MadMaxHellfire
Arcane
the beginning is horrible enough to make me completely abandon the game. the computer pulled 3 50% in a row, i missed my two 75%. game over and i did everything perfectly. absolutely retarded.
At the beginning it is hard to not let the enemy shoot at you a few times, but there is no reason not to take 100% shoots, so you did not do everything « perfectly ». This should have stopped the bad guys from shooting at you 3 times.the beginning is horrible enough to make me completely abandon the game. the computer pulled 3 50% in a row, i missed my two 75%. game over and i did everything perfectly. absolutely retarded.
It is a well known issue. In many games, including nuXCOM and Mutant Zero, it you miss an high percentage chance your chance to hit the next one « secretly » increases, while if the enemy hits you his chance to hit you again next shoot decreases.Do you mean percentages? Random percentages? There can be three successful 50% rolls in a row; there can be thirty failed 50% rolls in a row. There can be thirty failed 95% rolls in a row—it's not impossible....it's just very unlikely.
Some time ago, Tim Cain recounted being asked to code a juke box [feature] in some project, and his instructions were that the music played randomly—so that's what he had it do, and the guy who had asked for it freaked out that the tracks repeated; but he asked for the music to play randomly. He meant for it to be a shuffled list, and had no idea what random meant. You seem to assume that 50% means that every three coin flips cannot be all heads, or all tails.
Well, acshually, if one considers the typical implementation of RNG with "value = rng() modulo 100" and a subsequent check for "value > 94 ?" in case of a miss, than such an RNG would probably fail randomness tests if it delivered 30 numbers with such low bits. Most library RNGs dont fail randomness test to a such high degree. So 30 95% rolls in a row is probably impossible...There can be thirty failed 95% rolls in a row—it's not impossible....it's just very unlikely.
Well, acshually, if one considers the typical implementation of RNG with "value = rng() modulo 100" and a subsequent check for "value > 94 ?" in case of a miss, than such an RNG would probably fail randomness tests if it delivered 30 numbers with such low bits. Most library RNGs dont fail randomness test to a such high degree. So 30 95% rolls in a row is probably impossible...There can be thirty failed 95% rolls in a row—it's not impossible....it's just very unlikely.
One could actually test this too.
You dont understand. An RNG out of cosmic radiation might produce uniform likeness. But thats not how games work. In games a pseudo rng generates a determistic ring of numbers. It might be 2^31 or 2^61 long but it is determinisitc.Well, acshually, if one considers the typical implementation of RNG with "value = rng() modulo 100" and a subsequent check for "value > 94 ?" in case of a miss, than such an RNG would probably fail randomness tests if it delivered 30 numbers with such low bits. Most library RNGs dont fail randomness test to a such high degree. So 30 95% rolls in a row is probably impossible...There can be thirty failed 95% rolls in a row—it's not impossible....it's just very unlikely.
One could actually test this too.
With a RNG, any sequence of 30 number is equally likely, so any true RNG can give the result of 30 consecutive 95+ on a d100. But if I calculated the odds right, you could spend a long time trying before seeing it, since it's 0.05^30.
Wouldn't say it's garbage, just mediocre — arguably even worse.Garbage! Don't buy.
I blame the rise of open worlds and gamers who don't understand that it's okay for some games to be focused. They figure if you can put a shoe tying minigame into one title, it should be in every new game ever made. Otherwise, how do the characters have shoes on if they don't tie them?? Huh?? Realism!! Worse, some developers feel the same way - any little thing they can put into a game, they should.Yea, I just wish all of the travel and walking around hubs could be skipped. The combat is fun enough, but just give me a JA2 style campaign where I move from map to map choosing may way through the encounter, and have anything outside of that be a "laptop screen". I don't understand why that isn't a thing nowadays, with the relative success of games like Shadow Tactics... and I'm still fucking miffed that they canceled the "Divinity: Original Sin 2.5" game that was gonna be all about combat except for CYOA style screens inbetween missions. Just give me that, god damnit!!
It's not a letdown, it's good for what it is. It's not bursting with production values or features or replayability or dozens of hours of playtime. Tt's a small tactical indie game with unique setting that will last you 10-15 hours. It's good for that.That sounds like a total letdown. Always fucking up duck games. Damnit!