Tab vs Action Combat Philosphy

Noncombat mechanics? Sure.

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

The hero's journey is represented well through node progression mechanics and random world events. I don't see what this has to do with combat mechanics. There is no reason to have random chance be an 'unlucky thing'. Why not just balance it towards 'lucky things'. Let your own lack of skill be the low point in your adventures. Your own lack of skill is going to cause plenty of low points in the immersive experience as is. That's my posit to you pro-rng people. Why apply rng to situations that must be bad for someone rather than ones that are generally good for everyone?

You really think you're gunna become a god like execution being that won't have failures happen based on your own bad strategy or execution? I just don't see why it's necessary, thrilling, or epic to have it taken out of your hands given all your reasoning about how it improves immersion.

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

Shit happens like giant Balrogs you cant defeat random ring wraith encounters etc. That's what node progression generated. Story opportunity for players journey progression.

'Butterfingers my sword into death.' Much less heroic than losing to Balrog. By your own definition nothing is ocercome because the rng never goes to zero. Shit will always happen. No progression is made. Dumb micro event that only serves to underscore how little agency you have even with growth. As opposed to macro event that you can get stronger in and prevail through hard work and improved skill.

I don't plan on arguing you as your mind is as changeable as a law of physics. I am more so pointing out that the heroes journey feeling has multiple ways of execution in an rpg setting. It's a difference in perceptions.

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

Do you have an opinion on the claim that there will be content that only 1% of players may be able to defeat?

Or perhaps, content that can only be defeated if one is lucky?

Because your counterpoint didn't actually make sense to me. The Node generates the enemy, the player applies their skill to the enemy, 'Fate' determines whether they defeat the enemy or not, not build (that's what's being proposed as the scenario, I mean).

It definitely seems that you're ok with that, and your response would be 'to build the character to be more capable of defeating it'. Am I following?

Min maxers don't react like that. Min maxers just try again, because if the RNG was the main reason they lost, even multiple times, they just repeat it until the RNG favors them, just like getting a drop. It really doesn't prevent anything.

It sounds more like you are saying 'RNG is in the game to make min-maxers more capable of losing while they undertake things'.

Then again, I know from previous discussions with you, at least some of your underlying reasonings and feelings towards these things. It's not hard to tell when you're pushed close to them.

I just want to fully understand, so I was trying to get a quote.

Your words were:

RNG in RPGs help emulate the stages of the Hero's Journey below:
Challenges and Temptations
Abyss, Death/Rebirth, Revelation
Transformation
Gift of the Goddess

Rather than some kind of Mary-Sue progression where you are able to 100% prevent failures with "deterministic" stats. It's in there specifically to prevent min/maxers avoiding adversity by stacking their stats.

I absolutely don't want to unfairly misattribute anything that might come up because of the way you worded something. I'm not looking for some 'gotcha' moment that comes up as a result of the order of someone's sentences. But people tell you what they believe, and as I mentioned. Verify.

So, is it unfair of me to condense out the middle of some of that quote?

RNG in RPGs is in there specifically to prevent min/maxers avoiding adversity by stacking their stats.

Because, what I'm saying is, if somehow you were 'in a position to speak for Steven' or for Intrepid, and this was a statement you made about the design principle of Ashes, then there would be a clearer perspective about how to view the game and what to expect from it.

Right now, there are obviously 'people expecting that a game where you stand to have competitive style interactions resulting in loss', that this would not be a 'design goal'. I make no argument as to how right those people are. I just want to unequivocally verify that this is a thing that you would choose to have as a design goal, and a thing that you indirectly attribute to Steven's design goals by extension.

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

That is completely a misunderstanding on my part then. I thought that Sieges and Node wars were intended to be competitive style interactions due to their stakes. I thought I heard it said by either Steven or Jeffrey that this was intended to be a competitive PvP game.

This probably led me to the erroneous belief that one would attempt to remove any unnecessary influences with wide variance.

By design, RNG on certain skill types has the potential to result in 'wide variance', and I hadn't seen any indication that Ashes was intending to not have those skill types. (let's treat 'wide variance' as 'either you got pulled in by Javelin and deleted from a GvG scenario or you did not).

None of that has anything to do with twitch skills at the moment. Your opponent tabs to you, presses the Javelin ability, and a value for your resistance is factored.

Let's say you have the aforementioned 5% resistance, in this case, to Javelin.

1d20: 20 You happen to resist it, the opposing team cannot execute their strategy and are routed. To some people, it does not matter if this is 1d20 or 1d100 (they might be much more upset if it is 1d100).

I didn't intend to derail this so much, so the rest of the post, which is mostly repetition of stances you hold that I already understand, is not really worth our consideration.

Your character has more 'ability to resist a Javelin pulling them closer' some percentage of the time than you do IRL. So it is. It is in fact part of your build. You made a choice to build for it. Your character-building skill thwarted your opponent's plan.

I really just wanted to make absolutely sure that the idea behind what you were saying was 'I believe that RNG exists to thwart the plans of players who would otherwise build their plans around certainty and min-max', and to verify that your concept of 'how much of this is acceptable' is 'whatever forces them to accept adversity'.

We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share the quoted post.

You're possibly misunderstanding something about the person you're trying to talk to.

Dygz moreso 'wants people to have the option to fail despite their efforts', than to specifically enhance the game experience.

That was what I was verifying.

Consider this. If Dygz builds a 5% chance to resist Javelin, and you build a 10% chance to ignore other people's resistances, this would result in a 100% chance of Javelin working again. This would be 'no twitch skills, build skills only'.

If you were to ask 'Would you be okay with the idea that players who want certainty could always build to equal or slightly higher chance to ignore resistance, than the player could build resistance?'

What do you figure the answer will be?

A ) Yes that's fine, as long as builds matter.
B ) There should always be a chance to build higher resistance than Ignore Resistance
C ) The key is that the build options should involve tradeoffs
D ) "There should always be a chance for that to fail."

Maybe CROW3 or James would give you a different answer, but I would bet on Dygz's answer being D, to the point where even if Dygz denies this, I won't believe the answer.

My point is that you are trying to reach a point with someone who has some other 'motives' for the things they are suggesting.

Don't get too caught up in other people's issues, you'll burn yourself out.