Why all the hate towards RNG?

"

Diablo 2 had it right in this regard. Working towards an awesome new runeword that gave your character entirely new abilities

I read the first part I agree. I read the second phrase I must disagree.

Runewords in 1.10 were the most broken thing D2 added. You know how low the droprates were? Even in 1.10 Tyraels Armor was rare as a Gul rune as normal drop(not counting countess/hfq)
Rushing characters to do HFQ required many CD-Keys and a Lo rune was the only rune you could craft within a reasonable time, while the good runewords required either multiple highrunes or runes like Ber, Jah and Zod.


1.09 was more focussed on crafting and uniques and you had something like tiers this was quiet balanced.


For example a Swordsbarbs ultimative sword was Grandfather which was hard to find but there were tiers easier to obtain such as doombringer, Cruel BB/CB/CS (of quickness).

A shapedruids(well was a boring class in 1.09) best weapon was Messerschmitdts Reaver but there were lower tiers like Bloodcrafts or Hellslayer.

Bowazon->WF vs EagleHorn M'Avinas and Buri

Zeal Charger Smite Paladin->Shaefers vs Bloodcraft, Baranars, Lightsabre

Assasin was the only broken class which had no unique claw so they ended up with bartucs in most cases since rare ed+fools/magic cruel claws of quickness+2 soc were really rare.


Or if you look at armors-> Arcaines was an armor every class could use even as underpowered version and yet there were many other armors like shaftstopper, GA, Duriels Shell, Smoke/Lionheart Vipermagi which were easier to find/build and use.


Same goes for Tals Armor->Skullders->4 Socket PT

Every slot had lower tiers and more common uniques you could use.
Perfection started with crafting amulets, rings and sometimes belts.


Pre Lod did quiet fine there as well.
You gambled amulets/rings all the time. The cube had far more work to do and rares were really balanced compared to magic items.
Only some spots used uniques such as the 50% FC dagger, sojs, silk of the victor.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Hellkaiser wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

No, it's sense of entitlement. Everyone feels they "deserve" 6L nearly automatically because it's such an "essential" part of their build. Well, who cares if it is? In Diablo 2, uniques like Widowmaker and runewords like Enigma were "essential" parts of builds -- but they were uniques and runewords, got the proper respect as a result, and people didn't get it all twisted. Players need to properly appreciate 6L for both its power and its rarity. Even your mild version of it is too much entitlement mentality -- imagine someone asking for a method to get a guaranteed chance of getting runes because they can't find an Ist for their Call to Arms, claiming that their search for it "lacks interactivity."

This attitude, needs to go. It's actually the most unhelpful and destructive of ideals in the gaming genre to date, and while folks will try and scare you into believing the slippery slope fallacy of "world of warcraft pre mists patch" levels of "no idiot left behind" failure due to a lack of the above policies. This mentality will in fact just stop games from removing the most archaic and anti-fun aspects of games, for no other reason other than it affects their trading mini game and lowers the disparity of the top and bottom players. AKA that it hurts their epeens, and being good might actually no longer be a matter of who has the most free time to grind and farm or scalp other players.

Actually, what needs to be stopped is the new school attitude that starts by complaining "It shouldn't be so tedious to earn the best the game has to offer!" and ends by complaining "There's nothing to do in the endgame!" It's not that there's nothing to do in the endgame, it's that you have no motivation to do it anymore because we let you eat your desert before your dinner...

Diablo 2 had it right in this regard. Working towards an awesome new runeword that gave your character entirely new abilities -- including abilities that you may have built your entire character around -- gave you a powerful objective to work towards, making the grind for high runes worthwhile. Strangely, having your build be functionally incomplete without the hard-to-find gear made the search for said gear all the more enjoyable.

If PoE is failing in this regard, it's not by setting a high standard, but in how it sets it. Diablo 2 required you to find a small quantity of very rare items; PoE requires you to find a large quantity of fairly common items. That could be a pretty important difference from a gamer psychology perspective. Perhaps it would be best if each Chromatic/Jewelers/Fusing had a higher chance of a good result -- but was also less common to find and harder to get from vendors.

First of all, take your attitude and allusions that we're "petulant children" wanting "dessert before dinner" and cram them up the high end of your hole. That's for a start. If you want to argue against what I said, do so. And don't patronize me or anyone else before you even begin to go off on some tangent about Diablo 2 by making a straw man attempt and I'm sure we'll at least reach some sort of impasse but what you did here though was simply ignore any validity in what I said for the sake of making a thinly veiled dig, now back on topic, Diablo 2 was a game that which while this game claims to be following was designed a LONG time ago, with different systems and many of said systems could be easily considered as impractical or just not the best way of going about things. game design didn't stop evolving, the very notion is completely ridiculous.

Also...

No one, not even me is claiming that a path towards goals or gear or endgame should be shortened massively or trivialized, BUT it should be well DEFINED. All the RNG garbage in this game accomplishes, is artificially alter the length of time randomly towards reaching a goal, rewarding some, punishing others for no reason, often to the extreme where you lose interest in said goal LONG before you reach it, due to the fact that any progress is usually so few and far between as to lend itself to a feeling of progress stagnation. Now if you can honestly tell me that boring the shit out of your players, because you're afraid of some slippery slope BS and that they're being "spoiled" or my favorite overused ridiculously misused term "self entitled" is justified, I've some nice beachfront property to sell you, and the sand isn't free.

As I'm sure you can tell, this isn't my first rodeo, and if you approach this with the intent to actually discuss things, I'll treat you with as much respect as I can muster despite my beliefs that the ideals you promote are in fact laden with hidden agenda's and biased with a "first ones in shut the door" mentality that is NOT a good idea for a games playerbase or growth. Starting off with that attitude, doesn't exactly lend itself much to me reaching an understanding with you, it's more likely to end up with me looking at "old school" as "may as well be living in the dark ages" or even better

"didn't we learn ANYTHING in these years of game's being designed at all?"

I'm not even new school either I'm more old school than most (but not all ofc)... I'm just not of the mind that RNG with your RNG is clever game design, it's just completely lazy.

"

Hellkaiser wrote:

First of all, take your attitude and allusions that we're "petulant children" wanting "dessert before dinner" and cram them up the high end of your hole.

You're the one adding the "we" there. I said the new-school complainer attitude needs to go, and it does. Whether or not you are a part of it, whether or not you choose to take it personally... both irrelevant to the point I was making.

"

Hellkaiser wrote:

No one, not even me is claiming that a path towards goals or gear or endgame should be shortened massively or trivialized, BUT it should be well DEFINED. All the RNG garbage in this game accomplishes, is artificially alter the length of time randomly towards reaching a goal, rewarding some, punishing others for no reason, often to the extreme where you lose interest in said goal LONG before you reach it, due to the fact that any progress is usually so few and far between as to lend itself to a feeling of progress stagnation.

Seems to me this is an attack not on the average value of investment to achieve the goal, but on the randomness that can make that value much higher or lower; in other words, not an attack on the mean, but an attack on the standard deviation.

So, question: According to this thread I happen to maintain, the average number of Fusings used to achieve six-link is roughly 900. If there was a vendor formula of "1000 Orbs of Fusing + any six-socket item = same item but 6L," would that satisfy you? All randomness would be gone, and the cost would be with 15% of the average RNG application.

"

Hellkaiser wrote:

Now if you can honestly tell me that boring the shit out of your players, because you're afraid of some slippery slope BS and that they're being "spoiled" or my favorite overused ridiculously misused term "self entitled" is justified, I've some nice beachfront property to sell you, and the sand isn't free.

Not a very good question, since pretty extremist views are required to believe that a game should bore its audience. The answer is obviously no, it wouldn't be okay. However, I think the solution to such a situation would be to make the gameplay more interesting, not to make the objective any easier to accomplish. If a game feels like work, changing the amount the players get paid isn't going to make it feel more like a game.

"

Hellkaiser wrote:

if you approach this with the intent to actually discuss things, I'll treat you with as much respect as I can muster

So far you haven't mustered much, and it's illogical for me to expect so sudden of a change of heart. It is my intent to actually discuss things, and it's appropriate for us to treat each other with respect, period, mustering ability not considered.

"

Hellkaiser wrote:

I'm just not of the mind that RNG with your RNG is clever game design, it's just completely lazy.

It is clever in the way that it is an efficient and balanced solution relative to the amount of design effort required; simple things are often clever in that they're simultaneously functional and lazy.

There is no reason why they cant have a progressive crafting system.

Like maybe once you get lets say 3 Links on an item you can never RNG below 3 links..

This still requires RNG and could still take up to 1000 fusings.

I understand 6 linked item's should be very hard to get along with the rest of the top game items and gear. But right now. The cost of making your own highly sought after or godly if you will item is just too outrageous. There is no point in trying to make your own. just horde your orbs and buy one outright.

1: I stand against a high amount of RNG reliance in games, for the simple fact that as far as the evolution of game development and improvement in those methods, it's akin to using leeches in medicine for all the wrong reasons, therefore I am naturally included in your sweeping statement and badly worded jibe. The "new school" mentality, isn't to complain, it's to question the reason behind lazy design aspects such as the RNG crutch.

2: A thousand orbs of fusing, doesn't seem like all that terrible a number, a little on the high side for something that again is a randomly generated item but at least it would be ONE less layer of RNG pointlessness, it's a start. A weak one, And only that but it IS a start.

3: I do somewhat agree if the gameplay is great, the reward is the game itself, that's always been the feeling I've got playing some of the best games I've experienced. sadly when your gear is tied into said gameplay, and a lack of quality in it affects the gameplay in the negative, you've got a bit of a problem with interests at that point. Again, no one is saying we NEED 6linked uber modded gear of perfection, but the sheer scale of the randomness and overall lack of quality in drops at times really doesn't lend itself to keeping the game challenging while not leaving you starved of progress on your character in terms of itemization.

4: You framed your post TERRIBLY so we were not going to start off on good footing, although I can't say I wasn't a bit harsh myself in other posts, but to be honest? I'm highly sick of "fanboyism" destroying games and the zealous protection of BAD decision making scuttling games before they really have a chance to get off the ground and become the best they can be OVERALL. and afterwards you clearly sit in the belief that sending out a message that being of the opinion that RNG is a horrible crutch is a bad thing, and that feedback is wrong if its not to sing praises for the heavy usage of RNG in Path of Exile. This is probably something we won't see eye to eye on anyways, it's just a differing of belief in what's best for game design in general. As for mustering respect, you've no reason to believe I would change my responses at all, but then again it's illogical to use tired old chestnuts such as the "self entitled whingey gamer" angle, and not have someone /facepalm and groan.

5: No, it's just rng, with rng, while being affected rng, with some skewed percentiles. This isn't occam's razor at play in terms of game design, it's a failure to take something that was clearly already too reliant on RNG, and then slapping more RNG on it, because it was easier, that's not what I'd call the best possible solution.

@ OP's Thread Title.

Because many people who are playing this game shouldn't be.

Not that they don't deserve to (they do), but they won't find it fun. Read my signature (the first 2 lines), for how I feel about these types of players and how we should deal with them. These type of players (ones who have hate towards RNG), fall into the same category as people who don't/won't re-roll. :|

It's the simple truth.

"

TremorAcePV wrote:

Read my signature (the first 2 lines), for how I feel about these types of players and how we should deal with them.

Yes, because this is how you "deal" with feedback. You might as well add people who don't like desync to that list.

Okay, that might be a bit extreme, but what you are saying is that these people should just leave when no one here hates the game.

@Hellkaiser:

1. If somone has broad enough knowledge to know what Occam's razor is, I don't consider that person an idiot (crazy is still on the table). However, when I think "new school of gamers" I think of the endless horde of Blizzard forum beta testers (both before and after the game's release) who angrily threw bad idea after bad idea at a capitulating Diablo 3 team. Everyone's quick to blame Jay Wilson, but bad ideas where everywhere in beta and I'm much more active here because I see what happens if you fail to voice objections to stupidity.

2. Chris Wilson himself has actually asked people hypothetically if they'd accept 1500, which I can tell by my numbers isn't very fair... but it indicates that the idea has crossed their minds, even if not in a serious context. I think 10-20% is the proper mark-up to avoid randomness, and that players should be given the option. Personally, I'd just roll in manually, every time; saving 100 Fusings on average is worth the risk.

I believe that six-link is more than worth the Fusing cost, and that the overall cost does not need to be adjusted downwards.

4. My signature is links to three things. In essence: a old-school gamer manifesto, a thread with copious of raw scientific data, and a batshit-crazy-like-a-fox suggestion that, among other things, advocates halving the value of all life nodes (read before judging). I'm pretty multifaceted, but being accused of being "status quo" is still pretty LOL.

5. I never said it was the best possible solution. I'm saying that if effectiveness divided by time is efficiency, then it was amazingly efficient, because it probably took less time then I've spent on this post.

I think the most frustrating thing about Fusings (and to a lesser extent Jeweler's) is just the shear volume. Runewords from D2 may have been a bitch to track down (1000 Fusings is also a bitch to track down), but at least once you had them it was, what, 4 to 6 clicks? Fusings can give you carpal tunnel. Unlike some other orbs, evaluating the results is stupid easy and way too one-dimensional, which only adds to the rapid-clicking carpal tunnel feeling. The core problem is that both orbs use the exact same chart as monster drops, and that's just not appropriate.

This is the way it should be:

• Chromatic Orbs should cost 1 Alteration at vendor.
• Jeweler's Orbs should cost 3 Chromatic Orbs from vendor, and drop 2/3 as often as they do now. However, let's say the chance of a Jeweler's giving you 5 sockets right now is 1/60 and six sockets is 1/300; the chances would be changed to 1/40 and 1/200. The net effect would be that Jewelers would be worth 50% more each, but would also do 50% more per use in terms of crafting.
• Orbs of Fusing should cost 6 Jeweler's from vendor, and drop 4/9 as often as they do now. This should make them feel about as valuable as a Chaos Orb. However, if the chance of 5L is now 1/180 and the chance of 6L is 1/900, the new chances would be 1/80 and 1/400.
• Orbs of Chance in Act 3 would cost 1 Jeweler's, not one Fusing.

Does any of this change the cost to get a 6L? Not really. But it cuts down on the amount of time spent right-click on orb, clicking on gear, fail, right-click on orb, click on gear, fail... etc. Because that shit is boring. (I guess vendor recipe for auto-6L would be 450-500 Fusing then, not 1000.)

"

thepmrc wrote:

"

tinghshi wrote:

"

Josephoenix wrote:

both of you are "misunderstanding" my example.

No one is "forced" to play this game. Like the lottery: it's a choice.
No one is forced to go outside (second example): it's a choice.

PoE provides you with its set of mechanics and it's up to you whether or not you like them. if you don't (as some ppl have expressed) you can post on the forums, provide other choices etc. and perhaps PoE will change it.

But as it stands "right now". if you play PoE, you're going to encounter RNG. No one is "forced to play". But if they choose to, why do they get so "upset"... when they knew going in: RNG is part of the game?

I think you're misunderstanding the whole situation here.

What you're saying is basically "if you don't like it, get out."

Of course we are not forced to play the game. We don't like RNG in context of the game.

Going by my example, that's like saying "you're not forced to live; it's a choice."

I think he is more saying, if you don't like it why do you play?

Anyone that is at all familiar with the genre knows to expect some heavy RNG. Any research on the game would show that it has a lot of RNG elements... so if you don't like RNG why would you play in the first place? Its like someone going to a casino then complaining about all the gambling after being there for a while... it doesn't make any sense.

Last time I checked this was beta FEEDBACK. Ya know, people giving feedback about what they don't like about the game so it can hopefully be made better.

The "like it how it is, or F-Off" attitude is totally counterproductive to beta feedback.

"

ShaeG wrote:

Like maybe once you get lets say 3 Links on an item you can never RNG below 3 links..

well I have to admit I have sometimes wanted something less then 3L so I didn't apply a support to both gems and only applied it to one gem. mostly due to mana cost really.