Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Luck as a Gameplay Factor


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
22 replies to this topic

#1 danuese   Members   -  Reputation: 103

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 04:04 AM

How does luck affect a game? How is luck even part of your average videogame? What purpose does it serve?

Very poor uses of luck, most prominent in older games, levels that could only be solved if you were lucky.

Posted Image

It should be very obvious to every game designer to avoid this. Always. Forever. There is no way anyone should ever use it. Period.
So when should luck be a part of the gameplay? There are different ways to employ it correctly:

The Average Approach
An example for this is Diablo, DnD, really almost every Action RPG out there, often strategy games too; as they all randomize weapon damage. Why is this acceptable? Simply because you use your weapon so often that it averages because of the sheer number of rolls.
It also makes the player think, do I want to do 2-7 damage per hit, or rather 1-8?
As I mentioned above, it's not something you actually need to consider, as it averages out really fast, but it makes the player think, and having the player strategizing and thinking about things in-game hooks him to the game on an intellectual and (hopefully) emotional level. Since you had to think about it, you already invested yourself into the game.

This is a way to acceptably use LUCK in your game. This only works if you 'roll' often. Otherwise a single roll can make the difference that makes it frustrating to the player:

Imagine finally getting the atom bomb in an RTS, after being almost overrun since you had to invest all your ressources into this, and then *Poof* nothing happens. Why? The superweapon does 200-9999 damage, and you just happened to roll low. Because of luck, you lost the game.


The other classic example is Critical Hits. These have usually a 5% or lower chance of occuring and are therefore very heavily luck based. Of course it can then be used to give the player a chance to increase his critical hit chance.

The alternative route
This is something that I have hardly seen in games. It basically says that luck depends on the outcome of the mission, but you don't FAIL. It means that the story goes in a different direction, or that you get different missions. This could be used for interesting effect, but it can frustrate the player, since he might not be able to see the story go in a different way when he replays the game.
A possibility to avoid this would be to program the game to automatically have it work out the other way when you replay the game. Say the game notes if you finished with version A, so the next time you will always get B.

To repeat my questions from the beginning: What purpose does luck serve in your games? Is it a part of your game at all? Should it be?

Sponsor:

#2 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 04:25 AM

Luck should not be part of the game if you want competitive players.
But if you want players who just play for the fun of it and aren't that hardcore then add as much randomness as you want.

#3 KenjiSenpai   Members   -  Reputation: 231

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 04:31 AM

Random number generation is very important in video games. You seem to only talk about Random numbers that you, the player, can see on screen but they are used for many other things.

For instance, AI random numbers will make an AI choose between left or right instead of always choosing the fastest route to a destination.

Also, if the designer decided to make the bomb do 200-9999 dammage and the avarage health of a structure is 8000 he did somethign wrong and its not because of its random factor, its because of balance of random numbers.

Plus, for a bomb, you could spread the random numbers. What I mean is when the bomb explodes the dammage is rolled for every units in the blast radius. this creates a better sense of chaos created by the bomb instead of total anhilation or zero anhilation, you will have a base where some buildings are left intact and others are not.


The other important factor in luck: Its fun to be lucky. if you play a game and score a critical hit your immediate reaction is YEAH!!! and game designers have to take that into account. When you design a game its for it to be fun not to be a model of balance to be used in a game algorithm class.

#4 KenjiSenpai   Members   -  Reputation: 231

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 04:34 AM

Luck should not be part of the game if you want competitive players.
But if you want players who just play for the fun of it and aren't that hardcore then add as much randomness as you want.


I disagree. Knowing that there is a random factor in competitive play is a nice way to put players in high risk high rewards situations. The player has to tell himself : Okay i have 50% chance of this happening no matter what, is this worth the risk?

This is the kind of choice you want players to make in competitive play.

#5 danuese   Members   -  Reputation: 103

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 05:32 AM

Random number generation is very important in video games. You seem to only talk about Random numbers that you, the player, can see on screen but they are used for many other things.

For instance, AI random numbers will make an AI choose between left or right instead of always choosing the fastest route to a destination.

Also, if the designer decided to make the bomb do 200-9999 dammage and the avarage health of a structure is 8000 he did somethign wrong and its not because of its random factor, its because of balance of random numbers.

Plus, for a bomb, you could spread the random numbers. What I mean is when the bomb explodes the dammage is rolled for every units in the blast radius. this creates a better sense of chaos created by the bomb instead of total anhilation or zero anhilation, you will have a base where some buildings are left intact and others are not.


The other important factor in luck: Its fun to be lucky. if you play a game and score a critical hit your immediate reaction is YEAH!!! and game designers have to take that into account. When you design a game its for it to be fun not to be a model of balance to be used in a game algorithm class.


Since we are talking about the creative side and not the technical side, I didn't take in account things like AI programming. Of course we're not just talking about visible numbers, we're talking about situations where the player can clearly say: I did the same thing and it worked out differently.

The Bomb balancing was an extreme example, since those are the easiest to understand. But if you roll for affected unit and structure seperatly, then yes, it works out again, which is exactly what I mentioned earlier: Averaging through a high number of rolls. It was an example to illustrate how luck negatively affects the game experience.

And of course you're right about something I forgot to mention: Being Lucky is fun. It's the appeal of gambling. Definitely something a game designer needs to consider. You could even take advantage of this: A possibility would be to increase critical hit chances when your health is low. (of course without the player knowing)


I disagree. Knowing that there is a random factor in competitive play is a nice way to put players in high risk high rewards situations. The player has to tell himself : Okay i have 50% chance of this happening no matter what, is this worth the risk?

This is the kind of choice you want players to make in competitive play.


While I can see your point I have to disagree: Luck in competitive play reduces the influence of the player's skill. High-Risk-High-Reward situations should arise without luck involved.
An example could be in a 2vs2 RTS game, when your enemies attack your allied base you could, instead of helping your ally, attack the now undefended enemy bases. You risk having your own base wiped out by the enemy's combined force, but it's also possible that you completely destroy their base and their support, so you can defeat both armies that were weakened by your ally. This is a high-risk-high-reward situation that arises without the influence of luck, and that gets resolved by skill alone, which is exactly what you should look for in competitive play.

#6 Acharis   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3989

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 05:39 AM

Luck serves to level playing field for kids and adults. So, if you are making a casual family multiplayer game where kids and parents are supposed to play together luck is a must (that's why kids love all sort of luck games, they can beat adults in these).

The second major purpose of luck is replayability, althrough you can substitute it with other mechanics (but not always and not as perfectly).

Note that the most hardcore games rely heaviliy on luck (all roguelikes, dwarf fortress), which is kind of a paradox since on general hardcore players tend to loathe luck.

Europe1300.eu - Historical Realistic Medieval Sim (RELEASED!)

PocketSpaceEmpire - turn based 4X with no micromanagement FB


#7 Waterlimon   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2639

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 05:41 AM

What might be interesting would be implementing some sort of a karma + randomness system, so that your actions and situation can make you more lucky than another player, getting you more critical hits and dodging more bullets.

o3o


#8 KenjiSenpai   Members   -  Reputation: 231

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 08:16 AM

The Bomb balancing was an extreme example, since those are the easiest to understand. But if you roll for affected unit and structure seperatly, then yes, it works out again, which is exactly what I mentioned earlier: Averaging through a high number of rolls. It was an example to illustrate how luck negatively affects the game experience.


My point is that the randomness of the dammage will create an uneven and chaotic result in the area of effect. if the dammage is consistent you will either blow a round hole in the enemy base or just destroy nothing. with randomness into account, you will creat a zone of chaos wich is one of the effect that tyou might want the bomb to have.

Also, on a smaller scale you rely less on certitude. For example if i have a squad of 5 troops and the enmy has a squad of 8 troops I might decide to risk it if they have dammage that is random.

While I can see your point I have to disagree: Luck in competitive play reduces the influence of the player's skill. High-Risk-High-Reward situations should arise without luck involved.
An example could be in a 2vs2 RTS game, when your enemies attack your allied base you could, instead of helping your ally, attack the now undefended enemy bases. You risk having your own base wiped out by the enemy's combined force, but it's also possible that you completely destroy their base and their support, so you can defeat both armies that were weakened by your ally. This is a high-risk-high-reward situation that arises without the influence of luck, and that gets resolved by skill alone, which is exactly what you should look for in competitive play.


If you want a good example of where randomness is applicable in competitive play you should look at MOBA games like League of Legends. In these games, certain champions are particuliary good at benifiting from crit chance so if at the begining of the game they have 10% crit chance, they might decide to use their abilities that proc crits on champions instead of on creeps.

the best example is a champion named Gangplank.

this champion has an ability where he shoots a bullet at the target and this bullet has a chance to crit. if it crits it does massive dammage but if it doesnt you just wasted 50 mana because the dammage is rather low. on the other hand the same ability grants bonus gold if you use it to kill minions so you can wait for them to be very low health and use it on them to have consistent bonus gold. Here, luck is a major factor in how you play the champion. if you are lucky you can harass the enemy out of the farming zone but if you dont risk it you can decide to use it on creeps to get bonus gold.

#9 SnoLeopard   Members   -  Reputation: 104

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 11:47 PM

First, before I comment specific to things already said, I wanted to mention a few of my thoughts towards Luck as a concept of game design:

The first thing I wanted to mention is that Luck isn't a bad thing when it comes to games. There are bad applications of Luck, and good applications of Luck (I'll be talking about this later).

Luck is randomness, but it doesn't always make things completely 'random'. In fact, an element of luck can be used to smooth sharp edges in diagrammatic representations of elements like damage. A classic example of this would be Diablo's use of luck when it comes to weapon damage. It has a lower range and an upper range, and the damage is calculated somewhere between then. By sheer probability, there would be an average damage that represents how much damage the weapon actually deals, yet when you look at a graph representing the weapons damage, it becomes a line or a curve rather than an individual point. Now, this is particularly useful in a game like Diablo because it blurs the lines of balance between that weapon and others (to some extent). When a player picks a weapon up and compares it to his current weapon, he doesn't automatically see which weapon is better (based purely on damage. I'm ignoring other things like ethereal-ness or ability upgrades). Sometimes, when the weapon is really inferior, the difference is obvious and the weapon is discarded. But like danuese said, the player has a choice of 1-8 or 2-7. In reality the choice might not make much of a difference, but it presents the player with an interesting choice. A choice that is completely balanced no matter which side is picked, and yet in a small way impacts the players future performance. And in an RPG of course, providing a player with as much choice as possible while staying on the path of the story is a goal.

Another good application of Luck in single-player (and sometimes multi-player) games is positive reinforcement of a player characters abilities. A classic example of this would be critical striking in games. Games nowadays have linked critical strikes to visually obvious cues like your player beheading an enemy (Skyrim / Dragon Age) or them simply blowing up (Fallout 3). They give the developers ways to provide the players with increasingly satisfying kills. These kills reinforce the image of the player being an unstoppable killing machine, or a sneaky backstabber, or whatever else they want to feel like. Even though they're quite random, its randomness isn't recognized by the average player.

A last good application of Luck brings me back to RPGs and the realm of loot collection. Random epic loot drops might seem disappointing or frustrating from a game developer's point of view (And sometimes from a players view -> WoW), but a lot of RPGs successfully implement random drops quite well. Well enough, in fact, that exploring new dungeons, killing new monsters and opening chests of loot are like presents, waiting to be unwrapped by an eager player.

Specific to the last two points I've made, I think the best way to implement those kinds of luck would be to establish a base level, before using luck to sometimes give the player a positive push. For example, while roaming in Diablo or Diablo 2, you expect moderate / average loot, a few blue (magical) items here and there. When you find a gold item (unique) or a green item (part of a set) you feel elated, glad that you were lucky enough to find such awesome loot. Likewise, in Skyrim, combat is pretty regular most of the time, which makes those critical hits all the more satisfying when they get pulled off. The baseline is important. I earlier mentioned how players could be disappointed by loot dropping in a game like WoW. A classic example would be a WoW raid. You raid a certain dungeon to get certain loot that's dropped by a specific boss or creature. When a player enters a raid, in their minds they have a 100% chance of obtaining said loot. However, when a random % chance stops that from happening (like a dice roll from a player in your party), the player suddenly feels that they have wasted their time.

That's all I can really think about right now, I hope that you found it interesting.

Commenting:

This only works if you 'roll' often.

Otherwise a single roll can make the difference that makes it frustrating to the player


I agree with this for the most part.


Posted Imageglhf, on 08 April 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:



Luck should not be part of the game if you want competitive players.
But if you want players who just play for the fun of it and aren't that hardcore then add as much randomness as you want.



I disagree. Knowing that there is a random factor in competitive play is a nice way to put players in high risk high rewards situations. The player has to tell himself : Okay i have 50% chance of this happening no matter what, is this worth the risk?



This is the kind of choice you want players to make in competitive play.



I personally think that luck undermines competitive play for the most part. It takes a certain amount of power away from a player's skill level and makes it random instead.



While Risk is an important aspect of competitive play, it's important to remember that the real Risk you want players to interact with is the Risk of competing against each other. A player needs to gauge the decisions and actions of other players, friends and foes, and calculate his own actions.




Also, if the designer decided to make the bomb do 200-9999 dammage and the avarage health of a structure is 8000 he did somethign wrong and its not because of its random factor, its because of balance of random numbers.



I agree with this. Random numbers can be balanced, and they should be.

And of course you're right about something I forgot to mention: Being Lucky

is

fun. It's the appeal of gambling. Definitely something a game designer needs to consider. You could even take advantage of this: A possibility would be to increase critical hit chances when your health is low. (of course without the player knowing)


I agree with this. It's part of what I mentioned earlier. Establish a base line that the player is satisfied with, and then let him win big from time to time. Negative impacts of gambling might negatively impact the players experience.





Luck serves to level playing field for kids and adults. So, if you are making a casual family multiplayer game where kids and parents are supposed to play together luck is a must (that's why kids love all sort of luck games, they can beat adults in these).



The second major purpose of luck is replayability, althrough you can substitute it with other mechanics (but not always and not as perfectly).


I completely disagree with this.


1) I don't think you should ever have so much luck in a game that it makes vastly different levels of skill comparable. That much luck simply degrades the game down to throwing dice. An important part of every game (to me at least), is to give the player a circumstance, a set of rules and possibilities and to let them decide the course of action. If their decisions have little impact on the outcome, then it isn't a game, it's a movie.


2) I also don't think that a game should be called 'replayable' simply because of lucky possibilities arising. Again, it takes away from the amount of control a player has on the outcomes that are created.





If you want a good example of where randomness is applicable in competitive play you should look at MOBA games like League of Legends. In these games, certain champions are particuliary good at benifiting from crit chance so if at the begining of the game they have 10% crit chance, they might decide to use their abilities that proc crits on champions instead of on creeps.



Actually, competitive MOBA games like League of Legends are removing certain random elements from their games (like the recent removal of dodge chance). I play League of Legends myself quite a bit, and I can safely say that most tactics using crit chance usually involve having enough crit to almost ALWAYS crit, thus increasing the entire baseline average to the point where you simply do more average damage.



#10 Inukai   Members   -  Reputation: 1297

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 01:55 AM

You know SuperSmash Bros? The items are dropped random and some other items have a random chance to do some "random" effect.(Pokeball, explosive Capsules/Barrels, ...) and even the character Mr. Game and Watch got a skill, which depends on luck only(The hammer attack: you roll a number between 1-9 where 9 is the maximum damage and 1 the least). An other example is tennis in Wii Sports. You have the chance to make an epic, non block able super serve.
Does ist make the games boring or destroy the PvP? Nope, it is one of the strengths of the games.

In my opinion luck is a must-have in games that you play together with some friends, family or other people you know.
They play mainly for fun and not to see who is the best(well, of course their can be some kind of rivalry between them).

However, in high competive games that you play with strangers, you play to test your skill. Luck could totally destroy the balance
of the game.

So should ask yourself for your targeted audience. Are they casuals who want to have some fun?
Or are they hardcore gamer who want to compete against other players?

#11 ImmoralAtheist   Members   -  Reputation: 118

Like
-1Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 05:06 AM

The Average Approach
An example for this is Diablo, DnD, really almost every Action RPG out there, often strategy games too; as they all randomize weapon damage. Why is this acceptable? Simply because you use your weapon so often that it averages because of the sheer number of rolls.
It also makes the player think, do I want to do 2-7 damage per hit, or rather 1-8?

What you're basically saying is that it's okay because it's not really luck based. It's only an illusion. I might say this variable damage makes sense from a physical standpoint. additionaly if you're gonna show dmg numbers (which I dislike), you don't want to show the same number over and over again.

This, and critical hits makes the total damage unpredictable i the next few strikes. If only a few blows are required to take down a foe, then the chance of a sudden dmg spike will have a great advantage in killing foes in a holy trinity system. Healers will have a much harder time dealing with such unpredictable encounters, making the job require more skill. You might wanna sacrifice some average dmg in return for better random temporary spike dmg, making the optimal build more complex (isn't that what you want?).
The possibility of chance is not equivalent to less skill.


Imagine finally getting the atom bomb in an RTS, after being almost overrun since you had to invest all your ressources into this, and then *Poof* nothing happens. Why? The superweapon does 200-9999 damage, and you just happened to roll low. Because of luck, you lost the game.

There's a difference between random dmg in something that takes lots of investment in a long game. In a rpg pvp match you usually respawn quite quickly so these are very different scenarios. There's also a massive difference between 200-9999 dmg and 5000-9999 dmg. The first has a very extreme dmg difference, while in the latter scenario it might be a devastating hit, or it might be a very devastating hit. A 10k hit might give you a win, while a 6k hit might prolong the fight.


Tohe alternative route
This is something that I have hardly seen in games. It basically says that luck depends on the outcome of the mission, but you don't FAIL. It means that the story goes in a different direction, or that you get different missions. This could be used for interesting effect, but it can frustrate the player, since he might not be able to see the story go in a different way when he replays the game.
A possibility to avoid this would be to program the game to automatically have it work out the other way when you replay the game. Say the game notes if you finished with version A, so the next time you will always get B.

So you dislike luck in combat, but you'd like it in story progression, instead of being dependent on dialouge choices?

To repeat my questions from the beginning: What purpose does luck serve in your games? Is it a part of your game at all? Should it be?

Specifically in a rts, luck makes everything more complicated. You don't know the exact outcomes of a given action. In other words it might require more skill, because you have to make strategic decisions based on uncertainties. If the utcome of a long match depends on one single event which is essentially a dice roll (200-9999dmg), then it's the bad form of luck. However a very similar scenario is where building of a titan means instawin, and so it becomes and arms race to build one first. The latter is not based on chance, yet it's similar and not much better.

#12 Tiblanc   Members   -  Reputation: 560

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 09:56 AM

The purpose of luck in a game is to prevent easily solved game situations. Take any RPG. If there was no damage rolls, you could calculate the number of hits required to kill your target, then compare than to the number of hits he needs to kill you. If you can kill him before, you always win. Luck will come into play by changing the battle flow at some key points. A lucky critical/evade will turn the situation around and change the battle flow, forcing you to change your strategy or lose what was once a sure win. Luck eventually evens out, so you still have a higher win%, but now you get to do something instead of watching pretty animations until you win. In this case, luck adds to the gameplay by creating risk/reward situations.

Luck can be a detriment when it affects the outcome of a situation in a dramatic way. For example, in League of Legends, Gangplank could land a ranged skill with a 4% critical chance. If it was a critical, it would take out close to half hp of the enemy champion, ensuring him lane dominance through luck rather than skillful play.

Games which have a lot of player decisions generally do not benefit from luck. Shooters and the like are such games. There are so many things the player can do in any given situation that the battle cannot be solved. This means luck isn't needed to break determinism. When the player has a limited set of options and few decisions to take, then luck is necessary. However, it needs to be dosed appropriately or it will either have no effect or completely determine the outcome. That 200-9999dmg nuke is a good example of a bad luck-based mechanism. You win or lose based on a dice roll rather than gain a small advantage/disadvantage.
Developer for Novus Dawn : a Flash Unity Isometric Tactical RPG - Forums - Facebook - DevLog

#13 Heaven   Members   -  Reputation: 533

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:12 PM

When I first opened up this thread I was under the impression you would be discussing something akin to a beneficial ability, choosable talent or passive bonus the player could have. And while I completely get that you were in fact simply discussing what I would think of as simple randomness, I think it would serve the discussion if in fact that WAS one of the applications of "luck" you meant to discuss. Consider...

You've got an action rpg. Each player has the usual race/class possibilities, but they also each get to pick one special ability unique to their character which is not based on anything other than personal choice (i.e., any class/race combo could potentially have it). Call it their "talent".

Player A picks as his talent an ability which increases all damage from weapons by 10%.

Player B picks as his talent a dodging ability which reduces enemy chance to hit by 10%.

Player C picks as his talent...Luck.

But what does it DO? That's the cool part. Any time the game makes a roll which concerns the player it fudges it in his favor by X amount. The X would have to be balanced very carefully (obviously) but for ease of discussion let's just go with 3%.

Player C attacks Player A. Player C gets 3% added to his chance to hit Player A, and gets 3% added to his weapon's damage.

Player C attacks Player B, with only a -7% chance to hit.

Player A attacks Player C but only gets +7% damage.

Player C's chances to find loot, and amounts of general loot found (e.g., gold coins) is increased by 3%.

Player C's chance to critically hit is increased by 3% AND...anybody trying to hit C has their chance to critically hit reduced by 3%.

Etc., etc. You get the idea.

Now to me that is a cool way to implement "luck" in any game which incorporates RNG.

Take care!
Florida, USA
Current Project
Jesus is LORD!

#14 Zethariel   Members   -  Reputation: 310

Like
-1Likes
Like

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:56 AM

Luck is a great companion to FPS games. Accuracy is the most prominent luck mechanism that works and no-one objects to it, because it is realistic, to some degree -- you shoot bullets, sometimes bullets miss the target, sometimes you cna land a headshot with a high enough chance to hit the spot you're aiming at.

Luck is applicable where the player thinks it would be realistic, or enchances the fun. In the Diablo example, it is logical a character might take a stronger or weaker swing at an enemy -- the numbers are arbitrary anyway. In the nuke example, if the rest of the game would be kept in a solid, consequent manner (normal weapons have steady, but low dmg, nukes have variable but potentially high dmg), having a weapon that deals nothing-to-overkill might be a good design decision. Everything depends too much on the rest of the game, so dissecting a specific mechanic put in a generic setting doesn't make sense. Take Diablo II's Sorc as an example -- Lightning spells had a great capacity to deal tons of damage to lots of enemies, or just tease them with a refreshing jolt of energy. Some of those spells cost a lot, so it was up to the player to "feel lucky" and create a thunder mage.

IMO, the wilder the difference between highest and lowest outcome, the more people can invest themselves in a certain mechanic -- be it hardcoded luck such as critical hits/damage variation or real world luck, such as launching a rocket and someone running into its path unintentionally. On this note, friendly fire is a great thing to dissect -- in a firefight, you have a chance to hit your allies if you're not carefull. It is not in any way luck dependent on the game code, but on the players themselves (save for the accuracy example in FPS games).
Disclaimer: Each my post is intended as an attempt of helping and/or brining some meaningfull insight to the topic at hand. Due to my nature, my good intentions will not always be plainly visible. I apologise in advance and assure I mean no harm and do not intend to insult anyone, unless stated otherwise

Homepage (Under Construction)

Check my profile for funny D&D/WH FRP quotes :)

#15 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2126

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:19 AM

It's late (or early rather), so I may have missed it, but I wanted to mention a point about critical hits. Sure, this is a luck factor, but one point about them is to simulate actually getting a really good hit. In a real-life scenario, you won't always have openings to strike at to deal a stronger blow, and this seems to translate over.

#16 Toothpix   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 810

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 14 April 2012 - 01:11 PM

Luck does not and cannot exist truly in a video game, and if it did, it would be a pretty rubbish component. The best thing is the ILLUSION of luck. The illusion of luck enables the creator to control what happens precisely, but the player feels they are on a lucky spree. This is the best and most exhilarating type of gameplay. For example, if you are playing an RTS, and you were dependent on random numbers or true "luck" you might end up with all of the resources on someone else's side of the map, and they would win and it would be no fun. But say you are playing a shooter like Team Fortress and you shoot someone and you are not aiming directly at them, but you hit them. This makes you feel lucky and further exhilarates the process of playing the game.

C dominates the world of linear procedural computing, which won't advance. The future lies in MASSIVE parallelism.


#17 Mratthew   Members   -  Reputation: 1581

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 14 April 2012 - 08:34 PM

Luck should never be a deciding factor towards the win condition but should increase the potential of the win condition and a player should always be able to choose their bet in a situation that invovles luck. As MrJoshL pointed out, controlling luck can be a good tool but nothing takes a player out of a game more then becoming suspicious of the game's "control" over them. The player should always be the one in control, the design should inspire the player to want to test their luck, skill, timing, etc.

#18 Heaven   Members   -  Reputation: 533

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:57 AM

Don't forget that "luck", or what I would call randomness/RNG has different ramifications for different genres. Kind've like MrJoshL and Mratthew illustrated.

But I would think the more a genre tended towards an FPS the less RNG should play a part. Conversely the more the genre tended towards an RPG the *more* RNG should play a part. I mean the very nature of an RPG (i.e., you are playing the role of a character with stats, abilities, etc., that you personally do not have) lends itself to that kind of mechanic whereas an FPS does not (i.e., you are actually using your personal hand-eye coordination and/or other related "twitch" skills). The way the reward systems are set up in each genre leads me to concur that high RNG would punish (again as has been already mentioned by some, above) FPS players, but to a certain degree actually REWARDS player of RPGs.

So yeah, I give you...

Heaven's Maxim: The more RPG, the more RNG!

Heh, just kidding. And come on, you have to admit it sounds better than "MrJoshL's Maxim". :P Although "Mrrathew's Maxim" does kinda' roll off the tongue! Lol!

Take care.
Florida, USA
Current Project
Jesus is LORD!

#19 Bacterius   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 9287

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:34 AM

Luck is a great companion to FPS games. Accuracy is the most prominent luck mechanism that works and no-one objects to it, because it is realistic, to some degree -- you shoot bullets, sometimes bullets miss the target, sometimes you cna land a headshot with a high enough chance to hit the spot you're aiming at.

Of course the other edge of the razor in when this happens a little too often, when somehow every opponent manages to get a headshot or take you down in a single bullet. When you unload a whole clip in their neck and they still stand, then they whip around with a pistol and shoot you between the eyes. Then people start to get frustrated because luck is then too noticeable. It's cool to fire a few shots and go "wow I took down this sniper somehow, move forward guys", but it needs to be a relatively rare occurrence so that it can be perceived as "luck" rather than "randomness".

That's the key: luck is not randomness. Luck is the rare occurrence of a seemingly unlikely event ("wow that was lucky"), while randomness is the repeated occurrence of a random event ("wow that was random"). Luck is very important in a game but when it starts becoming randomness it's bad.

People don't mind losing to someone who got lucky every now and then, especially if they get lucky occasionally too. But when it starts becoming too predictable people start to get pissed off because they have no way of changing the odds and are essentially forced to repeatedly lose.

The slowsort algorithm is a perfect illustration of the multiply and surrender paradigm, which is perhaps the single most important paradigm in the development of reluctant algorithms. The basic multiply and surrender strategy consists in replacing the problem at hand by two or more subproblems, each slightly simpler than the original, and continue multiplying subproblems and subsubproblems recursively in this fashion as long as possible. At some point the subproblems will all become so simple that their solution can no longer be postponed, and we will have to surrender. Experience shows that, in most cases, by the time this point is reached the total work will be substantially higher than what could have been wasted by a more direct approach.

 

- Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis


#20 Mratthew   Members   -  Reputation: 1581

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:13 AM

What about a FPS fire from the hip mechanic, where you're "loose retical" is over the enemy, an amount of luck exists here as the shots spread around the targeted area and increasing luck could tighten that retical without visually changing anything. Luck could also simply be an extension of the GUI, here the player earns a "lucky shot" by displaying kill shot locations to shoot to achieve radical ricochet shots against enemies in cover. Lucky buffs to individual shots that couldn't be achieved with that type of weapon could be increased with added luck variable as well. Lucky enemy locked blind fire grenade throws and lucky saved by badge sort of moments could exist where the player’s character pulls out a bible or badge that shows a bullet lodged in it could be fun too (even if myth busters busted this). Variable odds are essential though, even roulette allows you to make "safer" bets by spreading your bets across the board.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS