Why people hates RNG?

at least to me there are 2 kind of rng, the expected RNG and the crap RNG.

expected RNG would be things like chance for "x" effect or chance for "y" item to drop.

crap RNG is when we have progres gated behind RNG. croms are a good example of this, burning 2k croms and ending with an item you cant use becouse wrong colors is terrible.

"

Antaiseito wrote:

With luck the casual player can have hope too. Hope keeps people engaged.

hope dies after a few trys or after they realise the odds are heavy stacked against them, having to go trhow several layers of rng to achive anything benefits the rich players way more than the casual becouse the rich can bruteforce RNG while the casual only has a few trys.
in the end casual only hope to get anything is to find someone selling a half decent item for a price they can aford.

Because
..-. ..- -.-. -.- .-. -. --.

"

Tanakeah wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Tanakeah wrote:

RNG by itself isn't a problem. Layer upon layer of RNG that more often than not dictates even the basic usage of an item (getting proper color, links, and sockets, not even counting stats and type), or whether something that could be an upgrade actually isn't. Applies to a few other things in this game, but too much layering isn't that great for me in the long run.

False, because butterfly effect. Even a single instance of RNG immediately layers all subsequent events. The only way to prevent RNG layering is not to have it at all.

No, it's not the only way, and GGG has provided ways to get around the RNG via deterministic crafting with sockets and links, although you can't craft a guaranteed outcome for socket colors when it comes to things beyond three sockets. However, if you could, then the only real RNG left for rolling an armour piece would be what the stats are, and therefore would only be one layer of RNG to contend with when making an item if you followed the deterministic route. So no, not the only way and really makes me sigh when terms like 'butterfly effect' get thrown around as such when other methods like what I posted can be used, tweaked, and refined to provide players a way around that.

What you're saying here is basically "No Scrotes, it's not 'the only way to prevent RNG layering is not to have it at all,' because you can not have it at all for some things and still have it for other things."

Well, yeah. Obviously.

And the more frequently the design tosses RNG into the mix, the faster the butterfly effect can spiral. Also obviously.

What you're talking about isn't a fix to RNG, but it's absence. Thus, it isn't a fix to the butterfly effect, but it's avoidance (in the case of Masters, an avoidance of limited scope). Much like how both "don't walk your dogs" and "walk your dogs less frequently" are not actually solutions to them pooping on someone else's lawn.

-----

Here's my first post in this thread. Kinda doubt you read it.
This actually does handle the butterfly effect. If RNG can hand players multiple outcomes which are different but not strictly inferior/superior to each other, the butterfly effect is an ever-compounding series of "different but equal," rather than an ever-compounding series of inferiority/superiority. I do not believe this should be taken to extremes (because a moderate amount of strict inferiority/superiority is necessary for progression), but you introduce a lot more skill into gameplay when the game hands you some good things regardless, and it's up to you to either find a use for those things yourself or to trade them to other players for things you can use yourself.

i hate rng when I don't get my map back

I like rng when I 6 link in 100 fuses

I hate rng when atziri doesn't drop a hope

I like rng when acuitys drop

Necessary evil. Like getting wisdom teeth pulled. If RNG didn't exist, this game would be far less enjoyable.

Such a troll thread......

"

lizzrdd wrote:

Such a troll thread......

Indeed, but still I'll bite:

I don't hate RNG. The game would be boring without it.
Any game of this type which has a capability to use RNG, should.

But to me, this isn't a "RNG vs. NO RNG" discussion.
It's the way action role-play and role-play games as a whole use it, vs. the way Path Of Exile uses it.

RNG has a job. Something "he" has been "trained" to do and does it well.
You are not going to hire a construction engineer as a Chef, right? Or let someone run a PC company when he's a car mechanic with no experience of running a company.
But that's exactly what GGG did: they basically told RNG "you are in charge of EVERYTHING, and when in doubt just flip this coin here"... because the only thing that beats random, is random^2.

GGG need to Learn2RNG.

"

johnKeys wrote:

"

lizzrdd wrote:

Such a troll thread......

Indeed, but still I'll bite:

I don't hate RNG. The game would be boring without it.
Any game of this type which has a capability to use RNG, should.

But to me, this isn't a "RNG vs. NO RNG" discussion.
It's the way action role-play and role-play games as a whole use it, vs. the way Path Of Exile uses it.

RNG has a job. Something "he" has been "trained" to do and does it well.
You are not going to hire a construction engineer as a Chef, right? Or let someone run a PC company when he's a car mechanic with no experience of running a company.
But that's exactly what GGG did: they basically told RNG "you are in charge of EVERYTHING, and when in doubt just flip this coin here"... because the only thing that beats random, is random^2.

GGG need to Learn2RNG.

You hate RNG... Trust me you do. There is absolutely nothing positive about ring.

I love RNG.
RNG gave me random map layouts since before Diablo 1.
Random enemies since Rogue.

I hate PoE RNG. It's a monster that needs slaying.

"

johnKeys wrote:

I love RNG.
RNG gave me random map layouts since before Diablo 1.
Random enemies since Rogue.

I hate PoE RNG. It's a monster that needs slaying.

Diablo was offline and D2 was worse in RNG...