's say SOME enemies have a chance to dodge, but there are skills available to the party that can either ignore this dodge, or remove the dodge chance, etc. - counterplay options. BUT...

Let's also say that SOME party members have a chance to dodge, but MOST enemies have no counterplay options - in other words, sometimes the regular mobs will just miss you. So my question boils down to this - do you think this still feels bad for the player, because it's still taking away agency - he simply "gets lucky" when the enemies miss - OR, does the player enjoy this, if that evasion chance is a defining feature of the character or a passive bonus that the character has earned / opted into.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Latest Threads

Latest Posts

Latest Profile Posts


:3c here's a thing i made a while while while back
Tried mochi for the first time. It's quite nice. Has a pleasant smell and taste, and is nice and chewy.
made a bio for the protag in my project!
Beggar : "I haven't eat for days..."
Kid : "Just do crime! You will get daily necessity for free in prison~"

Forum statistics

Threads
99,158
Messages
962,449
Members
130,725
Latest member
teendinsaikha
Top