Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Editorial Unpredictability and Control in Turn-Based Combat

VentilatorOfDoom

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
8,603
Location
Deutschland
Tags: Sinister Design; Telepath RPG: Servants of God

Sinister Design's Creg Stern examined the unpredictability (boo-hoo dice rolls are evil, duh!) and control in turn-based combat.
Luckily, unpredictability is not just a spark that flickers into existence for the moment between issuing a command and watching the game’s onscreen interpretation of it. Unpredictability can also exist on a much broader level. Developers can employ a combination of clever AI and tactical depth to keep turn-based combat unpredictable and wrought with tension.

Chess and Go are a fine example for us to look at. As we know, Chess and Go do not have an ounce of randomness in them. Every last move is 100% deterministic in its effects. It is never unclear what happens if your knight moves onto a pawn’s space: the knight takes the pawn. Period. End of story. Likewise, you’ll never sit there biting your nails, wondering what happens when you surround a group of enemy pieces in Go. The pieces are either taken or not taken based on a simple, unchanging rule. The results of the move are entirely predictable.

And yet, matches of Chess and Go can positively drip tension, the end results of any given match wildly uncertain. How is that possible? The answer lies not in what happens after the player selects a move, but rather in what happens beforehand. In Chess and Go, the player faces a black box full of dangerous and unpredictable moves. This is possible only because each of these games sports two characteristics: (1) a thinking opponent and (2) a large possibility space.

As you no doubt divined, the clever opponent is the primary source of unpredictability here. A clever opponent will go out of its way to seize on weaknesses in a player’s plan. The player never knows for certain which move such an opponent will opt for, and therefore has to tread carefully to avoid having her own moves exploited. In order to succeed, the player has to try to guess the opponent’s likely response to each move from among multiple viable options: in short, to outwit him. This is a huge source of unpredictability—and thus, tension.
 

felipepepe

Codex's Heretic
Patron
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
17,310
Location
Terra da Garoa
I get what he's talking about, but this just feels weird:

A second potential issue is personality-based. For some, failure in a game bruises their sense of themselves as competent people. In their minds, they didn’t just lose because they tried a strategy that didn’t work; they lost because they are intrinsically not smart enough, not good enough. The ego is much too tightly wrapped up in the results of particular challenges, producing a personalization of loss that can be emotionally crushing. The mediation of the dice provides an “out,” a way of walking away from a loss without feeling totally responsible. In short, it’s the flip side of my argument above: determinism promotes a feeling of player responsibility, but perhaps some players don’t want to feel wholly responsible.

I ask this honestly, is this really a thing? There are really people that defends this argument?
 

Infinitron

I post news
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
99,611
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
I get what he's talking about, but this just feels weird:

A second potential issue is personality-based. For some, failure in a game bruises their sense of themselves as competent people. In their minds, they didn’t just lose because they tried a strategy that didn’t work; they lost because they are intrinsically not smart enough, not good enough. The ego is much too tightly wrapped up in the results of particular challenges, producing a personalization of loss that can be emotionally crushing. The mediation of the dice provides an “out,” a way of walking away from a loss without feeling totally responsible. In short, it’s the flip side of my argument above: determinism promotes a feeling of player responsibility, but perhaps some players don’t want to feel wholly responsible.

I ask this honestly, is this really a thing? There are really people that defends this argument?

Well, he's right that the existence of "good rolls" and "bad rolls" in a system can keep people trying again and again, in hopes of getting better rolls. Maybe with no randomness they'd just give up.

Of course, in some cases they SHOULD be giving up, rather than trying to cheese their way through with 3 consecutive critical hits or something.

The whole "bruises their sense of themselves as competent people" thing is totally :patriot: though
 

alx3apps

Educated
Joined
Mar 24, 2012
Messages
39
Cannot remember last time I played any fully predictable game. Maybe in HoMM3 blessed units always do max damage - it was easier to plan movements in such case.

By the way, where's my fully predictable (and with high player responsibility :) ) Legends of Eisenwald? It should be released a month ago, but afaik even demo isn't out yet.
 

kaizoku

Arcane
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
4,129
This would have avoid a lot of butthurt in AoD :smug:
(including my own)

In theory this sounds good, in practice we shall see.
But he should have made an abstraction layer to number generation. That way he could make it an option (between exact and random) and please both crowds.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Cannot remember last time I played any fully predictable game. Maybe in HoMM3 blessed units always do max damage - it was easier to plan movements in such case.

By the way, where's my fully predictable (and with high player responsibility :) ) Legends of Eisenwald? It should be released a month ago, but afaik even demo isn't out yet.
Plenty of FPSes are fully predictable. In fact randomized bullet spread is a pretty new thing.
 

alx3apps

Educated
Joined
Mar 24, 2012
Messages
39
Cannot remember last time I played any fully predictable game. Maybe in HoMM3 blessed units always do max damage - it was easier to plan movements in such case.

By the way, where's my fully predictable (and with high player responsibility :) ) Legends of Eisenwald? It should be released a month ago, but afaik even demo isn't out yet.
Plenty of FPSes are fully predictable. In fact randomized bullet spread is a pretty new thing.
I mean turn-based games. Games that depend on your reflexes are never fully predictable (in the sence this article means).

In FPS I can remember randomized aiming (not bullets themselve) was great in Deus Ex, it created tension.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
I'm just saying, you know Quake with rail guns is fully based on player skill, there is no randomness to it.

Actually there are random spawn locations, but very little randomness.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
I don't see enough evidence that is randomized and not a set pattern.

For instance, CS has a set pattern. The top level players have it memorized and adjust their aiming accordingly.
 

Oriebam

Formerly M4AE1BR0-something
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
6,193
Thread shows as
"Unpredictabilit yand Control in
Turn-Based Combat"
on the homepage

just a heads up
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
I don't see enough evidence that is randomized and not a set pattern.
Doom source code has long since been released.

Besides, it's not like RNGs were any sort of novel idea at the time Doom was in production. Doom has all kind of randomization in it - random damage, pain chance, probably some AI routines - what sense would it make to hardcode chaingun pattern?

Of course, RNGs are at best pseudo-random, but when properly initialized that's good enough.
 

Alex_Steel

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
2,548
I like my games not being too random. It always gives such a shitty feeling when you have a great encounter, just to be ruined by luck, either coming from the players or the GM.
Sure, I can secretly adjust it on the fly if I'm the GM but it still feels like shit.
 

Lightknight

Liturgist
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
705
I ask this honestly, is this really a thing? There are really people that defends this argument?
For "generic" strategy games ? I dont think so. For "puzzle-strategy" ? Perhaps. I can at least imagine myself in a game where i know there is a specific and singular solution, yet i am unable to see it. I would be somewhat disappointed with myself.
 

Captain Shrek

Guest
This sounds very similar to the retarded argument that J.E. Sawyer made about randomness.
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,669
Location
casting coach
As you no doubt divined, the clever opponent is the primary source of unpredictability here. A clever opponent will go out of its way to seize on weaknesses in a player’s plan. The player never knows for certain which move such an opponent will opt for, and therefore has to tread carefully to avoid having her own moves exploited. In order to succeed, the player has to try to guess the opponent’s likely response to each move from among multiple viable options: in short, to outwit him. This is a huge source of unpredictability—and thus, tension.
No, clever opponent is not the source of unpredictability here. It's not like a bad chess player will be predictable, more like the opposite actually (who might do the stupidest blunders as well as good moves). Whereas in, say, tic-tac-toe, the game is pretty predictable no matter how amazing the players are.

Unpredictability in a deterministic game depends on good game mechanics first and foremost, cleverness of your opponent is very much secondary in that regard.
 
Self-Ejected

Ulminati

Kamelåså!
Patron
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
20,317
Location
DiNMRK
I don't see enough evidence that is randomized and not a set pattern.

For instance, CS has a set pattern. The top level players have it memorized and adjust their aiming accordingly.

CS still uses that? Waaaaay back when I played it I remember people would mod their game with custom crosshairs that showed where the first shot of the sequence would land. Used it to get headshots from across the map with AK-47s.
 

Radech

Augur
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
513
I don't see enough evidence that is randomized and not a set pattern.

For instance, CS has a set pattern. The top level players have it memorized and adjust their aiming accordingly.

CS still uses that? Waaaaay back when I played it I remember people would mod their game with custom crosshairs that showed where the first shot of the sequence would land. Used it to get headshots from across the map with AK-47s.

It's a weighted random, no player regardless of skill can spray a 30 round ak clip and hit the same point, but they can get a pretty tight grouping, which imo is pretty close to perfect in regards of a skill vs luck implementation
 

Captain Shrek

Guest
I don't see enough evidence that is randomized and not a set pattern.

For instance, CS has a set pattern. The top level players have it memorized and adjust their aiming accordingly.

CS still uses that? Waaaaay back when I played it I remember people would mod their game with custom crosshairs that showed where the first shot of the sequence would land. Used it to get headshots from across the map with AK-47s.
:lol:

Some of my friends used to run around with AWP without scope and one shotted everyone since they somehow knew where the center of the screen was (Something I never got to correctly guess without crosshairs).
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,669
Location
casting coach
I don't see enough evidence that is randomized and not a set pattern.

For instance, CS has a set pattern. The top level players have it memorized and adjust their aiming accordingly.

CS still uses that? Waaaaay back when I played it I remember people would mod their game with custom crosshairs that showed where the first shot of the sequence would land. Used it to get headshots from across the map with AK-47s.
:lol:

Some of my friends used to run around with AWP without scope and one shotted everyone since they somehow knew where the center of the screen was (Something I never got to correctly guess without crosshairs).
Wouldn't painting a tiny dot on your screen do the trick pretty easily?
 

Captain Shrek

Guest
I don't see enough evidence that is randomized and not a set pattern.

For instance, CS has a set pattern. The top level players have it memorized and adjust their aiming accordingly.

CS still uses that? Waaaaay back when I played it I remember people would mod their game with custom crosshairs that showed where the first shot of the sequence would land. Used it to get headshots from across the map with AK-47s.
:lol:

Some of my friends used to run around with AWP without scope and one shotted everyone since they somehow knew where the center of the screen was (Something I never got to correctly guess without crosshairs).
Wouldn't painting a tiny dot on your screen do the trick pretty easily?
That's what I did.... :oops:
 
Self-Ejected

Ulminati

Kamelåså!
Patron
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
20,317
Location
DiNMRK
People painting a tiny dot on their screen to exploit "random" patterns of bullets in a FPS is a pretty interesting statement on unpredictability and control in real-time combat :M
 

deuxhero

Arcane
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
11,969
Location
Flowery Land
I really dislike randomness during "routine" actions (any combat specialist should always hit a normal foe), but have no problem with abilities that are random in design (such as an option to decrease your chance to hit in exchange for increased damage).
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom