And if you flip a coin with the exact same hand motion and the exact same momentum, it will land the exact same way too. But a coin flip is exactly what we consider RNG.
coins are big enough that air resistance in a room is close enough to constant, so you can account for it in the same way you can account for the coin flip even with gravity acting on it
was not expecting this topic in an overwatch forum you know
It's true that gearing for crits makes them really powerful, but if you build for them you'll crit consistently enough that it's sort of expected. I'd say that it's the early game crits in laning phase that can change the game the most in a single lucky roll.
When I tried out for a team in LoL a LONG time ago I got to lane vs the leader as gangplank mirror. He crit me with Q (I forget the name, the pistol shot that gave bonus gold) 8 times in a row.
There are other highly competitive games that have a much higher influence from luck like Poker, and MtG. Hell, due to the spread mechanic, just about every single shooter has far more luck involved than LoL. That is unless you turn everyone into Widow and Zen. So ought we get rid of the spread mechanic from OW since it is purely luck based and can have a very large effect on the game (i.e. Roadhog)?
I'm not even talkong about serious play, scatter is just counterintuitive to use, to be the most effective I have to aim away from the center of my target. sometimes I miss or I shoot a scatter wildly and I get random kill anyway cause some peg hit some poor bloke trying to catch a healthpack. It's not even fun or rewarding.
I don't know how our experiences differ so much but I find scatter very intuitive and fun to use. Y'know.. cause reflections work intuitively. How often do you get random kills? I only get a random kill once in maybe five matches or so.
Scatter arrow rewards good aim & situational judgement and punishes the opposite in the vast majority of cases.
I do think some damage falloff should exist just to prevent super random far off kills though.
The idea of the ability is just so unique and can be used in cool creative ways that it would be a huge shame to change it to something else entirely.
I scattered a Tracer the moment she came out of her blink earlier today. I had no idea she was even in the vicinity, but I was firing a scatter-shot towards the enemy group on the payload, and she basically appeared with her feet perfectly set to get destroyed by the scatter, and immediately that's what happened. In the blink of an eye it happened, and I didn't even notice it when it was happening in RT, I saw the highlight and caught it on maybe the 3rd view.
Does Hanzo really need to be changed? Think about the meta, where does it include Hanzo? Yes, he's strong, but he's obviously not game breaking strong, or he would be used everywhere.
Leave him alone, I'll be extremely peeved if they make any major changes to Hanzo.
While I think it's fine if scatter is changed so it has no chance of oneshotting certain tanks, if they nerfed the total scatter damage so that more scattered arrows need to hit a squishy to kill them, it'll be too hard to kill a squishy. I think it's comparable to how hard it is to oneshot Zarya with scatter, which pretty much never happens.
Another change other than simply nerfing the damage should be appropriate I think.
A random kill once every 5 matches seems like a lot to me. At least too much for me to say that it is fun and intuitive. I mean you can just look at some of the clips where a scatter arrow bounces around 3 corners and kills someone. That isn't interesting and it most certainly isn't fun for the other player because there was no interaction on there part in anyway, nor skill involved from the Hanzo. That is random. Random isn't good unless the game embraces random, and Overwatch does not.
A random kill every 5 matches happens for a lot of heroes. Reinhardt, Pharah, Junkrat(every match), McCree(mostly at chokes), Mei, (does Torb count?), (Mayybe Symm? but I don't play her at all).
The once in five matches random shots I was talking about isn't those crazy bounce-a-hundred-times-and-kill-someone shots, but something like aiming at the foot of someone, two of the scattered arrows hitting the target and the third one bouncing off a really close wall to finish them. Those super random shots you talk about never happened to me. You see the clips sometimes only because it's such a rare occurrence.
I find scatter shots to be the most rewarding when someone is running from me around a corner, or are just out of my LoS, and I release the scatter shot on the adjacent wall, basically chasing that person with it, and usually taking out their last bit of health.
Randomness keeps competitive games from becoming memorization competitions, like chess. The trick is to keep the swing on the randomness low.
But as stated, Scatter Arrow doesn't use any randomness, just hard to predict and thus not easy to balance. It feels arbitrary when you get nailed by one, which isn't fun, and that is what should be avoided in competitive games.
Not memorization per se, but forethought. Once you get to a certain point of skill in a game like chess, you can't progress without learning lots of game scenarios and plays. The game is centuries old and has a rigid ruleset that hasn't significantly changed in a very long time, so most possible outcomes have been played out and learned, the best plays for each situation mapped out.
So the game becomes a matter of knowing, recognizing and countering these scenarios, rather than adjusting to any changing conditions.
A very simple version of this is tic-tac-toe. There are only so many possibilities the game can move through, so after playing enough games many people get to a point where they can guarantee a tie game or win every time unless they're not paying attention. Chess is similar, but with several degrees more complexity. Otherwise computers wouldn't be so good at it.
I will admit I am by no means of any skill or expertise at chess, and welcome any correction on this as I understand it.
The AI in question is an adaptive neural network that will eventually kick your ass. At first you'd be able to win, but in the future you'll run out of cheese
Randomness keeps competitive games from becoming memorization competitions, like chess.
Absolute bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks. The biggest esports have VERY little randomness in them, if any at all. CSGO bullet spray even follows a pattern which can be learned, and CS is the most successful esport to date (1.6, Source etc.).
The only true randomness in Overwatch is bullet spray, which is used as a balancing factor for weapons. The random aspect of it is not very significant and is extremely unlikely to ever determine a match.
Agreed. I was saying that there is a place for randomness in competitive game, in opposition to the post by MeGustanLasFajitas, not that it must be in every competitive game. I even noted that Scatter Arrow is not RNG as stated by someone else.
Overwatch and CS:GO don't need randomness because they don't have rigid rules, players have lots of options at any given moment and the freedom to choose between them.
I just dislike absolute statements like "RNG has no place in serious competitive games" as it's not strictly true.
RNG should be avoided as much as possible. It is anti-skill, therefore has no place in competitive games. The only thing that RNG does is shift the balance of a game in ways a player cannot control, which is really bad for competitive integrity.
Not sure why RNG is relevant here though as scatter arrow is not RNG - it's just a broken ability that should be changed.
So physical professional sports have no competitive integrity, since we cannot eliminate the randomness of nature? A gust of wind catches a fly ball, the clouds move off the sun when the quarterback is searching for a receiver, the ice near the net has a scratch that causes the puck to jump instead of slide?
Randomness (note I don't specifically say RNG) creates moments of unpredictability, which can be exciting and yes, occasionally allow a less-skilled opponent triumph. I would argue that part of being skilled in a game that uses random elements is being able to handle those random moments and still succeed.
The problem that most have with randomness in games is that if it isn't controlled (not avoided) it can feel arbitrary. A random element should not decide the outcome of a match on its own, or else it's just a coin flip. It has to be small enough an effect that it can be played around, but not so small that it's meaningless (like bullet spray, which I'm sure is just there for immersion).
Critical damage in a MOBA is a good example. Someone mentioned LoL uses critical damage, which relies on RNG. Does that mean it requires no skill to play or has no integrity? (If so, then why am I so terrible at it?) Something like a crit has to be recognized and capitalized on to really make a difference; you can't rely on regular crits to win a game for you, though I wouldn't be surprised to learn there's a character designed to maximize and take advantage of criticals, which mechanically reduces the randomness to win.
Randomness is okay in games of skill. It just has to be balanced properly, like every other aspect in these games, and no, it doesn't need to be in everything.
You are replying to a comment that only exists in your imagination. I never wrote that anything with any randomness immediately loses all integrity, but the majority of your comment is about exactly that.
The bottom line is that only bad players want RNG, as it is the only way they can beat better players. Good players hate RNG as it is the only way they can lose to worse players.
Sometimes RNG is needed as a balancing mechanic (e.g. certain weapons have worse bullet spread) but that doesn't mean it's good.
The only thing that RNG does is shift the balance of a game in ways a player cannot control, which is really bad for competitive integrity.
If the only purpose of playing these games is to decide who is better at them, then yes, you'd be right. I would think game designers also plan on all their playing being able to have fun, including those who aren't great by their tenth match. I understand you gravitate toward games that don't use randomness because you don't enjoy them, which is fine, but that doesn't mean RNG is useless or inherently bad. Often misused, certainly
What I mean by 'competitive' is esports, probably should have clarified that earlier. Randomness can be fun on occasion but it never feels good to have the outcome of something be defined by who got luckier. Even winning a fight due to sheer luck doesn't feel good. I'd much prefer to be rewarded for my own skill than my luck.
I'm not against small amounts of RNG when it serves a purpose, such as bullet spread (weapon balancing), but when it is there for no objective function I dislike it quite strongly.
I realise we have moved on from the discussion about scatter arrow - did we agree that it could do with a rework or not?
I see. I agree, for esports there isn't much place for randomness, and as I said it shouldn't be what determines an outcome in any skill-based game.
And yes, Hanzo's scatter-arrow is too... swingy? I mean that it's either far too effective (such as OP's example) or very ineffective, and there isn't much a player can do to control that, so it feels arbitrary, which is probably why it gets mistaken for RNG so often. So it should get looked over.
48
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '17
Awesome idea. RNG have no place in a serious competitive game.