Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Not really, no.
And actually, yes, you can indeed play D&D (or any RPG for that matter) competitively.

And you still haven't really explained why randomisation is a bad thing or why it removes skill. Again, see the poker example — the game mechanic is entirely random, but that does not mean that the game play is random. Same thing here. Skill matters immensely in ensuring that you come out ahead, and it goes way beyond just looking at the hit/damage calculation.

Say with basketball, if you rolled a die every time a field goal was made on a 1 or 2 the shot was worth 1 point, on a 3 or 4 the shot was worth 2 points and on a 5 or 6 the shot was worth 3 points.

90% of games would be completely unaffected . . . in fact probably 99% of games because the law of large numbers works, and there are a lot of field goals made in a basketball game, but 1% of games would be decided completely by luck, does that mean that skill played no part? no because of course the players still had to make the shots, but the point is that the mechanic needlessly adds to the game a measure of luck that doesnt need to be there and doesnt add anything.

Lets look at an example from Eve, if warp disruptors worked 99% of the time, it would reduce skill because 1% of the time you would lose your fight (not get your kill in this case) because your warp disruptor decided not to stop him from warping off this time even though you applied your skill correctly in keeping him within 24 km


In poker you play the opponents, not the hand . . . yes a lot comes into knowing when the card combinations could give you a great hand, but when im betting in poker, im betting that the person isnt going to call, my cards dont even matter 80% of the time because the hands usually end in someone folding.

Beyond that, the randomization of cards in poker is an integral part of the game, the damage formula could be changed to d *= z with no huge change in the way the game works.

If you really must keep randomness for some reason, what about a compromise? right now there are two random functions, 1. hit chance which, while being based on skill (tracking vs transversal), is still at its heart random because there is a random chance that you dont hit based on a percentage
2. damage randomization which swings damage from 51% to hit chance + 50% with a 1% chance of a 3x shot.

I propose that you remove #2 meaning its still random whether or not you get hit but when you do get hit, it always does the same damage minus the resistance of your shield/armor/hull

Initially I just wanted the formula to be d*=z but if thats asking too much I guess i can compromise.

…then we'd be talking about a randomisation that is immensely larger than what we're talking about in EVE.
What skill are you referring to here? What is being reduced? And no, that would rather increase the reliance on skill, since you would have to use it to compensate for the unreliability of the equipment…
…much like in EVE. The damage calculation you're talking about is just a statistic, much like the (potential) value of the hand, and it is worth about as much as far as determining the outcome. The rest comes down to flying, reading his movement, reading his ship and fitting choices, countering his tactics, knowing when and how much to engage your various support modules, when and how much to overheat, and just plain old bringing the right stuff to the field.
Then there's no need to change it.
No, there's only one random function: the die roll to determine the hit.

Anyway, I still don't see the need for even a compromise: skill is such a huge factor already. The "to hit" die roll is something RPGs and strategy games before them have been using since… oh… the early 1800s, and guess what? It has worked pretty darn well for those 200 years and haven't stood in the way of skill to any greater extent.

not really . . . damage scales from 51% to 150% just like the points in the example even though it is a bit of an oversimplification, I could make the example more complicated if you like.

But secondly, is that a relevant factor? If a lot of randomization is a lot broken then a little randomization is a little broken and both need to be fixed.



how would skill be used to compensate for the unreliability of equipment? Right now its a binary question, do you have enough skill to stay within 24 km to keep them tackled, vs do they have enough skill to get lose

In the given example it would be "do they have enough skill to get lose or enough luck that your warp disruptor decides not to stop them this time" skill is still a factor but not the only factor which reduces it in that instance.

Right now its 100% skill, with the example its 99% skill 1% luck and therefore involves less skill because 99% < 100% QED

This is where you are unambiguously wrong, X (the random number) is used twice in the equation, once for hit quality and once for hit chance.


if x < 0.01; q=3
else; q = x + 0.5 (The first use of X that gets fed back into the hit chance formula as hit quality)

if x < z; d=qd(max) (The second use of X determines if the ship is hit at all, if it is, its fed the first randomization element that {while based on the second} is still a separate random element)
else; d = 0

If it were me, I could replace all of that with one line of code.

if x < z; d



First, I cant believe you said it! skill is a huge factor, i agree but luck is also a small factor, which it should not be. Any % of the situation that is based on luck is less % that is based on skill.

This is also a logical fallacy, just because something has been working this way for years doesnt mean it doesnt suck. Take horse carriages for example.

It scales damage with tracking linearly meaning that, if you have more piloting skill than your enemy, you can work transversal in your favor

thats what it's currently used for. when you write the equation:

if x < z; d

it means if the random number we generated is less than the % chance to hit we do damage, but the amount of damage done when you hit is never different . . . every hit will be for the full amount of damage.

I guess I should have written it

if x < z; d = d(max)
else; d=0

right, neither would effect the damage of any shot, but the DPS as a whole over a large number of shots, or volley damage if the guns were un-grouped.

I'm curious to know, in this proposed randomless formula you've concocted, how will you accomplish glancing hits, or critical shots? The equivalent of a grazing limb wound or headshot in any competitive FPS?

The problem with this proposal is that Eve is a stat based game, not a skill based game. Sure skill enters into it, in regards to setting up your ship, determining what orders to give, but you don't directly control every aspect of the ship, you give orders, and let the game statistics handle the details. Therefore you can't control exactly what part of your opponent's ship your gun hits, or even whether it hits at all.

Unless you wanted to eliminate misses altogether, which is what Starcraft does (and you seem to appreciate that model so maybe that IS what you're proposing), in which case I'd have to say "Just no, stupid idea." and leave it at that.

Your problem is that you haven't shown that randomisation is broken to begin with…

Oh, and btw, you don't need to put [sic] after randomisation — it's spelt that way…
By skilfully picking the combination of equipment and tactics that remove that unreliability.
No, this is where you are unambiguously still not understanding the hit formulas you're looking to change (which does not bode well for the validity of your suggestions…).

The random number is used exactly once: to determine the hit — more specifically, to determine the hit quality. This includes the case where the hit quality is zero (a miss), where it's a wrecking hit (×3 damage), and where it falls within of the range of other qualities (×0.5 – ×1.5 damage). It is not used to determine hit chance in any way whatsoever — the hit chance is a function of the target ship's size and position compared to the optimal range and ship size of the guns, combined with the relative motion of the target and aggressor ship compared to the tracking of the gun.

Do you want me to go through the procedure again?
It means it works and that you need to come up with 1) a reason for changing it, 2) an explanation for how and why it sucks, 3) an alternative solution that works better and improves things, including an explanation of why it's better. You've done none of that.
Seeing as how damage currently scales exponentially with the tracking and transversal (and range), all of which you can work in your favour, you've just suggested a reduction of the skill factor…