How to make rng fair?

pasunna

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2019
Messages
282
Reaction score
67
First Language
thai
Primarily Uses
RMMV
Lately I see many players complain about rng in the game
So…
I curious about what Idea to make it fair?
Because rng is relying on luck
Even if you had 99%
It’s not guarantee that it will succeed
And when it fail player will feel it not fair anyway?
 

Hudell

Dog Lord
Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
3,340
Reaction score
3,042
First Language
Portuguese
Primarily Uses
RMMV
There are many ways to ensure that a result will eventually come.

Suppose you have an enemy that has a 20% chance of dropping a sword.
Instead of having it fixed at 20%, you can make a variable, start it with a 5% chance and then every time the enemy is killed, you increase it by 10%. Eventually the sword will be dropped and then you reset the variable to 5%.
That way the player is guaranteed to receive that sword at least once for every 11 enemies killed.
 

pasunna

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2019
Messages
282
Reaction score
67
First Language
thai
Primarily Uses
RMMV
I see like a gacha drop guaranteed
But in fact I more interested in combat game play
Like you see the 99% hit continue miss like five time
And end up in meme…
 

TheoAllen

Self-proclaimed jack of all trades
Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
4,803
Reaction score
5,500
First Language
Indonesian
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
Responding to the particular case. What's stopping you from just use a 100% hit rate?
 

Ace of Spades

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
91
Reaction score
111
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
I see like a gacha drop guaranteed
But in fact I more interested in combat game play
Like you see the 99% hit continue miss like five time
And end up in meme…
Most professional game developers don't use true RNG, but opt to use a version of RNG that's biased in favor of the player. For example, an attack that shows 99% success rate would never miss. An attack with a 50% chance of hitting would have logic built into the system to avoid 2 consecutive misses in a row. Basically the odds are stacked in the player's favor. Pretty sure Mark Brown covered the topic on his Game Makers Toolkit series on YouTube. It's worth checking out.

Edit:
 

pasunna

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2019
Messages
282
Reaction score
67
First Language
thai
Primarily Uses
RMMV
Responding to the particular case. What's stopping you from just use a 100% hit rate?
well... it a strategy game so the hit-and-miss rating
make the player decision on the unit to attack or not
not that I want 99% always hit
but if it continue to miss five time in a row it is kind of lame...



Most professional game developers don't use true RNG, but opt to use a version of RNG that's biased in favor of the player. For example, an attack that shows 99% success rate would never miss. An attack with a 50% chance of hitting would have logic built into the system to avoid 2 consecutive misses in a row. Basically the odds are stacked in the player's favor. Pretty sure Mark Brown covered the topic on his Game Makers Toolkit series on YouTube. It's worth checking out.

Edit:
thank you I will check it out
 

Andar

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
29,454
Reaction score
6,849
First Language
German
Primarily Uses
RMMV
Like you see the 99% hit continue miss like five time
The first point is to avoid extreme numbers - on both ends.
That has both objective and subjective reasons.

The objective problem is that all random generators have a problem with the extreme ends of their range - those numbers will be less frequent than numbers in the middle of the range, even if the programmers try to prevent that.
The subjective problem is that if the player is accustomed to almost always hit, then he will consider each miss an unfair problem.


That is also the reason why @TheoAllen asked about using 100% instead of 99%.
a strategy game so the hit-and-miss rating
If you want that without problems, then the solution is to set your success at 70% or so.
With such a case the player will miss often enough that he will not care if there is a sequence of more misses in a row.

The only thing you need to do is to balance this in - have the enemies miss with a similiar chance and keep this fair and balanced, and the player will not care about the more frequent misses.

The key here is the "fair" and to give the player time to learn this about the project's battle system. The entire fighting style of "never miss and thousands of points" has come because a lot of developers don't know how to balance their games, they can only pour points on their bosses to make them more difficult because balancing with hit chances is much more difficult.
Players can handle lower hit chances as long as they work by themselves. Of course you have to prove that your chances work to people who never played games with lower hit chances, which is why I said you need to give the player time - which means several battles where it doesn't matter what happens at the beginning of the game.
 

lianderson

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
360
Reaction score
246
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
N/A
You make RNG fair by lying to the player. If there's a 50% chance for something good to happen, secretly make it 51-55%.
 

Kuro DCupu

Trust me, I'm a veteran RMer
Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
308
Reaction score
1,170
First Language
Bahasa
Primarily Uses
RMMV
Gradual increase in probability is cool. For each FAIL, the probability keep increasing. Then until it SUCCEED, the probability will reset.

Lying in favor for players did works. Lots of games and gacha already implemented that. For example, do you actually believe games like match 3 is completely RNG? Nahh, some are designed to keep the chain going.
 

MushroomCake28

KAMO Studio
Global Mod
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
3,774
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
I think most people here agree that having an artificial RNG is better, because of the player's perceived perception of unfairness (you think you miss more than you do), and because RNG isn't perfect since a true random number generator is still one of the challenges computer science has yet to find a solution to.

For example, if the player misses at 99%, make it so he can't miss the next 40-60 hits. This will require some tweaking of the game a little bit though.
 

HumanNinjaToo

The Cheerful Pessimist
Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
498
Reaction score
178
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
I think you have to think of it in terms of running a casino. You have to let the player win enough so that they are having fun and spending money, but you can't let 'em hit those big jackpots very often or you suck at being a casino and don't make any money. Too many misses in combat suck and have a tendency to make you feel cheated. But missing every now and again, then getting that hit when you really needed it feels awesome! It's a balancing act to be sure. For me, I'm thinking one missed attack every two or three battles. If I missed more than once in a battle, especially for two or three battles in a row, I would feel cheated. It would seem like artificially dragging out a fight because of lazy developing.
 

Milennin

"With a bang and a boom!"
Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,261
Reaction score
1,361
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
For more important things, I always semi-randomise to lower or prevent potential RNG screw ups. For example, a character generates a random spell in one of their skill slots every turn in my game; it will exclude the chance to generate a revival skill if no allies are downed. It will exclude a healing skill if the party is near full health. It will heighten the chance of generating a defensive skill if the party is at low health. etc.
You still get that RNG, but it's manipulated in ways it doesn't give you completely useless outcomes. Preventing useless outcomes, in my opinion, is the way to go with RNG in combat. Which is why I never give attacks a below 100% hit chance, because missing is the ultimate uselessness. RNG on side-effects is fine with me, as long as the main attack/effect still hits.
 

velan235

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
54
Reaction score
27
First Language
Indonesia
Primarily Uses
Pseudorandom in Dota2 could be a start, where crit/bash proc. chance is actually lower than what written in the tooltip on the first hit, and gradually increase as the crit doesn't proc. this would somehow reduce the lucky stun on first hit but also makes your stun at least proc. once on a clash. of course this kind of formula is not really applicable in turn-based combat where one action have a big impact to the flow of game vs Moba action game where you do a sequence of act in a single clash.

the double roll from fire emblem could be used as a base for "fair" RNG for player. where the chance is from rolling 2 number and average them. (mathematically, 70% hit rate is actually 82% hit rate but 30% hit rate actually 18% hit rate because of double roll). this would make a high rate (>50%) will eventually tend to make a hit and low rate(<50%) eventually tend to make a miss. it doesn't mean it was technically "fair" but from average psychological prespective, it was more acceptable and what player to expect in general. you could search the "hit rate lie - fire emblem" for more breakdown

talking about fair, single roll is actually the most fair RNG, because it has clear value between hit and miss. (so yes 99% still have 1% chance to miss and 1% still have 1% chance to hit) but in videogame cases, usually we want to favor the player (something like double roll above) or make RNG penalty more vague (ie. instead of miss, you could make the attack graze/nick so it only deal 1/3 the damage on "miss" proc.) rather than actual 0 or 1
 
Last edited:

TheoAllen

Self-proclaimed jack of all trades
Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
4,803
Reaction score
5,500
First Language
Indonesian
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
I once read from an article from a game that heavily relies on RNG for its gameplay (although I lost the link). The dev did a survey that if the player is lucky 80% of the time, the player would think it's fair. If they're lucky 50% of the time, they call it is unfair. If the player is lucky more than 80% of the time, they consider that they're lucky.

Regarding the pseudo-random. I think it is more or less the same if you don't have it at all. For example, if your initial chance is 20% to proc and you add a 20% chance per fail, it is more or less the same as 40% all the time.

Screenshot_109.jpg

Screenshot_110.jpg

Granted, it was for 1000 rolls. It can be even lesser for turn based, and you gotta work differently to make it feels fair tbh.

Code:
https://repl.it/@TheoAllen/PseudoRandomTesting
 

Tai_MT

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
5,318
Reaction score
4,546
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
Not sure if it's still relevant, since others have already mostly answered the question, but I'll throw my two cents in.

I think no matter what you do, you're going to have players who feel "cheated" by RNG. Let's look at X-Com for a minute. "90% chance to hit" on a shot, and it misses. Every single player in existence feels cheated by that. It doesn't matter if you had 3000 hits in a row at 90% chance to hit, and then got 4 misses in a row at 90% chance to hit. That feels UNFAIR.

It feels unfair because players (and people in general) remember bad things that happen to them more often than good things that happen to them. It doesn't matter if that person has had an amazingly good life with few problems in it, or a really terrible life with few good things that happen in it. People tend to remember the bad things more often and do not ever compare them against the good things that have happened. They just don't.

Think about that for a second.

If you find $50 on the street, and you pick it up, and buy stuff you want with it, you'll remember that for a little while. Now, if you accidently lost $20 somewhere through some mishap, you're going to remember for quite a long time that you're short $20. In reality, you're still up $30, 'cause you randomly found someone else's $50 on the street. You're still very far ahead. But, all you can think about is how you lost $20 and what you were going to do with that $20 you had in your pocket. In fact, the feeling of losing that $20 is a far more intense feeling than the elation you had of finding $50.

Personally, I think "cheating" the RNG in favor of the player is a good step, but I also think it's a "half measure".

I think it's better to give the player some "agency" in terms of RNG. Allow the player to take measures to improve their own odds. Items to equip that increase hit chances. Items to equip that decrease chances of being hit. Movement on a battlefield that increases odds of hitting (like tiles you're standing on or being positioned behind an enemy). If a player is told they can improve their odds and sees a difference in whether those odds are improved or not, they feel less "cheated" about any miss, and tend to realize that they made their odds of a hit as good as could've been made in the given circumstance.

It does also help when a "miss" against an enemy doesn't result in a massive amount of punishment. In X-Com this is going to always feel unfair because if you don't kill the enemy, the enemy kills you. Most gameplay requires the play with a certain degree of precision and perfection to avoid losing high level characters, equipment, and the mission. If a miss results in you losing the entire mission, or losing a squad member, or a piece of equipment like a grenade... It doesn't feel like "you missed". Instead, it feels like the game is 100% punishing you for something you have zero control over. Yeah, you had a 90% chance to hit, but when you missed, you lost two squad members permanently. That's not even a "high risk, high reward" scenario that the player decided on. That's the player missing a shot, and then the game rofl-stomping that miss as a result, with no way to predict the game was going to do that after you missed.

Some of what matters in RNG is the results of that failure. What happens BECAUSE you missed? Is it just a miss and combat takes another round to resolve? Or, is it a miss and you lost party members as a result of it and are not put on the "back foot" and having to revive and heal up everyone?

If a miss is made "inconsequential" in the large scheme of things, it will rarely, if ever, feel unfair. If it is VERY consequential and results in huge set-backs... every single miss, no matter what it is, is going to feel cheap and unfair to a player.

You don't need to balance RNG. You need to balance the OUTCOMES of that RNG.
 

Wavelength

Pre-Merge Boot
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
3,960
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
The reason that people tend not to like "RNG" is that it no longer feels like you are playing the game - it feels like the game is playing you. You lose your agency over what happens, and instead you are simply told what the result is instead of making that result! If you do everything right in combat, but the game keeps rolling bad RNGs and telling you that you missed,

However, that takes a very narrow view of what "RNG" is - expressing it as binary output (i.e. either something works or it doesn't work, like Hit Rates), instead of looking at more satisfying uses of RNG such as varied, randomized input (e.g. randomized enemy buffs at combat start) or mechanical hooks (e.g. randomized events in Slay the Spire which give you multiple ways to react). It also makes a lot of assumptions about the type of game - specifically, that we are playing a video game with a clear short-term failure condition of some sort (a Game Over or a Defeat that ends the game). A pen-and-paper roleplay like D&D can get away with extreme use of RNG because a bad combat result can be a great storytelling opportunity, not a "game over" that says you have to go back and do a segment of the game again. A bad RNG result in Civilization might mean that you lose a unit, but that loss can lead to rich and interesting combat decisions afterwards, and you get to keep on playing (perhaps from a bit of a deficit).

Here are several tips and tenets to consider when you're considering how RNG plays into your game's design:

1. Wherever possible, opt for RNG Input instead of RNG Output
RNG Input, where there is some element of variance in the tools or situation the player receives, is the far more exciting and satisfying version of RNG. Consider a card game like Hearthstone: the RNG Input is the cards that you draw (and the deck you are randomly matched against); the RNG Output is card effects like "Deals 1-8 damage at random". You'll find that players complain much more about the RNG Output (even though they interact with RNG Input every single turn), because they have no real ability to react to what happens, and it generally doesn't set up interesting situations - it just screws over one player or the other.

Some of the best board games are interesting for years precisely because of their RNG Input! For example, Settlers of Catan and Twilight Imperium randomize their boards (and resource locations) at the beginning of each game, meaning that strategies which worked in your last game might not work in this game.

RPG combat can absolutely include RNG Input. As a few examples of things you could do:
* Start each enemy off with random buffs or debuffs at the beginning of combat (Elsword does this)
* Have bonuses available on certain turns (such as the 12th turn of combat), especially if there are ways to manipulate who gets to act when (Trails in the Sky does this)
* In Tactical RPG combat, lay bonuses, obstacles, or resources in random squares (Disgaea)
* Semi-randomize the skills that are available to each character in combat (Baten Kaitos)

2. Use RNG to create interesting Hooks
Hooks are where the outcome of one event lead to interesting narrative or gameplay in another event. These can be large (an RNG roll determines the entire future course of the game) or small (an RNG roll determines what kind of position you'll be in for the next turn of combat). The important thing is that it sets up something interesting.

A very good example of an RNG roll in a video game RPG could be an attempt to convince a monster to join your cause. If successful, you avoid (or end) a combat, you have a cool new ally to try out in combat, and maybe you even get to learn more about the monster through interactions outside of battle. In unsuccessful, you still have an interesting combat ahead of you, and maybe you get interesting rewards when you kill it, or maybe it even returns as a cool and rewarding enemy later.

3. Avoid RNG elements that lead to Game Overs
Any time the player receives a Game Over, it should be because of their own mistakes, decisions, or lack of skill. It should never be because the RNG said you're getting a Game Over. The biggest offender here is when an enemy uses RNG Instant Death skills (or uses 100% certain Instant Death skills based on an RNG that determines their moves) - pretty much no way for the player to react to that besides hope the RNG is feeling merciful. But other RNG mechanics can also directly lead to Game Overs, such as Critical Hits that are large enough to completely one-shot party members.

4. Avoid RNG elements that No-Sell a player's action
While not as bad as Game Overs, RNG elements that cause a player's action to completely fail are also really dissatisfying. They make the player wonder why they even bothered trying to do something (and if bad RNG results happen repeatedly, they will lead to a Game Over as well). Having the RNG determine Hits and Misses is the most frequent and obnoxious offender in RPGs - it rarely provides any interesting gameplay but it always provides frustration. Status effects such as Paralysis in Pokemon also run afoul of this - it feels bad to enter a command knowing there's a 50% chance it will completely be ignored.

5. Use clear, round Probabilities (and show them to your player if feasible)
In general, you want expectations to match up with reality - the problem is that the human mind is not always that great at setting up expectations properly. For example, if I'm told there is a 23% chance it will rain each day for the next 30 days, or a 61% chance, I will have a harder time squaring in my mind whether it's raining more or fewer days than I should have expected. On the other hand, if I were told the chance is 50%, I will have a much easier time processing whether I should be surprised that it rained 5 days this week.

Whenever possible, use nice, round probabilities like 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%. Increments of 10% (30%, 80%) are not that bad, but not as good as 25/50/75.

Additionally, it's a lot more comfortable to make a decision when you know what your odds of different outcomes are. For something like Crit Chance, it's a good idea to show your player the odds that it will happen. And by the way, I completely disagree with several posters who said you should lie about probabilities (even if it's in their favor). If you're going to make them this kind of information, allow them to make a smart decision instead of deceiving them. Changing the probabilities like @MushroomCake28 mentioned to avoid long strings of Bad Beats (see #10) is fine, but be transparent to your player about it if you're giving them a number of any sort.

There are times, however, when giving information about possible outcomes ("Do you go through the front door, or try to sneak through the sewers?") will break immersion. In times like these, it's okay not to show the player the possible outcomes or their probabilities.

6. Give your player ways to influence the RNG
The most interesting and compelling RNG systems tend to be ones that the player can influence or control. For example, if you're going to have an RNG calculation to determine Critical Hit rates, tie the chance of scoring a Crit to a Stat that the player can build (such as Dexterity or Luck), and make sure that characters have lots of viable choices of Equipment so that they can choose different Stats to specialize in. Maybe one player really wants to have a high chance of scoring Critical Hits, while another would rather have consistent Strength, and a third player wants just one character to specialize in Crits.

7. Frame RNG events as Positives, not Negatives
Framing a mechanic differently can completely change your player's mind about it. In one famous example, World of Warcraft originally had a 'Fatigued' penalty which halved your EXP from monsters if you played too long without a break. Players hated this, so Blizzard re-framed it by removing the Fatigued penalty, halving the EXP from all monsters, and then awarding players a 'Well Rested' bonus which doubles your EXP from monsters for a few hours after a break. In actuality, no change was made to the mechanic itself - you'll have exactly as much EXP as you'd have under the 'Fatigue' system! But because of the re-framing, players loved this and felt rewarded rather than punished.

One mechanic I often see in games, but is universally hated, is a chance for an item or equip to 'Break' with each use. For example, a reusable Healing Orb that heals an ally but has a 30% chance to break with each use. Ouch! When it breaks, it feels soooo bad, especially if that happens on the first or second try! Instead, frame it as a single-use item that heals an ally and has a 70% chance to give you a 'Freebie' (doesn't disappear from inventory after use). Now if the 30% is rolled, it feels like the item did its job; if the 70% is rolled (especially if it's rolled multiple times in a row), you feel like you got some kind of awesome bonus!

8. In Single-Player Games, consider using Asymmetric RNG Mechanics
There's some value in making it feel like the AI is playing by exactly the same rules you are, but since RPGs usually have a lot of asymmetry between you and the enemy anyway (for example you have to run an entire dungeon of monsters and keep your HP/MP up the whole way through), sometimes a mechanic will just work better if it's something only the player can take advantage of. RNG mechanics are particularly good candidates here.

Eternal Senia is one of my favorite examples. It's a sort-of Action RPG where when you touch a monster, they take damage and you also take damage, based on the comparison of your stats. However, while enemies can Miss you (based on your EVA stat), you can't Miss them, and while you can Crit enemies (based on your CRIT stat), they can't Crit you. The result feels awesome - once you have a sense of the enemies' stats you can go in with a solid expectation of how many hits it will take to kill them, and you never get the jarring sense of "oh, that Miss totally broke the flow". The only unexpected outcomes that can happen are positive ones ("wow, I just one-shot that wolf with a crit!!")

Is it fair to the enemy? No. Can the enemy complain about it? No. Does it make for a good experience for the player? Heck yeah!

9. Allow the Player to opt in to RNG Output
Wherever the player has the chance to choose to engage in an RNG mechanic, it signifies and knowing risk-reward tradeoff that the player is willing to take. They accept the risk that the output could be unfavorable, and generally they will be more OK with that bad outcome because they chose to opt into it.

Examples of this could be a character (in an RPG where you can choose your active party from a large roster of characters) that has skills with highly random effects, a weapon that deals highly variable damage or has high damage alongside a chance to Miss, or a system (in a tactics game, for instance) where hitting an enemy from the front has a chance to be blocked, but hitting them from behind is a 100% chance to succeed. That gives the player an interesting decision: put their attacker in harm's way by moving deeper into enemy lines to backstab the enemy, or attack from the safer position in front but risk a Block.

Remember that if opting into the RNG Output is objectively better than choosing not to (e.g. the weapon deals twice as much damage with only a 25% miss chance), then the player will feel like they are 'forced' to use it and any psychological benefit gained from offering this choice is wiped out.

10. Compensate for Bad Beats
It feels especially bad when a very uncommon RNG roll, or a long string of unlucky RNG rolls, go against you. However, by compensating the player for really bad luck (especially if they were making what was a smart move), you can turn something that feels horrible into something that feels fair and even good! Players appreciate this.

The above example of a block chance when hit from the front came from Tactics Arena Online, which did something else that made the RNG feel great: When a unit blocked based on an RNG roll, its chance to block would be decreased for a few turns, and when a unit failed to block based on RNG, its chance to block would be increased for a few turns. Another great example is Dwarven Dig, a board game which forced you to roll for the success of almost any action you wanted to take. If you failed, you gained a "Grit" counter which could be used to increase any of your other rolls by 1 or help you in other ways. Finally, I remember a single-player mobile game based on Texas Hold 'Em, which literally awarded you a "Bad Beat Bonus" if you made the correct poker plays but then lost the hand. It felt really cool to be rewarded for good play even when the cards didn't go my way!

11. Give your player the Last Laugh
Ultimately, your player can do a lot of things to gain an advantage in battle (choose the right equips, manage the party's HP well, grind, etc.), but when the RNG ultimately determines the outcome, it has the potential to override everything the player has done to improve their odds. Wherever possible, you should give the player the opportunity to have the last laugh if they play skillfully.

For example, imagine a Hit/Miss system which uses an RNG roll based on the attacker's HIT stat and the defender's EVA stat. Perhaps the player has done everything right, and given themselves a 82% chance to hit. If the RNG decides to roll within the 18% miss chance, there's nothing the player can do. How might we give the player the last laugh if they play skillfully? One way would be to have a "Hit Meter", where the attack connects if the player presses a button at the right time. Instead of the RNG roll determining hits and misses directly, it would instead control how big the acceptable Hit range is for a given attack. The roll itself would still be based on stats, so a character with high HIT would usually get wide hit ranges on the meter, making the "hit the button at the right time" microgame a lot easier.

12. Round Up (avoid chances <5% or 91-99%)
Something weird happens with very high or very low probabilities - they tend to make for patterns that feel distorted and unsatisfying (even when they are perfectly fair in reality). In the case of probabilities above 90%, players tend to view it similarly to a 100% guaranteed effect, and having the effect fail/miss results in great dissatisfaction, like a "sure thing" was taken away as an affront to the player. Hit rates are a great example of where slight chances to fail can be extremely dissatisfying.

For probabilities below 5%, the expected effects become so nebulous that players tend to simplify the effect as "if I try X times, I'll get 1 success" - so, for example, a 2% chance to Paralyze an enemy on a skill would read as "If I try this 50 times, I'll Paralyze the enemy". In reality, the chance to Paralyze the enemy at least once with 50 attempts at this skill is 1.00 - (0.98 ^ 50) = 63.6%, meaning a 36.4% chance that you still haven't gotten even one success after 50 attempts. Even after 100 attempts, there's still a ~13% chance you're still waiting for something that never comes! This is really important with concepts like Drop Rates. Players don't want to grind forever waiting for a drop that never comes.

In short, round up all effects/drops/RNG chances that are less than 5% to at least 5% (if the effect is so powerful that it's gamebreaking at 5%, then it's badly designed and you should rework it)... and round up any effects/drops/RNG chances that are greater than 90% to 100%, which is much more satisfying than dealing with the anxiety that a slight chance of failure could completely bamboozle you.

13. Varying Damage is OK, but keep it small
Damage (and even other effects that come in large numbers, like Gold in treasure chests) is okay to add some RNG output variance to, as it adds a nice feeling of unpredictability and immersion to combat. Why does it make combat more immersive? Because when the numbers change a little from hit to hit, it no longer feels like solving a math problem ("The enemy has 230 HP, I'm dealing exactly 37 damage per hit, so I will need 7 hits to defeat it"). With variance, it feels more like managing an actual battle, where you judge things like "how long will it take to eliminate their DPS?" by time and flow, rather than by solving a simple math equation.

HOWEVER, when adding variance to things, keep the variance small! For example, with the default 20% variance on damage, the best possible result is 120% of the damage formula and the worse possible result is 80% - this means that the best possible result is doing 1.5x as much damage as the worst! This kind of spread is something I usually attribute to stats or even to Critical Hits - not to simple RNG variance. A spread of 10%, or even 5% if your damage numbers are big enough, is enough to add the feel of unpredictability.

(As a finer point, the more "rolls" you make to determine total variance, the better. By default, RPG Maker rolls twice on Variance to create a total variance between -20% and +20% (if your Variance is 20), with most results falling between -10 and +10 rather than falling close to the edges. The more times you roll, the more results fall closer to the mathematical mean - that way, you can allow for rare outlier results, while keeping most results very close to the expected balance you're going for.)

14. When in doubt, throw it out!
The last rule's simple. If you ever find yourself unsure of whether to add an RNG-based effect to your game, err on the side of not adding it! Guaranteed effects, even if they're weaker, tend to be more satisfying and more strategic. If you're ever going to add an RNG element to your game, especially one that controls output rather than input, make sure you can express a compelling reason that the RNG element makes for more interesting, more compelling gameplay.
 
Last edited:

Wavelength

Pre-Merge Boot
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
3,960
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
Felt it was worth bumping this to note that I've finally completed my tome-sized talk on using RNG wisely in game design, a few posts above. No more subtopics that read "Coming Soon"!
 

Aesica

undefined
Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2018
Messages
1,054
Reaction score
977
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
12. Round Up (avoid chances <5% or 91-99%)
Usually I agree, but there actually are cases when it really is okay to have really slim chances on things. To give an example of what I mean, I just finished implementing a fishing system in my game, and sometimes, you can fish up things with other types of loot inside them. One in particular is a "Pouch of Tokens" which contains a random number of tokens used by the game's casino. The amounts are weighted as follows:

weight - amount
100 : 1-25
10 : 100-200
1 : 500-1000

On top of that, the pouch itself is somewhat uncommon. Since the casino token prizes are generally in the thousands and since getting the tokens is generally going to be easier via the casino minigames (or even via standard battles if you give up an accessory slot to wear the casino advertisement sandwhich board into battle) the pouch itself becomes more of a nice supplement rather than unfair make-or-break RNG.

Now, had that been the only source of tokens, then yeah, it'd be pretty horrible.
 

Countyoungblood

Sleeping Dragon
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
608
Reaction score
398
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Rare special things happen the least often.. if you dont see it often its special.. valuable loot is rare.

As for missing in combat why not involve dex? My agility and accuracy versus your dodge resolved to decide hit rate.

Big heavy weapons are harder to hit with but hurt more.. small weapons do less but are easier to direct.

Dont overthink this. Doesnt have to be hard.
 

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

Latest Profile Posts

so, ive been gone for too long when i log in and see that everything is where is shouldn't be. XD
Steam killing my eyes.. I forgot why I use it only when I have no other choice
Making a map, my brain went "Look, Mjölnir!" as I plotted out a sacrificial entrance.

Actually, it went, "Look, hammer. Wait, Thor's hammer!"
CG tile rendering, take 3: windows.
which section you guys think looks more accurate to the perspective? left or right?

for reference, this is what it looks like "at street level"
Okay, Animal Crossing is remarkably addictive and exceptionally calming. I've been playing it pretty exclusively... like... 6 hours a day. Been a while since I've been this engrossed.

Forum statistics

Threads
95,402
Messages
928,918
Members
125,620
Latest member
Marlin
Top