The New World - Design Topic: RNG

[Silver]

The New World forum asks for your opinion on RNG.

DESIGN TOPIC #2: RNG


"My THC was 70% but I missed 3 times in a row, which can only mean one thing – the game is horribly broken" is one of the most popular complaints, so let’s talk about it. Let’s start with what 70% THC really means. If you attack long enough, you will reliably hit 70 out of 100 times. It does NOT mean that you’ll reliably hit 2 out 3 times, but that’s what many players expect.

Overall, the phenomenon of player’s expectations vs actual probabilities is well documented:

https://www.pcgamer.com/the-gollop-chamber-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-rng/


Quote


I now understand that human beings are not very good at evaluating probabilities. In particular when an RNG generates repeated sequences a human will cry foul. For a human, randomness usually means ‘evenly distributed without any detectable pattern or repetition’. This is basically how random numbers are manipulated in many games to meet player’s expectations. One poor result immediately results in a bias towards a better result.


Players without any board game or pen-and-paper roleplaying game experience tend to be a lot more hostile to the explicit use of RNG in video games. They do respond well, however, to the more subtle psychological manipulations of randomness which developers and publishers employ these days.



https://www.nexusmods.com/xcom2/mods/482

Quote


Ever do all the work getting your soldiers into position, flanking the enemy, making all the right moves to set up the perfect shot, one your soldiers just can't miss then BAM, that 95% chance to hit misses wide? But no big deal, you planned for this and still have another shot, except, holy crap the next 90% shot also misses! You played perfectly, made all the right decisions but now you are out of actions, your turn ends and the enemy proceeds to wipe your entire squad on their turn. That's it, mission failed, all that work for nothing. How UNFAIR does that feel?

Well then this mod is for you! To put it simply, it aims to make the Random Number Generator and the resulting combat rolls "FEEL" more fair. You're going to miss those 95% shots less often, about as much as you'd naturally expect. Double-extremely-low-chance misses should come up so rarely that you hopefully won't be as upset by them. Basically this mod aims to change the RNG to make it feel and play much more FUN!

REASONING

OK, first of all I'll address the obvious, the RNG in XCOM is already fair, it's been proven to be mathematically accurate many times. So why this mod and why this name?

For many people who have played this game and previous in the serious, you quickly realize that despite the mathematical assurances, it sure doesn't FEEL fair. Missing a 90% shot twice in a row, is like a punch to the gut, especially after all the work maneuvering to set it up in the first place. And depending on the difficulty level (especially in this sequel XCOM 2, which seems more punishing), what those key misses might mean to the missions success/failure. Yeah sure, it's technically accurate, it's "Good" mathematics and statistics, but it's also BAD game design.


The solution seems to be simple: rig the RNG to deliver what the player expects (or at least avoid what everyone hates – missing 3 times in a row despite seemingly high THC), so I have two questions for you:

1) Should we rig the RNG to meet players’ expectations?

2) If yes, how? Meaning what should we aim it? What outcomes should never ever happen when your THC is 70-80%?

Keep in mind that both your party and the enemies will use the same system. Remember that awesome turn when your enemy missed you 3 times in a row? Well, if you won’t be able to miss 3 times in a row, neither would your enemy.

Choose wisely.

While you’re thinking, here is how our RNG works. It draws numbers like cards from a deck, meaning you can’t draw the same card twice until the deck is out of cards and reshuffled. We round up, so if you draw 17, for example, you cannot get numbers 11 to 20 until the deck is reshuffled. This approach ensures that if your THC is 70%, you’ll miss 3 times and hit 7 times. If it's 63% though, you're not guaranteed to get 63 out of 100. Each 10 rolls you'll get 6 guaranteed hits, 3 guaranteed misses and 1 can go either way.

Ideally, your misses would be spread out evenly but as bad luck would have it, sometimes you’d line up your 3 misses in a row and then hit 7 times in a row. Nobody ever complains about hitting 7 times in a row, but missing 3 times does tend to agitate some folks.

To be fair, nobody wants to miss 3 times in a row IF your skill is high enough – this simply isn't fun, especially if the enemy hits you every time. So we can count consecutive misses and once you hit 3, the next roll is on us and it's a hit! The hit card will still be removed from the deck, so you won’t be able to draw it twice, i.e. we will simply spread out your misses evenly but won’t give you free hits or help you win.

Thanks Pladio!

More information.

 

[wolfing]

The best solution I like is introducing 'grazes', so let's say if you have over 50% chance to hit (or 75% whatever), a miss always hits with reduced damage, or in other words, say if the 'roll' fails within 25% of your hit chance it's a graze. That way the salt is reduced significantly and you are less likely to fail just from RNGness.

 

[Ripper]

I have no problem with RNG. Probably best for devs to set games by default to some fudge to keep the brats from trashing their work, but also have an option for people that understand how reality works, and want 70% chance to hit to mean just that.

 

[rjshae]

If they're going to fudge the dice rolls to please the player, why not just reflect in the odds being displayed? If you keep aiming at the same target, maybe your odds should go up just because you've developed some sense of how not to aim at that target?

 

[Ripper]

That would make more sense, if it has to be done. This idea that the results should be massaged behind the scenes because too many people don't understand the gambler's fallacy seems crazy to me.

I mean, if you play tabletop games with dice, or poker, you get used to assessing probability correctly, or you get taken to the cleaners. I don't want to have to start wondering if a 70% chance is actually 70%, or if it's now secretly more or less likely because of what happened on the last roll.

 

[Deleted User]

I think more or less a lot of it stems from players just wanting to "win at all times", never miss a shot, take a loss or anything of the sort. The "RNG is rigged" "argument" is shorthand for "I am upset that I am not winning 100% of the time in this game." An RPG should be about dice rolls, chances of success and failure and less than exact predictability to keep things interesting. Otherwise you have a hand-holding, "you cannot lose or face any obstacle" game/RPG, and is that what people really want? It seems crazy to me.

 

[Pongo]

Yeah I agree. I'd rather it retained the RNG. One answer might be to have an option for additional combat information that shows the exact calculation of the attack attempt (like in Baldurs Gate, where you can optionally bring all the D20 score etc). I find it less frustrating when I can see exactly why the RNG went bad for me and I missed (or why my defenceless guy literally dodged the bullet!)

 

[Capt. Huggy Face]

I sleep with a RNG under my pillow.

 

[Pladio]

Actually, some games use an RNG but smooth it out differently.

Battle for Wesnoth for example has a chance to hit, but most units have multiple attacks per hit.

For example:

THC 50%, but instead of having only one attack, you have 3 attacks of 3 damage each at 50% THC each.
This differs from XCOM whereby you have 1 attack with 9 damage for THC 50%. The average is the same, but you end up having a higher chance to hit at least something.

The reasoning behind this is to avoid players complaining about just that, but actually also adds an additional dimension to the combat.

In a futuristic games with guns, this can easily be translated into burst mode with 5 attacks at lower accuracy or damage for example.
This could be done in any game though as we are talking about TB combat anyway...

The view would be that stronger attacks can either have lower accuracy and/or number of attacks for higher damage whilst you could have a weaker bunch of attacks.

I suggest playing the tutorial in Battle for Wesnoth to understand what I mean if you haven't yet.
I also believe Phoenix Point is using a similar system in their beta version from what I saw in their demos.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[Wisdom]

I think more or less a lot of it stems from players just wanting to "win at all times", never miss a shot, take a loss or anything of the sort. The "RNG is rigged" "argument" is shorthand for "I am upset that I am not winning 100% of the time in this game." An RPG should be about dice rolls, chances of success and failure and less than exact predictability to keep things interesting. Otherwise you have a hand-holding, "you cannot lose or face any obstacle" game/RPG, and is that what people really want? It seems crazy to me.

They want to be hand held, they just don't want to be told they are hand held.

 

[Cacheperl]

I really HATE this idea of having a better chance to hit than is actually displayed.
If you feel your players cant take it, adapt the displayed chances (why stop at 95% anyways?), introduce grace hits, or any other ideas mentioned in this thread. All fine, but, dear developers, please don't cave in because of people's lack of understanding.

This will just enforce a very common misconception. For the similar reasons, people expect that there is something as ridiculous as 100 % security / safety (of cars, antivirus, planes, crime, whatever).

 

[forgottenlor]

Actually, some games use an RNG but smooth it out differently.

Battle for Wesnoth for example has a chance to hit, but most units have multiple attacks per hit.

For example:

THC 50%, but instead of having only one attack, you have 3 attacks of 3 damage each at 50% THC each.
This differs from XCOM whereby you have 1 attack with 9 damage for THC 50%. The average is the same, but you end up having a higher chance to hit at least something.

The reasoning behind this is to avoid players complaining about just that, but actually also adds an additional dimension to the combat.

In a futuristic games with guns, this can easily be translated into burst mode with 5 attacks at lower accuracy or damage for example.
This could be done in any game though as we are talking about TB combat anyway…

The view would be that stronger attacks can either have lower accuracy and/or number of attacks for higher damage whilst you could have a weaker bunch of attacks.

I suggest playing the tutorial in Battle for Wesnoth to understand what I mean if you haven't yet.
I also believe Phoenix Point is using a similar system in their beta version from what I saw in their demos.

Hope this makes sense.

Even though I'm a strong proponent of RNG, I do find this a sensible system. The big advantage is it averages out extreme results of RNG without getting rid of it entirely.

 

[Carnifex]

Cheating rolls in front of players or behind their backs is something I'd never support, it just doesn't suit me. Be upfront and proud of your process, or hide it instead for the shameful thing that it is. Coming from early games like Wizardry, Ultima, Bard's Tale, not to mention board games way before those, I'm a huge proponent of random number generating, and most likely always shall be.

 

[VDweller]

As I said on the Codex, I'm not arguing the definition of random. I'm asking what your THC is supposed to represent. One answer is that it's merely a modifier in a random roll. Another, equally valid and much more practical answer is that it is your average and then you simply must hit X number of times and miss Y number of times to maintain that average.

So when are you being lied to: when your THC says 70% but your effective THC is 50% in your last fight because that 70% was based on a hundred attacks or so, not twenty, or when your THC is 70% and you know that you'll hit precisely 7 times out of 10, which means that you'll miss 3 times even though your chance to hit says 70%?

 

[fadedc]

As Pladio said, same systems can make RNG much less punishing than others. If I'm playing multiple characters, each with multiple attacks per round, then there will be good turns and bad, but things will tend to balance out. But if your playing a single character with a single big attack, then the RNG might be the sole factor that determines whether you win or lose.

The worst for me was playing a sniper in UndeRail. I always attacked from stealth with a head shot, a super strong attack with generally around a 65% to hit. If it hit I won the fight. If it missed I lost the fight. So I had to save before every fight and reload when the attack missed.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

The article is a long list of old songs to sidetrack.

First: players resent missing 90 pc hit, they cant take losing.

That is the result of two centuries of institutionalized double standards.

Missing a 95 pc hit is as bad as suceeding a 5 pc hit. There is no bias.

The resentment is legitimate as this exposes a flaw in design.
Usually, these products are about decision making and players strive to take the best course of action possible. They aim at getting the highest chance possible. Not the lowest.
Percentages somewhat measure the quality in decision making, the higher, the better the quality.

Onto this, missing a 95 pc hit while succeeding a 5pc hit is a disaster as it works obviously against the design. Excellent decision making (as measured by the system) is not reward while degraded decision making is.

That is the point, not that players do not understand RNG.

Second point: RNG is rigged. The stuff has been running for more than two hundreds years so maybe time to take it into account.
Rigging a RNG takes a lot of work, way more than rigging the estimates.
The estimates are rigged, not the RNG.
When an estimate is reported as 60 pc, it is easier to send the 60 pc estimate to the player while running the resolution behind the scenes with a 85pc chance.

Noticeably, by design, it is welcome. Devs somewhat must have their hands on the resolution of a fight. When using dicey chances, the spread around the average time to resolve is large, a fight resolved on similar chances could last six minutes as it can last 20 minutes. Something must be done.

Same stuff when players want to get their way through save reload. Players could go hours trying to get that 10 pc hit so after a few tries, it is better to resolve the outcome with a higher chance since it is what players want.

Third point: XCOM RNG is fair. No, XCOM RNG is seeded RNG which is anything but fair.

Four point: dice rolling is the same as RNG on computer. This shows how much conformism has taken root. People must conform.
Dice rolling is not like RNG in vid products. Dice rolling is personal as a player uses her body as part of the mechanics to generate a number. It is involving. Players try to use their body to influence the outcome, they try to control the way a dice is rolled. They are hit by a bad luch syndrome, they might ask another player to roll instead etc
It is personal, it is involving.

Pressing a button to generate a number is not. Nothing like the relation that exist between a dice roller and his dice rolls.

But this is the trend in the vid industry, getting an experience as conformistic as possible, erase any personal dimension.

 

[Ripper]

As I said on the Codex, I'm not arguing the definition of random. I'm asking what your THC is supposed to represent. One answer is that it's merely a modifier in a random roll. Another, equally valid and much more practical answer is that it is your average and then you simply must hit X number of times and miss Y number of times to maintain that average.

So when are you being lied to: when your THC says 70% but your effective THC is 50% in your last fight because that 70% was based on a hundred attacks or so, not twenty, or when your THC is 70% and you know that you'll hit precisely 7 times out of 10, which means that you'll miss 3 times even though your chance to hit says 70%?

I don't quite understand you here - could you explain a bit more what you're proposing?