Ludia Forums

Suggestions to change RNG

#1

Pretty sure the arguments against RNG aren’t going away now. As a proponent of RNG, I see the value, but I also see the value in attracting more players than losing them when one of the two primary goals of this game are to compete with other real players.

So to address the biggest offenders, I’d like to offer the following suggestions:

CLOAK

Currently: Cloak provides a 50% chance to dodge attacks completely for 2 turns, and greatly increases any attack made under cloak.

Change: Cloak provides a buff to reduce damage by 50% for 2 turns that cannot be removed by shield-destroying moves and does not directly affect the opponent like Distraction, and greatly increases any attack made under cloak.

EVASIVE STANCE

Currently: Gain 50% chance to Dodge direct damage for 3 turns.

Change: Gain 75% a damage reduction buff the first turn it is used, reducing to 50% and then 25% on the next two subsequent turns. This self-buff cannot be removed by shield-destroying moves and does not directly affect the opponent like Distraction.

EVASIVE STRIKE

Currently: Deal 1x damage. Gain 50% chance to Dodge direct damage for 1 turn.

Change: Deal 1x damage. Gain a 75% damage resistance buff for 1 turn.

The above suggestions remove the RNG of those moves and make them reliable, allowing for people to plan and strategise without worrying whether or not it’ll work

STUNNING ATTACKS

All stuns - whether instant, impact, or swap-in - are 100% guaranteed to stun a non-immune opponent.

However, no dinosaur can be stunned 2 turns in a row.

CRITICAL HITS

There should always be some form of strategic-upset and critical hits do a good job of it IF they are implemented correctly. Currently, they are not (testing has resulted in streaks and successive hits not realistically applicable to a 5% chance).

Change suggestion: eliminate all critical hit ability of dinosaurs with 5% critical hit. Keep anything above that, so that a non-zero chance adds that element of uncertainty, but not every dinosaur now carries that element and people can now value whether they like consistency or unpredictability in their damage-dealers.

7 Likes
#2

Where do i sign???
I have done the same suggestions in the past but in separate threads.
Its a must for a game to have RNG but we must try to a minimum so can play with tactics and not prays.

4 Likes
#3

awesome tips, I sign immediately !!!

1 Like
#4

#5

Nope,i prefere to keep RNG

1 Like
#6

Indominus will get benched tomorrow from many players as swap in nullifiers kick in. This way Cloak and Evasive will be less problematic. Otherwise have no problem with above suggestions.

Stuns shouldn’t be 100%. There would be a lot I’ll put my phone down, cause I’ll get stunned. And then RNG kicks in with opponent having stunners in team and you no immune dinos.

5% crits are annoying sometimes, but it would be boring soon without it. Even now is already boring repeating each time same opener, same moves… Those who rely on RNG to win matches will be crying for nerfs, cause they can’t win without crits.

#7

If this happen all dino with dodge chance will extinct

#8

#9

So do I.

But we’re apparently in the minority, and the game needs more people to thrive.

It’s not going to do us much good to have a fun random game when we’re eventually the only ones playing it.

#10

I think the game is based on probability since the begining!
I mean:you select 8 dino?You have 4 random dino choose to fight on those 8!
When you swap dino by a skill like impact and run,you don’t choose which dino is gonna replace it
In the fact,i think its absurd to get a dmg reduction in an evasive stance.

But there is a minor problem for me about the kind of “dice roll”,its clearly strange than stegodeus get sometime more critical hit than my T-rex!

#11

Considering Indominus is really not that bad an immune damage-dealer, I doubt it’ll be completely benched at lower levels. It still beats some of its equal-level counters if the player using it doesn’t give them a free hit with Cloak.

Stuns are already 66% or better. In theory, we should be able to reasonably count on them. What I actually do dislike is the fact that it’s possible with some dinosaurs to get chain-stunned. This already happens, so in part to curb over-stunning but to make things a bit more streamlined stuns should be 100% and no dinosaur can be stunned immediately following immediately after. I’ve also suggested that in addition to the immune dinosaurs, ceratopsians (the shield-heads) should be specifically immune to stuns, removing fast races to see who stuns whom in many cases and hopefully encouraging more diversity of dinosaur choices brought to the table.

5% crits, annoying or not, are entirely misrepresented. They are not happening at 5%; if they were, this wouldn’t be brought up. From my own testing twice now, they are happening at nearly 40% of the time on average. This is just too much, and until the algorithm used is tweaked to better reflect probability - which for some reason seems to be accurate for all other percentages - then 5% chances should be removed. This makes choosing a critical-damage-dealing dinosaur a more deliberate choice, since there are still a good handful of dinos with crit levels in the 20%+ range.

Further thoughts?

#12

If this happens all dinos with dodge chances will have drastically increased longevity unless they fight someone with nullifying attacks.

#13

The choose 4-of-8 randomization is sometimes infuriating, but ultimately necessary for this kind of game. We already have what’s effectively necessary to have at all times in our rosters at higher levels; to be able to choose our team of 4 would limit min-maxers to always and forever choose the exact same 4 (best) dinosaurs, leading to a lot of stagnation faster.

I do find it a little odd to have Impact and run swap in a random dinosaur; you’re just as likely to swap in a wounded fighter and lose a match, than swap in a ringer and win. I do feel maybe we should choose what’s coming out next.

Stegodeus does seem to have an oddly increased critical hit chance in tests, whether it was mine or opponents. It was one of the first offenders to make me redo my tests this summer to come to the conclusion that 5% is off.

#14

So you counted also all strike towers and friendlies for 5% crits?

I’m not trying to deny probability to crit is higher than 5% cause most likely it is, but it’s hard to believe it’s 40%.

I believe crits aren’t that easy to change. I would rather change 5% to 15% crits and 20% to 30% crits. Also maybe lower number of dinos with crit chances.

#15

No, my testing was all regular battles. 200 5% hit attacks were counted. I don’t have the excel sheet handy but it was something like really high 70s in crits of 200 of them, so yeah, close to 40%. Also noticed they very frequently came in streaks. Second time I did it was with 100 hits just two months ago and it was something like 39 hits of 100.

I think the most telling issue is that if you just changed the text on, say, Stegodeus to read “crit rate: 30%” it would actually be more believable even though nothing had technically changed.

#16

Agree with all except evasive strike, it should be 50% damage reduction, since technically, if rng actually dodged 50% of the time, it would be taking 50% of damage. Still removes the factor of luck