Quote:Original post by Stroppy Katamari

Quote:Original post by Wavinator

Quote:Original post by Orymus
I do understand what randomization tries to establish, but I think it was introduced to compensate where the teams did not have time to compensate. The critical and miss were made to make the battle system more fun when without interesting choices. Random drops feel like a bad piece of design to me.

I think it's a big mistake to look at this in terms of superior / inferior. Personally I can't stand playing a game where the outcome is known-- where's the surprise, or the sense of self sufficiency in compensating for the unknown? In tightly guided experiences I often feel as if I must conform to the whims of the developer and am punished for thinking outside the box.

How does randomized loot in chests make you think outside the box? It seems likely to me that loot randomization would in fact often dumb down the strategy with chests to "get as many as you can and hope for the best", whereas someone who knows where a particular powerful item is could make some kind of rush or tricky approach to it and then capitalize on the power-up.

Exactly.

Quote:Original post by Orymus
If the randomized cheats his plan, frustration will occur. "ah cmon, why did I have to miss and he made a critical, this monster was nothing but dead otherwise'.

I'm not sure I understand this. Why do you assume that this is automatically frustrating when it's been featured in so many popular games? (Fallout comes to mind).

Maybe it's a difference in player base. If an attack fumbles or somehow fails, there are vast numbers of players who will take this minor setback as a challenge (provided it isn't happening most of the time, in which case they'll probably seek a new challenge).

Quote:Original post by Stroppy KatamariHow does randomized loot in chests make you think outside the box?

Let's assume equipment is an expression of player capability. In a combat-oriented game it's often at its most basic the ability to absorb or deal damage among whatever tactical dimensions the game allows (ice, fire, emp, etc.); for games that have encumbrance as a factor it can also be a mitigating factor in your overall strategic from challenge to challenge; and in general it often constrains the available strategies open to the player (if I have a shield, maybe I can block; if I have a bow I might be able to attack without enemy reply, etc.)

If this is reasonably true then randomization, even random drops, can add a strategic depth to a game because it forces the player to think about and prepare for the range of possibilities down the road. Because the player doesn't know that the designer has carefully apportioned resources at set intervals, the player has to, in a way, provide their own "insurance plan" for future challenges. They do this, for example, by weighing whether or not it's better to haul around armor they can't yet use or risk ditching it in the hopes that something better will come along.

Rather than being frustrated by the unknown or the fact that the game has not precisely set each challenge to their (expected) abilities I think players who like this design relish facing the unknown.

Quote:
It seems likely to me that loot randomization would in fact often dumb down the strategy with chests to "get as many as you can and hope for the best", whereas someone who knows where a particular powerful item is could make some kind of rush or tricky approach to it and then capitalize on the power-up.

There's no real difference, both have the same potential to dumb down strategy. In your scenario a player could easily grind mindlessly through one challenge wasting all his resources because he knows that they'll be restocked at the next dispenser.

If there's nothing left to chance then there's little reason to strategize. Either you will win or you will lose. If you don't use randomization (which is fine) you'll need a great deal of strategic depth and have to rely on human failure to vary engagements. This would be more like a chess match, and if there's no human failure as an element (in timing or selection of strategies, say) then it would probably be comparable to watching a computer play against itself, which doesn't sound very interesting.