>the loot system is pure RNG!
>Damage is nothing but RNG!
>REEEEEEEEEEE NG!!!1!
Why do kids these days complain about randomness? Don't they teach basic statistics at high school anymore or what?
>>339300467
What's wrong with complaining about RNG? It's essentially complaining about bad luck, which can definitely happen in games designed around luck.
>Preferring certainty to uncertainty is bad
>Not wanting to kill the same boss 100 times to get an item is bad
>Not wanting to get fucked over by random crits/misses is bad
It's pretty obvious why some people don't like rng.
>>339300621
>What's wrong with complaining about RNG?
My question was, "what's wrong with RNG?". The attitude that everything should be predictable has brought some weird stuff, like the CSGO pattern spread system. I know it's widely popular, but for me it's just retarded bullshit.
I wonder how would people who complain about RNG redesign X-Com, or turn based games for that matter.
>>339300621
Luck doesn't exist.
>>339300467
Baddies like RNG in mechanics so they can blame it instead of themselves.
Idiots like RNG loot/rewards, like they like RNG glambling. Think of slot machines.
Blame the idiotic baddies (see: the so called "gamers", girls, and other scum).
>>339300467
RNG is fine when applied properly
People often complain when there's 99% drop rate for an item and it takes several hours to get just one
>>339300918
>What's wrong with RNG
When there's things that are outside of your skill or your control making you lose, there's something wrong. I don't care about getting fucked over with bad RNG in games like darkest dungeon because that's their point, but in competitive games you should strive to minimize the effect RNG has.
>>339301173
>When there's things that are outside of your skill or your control making you lose, there's something wrong.
You're aware that humans make mistakes as well, right? It applies to everything, like randomly forgetting the keys because you had other stuff in mind and such.
> in competitive games you should strive to minimize the effect RNG has.
I'm aware that's just me, but I'd rather get myself fucked by luck than learning spread patterns that are always the fucking same.
Since "luck" isn't really a thing it evens out in the end, so there's no point in removing the randomness at all.
>>339301546
Let's put it this way, if there was, say a 0.5% chance that every time you pressed your mouse button, it'd fail, entirely for no reason, would you think that's fine? Because that's just as much RNG based as your gun's spread on its first shot.
>>339301173
mad anti doto PRNG master race detected.
initiate counter-measure :get gud, cyka
>>339301780
I play dota all the time, I don't mind PRNG, I dare you to fucking die to a PA who dodged all your hits with 50 HP and not get fucking furious. That shit happens from time to time and it does not belong in competitive games.
>>339301774
>Let's put it this way, if there was, say a 0.5% chance that every time you pressed your mouse button, it'd fail, entirely for no reason, would you think that's fine?
Shooters are not point-and-click games. So yes, it's perfectly fine for a gun to miss sometimes.
>>339301969
Well if you think that it's fine for things to fail for literally no reason then I don't know what else to say to you, other than the fact that your opinion's fucking retarded
>>339301961
How would you "fix" it?
>>339302054
There's no way of fixing RNG in dota without castrating the fun of it. Part of the fun of playing the game is getting some CK ult on all your illusions and obliterating the enemy, or getting 2 bashes in a row on SB. It's not something i'd remove because it takes a lot of personality out of the game, but I do think that adding PRNG measures to aspects of it is a good idea and adding items that mitigate RNG like silver edge or bloodthorn is a good thing too
>>339302050
Not as retarded as your analogy. You live immersed in RNG. From your birthplace, to your friends, all your fucking existence is a mesh of random events and a bit of input from yourself.
Whenever you shoot a gun in the atmosphere there might be wind, meaning the bullet will not describe the same exact path each time. I simply don't get people who don't grasp this.
>>339302362
You know which weapon never miss? Future railguns.
That's why you used to gid gud.
>>339300467
On its own it can be fine. But then you get something like DBZ Xenoverse which is genuinely RNG within RNG.
In the side quests, some drops are obtainable only by an "Ultimate Finish." You can fulfill requirements to trigger these UFs. The catch? The game may just go "nah I don't really feeeeel like it. Fuck you." And not trigger even though you fulfilled all the conditions.
Even if it DOES trigger, once you beat it, there's a miniscule drop chance of what you're actually after. That would be bearable, but needing RNG to work in your favor to take ANOTHER crack at RNG is ridiculous.
>>339300467
RNG can makes some aspects more fun since you don't always know what the outcome of an action will be. If you always know what the right move is in a situation you won't try other things out.
>>339300467
Outside of a few autists, nobody minds the randomness itself. People bitching about RNG are usually upset because the chance of something they want is set too low or the chance of something they don't want is too high. In the worst cases, this means that you have to farm for hours to get certain items or that you have a chance of dying with no way to prevent it.
>>339302847
>bawwwww i'm an impatient underage redditor with no patience! WAAAAAHHHHHH MOMMY!!!!
>>339300968
You know what they meant; aspects of the game that are out of the player's control and will affect the player's chances of success without the player having any way to influence them with their skill level. You don't have to be pedantic about what that's called.
>>339300467
Games like Dota, LoL, CS:GO, Hearthstone, and Overwatch are games that feature heavy RNG, but are supposed to be considered the premiere in competitive gaming and e-sports
It's hypocritical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u7Sj0PDV5I
>>339303394
>Outside of a few autists, nobody minds the randomness itself.
I wish I could believe it. I've seen the hate grow stronger lately. Maybe they're just a loud minority, but still...
>>339303494
Not him, but nobody with a job or other games has the time to repeat a level they just played just for loot.
>>339303394
>Outside of a few autists, nobody minds the randomness itself.
It really depends of the game. RNG is nice in most RPGs and turn based games, but is cancer in competitive FPS.
>5% rare drop rate.
>which is actually pretty fucking generous for a rare drop in a video game
>Still have to kill the fucker over 200 times before he finally hands it over.
Yep, RNG sure is great.
>>339303743
>BAWWWWW IT'S NOT CASUAL ENOUGH
Redditors like you are the reason gaming's gone down the shitter.
>>339300968
>Implying5
>>339303868
CHECK THIS LUCK OUT7
>>339303868
>failing a one in ten chance
Fucks sake, most games have basic heal drops for that much.
>>339303709
>Dota
Just a bit of RNG and most of it is pseudo-random anyways.
>LoL
RNG war deemed toxic and removed.
>CS:GO
Sprays aren't random.
>Hearthstone
>Overwatch
>competitive
Congrats, you are an idiot who doesn't know shit.
>>339303793
Maybe you just did something shitty in a past life. A 5% chance means 5/100, meaning something like 1 in every 20 people got it first try. You had to kill 200 just to get that drop.
You must just be a seriously unlucky person.
>>339300918
>"what's wrong with RNG?"
Ever played Monster Hunter? Didn't think so.
>>339304041
The worst is when you rationalize the percentage and think that you're guaranteed to get the drop if you just kill it the average amount of times because when you do that the goddess of luck casts her spiteful gaze upon you an ensures you take twice as long to actually get it.
>>339303854
It seems that you quoted the wrong person, faggot.
>>339304190
This exactly.
>MHFU Fatalis only dies once every 4 rounds which takes me roughly 2 hours and 20 minutes.
>Don't get the drop I wanted at the end
WHY JUST WHY.
>>339304615
I see a pattern. People are not angry about RNG. It's grinding that is the problem.
>>339304190
>Farming for G rank Gold Rathin parts with three french baguette stick shitters
I must've angered the Gods in a past life.
>>339304614
Pretty sure I'm spot on, redditor. You mad? Because you sure sound mad.
>>339304697
Its the RNG's fault you have to grind. If you are unlucky and don't get what you wanted, you go again.
>>339302362
>In real life your chances of succeeding at something are affected by many factors outside of your control, so we should add more of these factors to video games than already exist naturally, cuz, uh, lol only tryhards want to succeed or fail based primarily on their skill level, fukin nerds...right?????
>>339304914
Not sure which part of my post awakened the shitposter within you, anon, but if you pinpointed it it'd much easier BTFO using logic and reason. Otherwise my only alternative is to outmeme you.
>>339304918
Then it could be easily fixed by adding some sort of "luck corrector". It'd as easy as increasing the drop chance if the item hasn't dropped in some time. I'm not against RNG, but I am against grinding. That mechanic would solve it.
>>339305075
You might not have noticed it, but you're interacting with a computer, which is so fucking deterministic that it can't make actual random numbers by itself. That's why chance has to be added.
If you dislike RNG you might quit life as well.
>>339304024
>Just a bit of RNG and most of it is pseudo-random anyways.
"Pseudo"-RNG is RNG. It has no place in a "competitive" game.
>inb4 your reply contains a definition of what pseudo-rng is
RNG is RNG is RNG.
>RNG war deemed toxic and removed.
Crits are still in LoL.
>Sprays aren't random.
Not talking about spray patterns.
>Congrats, you are an idiot who doesn't know shit.
Both Hearthstone and Overwatch are as competitive as the other games I listed. They have serious tournaments with non-trivial prizes.
All your answers seem to indicate you don't think I know what I'm talking about. Can you formulate your arguments against what I'm saying instead of employing a subtle ad hominem?
>>339305449
>tfw I never found that doujin
>>339304024
>>339305462
>>RNG war deemed toxic and removed.
>toxic
KEK. I can see manchildren throwing tantrums over this shit and lobbying to remove literal gameplay. kek, holy shit.
>>339305462
why care about competitive if you never make it to it ?
>>339305462
>"Pseudo"-RNG is RNG.
And it isn't "heavy RNG", like you said, idiot.
>Crits are still in LoL.
And these aren't random, fag.
>Not talking about spray patterns
Other sightly random crap barely affects the game, nerd.
>Both Hearthstone and Overwatch are as competitive as the other games I listed
OW had literally no tournaments, you double retard.
> Can you formulate your arguments against what I'm saying instead of employing a subtle ad hominem?
No.
>>339305865
But Anon, getting crit 2 times in a row is toxic and anti-fun.
>>339305865
Regardless of terminology used, it doesn't make sense to have RNG in what's advertised as a competitive game of skill.
Imagine if you had to roll a die to decide how many spaces your rook could move that turn in Chess, for example.
>>339305981
>And it isn't "heavy RNG", like you said, idiot.
I actually said RNG is RNG is RNG. With a period at the end, no asterisk, and a lack of fine print.
>And these aren't random, fag.
http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Critical_strike
>Critical strike chance, as the name states, is the chance of a champion's physical attacks dealing a critical strike.
>chance
?
I'm not going to stoop to your shit-flinging level, by the way.
>Life has many random things that happen out of your control, so video games should have them as well
Whats the fucking logic in that? It's literally just "It has to be realistic!" nonsense that doesn't even have a ground to stand on
>>339306264
you'll never make it to competitive, why care ?
>>339306195
>toxic
>anti-fun
>>339306264
>RNG in what's advertised as a competitive game of skill.
Ever played cards?
>Riot went as far as removing almost all RNG.
Now I understand why is the most played MOBA. It's for manchildren who would rather have gameplay removed than dealing with the fact that not everything is controllable all the time.
>>339305449
>but you're interacting with a computer, which is so fucking deterministic that it can't make actual random numbers by itself.
>That's why chance has to be added.
I don't see why 1->2
We are lucky that computers don't have the rng that makes sometimes life unfair, and so we "need" to add it back to the mix?
Except if you are aiming for realism, or you are aiming to integrate RNG in your gameplay logically, there is no need for RNG ever, except to artificially lengthen the game (grinding) or sustain with "random" a static, not-skilled based gameplay (like most turn-based RPG ever)
>>339306572
>FPS
>all guns hit over the crosshairs exactly at any distance.
Why would anyone play that crap?
>>339306775
what game ?
>>339306775
We already solved that problem with pre-determined spread dumbass. Try again
>>339306775
>>FPS
>>guns don't hit over the crosshairs at any distance
>Why would anyone play that crap?
-me around 15 years ago
I was so wrong.
>>339306648
>Ever played cards?
I have. What about it?
>Now I understand why is the most played MOBA. It's for manchildren who would rather have gameplay removed than dealing with the fact that not everything is controllable all the time.
It has nothing to do with fun, it has to do with LoL being advertised as the face of competition.
I fucking hate the word RNG
It's so retarded
The word you're looking for is:
LUCK
It's called LUCK you stupid fucking faggots.
Go fucking kill yourselves.
Fucking "RNG". Just fuck off
>>339306648
>I want fate to fill in for the skill I don't have!
>I want to be on par with more skilled players just because of good dice rolls!
>>339305449
Why are you assuming that a game needs an element of chance at all? If a game can be made without any elements of chance, why should people deliberately add some?
Shouldn't we be glad that video games allow us to succeed or fail based purely or almost purely on skill, as opposed to things like physical sports where they'll probably always be an element of chance?
Don't get me wrong, I think that elements of chance can enhance a game, and not even just for casual games where skill isn't as important.
Chance can actually increase the level of skill a game requires by forcing players to take factors outside of their control into account in their decision making process. The notion that games need chance because life has chance is ridiculous, though. Games don't need to be realistic.
By the way, games can naturally have chance without it being deliberately added if they are multiplayer, since the behaviour of allies and enemies is out of your control.
>>339306264
>I actually said RNG is RNG is RNG. With a period at the end, no asterisk, and a lack of fine print.
Not in your first post, Faggot.
But guess you'll move the goalpost in every reply, so fuck you.
RNG is acceptable when applied to certain situations. The RNG in Xcom is bullshit.
>>339307367
Dota features heavy amounts of RNG, from everything between damage dealt to whether or not you actually hit.
>>339300467
Good RNG adds slight variation increasing replayability of the game or adding a certain amount of excitement (eg. RNG crit against a mob). Nethack is an example of a game that has lots of random elements, which may alter difficulty somewhat but do not make/break the game.
Bad RNG punishes the player arbitrarily, making success or failure a literal roll of the dice. How bullshit this is generally depends on what the punishment is (eg. generally, loss of time invested). CSGO is an example of a game that has few random elements (shot accuracy), but which can completely make/break the game in some cases.
>>339307150
They think they're smart for knowing what a (pseudo)random number generator is.
>>339304440
It's called the Desire Sensor.
If you think it's bad here, NEVER play MonHun
>>339306727
>rng that makes sometimes life unfair.
What the fuck am I reading? RNG is in thread of existence itself. Why are you so bent over on removing something that can't ever go away? There's no "fair" or "unfair", just random chance. Artificial randomness is just a way to simulate real systems. That's why I think the CSGO pattern system is a fucking abomination.
>>339306889
None that I know of, thankfully.
>>339306903
>We already solved that problem with pre-determined spread dumbass. Try again
>We solved that problem with pre-determined spread.
KEK. Adding goofy shit because you can't deal with weapon's natural spread doesn't "solve" anything. There's nothing to solve there. You fail a shoot? It doesn't matter. You respawn, keep playing and "lady luck" will make all of you even in the dozens of hours that you'll play.
>>339307010
Cards have RNG. Would you be able to play them without talking about how it would never be competitive?
>>339307183(You)
I don't give a fuck about skill, winning or otherwise. I do care about game mechanics and gameplay itself. This might come as a shocker, but I can losea match and still enjoy it, because I'm not a whiny fag that would rather commit seppuku that lose because there's something out of your control.
Even your fucking team mates are damn randoms most of the time, for fuck's sake.
>>339307231
RNG is just a tool for simulating reality.
>>339307530
I knew what it was, but I didn't know you guys were referring to that until later. It's a weird way to call it, but I guess it's easier to blame RNG than luck.
>>339307150
ok.
how does you code luck ? using RNG.
an algorithm that mimic random.
some deep fried their brain to put the "find a reliable way to produce a random number" formula behind it.
i'm fine with you showing your knowledge tho.
>>339307454
it's fine. not much impact at your level of skillplay.
RNG isn't bad if there's some sort of buffer. Say a monster drops a sword with a 10% chance. There needs to be a bonus catch for "If you killed the monster 15 times without it dropping the sword, drop it anyway".
>>339307454
Be sincere, you never played Dota, right?
rng is lack of player control
if you want rng, try a board game
>>339308038
>t. control freak
>That moment in a Fire Emblem game where your 95% accuracy attack whiffs and the enemy manages to pull off a 10% accuracy 1% crit counterattack.
>>339304190
They should let us build up quest points that can be spent to buy parts from any monster you have killed already. They wouldn't be cheap but it'd be way better than dealing with streaks of terribly bad luck.
>>339308089
>wanting control over your game is being a control freak
what
>>339308089
yep
when you have ability to control, you have desire to control
when you're an unskilled casual, any crutch to sometimes get ahead is what you want
>>339308097
>tfw RNGesus
>>339307150
RNG refers to a specific concept programmed into a game which can be removed. Luck is too broad a term, as it can also refer to unfortunate coincidences involving other players (the opponent turned the corner while I was reloading) or real life (my phone rang while I was playing) which will always exist.
>>339307692
>RNG is just a tool for simulating reality
I don't want reality in my fantasy games about killing dragons and shooting aliens
I do not want to be inconvenienced in some way just because "that's life, fuck you"
All you're doing is pissing off the player for no meaningful reason
>>339307875
It detracts from the game's competitive viability at all levels.
Lower-skilled chess players don't implement dice rolls when they dust off their dollar-store set, for example.
>>339307985
Only casually. I'm more of a WC3 player, with some 5k+ hours in that.
Excessive RNG is actually a cancer in videogames right now because there are a shitload of paying people in videogames with a gambling problem.
Why do you think there's more money in pachinko machines than videogames in japan? Why do you think TF2 crate-esque free to play systems are EVERYWHERE right now?
Not even mentioning shit like how changing FO4's unique weapon system to a random drop system fucking butchered half of the fun in exploring.
>>339308160
Wanting to control every single aspect is.
>>339308171
Why do you believe that people want RNG to be able to top more skilled players sometimes? I know, because that's what rustles your jimmies. The possibility of losing against a weaker opponent because of that also applies to you.
As I said before: luck doesn't matter, as it evens out. Stop being so short-sighted.
>>339308473
>As I said before
a broken record should be discarded
It's probably a poor example, but terraria has shown me how shit rng can be.
Before, any rare, useful thing in terraria was "get these materials and make them item'
Then we had an update and it became "these are now 1% drops from mobs"
There's no skill or interesting conflict given by rng in terms of drops, it just pads out the game for a long time making you do something you could do in your sleep for hours. Terraria would have been better in this regard if they kept up with the old "get 15 drops from an enemy and craft the item" instead of "1% droprate", because at least then you feel like you have more control over it, especially if the goal is "we don't want people just bumbling onto a really good item very early"
>>339307692
I am asking myself if you have some mental disabilities
>Why are you so bent over on removing something that can't ever go away?
you just said that in computers it goes away. They are deterministic systemsnot counting multiplayer
>RNG is in thread of existence itself
And? Games don't need to be realistic.
You seem to be following a precise philosphy that worships randomness, I bet you'll shit out a random answer now.
>>339308473
>Why do you believe that people want RNG to be able to top more skilled players sometimes? I know, because that's what rustles your jimmies. The possibility of losing against a weaker opponent because of that also applies to you.
>As I said before: luck doesn't matter, as it evens out. Stop being so short-sighted.
What the fuck are you even trying to say here, autismo? That competitive games shouldn't be about gameplay and skill but instead about what number the computer gave you? Fuck off.
>>339308473
>As I said before: luck doesn't matter, as it evens out. Stop being so short-sighted.
It doesn't though, because we dont play games for an infinite time
>>339308579
I don't like this expression because it implies only broken records repeat their contents.
All records do that. It's the premise of a record.
>>339308726
>I don't like this
basis behind all of the posts countering this thread's argument
>>339308834
Not all of them.
>>339300467
>>339301969
>>339302362
>>339308038
>if you want rng, try a board game
Maybe if you're playing shitty board games
>>339304190
A game that put a platform up on its back and pushed the shit out of sales not once, not twice, not even just 3 times, but 4. (Contraversially 5 but let's just say 4)
Is nothing shy of a testament that RNG is good in certain situations.
>>339308726
>All records do that. It's the premise of a record.
I've never used a record player before; do they have an auto-repeat setting? I thought once the needle went through the entire record, it simply stopped playing similar to reaching the end of a VCR tape.
>>339309060
Yes, but after it reaches the end, an overwhelming majority of people don't throw out the record and purchase a new copy to listen again thanks to a well-known trick. You can actually "replay" (a technical term) the record by resetting the needle at the beginning, letting you repeat the recording on the record indefinitely.
In fact, the only record incapable of repeating itself would be a broken one, making the idiom ironic.
>>339308658
Thanks for the ad hominem. It's a nice indicator that your butt starts hurting.
One question: how do you simulate shooting a projectile in a computer game? It all boils down to that.
>And? Games don't need to be realistic.
Are you saying this as a pixel-graphics fan or what?
>You seem to be following a precise philosphy that worships randomness
Randomness is necessary for simulating fucking physical systems, fuck. Back to the example from before. You have an FPS with several weapons. Some of them have higher accuracy. How do you program that?
>>339308683
Calm your autism, son. There's a huge middle ground between a dice game and a fully deterministic game. Read above: RNG is necessary for simulation.
>But games don't need to be realistic, anon!
If you're willing to sacrifice any shread of realism so you can avoid tantrums, fine by me. I just don't want to learn goofy patterns for each weapon in order to move my mouse while I shoot. I would stop there and ask myself when did everything go so wrong.
>>339308713
Did you type that unironically?
>>339308924
I actually made it out of sheer curiosity.
>>339309104Check this prime.
>>339308097
the game checks for crit first so acc could be 1 or 100 and it wouldn't matter, crits always hit
>>339309360
kek
>>339309018
The game is good IN SPITE of its bullshit rng you fucking retard, not because of it.
>>339309360
No I did not type that out ironically. Players dont "even out" in luck unless we play a game for infinite time, which we wont. Also why is it your goal to even out players to begin with? Why are you hellbent on no one being better than others?
>>339309268
I'll explain this in a way you might understand
When one plays a record, they hope to hear the whole of the records contents. This is comparable to asking someone their whole opinion on something
When you call someone a broken record, LIKE a broken record, it can only repeat 1 small, simple, short idea, over and over again. it can't go further than that, and to bring this back out of metaphor, a person who's a broken record can't futher explain their position, but instead just offer the position as the argument again.
>>339309570
>No I did not type that out ironically. Players dont "even out" in luck unless we play a game for infinite time
Doesn't matter. Even if you played for an infinite time, there would be someone ahead at any given time.
>Also why is it your goal to even out players to begin with? Why are you hellbent on no one being better than others?
Luck evens out. Skill is different for each player.
> Why are you hellbent on no one being better than others?
I never claimed that. I'm just saying that RNG is necessary for reproducing physical systems in games without having to go crazy (e.g. random spread instead of changing wind, etc). Your result will be determined by your skill plus a bit of good/bad luck, that doesn't affect greatly your innate skills/level.
I'm still waiting for an alternative for a weapon's random spread. Mention CSGO and I'll die laughing, so please don't.
>>339309493
It's based off of it, that's like saying call of duty sells well even though it has guns and you shoot others.
>>339309268
If that's the case, then the idiom appears correct.
A record has a defined beginning and end. It has a specific progression. Once it finishes, the record stops, and it only starts again through human involvement.
A broken record has an infinite loop somewhere. Once it reaches that point, it never stops, it never ends. It will continue to repeat itself without any human input for all eternity.
Looks like >>339309696 beat me to it though.
>>339300968
quantum foam
Spread patterns are absolutely retarded. At high skill level, it's meaningless, as anyone that's gotten gud intrinsically compensates for it, and it doesn't affect them. At low skill level, it frustrates new players and forces an unnecessary amount of frustration to advance to competency. This splits a community and cripples the longevity of a game, as new players will get dominated unless they put in an inane amount of time into perfecting spread patterns so that the spread patterns become meaningless. The skill ceiling doesn't change, the skill floor does.
It's like if a fighting game had no 1-button inputs, you had to always press two buttons and tilt the stick to trigger a move. It's unnecessary and does nothing to increase the skill of the game, it just makes it more tedious to become proficient.
That said, RNG lowers the skill ceiling, as you can only get so good when your bullets go wherever they feel like going and stop you from being better.
This is all exclusive to FPS games, mind.I have never played a CS game before, so buttblasted gobabbies pls refrain from posting git gud as a substitute for an intelligent counterpoint.
>>339300467
>>the loot system is pure RNG!
Let's look at two interpretations of this:
In Castlevania: Circle of the Moon, you require "soul cards" from enemy drops to cast specific spells. Different enemies have different drop rates, which renders the task of collecting them arduous and time consuming because of rates like ~1/200 from werejaguars. All this serves to do is pad the game; the player has clearly demonstrated that he is capable of dealing with a room of werejaguars for several hours.
In Fallout 4, there is a thing called a "levelled loot table". What this is is a table of items that can be randomly selected from your level range to be used as loot (from enemies, containers, and such)
Specific focus should be drawn to the "containers" part. The lockpicking perk is primarily used to open containers of loot, such as safes. Unfortunately, nearly every such container is level loot. As you can purchase one of the main endgame weapons as soon as you reach vault 87, levelled loot like pipe guns are worth nothing to you; this renders lockpicking completely worthless to invest in, simply because it only leads to random loot.
>>339309360
>One question: how do you simulate shooting a projectile in a computer game? It all boils down to that.
newtonian physics?
>Randomness is necessary for simulating fucking physical systems, fuck.
loot and critical hits are real physical systems?
>Some of them have higher accuracy. How do you program that?
The only part of a weapon accuracy that is truly random-based is shot spread, and I agree that it can be simulated to a great effect with RNG. But at the same time I hardly saw it as a common complain when RNG is brougth up, especially since it's easy tonavigate around it with skills (knowing the guns, positioning) and the randomness evens out quickly to a "medium spread" that can be easly accounted on weapons like shotguns. It's a case where RNG can compliment gameplay. Compare it with something like every gun having a chance to not work. It migth be more realistic, but does nothing for the gameplay except interrupting the action, and the player hasn't full control over it (you cannot make sure you've reloaded correctly before an important shot, you cannot clean the guns beforehand...)
Making the spread fixed can also be a choice. More gamey, but still viable.
>Are you saying this as a pixel-graphics fan or what?
wut
>Did you type that unironically?
he's rigth.
>>339305462
>there are people that really believe this
>>339305462
>RNG has no place in a competitive game
>Both Hearthstone and Overwatch are as competitive as the other games I listed. They have serious tournaments with non-trivial prizes.
Holy shit the cognitive dissonance
