If I were to put Portnow's Postulate in more precise language, I'd say that the frustration caused by RNG is _proportional to_ potential time lost and chance of failure. That makes it clear that other factors (genre expectations, non-RNG design choices, recovery options, etc) also have an effect.
I feel like this postulate helps explain why Battle Royales work so well! There's a huge RNG factor in the first minute of the game because the weapons and equipment you'll find when you first land is random. But the RNG factor quickly drops as you survive and collect weapons you actually want to use in battle. By the end, there's basically zero RNG and therefore a really low frustration factor.
Hey, cool to see you there. Does the rate of occurence decrease the by same as the potential time lost increases? For example, if the time doubles, does the chance of failure antiproportionally half?
I appreciated that "still not a Dan" joke at the end a lot, because it made me feel like Matt has a lot of respect for Dan. You're doing a good job, Matt!
It wasn’t funny. It wasn’t bad. It wasn’t anything. It was just a pointless drawn out metaphor. It’s like saying newspaper comics give a nice hint of humor. No, they just make you feel empty inside.
4:35 This also explains why gambling is especially addictive to people with a lower income. Not only is it more frustrating to lose, winning a sum of money is more rewarding as to them the sum is relatively worth more. Thus increasing the risk and the excitement.
Did you watch the video Cody? Based on what we learned, it would be a logical conclusion to come to that the lower into poverty you are, the more frustrated you will be when you lose, as you needed the money that you wasted. In a rich family scenario however, they don't necessarily need all that extra cash, so the effects of a loss would not bother them quite as much. Although calling it an addiction may be a bit of a stretch in the case of social class, it is more likely that the poor are more prone to gambling due to human nature of attempting to take the easiest way out. Hope that explained it.
Not to mention that games of chance can be scaled to your income, so it doesn't matter if you have 10 dollars or 200,000 to spare, there's probably a game out there with the same amount of thrill factor.
gambling addiction is only noticed in low-income households, because a low-income gambling addict can't pay rent, and a high income gambling addict won't notice.
I agree, for some players, too much RNG can be disheartening. XCOM 2 drove me away more than a few times because a bad mission could set off a domino effect that lead to your doom, making you lose hours of progress after being bled dry. Since I am still trying to be better at strategy games, being sent back to square one and seeing how much work I need to put in just to get back to the interesting part just builds aggravation.
KaiserAfini maybe it's just me, but as I always expect the worse I never went into the domino effect because I never had more than 2 of my members die at any given time. And I always level up 3 squads to maximum so i can resplendish the losses and always be 100% ready for anything.
If you enjoyed the gameplay of XCOM but didn't like the RNG or permadeath (and own a Switch), you might want to give Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle a shot. Despite the silly premise the core mechanics are essentially the same, and it does a lot of fun things with movement and different weapon types that break away from the standard XCOM formula. Also, the RNG is substantially toned down: The chance of a shot hitting is either 100%, 50% or 0% depending on the enemy's cover, and the crit chance of a weapon is generally a flat multiple of 10% and (as far as I'm aware) always at least 30%. It's also substantially less juvenile than previous Rabbids games, which is a relief.
HPetch I need to get back to XCOM2 and finish it, I like to follow a game through to the end before making up my mind about it. But I feel an initial frustration barrier of "I have very little idea of what I am doing", which I need to overcome. You know, like how your first souls game is frustrating until you find a build that works for you ? Same thing, it has yet to click for me because this is not a genre I played much of, so pondering on where things started to derail does not always yield clear feedback.
Xcom2 made it worse with mission timers too. On one hand, it forces players to be more rash; they have to hurry. They can't crawl forward at their own pace ala Xcom: Enemy Unknown. But, if there is three rounds left and one of your soldiers miss a critical shot, even if you had a 98% chance to hit, you could fail the mission. Now that is something that caused me endless frustration. It was better in Xcom: Enemy Unknown, because when you had poor luck you had to rethink your strategy. Keep in mind this was written by someone who primarily play Xcom in ironman mode. I do think Xcom2 solved a lot of their issues with the extended mission timer with the expansion. Shame they created more issues due to endless npc banter though.
There are some big differences in the value of randomness based on target audience. While risk management can be a huge part of some games, randomness often benefits weaker players. Randomness allows a novice to snag the occasional lucky win on a slightly better player. This can be great for casual and party games, but for games where peak performance is very important, consistency may be preferred. In a speedrun, even a few seconds lost in a critical area could ruin a potential world record run. In a pro tournament, RNG could mean having the best player in the world losing thousands of dollars. On the other hand, esports can benefit as a spectator sport if a top player loses a game or two. Many tournaments do a series of games to reduce the impact of randomness. This means you still have the final outcome more likely to reflect the players' skills, but still let the lower level player win a game or two. You can sometimes even give settings to increase or decrease randomness. Look at Super Smash Bros. The inclusion of items (especially certain items) can add a lot of randomness to a game, but you can disable items, change the frequency at which the spawn, or selectively remove items from the pool. As a party game, you can throw all sorts of crazy items in while the pros can remove them entirely in tournaments.
Even for a game with a competitive scene, random elements are almost a necessity. Anyone who's ever played chess against someone who's way better at it can tell you that losing every single game is no fun at all. That sort of experience is likely to drive a new player away from a game entirely. Randomness giving the worse player a chance to win make it much easier to grow the playerbase, as new, bad players are less likely to get frustrated and quit.
but isn't the ability to read the randomness inaccessible to "weak players"? If there is a hint of complexity to the underlying system, randomness becomes a complicating factor, a strong one at that because we are pretty bad at evaluating odds on the fly. Meaning more hardcore players can actually use the odds in their favor while weak player just rely on gut feelings and chance. Sure the beginners have a chance, but the randomness adds tons of interesting problems for more experienced players to solve, so they benefit as well, just not only in winrate.
An interesting case for studying RNG's effects on pro play vs newb play can be seen in DRL (formerly Doom the Roguelike), with comparing normal play to the "Angel of Max Carnage" challenge mode. AoMC causes everything to do maximum damage and to only miss on a critical fail roll (17 or 18 on 3d6, which has roughly 2% chance of occurring). This is a pretty hard skill check on whether players can pay attention to their resources and employ most of the advanced tactics available. A skilled and vigilant player is guaranteed to win a full campaign of AoMC even in the event of astronomically bad RNG, because shotguns themselves do not have an accuracy check. You would still be hard pressed to find anyone who just bumbles their way into a victory, due to the AI employing ambushes and attacks that will shred through late game armor.
Looking at the Magic The Gathering Hall of Fame makes this abundantly clear. Most players in the HOF have surprisingly few (for someone not familiar with the game) major tournament wins. What you will find are a lot of players who almost always do well. This is because the effect of randomness on the outcome increases as the skill gap between the players decreases. You can win basically any tournament by being good and lucky, but you have to be elite to be in the top-8 with anything resembling consistency
Maxime Teppe Its still frustrating though when you use hypergeometric formula or whatever but good decision making increases your chances by 10%. Or when you lose 1/30000 roll you feel cheated with all your formulas.
No you see, N(D) means "Not(Dan)", because it's a measurement of the things that it is not, and the X-axis value is Dan because we want to measure its non-Dan-ness. What you are looking for is the Dan-ish coefficient, invented in 1974 by Joseph Stalin and immediately set on fire by the people of Copenhaguen for unrelated reasons.
Imagine if other sciences went by their equivalent of "Just playtest it" or "Go with your gut". Math? "Just sketch some stuff out"/"Go with what looks right". Astronomy? "Just watch the skies and see where the planets go"/"Go with your gut, man". Medicine? "Just send it to clinical trials." Or you could _literally_ go with the gut...eurgh.
Sorry man, I usually agree with you, but gaming is more of an art. You wouldn't criticize film for trying to prove that only x scenes can use y lighting, or in painting that all x type of picture must use y colour palette, just because a majority of people like those.
To be fair, you could say both of those are somewhat built into the scientific method (Making a hypothesis based on initial gut feeling, and testing it in experiments to see if it works).
I think that RNG formula definitely needs to diverge for single player vs multiplayer. There's that innate call for fairness against playing a human being that just compounds the salt from poor rng. (he got lucky AND I got unlucky)
Yes but the non-zero chance of absolutely soul crushing RNG-gone-wrong moments is what needs to be accounted for. (I personally -temporarily- stopped playing Pokemon after missing 5 _Thunderwaves_ in a row, a non-offensive support move having 10% chance of missing, since this happened over 3 matches my ladder rank plummeted)
BMVfilms, this happens in paper ccg's, too. That random factor is supposed to help balance the game. A phenomenal deck with an ace pilot does have the capability to lose to another player with a "lesser" deck. As much as I hate the phrase, it's the heart of the cards being an equalizer.
As much as we all miss Dan, I'm sure we'd all rather still have extra credits than the project end because he left. For this I thank you and the entire Extra Credits team.
What I would do with rare boss drops, is a "shard" system. like a boss might drop a rare weapon or item, but the chance is low. I make it so that the boss has a chance to drop the weapon, but is guranteed to drop a shard of that weapon. So by collecting enough shards, the player is guranteed to get the weapon after a set amount of tries, but there's also the excitement in the chance that you might get the rare item.
Evan Galea "At least you get something" is not a bad approach, especially if you specifically give them a path to get exactly what you're offering. But it will still inevitably lead to some frustration ("I'm tired of trying to get the item the easy way... Why doesn't it come up?") because you can't really avoid that. No matter how much you try to present something as something extra, if it's a known thing it will quickly turn into thinking why you're not getting it.
LOL Love that equation at the end. Your presenting voice has already improved dramatically in just a few episodes, and I'm sure the improvement will continue. I really liked the way Dan presented (especially the high-pitched thing), but even he got a lot better over time from the early days.
RNG in video games just means randomness, or something the player cannot control. typically, its used for RPGs like Dragon Quest or World of Warcraft, where you swing your sword and hit a slime for 10 damage the first time, but only 8 damage the second, and a critical strike for 26 damage the third time! lets say slimes only have 9 hp, so two of these slimes died in one hit, but one of them didnt. the Numbers were Randomly Generated based on your characters stats and gear. it was RNG. but other games like Cuphead or Super Mario dont have a lot of numbers to run. or even any numbers, really. none that i can see! but you never know what a boss is gonna do, theres no set pattern. its just... Random. so we call it RNG.
this is (primarily) a video game development channel. if you watch their videos and you don't know what rng is, chances are either you're new here or do not actually look into games or their design, and simply watch to be entertained and possibly educated
I watch to be entertained and usually educated ;) I am just a gamer who likes to learn. this is the first time that I need do some research to understand a video on this channel (I've been a subscriber for at least 2 years)
Hey, glad to hear you're taking feedback on your new role as the voice of Extra Credits, Matt! For what it's worth, I think you nailed it in this episode.
Pete Magnuson Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Which got me thinking: does a game level of complexity direct affect the importance of RNG? I mean, if there is always a clearly optimal move, there is a very high chance that RNG will decide the game. On the other hand, if the optimal move is often unclear, the probability of the game being decided on a bad move is much higher.
The thing is when we are talking about true randomness, there is no truely a-priory correct move. Without knowing for a fact what is going to happen, we cannot decide on a move that will win all the time, which is what I would consider a "correct" move. Of course in hindsight, once you do know the random variables, you can look back at the game and determine the optimal strategy for that game, but there is no guarantee this same strategy is gonna be optimal for the next game aswell. However in the context of games containing a random element, people will often lable the move that has the biggest potential for winning or the smales potential for loosing as the "right move", but even then we as players need to be aware that those kind of moves are not guaranteed to win, they will just increase the odds. In fact if games were designed in a way that made this kind of strategy one that always wins, it might provide a false sense of riskslessness and can be in a fundamental way very weird. Let's look at a simple example, say we have three playing cards, two red and one black, the game is simple: the cards are shuffeled each turn and the top card is flipped face up, but before that happens you need to call wether it will be a black or a red card, the game is played over three rounds and the cards are returned to the deck at the end of each round, you win if you get the top card correct at least 2 times. Now without knowing the top card, we cannot make a call that is correct 100% of the time, but we can go for the obvious choice and call red each turn (as the chance for having a red card at the top is 2/3). This is the strategy that will result in the highest chance to win, but you will still loose about 26% of those games. Is this too much randomness?
Something that has me enjoying Matt's new voice is that the writing style hasn't changed much. He adds a lot of great energy and as a precocious cat owner i enjoy the cat jokes. But if I really want to, I turn the speed up and can imagine Dan Prime saying the script too. If I really want to hear DP's voice, I have hundreds of videos to hinge rewatch. Keep being you, man.
I think RNG in game is fine if you don't pay for the RNG (cough paid lootboxes cough) and the drop is tradable I'm all in for lootboxes and random loot if it isn't paid with real money, and you can trade it with other players if you don't have the luck in farming it
I feel like the way Japanese developed games handle paid RNG loot is something that more Western developers should do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly, there's a federal law in Japan where random chance games have to have some level of guarantee. For example, the Mono Mono machine in Danganronpa tells you how many coins you have to put in the machine to tilt the odds of repeats in your favor. The same goes for mobile games where randomized prizes, paid or not, have to tell you whether you have a 50% or 75% chance of something happening and what you have to do to to tilt it in your favor. I much prefer semi-blindness to total blindness.
Different games for different audience. I hav no problem with Slay the spire as I feel my decisions matter and I still sometimes have to hope. But personally a lot of RNG is frustrating for me as I love to make strategic plays and having 6-12 Dmg without a crit ist agravating to me. RNG is a tool just like all other gameplay features. Knowing how and when to use it are important and so is the Frustration you are causing. So while I could say you are right(cause for you that may be true) it should only be used if needed and then with this equation in mind.
I don't see much potential in using RNG, but just noticed how fascinating it looks when applied to visuals and other assets which DO NOT interfer with game mechanics! I'll mention few impactful parts of the game where randomness can come in cost: loot, awards, fights, plot reveal, impactful decisions, time trials, meaningful puzzles, changes in locations, sometimes even the order in which dialogues appear on save reload (because it still breaks the fourth wall).
I really like Enter the Gungeons approach with the dodge roll and the blanks here, in that, even if you get yourself in a situation, where you can't possibly move out of the way of the bullets, the game gives you 2 tools to negate all damage, meaning that you can avoid something unavoidable. However, both of mechanics can't be spammed, so the game remains almost free of frustration throughout the whole experience.
That little ending bit was definitely enough for Matt to win me over. You may not be pitch shifted Dan but you give it your all and I greatly appreciate that.
What about when it is extremely grating when RNG screw you over repeatedly? Like you're playing a match in Pokemon and is sweeping your enemy until suddenly your Hydro Pump(acc 80%) starts to miss 2 times in a row, Rock Slide (acc 90%) also misses, and your last Pokemon gets flinchedhax to death from something that isn't even Serene Grace, costing you the match when strategically wise, you never picked a single wrong option?
Yeah, the amount of RNG in Pokemon is what makes competitive a shitshow, especially since doubles increases the number of RNG rolls every turn and the volatility is higher. I think that Fire Emblem did RNG well in modern games despite being an extremely punishing game in general. The 2RN (or Weighted 2RN in FE Fates) system evens out the RNG to closer to what a human would expect the payout would be, even if the displayed numbers aren't the correct percentages (which I should mention that HIT is never explicitly expressed as a percentage, only a number between 0 and 100).
For the most part, competitive Pokémon players avoid moves with less than 95% accuracy (Surf or Scald over Hydro Pump, Flamethrower over Fire Blast, etc.), and since Individual Values and Effort Values are more or less standardized, you can get a good idea of what will happen during a turn when you see which Pokémon are present. See an Alolan Ninetales with Snow Warning, and you can expect a first-turn Aurora Veil. The highest element of chance in high-level Pokémon battling is the lack of information about your opponent, particularly since critical hits do less damage than they used to. Pokémon like Salamence and Celesteela are dangerous less so for their stats and more so because they can execute several different strategies well, and thus the roll of the dice becomes what your opponent has chosen to do with them once you see they have them. That being said, I do prefer double battling for their volatility. Triples more so, but they were removed in Generation VII.
I gotta hand it to you, even though you (James) could have easily turned this series into a megaphone to broadcast your hypothesis and academics work to a wider audience than most game designers can even dream about; you haven't (much), so far at least. It's a very responsible and respectable choice, because this channel's reach means any single video could influence possibly millions of people's belief systems when it comes to games for a very long time. Although that being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a video on James' additions to the aesthetics of games list, I believe the only one you've told us is cultivation.
I love these theories that combine aspects of psychology and economics. Psychological economics? Economic psychology? It's something I find fascinating
I'm still sad that Dan left but I'm also very happy that Mat took over the narration. Love you guys. Do more history stuff like the one on Mary Seacole.
That's interesting. I remember that someone else claimed that Gary Gygax said that between 75% and 80% of rolls should succeed if the players want to feel proficient, but fallible. I wonder if it's possible to create a Portnow number for D&D campaigns.
Dunno. I haven't run the numbers on 5th but 4th (at launch) was 55%. An average character/bonuses/gear/enemy combo was successful on a 10 or higher for the whole game. Running a party of four (the design spec) meant everyone got to do something on their turn. An average monster taking average damage needed to be hit 4 times to be killed. Most of the math (again, at launch) did a pretty good job of expanding the fun zone of DnD which used to be 5-8ish level before most of the game kinda broke down. After launch? Power creep. Great googlymoogly the power creep.
Currently 5e keeps pretty close to the 55% area, but it isn't as tight as 4e (no minions for example means that a chump enemy might take more time than expected). Since the average check has a DC of 13-15 and the average bonus is +3 to +5 (if proficient), characters will generally succeed 50-60% of the time. The rate might be a bit higher in early levels as most combat DCs start at around 12 and increase slowly over the leveling process to a maximum of 18-20. By the time the DCs are that high the players usually have +7 to +9 bonuses if proficient, keeping roughly the same 50-60% chance. Outside of combat, Expertise skews these numbers. Expertise gives someone about a 15% increase in chances of success, giving classic skill-focused classes (Bard and Rogue) a boost outside of combat. As for the power creep, 5e seems to be reining it in. For now. (I haven't done all the math but this is pretty much what I've seen.)
I have been waiting for this episode literally since I found Extra Credits. Thank you for making it! The absolute worst RNG abuse I have ever seen has been from games where the player is extensively punished for out-of-player-control events. Some highlights for you... Many of the early Dragon Quest games have extremely RNG-centric battle engines where a party can be completely competent and still lose horribly against an enemy that a party 5 levels below them could theoretically wipe the floor with no problem. DQ games steal half your money on hand and warp you back to the last save point you used if you die, which stings quite a bit since it not only invalidates your time spent traveling, but also potentially takes more of your money than you actually earned during said progress (especially early on and in DQs without banks). Final Fantasy IX has some very big RNG issues, including the encounter rate engine (1 to 255 steps between battles) and the enemy attack system (most enemies have a handful of basically-ineffective attacks and one "rare" super-attack that is an order of magnitude more powerful than anything else they can use). Losing a battle in FFIX invalidates all progress since your last save via a game over, making it at least as bad as DQ (potentially worse if you're frugal with the banking system in DQ games). And finally, Terraria. Oh, Terraria... Every damn thing about enemies and events in that game is random: how many spawn, how often, when events take place, when the game decides it's going to throw super-enemies at you, literally every possible aspect of regular exploration is a constant series of dice-throws. You might wander for miles and see 2 enemies. You might find yourself bogged down in a non-event area with a never-ending wave of enemies from all sides for what feels like an eternity. You might suddenly find yourself killed in one hit by a "rare" enemy spawning right in front of you and attacking you without any chance to react. And when you die, what you lose can range from half your money (easy), all of your money and items (normal), or your entire save file (hardcore). In all cases, you're shot back to your last save point, just like DQ and FF9 (yes, even hardcore; you wander as a ghost). All of these games have insanely high frustration levels because of their RNGs. And yet, all of them are highly praised. Why? Because most people will never experience their frustration potential. But for the unlucky ones who do, they are awful, AWFUL games.
I am suddenly reminded of when Extra Credits first started and I loved everything about it except the RIDICULOUS HIGH PITCHED VOICE they chose to use. It grew on me as well. :)
This is an excellent lens to examine grind through - anything that counts as grind in a game (something the player is doing purely as a means to an end, like obtaining enough materials to build something) should be looked at in terms of time cost and frustration
I would like to mention the Hearthstone example would have a different frustration number. This is due to the "win streak bonuses" you can obtained and as your win streak increases the amount of stars(won games) gained increases. This could increase the value (taking how long the winstreak took) or decrease it (not attributing one star to one win)
I liked that little joke at the end. I think you're really starting to hit your stride, dude! You really shine when you put personality into your work. Keep doing what you're doing, you're doing great!
In engineering, you can control only what you can mesure. So this video is really usefull for aplying a good method on working with RNG. Nice video! ^^
Dear Extra Credits, I love this series. It is a wonderful tool for learning the concept I need, but otherwise wouldn't know to ask or look for. Please consider defining terms like RNG or whale, maybe by referencing privious videos where its available. I know it would be a great help for those not already invested in the profession or series. On this occasion I found myself googling RNG and hoping it was correct over following a link to one of you other videos. I have gotten lost for hours in the series before following such an exciting trail. I hope this is helpful. Thank you again for making these videos. They are priceless to me.
This Equation is amazing. As a Speedrunner THIS is what really made me think. Losing a run over RNG happens regurlarly, and this formula explained why many people are way more frustrated than others. This is amazing and can describe a speedgame near the masterlevel with a good RNG-Value something I was looking for, for a long time.
To me, RNG is too much RNG when it breaks the laws of common sense to screw you. Modern XCOM/Battletech RNG is too much RNG. Classic X-Com RNG was good because projectiles were actually present in the game and went on a path, meaning that it wasn't possible to miss point blank, because the bullet couldn't go backwards or at a 90 degree angle into the ground when aiming horizontally.
That's arguably more a problem with the visualization, though, rather than the core design. Missing a shot point blank in XCOM could be reasonably justified by saying the gun jammed or the bullet bounced off a thick point in the armor. It'd be a nice touch for turn based tactics games to have different animations for an improbable miss, though it's easy to see why the cost might be deemed unacceptable.
Anything with a percentile or diceish system will be like that. In Morrowind if you had no points in Blades you could watch your sword hit an enemy and be told you missed or did no damage. I made that mistake once and spent 20 minutes trying to kill a mudcrab with a dagger.
The RNG in XCOM and Battletech does screws with you but if you lose a mission because of a dice roll then you made a mistake as a commander somewhere during the mission. While, you rarely miss with a lethal injection in the original X-Com, your rookie's stats are a toss up and so is overwatch. I've lost plenty of rookies because a sectoid walked out of a door, shoots someone watching the door, then walk back inside.
First point: In the beginning this video was really confusing, but by the end I found it really interesting. Second point: I've been with this channel for a very long time and Dan was absolutely an integral part of each video. That being said, Matt I feel you have not only held up the standard of Dan's position, but you have also made it your own. I think you were a great choice to fill in Dan's shoes and I am looking forward to the future of this channel with you being it's voice.
Personally, I wish more games used RNG with memory rather than "pure" RNG. By that I mean that the RNG keeps track of how often it paid out and adjusts itself to keep the RNG triggers somewhat consistent. DOTA 2 does this, for example. If you didn't land that crit a bunch of times in a row, the probability for getting it increases to make sure that you don't feel like you keep getting screwed over. People don't have a very good instictive understanding of pure randomness and it just feels really bad when you miss a 50% hit 6 times in a row.
Pinball does this, actually. Most pinball machines made from the mid-80's and onward have what's called "random awards" (the developers have official terms, but they trademarked them), in which the game draws from a list of bonuses and gives the player one. Each machine keeps track of how many of each award it's given out since it last powered up and checks it against the intended probabilities of each award as programmed into the game. It'll then try to pick something that's come up less often than intended. Digital remakes of Fish Tales are well known among those who play it for giving out extra balls like candy, for instance. This is because Fish Tales checks to see when the last time it was it gave out an extra ball and makes it increasingly likely the longer it's been. When you start up a digital version of Fish Tales, that counts as the machine having been turned on. It sees an infinite amount of time has passed since its last extra ball, and as a result, you get a 100% chance of that extra ball on your first random award.
Hey, super interesting and informative video! Do you think it's intentional for game designers that Grinders experience the greatest frustration due to RNG, relative to the other two categories of players you mentioned? Since Grinders make up the largest proportion of a free-to-play game's player base, it makes sense for (profit-seeking) designers to *want* to frustrate these players, to the point that they begin considering putting money down to advance in the game. It's a risky move, though, since that has the potential to make players opt out of playing the game altogether. My guess is that a player's level of commitment to the game, plus other dispositional factors, could help to predict an individual player's decision to either make a micro-transaction or leave the game entirely.
Unfortunately it's very intentional, and the #1 reason why I try to avoid "free to play" games these days. Going "free to play" affects the core design of the game, because you want to prod people into paying money, because that's how you make money. Also because publishers are pushing for long term games that last years and years. This makes such games an excruciating grind unless you're willing to fork over the money.
I think that is a very dangerous line. You could argue that changing x% of Grinders to Payers is worth loosing y% of Grinders since they would have never paid any money anyway. The Problem here is the shrinking playerbase as a whole. Since Grinders make up most of it they usually also contribute (and consume) the biggest portion of all content that is based around your game. So loosing ANY player usually results in a worse experience for all other players which could easily snowball for a smaller game.
I think Heartstone used to be good to both grinders who consistently played and the ones who went on frustration break, I don't know it it is true anymore though. At some point in my experience I felt like new sets pretty much just read "counters everything older them me, keep up scrub" instead of adding to the experience as a whole and rebalancing the game.
@Michael Woods Basically for most of its existence - you can spend months and months grinding for high tier tanks. I eventually stopped playing that game, and that was more than a year ago.
While F2P design limits your design choices, not every F2P has to be "pay to win". Most games are designed to make money in a very short timespan, not to keep people playing. I think, Fallout Shelter did it really, really well. People who are playing a game for a long time and enjoying it are becoming more likely to invest in the game over time.
This feels a bit reductive. The equation provided here might be useful, but it really only adds one minor tool to the set of ways to analyze randomness. The calculation/estimation of the values which are put into the equation seems more important than the actual resulting value. Finally, this fails to take into account the value of play time which does not end in a win state. Not all games have win states and not all games intend for the player to regularly reach that win state. Dwarf fortress being a good examples of a game where this calculation will yield misleadingly huge frustration coefficients.
Even though Dan's voice in the show was a formative part of my youth and I was said that he had to step down, I'm glad that Matt is here to take up the mantle. You go Matt, keep being awesome.
sethraptor one random crit will most likely not change the outcome of a match. Problem being that they are a source of great frustration and they scale off the damage you make, thus if you are doing well you have an even greater chance at popping a random crit at anyone who tries to end your streak
a random crit resulting in an undeserving kill (which not every random crit is) is unlikely to change the result of a match. Crit weapons and buffs are not random, and yes I should have written "random crits" instead of just "crits".
RNG is a fickle mistress. It can feel incredible when it all works in your favor, but crushing when they turn against you. I really liked this analysis on it. Also, that ending joke was pretty great.
it's really cool when you start playing Slay the spyre you feel the game is very reliant on RNG, but slowly (at least i did) you realize you can manipulate your deck more than you would initially think, allowing for a more controlled and strategic aproach, and when it works, it is inmensely satisfying
I really like one of the design decision abbey games made for Renowned Explorers - when calculating damage, RNG can only make you deal a tiny bit more damage than the amount displayed before making a shot. Thanks to this, you only get positive RNG stories, while it's still rare enough that you can't really count on it while making tactical decisions.
Herp Derpingson x-com's rng is an oddity. It is rather cruel, but it also won't break the game because to a good player that's not going to lose the match. But building a replacement soldier costs do much too. But as you gear up losing them is also less likely... Well, there's the mess!
This is because Xcom series are TRUE random games. In Xcom 2 you actually have 30% chance to hit, in any other game each time you don't hit that chance actually increases without it being told to you
If you are loosing campaigns to rng, you are not prepared to face that difficulty level. It would indicate that you are either stumbling too much on the field, don't have your priorities straight at home base or on the world map.
It does, and the game does favor the player, in this sense: most monsters have lower base aim values than leveled soldiers. Their high health pools make for a paradigm were everyone of their hits on you is felt more than the hits you land on them, but you get more shots in. Proper engagement usually gives you numerical advantage too, which tips that action economy in your favor. That in perspective, xcom plays surprisingly like d&d
As soon as I heard the narrator say "do what your gut tells ya" I knew I needed to hear an entire extra video with that voice alone. Matt if you could do this I will do something possibly
... I feel like you've slowed down since the first video you've taken, which I totally appreciate! It's so much easier to pay attention (audio-processing disorder), and it'll be so nice to use them in classes (because I'm bringing video games into my lit class).
Emmanuel Vargas Thanks for your quick response! I’m not an artist so if you are to create the image I will trust in your skill. Thanks so much for being part of my favorite channel!
I was really hoping y'all would talk about Gwent with this! It advertised itself as leaving less to rng than most other card games, but that lack of rng actually ended up causing other frustrations like particular decks being nearly unbeatable, one or two cases of rng deciding entire games (the coin flip for who has to go first being a big one) and a certain level of staleness for many strategies. Currently they're totally rebuilding the game from the ground up to address many of these concerns; I'm excited to see what they come up with.
Honestly in most paradox games RNG nearly always only matters if your troops aren't significantly different to your enemies, which isn't hard to do. Stack some modifiers, and you're good to go, RNG or not.
I only see a real problem with EU4's RNG when your 32 year old 6 6 6 ruler dies and is replaced by that 15 year old 1 1 1 ruler who will live on to be 80. But that can spice your game up a bit :)
Is this Portnow's Postulate really that important? Shouldn't we just be reducing RNG frustration across the board plain and simple? Like, I think there are more important things to discuss or teach people around RNG. For example, there's the principle of RNG inputs and deterministic outputs. Many procedural games, show this principle. They present you with a randomly generated situations but how you work your way through it is up to you. The game Into the Breach is a shining example of this, with random enemy combinations in islands, and random spawns. But despite this, there is no randomness in your attacks and movements. This way, RNG brings diversity in challenges but it is rarely, if ever, the reason for a loss. We should also focus on how we present RNG. Players should be able to see or at least easily calculate important probabilities.
"Shouldn't we just be reducing RNG frustration across the board plain and simple?" I wouldn't really say that. RNG frustration, at least how it's defined in this video, is integral to many of my favorite games. Games like Slay the Spire, Darkest Dungeon, Don't Starve, Rimworld, Dwarf Fortress, etc wouldn't be nearly the same without mechanics that increase this. I'm personally a huge fan of games that throw random hurdles at me, and I have to manage to keep things together as well as I can manage. Maybe this postulate would be better off using the term "RNG stress", rather than "RNG frustration", since for some games (like Rimworld and DF especially), the eventual collapse into catastrophe at the hands of RNG is most of the fun.
Lynte Eyet It's not that people are looking for a certain amount of RNG frustration in of itself. It's just a side effect to wanting to use randomness in general for whatever reason (balance, variance, beginner friendliness, etc.).
In college I am part of ACM Sig-Game. Every semester, we make a game that people code AI to play. This is a 24-hour code Jam competition. Due to this, we minimize RNG. We mirror our maps and run AI through tons of games to make sure a lucky spawn didn't determine the winner. We even give the AI perfect information and make everything constant during play. 24 hours is a lot of time to lose due to RNG.
This idea warrants testing. (Which for those that do not know means is something very interesting that needs to be explored more to see if it can be used as a useful tool when it comes to game design. I would gladly test the idea and write a paper on it if I had a research grant do so. sounds like a interesting concept to test.)
I never ask my gut for advice. It never comes with any good suggestions. Which is not so odd as it actually lacks a brain... But yeah. You want to figure how thing actually do work. The scientific method. ^_^
Here's an RNG for Python: def diceroll(): print("Enter number of die sides") s=int(input("Number of sides:")) print("You rolled:") print (randint(1,s)) return()
you don't need to return from a function that isn't returning anything, it does that automatically. Also, you don't need to use braclets after the return statement, it's a key word, not a funtion.
This video really puts into perspective why I've hated gambling so much, seeing how every time I've been offered a round it was while I was making very little money.
Have you seen Keith Burgun's work? the one about classifying randomness into two groups (input and output randomness)and putting them in opposite ends of a spectrum? I find that take very interesting
Zoe has returned!!! No seriously guys, y'all are doing an awesome job with this transition, and I am so happy with all the new content y'all have produced. : )
Overwatch kill cam is an example of a mechanic that greatly diminish frustration... because it gives the player a small info advantage and in some cases, it even converts it on a positive feeling (like funny/unlikely kills)
This kind of reminds me of XCOM. A lot of people hate XCOM because you can lose soldiers, missions, and even entire squads to RNG. And it can be especially frustrating in late game ironman. But to me, that's the fun. While I'm sure I'm wrong about this, I think that XCOM's central design philosophy is risk/harm management. So, when you start a mission, you advance and position your soldiers in such a way so as to minimize risks. You cover sight lines, you bounce between pieces of cover, you do everything you can to give yourself the best odds possible when you enter an encounter. And when you do enter an encounter, you again engage in threat management. How many risks are you willing to take? Is that 74% worth taking? What'll you do if you miss? What is the worst case scenario for this one turn? Should you open fire, or hunker down for survival? Should you risk a charge and flanking shot, or fall back, and let the aliens walk right into your overwatch trap? And when things do inevitably go to hell, what then? If your medic goes down, do you retreat and evac the survivors? How many dead soldiers is TOO many for the mission to no longer be worth it? Even when things go wrong in XCOM, your potential responses only grow, creating amazing counterplay.
When is RNG *too much* RNG?
Getting alternative moves in Smash Bros Wii U.
Have you watch any wot RNG videos ?
You should ask people who play Fate/Grand Order. They'll tell you "all" about RNG being too much.
If I were to put Portnow's Postulate in more precise language, I'd say that the frustration caused by RNG is _proportional to_ potential time lost and chance of failure. That makes it clear that other factors (genre expectations, non-RNG design choices, recovery options, etc) also have an effect.
Ff 14 atma grind or yokai event....
I feel like this postulate helps explain why Battle Royales work so well! There's a huge RNG factor in the first minute of the game because the weapons and equipment you'll find when you first land is random. But the RNG factor quickly drops as you survive and collect weapons you actually want to use in battle. By the end, there's basically zero RNG and therefore a really low frustration factor.
Could you do a video on RNG in real life?
TierZoo, I recently found your channel and now I’m seeing your comments on every channel I watch. That means we must be friends, right?
Hi TierZoo, love your channel.
Hey, cool to see you there.
Does the rate of occurence decrease the by same as the potential time lost increases? For example, if the time doubles, does the chance of failure antiproportionally half?
oh cool you're here too.
RNG video when?
I appreciated that "still not a Dan" joke at the end a lot, because it made me feel like Matt has a lot of respect for Dan. You're doing a good job, Matt!
That last equation, lol
Brilliant!
+Adrienne Gromley
Yeah, Not-Dan is quite funny.
I read the end of that as "Zoe takes hatpin or claws and punctures her Daddy's ego"
It's good to see that they still have that EC sense of humor.
I think you're going to fit in nicely Matt.
I like the hint of humor at the end. It adds a nice touch
It wasn’t funny. It wasn’t bad. It wasn’t anything. It was just a pointless drawn out metaphor. It’s like saying newspaper comics give a nice hint of humor. No, they just make you feel empty inside.
We are already dead Fam i was about to ask if you ok but then read yo name.
Oh mate.
IHateNumbersOnNames Or maybe you need funnier friends.
dark humor doesn't not make funnier friend
Neoshaman Fulgurant Doesn’t have to be dark. Just not a Garfield comic.
I, for one, have finally decided that Not-Dan is OK.
Next phase, remembering Not-Dan's given name. ;)
Patrick Waddingham needs to pitch shift still ;p
Patrick Waddingham
His name is Matt. Matthew Krol. It's in the credits... the Extra Credits credits. ;)
The best part is that Matthew knows he isnt Dan, and can joke about it
I'm pretty sure it's the same as my name and i can't even remember it.
+Jessie TheMedic he really does, it's gives EC taht much needed edge from the swathes of other channels out there
4:35 This also explains why gambling is especially addictive to people with a lower income. Not only is it more frustrating to lose, winning a sum of money is more rewarding as to them the sum is relatively worth more. Thus increasing the risk and the excitement.
Pretty sure gambling effects mostly all people equally, regardless of their level of poverty. At least last time I checked? Do you have sources?
Did you watch the video Cody? Based on what we learned, it would be a logical conclusion to come to that the lower into poverty you are, the more frustrated you will be when you lose, as you needed the money that you wasted. In a rich family scenario however, they don't necessarily need all that extra cash, so the effects of a loss would not bother them quite as much. Although calling it an addiction may be a bit of a stretch in the case of social class, it is more likely that the poor are more prone to gambling due to human nature of attempting to take the easiest way out. Hope that explained it.
Not to mention that games of chance can be scaled to your income, so it doesn't matter if you have 10 dollars or 200,000 to spare, there's probably a game out there with the same amount of thrill factor.
gambling addiction is only noticed in low-income households, because a low-income gambling addict can't pay rent, and a high income gambling addict won't notice.
Depends whether the individual is risk-loving or risk-averse. Most economists concur that people are generally risk-averse on par.
"Divided by Still Not A Dan"
Lmao That ending killed me
Divided by still not a Dan...
XD
That last bit was great.
What did math ever do for us anyway? *looking at the series that just finished about non-Euclidean geometry*
*Noneuclidean geometry*
Pray to rngesus
ameno
Damn, missed a 87% again, why hast thou forsaken me?
as ruthless as he is merciful
Beer By The Numbers We must remember that he died for our procedurally generated sins
Chris East That's XCOM, baby!
I agree, for some players, too much RNG can be disheartening. XCOM 2 drove me away more than a few times because a bad mission could set off a domino effect that lead to your doom, making you lose hours of progress after being bled dry. Since I am still trying to be better at strategy games, being sent back to square one and seeing how much work I need to put in just to get back to the interesting part just builds aggravation.
KaiserAfini maybe it's just me, but as I always expect the worse I never went into the domino effect because I never had more than 2 of my members die at any given time. And I always level up 3 squads to maximum so i can resplendish the losses and always be 100% ready for anything.
If you enjoyed the gameplay of XCOM but didn't like the RNG or permadeath (and own a Switch), you might want to give Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle a shot. Despite the silly premise the core mechanics are essentially the same, and it does a lot of fun things with movement and different weapon types that break away from the standard XCOM formula. Also, the RNG is substantially toned down: The chance of a shot hitting is either 100%, 50% or 0% depending on the enemy's cover, and the crit chance of a weapon is generally a flat multiple of 10% and (as far as I'm aware) always at least 30%. It's also substantially less juvenile than previous Rabbids games, which is a relief.
HPetch I need to get back to XCOM2 and finish it, I like to follow a game through to the end before making up my mind about it. But I feel an initial frustration barrier of "I have very little idea of what I am doing", which I need to overcome. You know, like how your first souls game is frustrating until you find a build that works for you ? Same thing, it has yet to click for me because this is not a genre I played much of, so pondering on where things started to derail does not always yield clear feedback.
*_95%_*
Xcom2 made it worse with mission timers too. On one hand, it forces players to be more rash; they have to hurry. They can't crawl forward at their own pace ala Xcom: Enemy Unknown. But, if there is three rounds left and one of your soldiers miss a critical shot, even if you had a 98% chance to hit, you could fail the mission. Now that is something that caused me endless frustration. It was better in Xcom: Enemy Unknown, because when you had poor luck you had to rethink your strategy.
Keep in mind this was written by someone who primarily play Xcom in ironman mode. I do think Xcom2 solved a lot of their issues with the extended mission timer with the expansion. Shame they created more issues due to endless npc banter though.
I want to like this video twice for that joke at the end
There are some big differences in the value of randomness based on target audience. While risk management can be a huge part of some games, randomness often benefits weaker players. Randomness allows a novice to snag the occasional lucky win on a slightly better player. This can be great for casual and party games, but for games where peak performance is very important, consistency may be preferred. In a speedrun, even a few seconds lost in a critical area could ruin a potential world record run. In a pro tournament, RNG could mean having the best player in the world losing thousands of dollars.
On the other hand, esports can benefit as a spectator sport if a top player loses a game or two. Many tournaments do a series of games to reduce the impact of randomness. This means you still have the final outcome more likely to reflect the players' skills, but still let the lower level player win a game or two.
You can sometimes even give settings to increase or decrease randomness. Look at Super Smash Bros. The inclusion of items (especially certain items) can add a lot of randomness to a game, but you can disable items, change the frequency at which the spawn, or selectively remove items from the pool. As a party game, you can throw all sorts of crazy items in while the pros can remove them entirely in tournaments.
Even for a game with a competitive scene, random elements are almost a necessity. Anyone who's ever played chess against someone who's way better at it can tell you that losing every single game is no fun at all. That sort of experience is likely to drive a new player away from a game entirely. Randomness giving the worse player a chance to win make it much easier to grow the playerbase, as new, bad players are less likely to get frustrated and quit.
but isn't the ability to read the randomness inaccessible to "weak players"? If there is a hint of complexity to the underlying system, randomness becomes a complicating factor, a strong one at that because we are pretty bad at evaluating odds on the fly. Meaning more hardcore players can actually use the odds in their favor while weak player just rely on gut feelings and chance.
Sure the beginners have a chance, but the randomness adds tons of interesting problems for more experienced players to solve, so they benefit as well, just not only in winrate.
An interesting case for studying RNG's effects on pro play vs newb play can be seen in DRL (formerly Doom the Roguelike), with comparing normal play to the "Angel of Max Carnage" challenge mode. AoMC causes everything to do maximum damage and to only miss on a critical fail roll (17 or 18 on 3d6, which has roughly 2% chance of occurring). This is a pretty hard skill check on whether players can pay attention to their resources and employ most of the advanced tactics available. A skilled and vigilant player is guaranteed to win a full campaign of AoMC even in the event of astronomically bad RNG, because shotguns themselves do not have an accuracy check. You would still be hard pressed to find anyone who just bumbles their way into a victory, due to the AI employing ambushes and attacks that will shred through late game armor.
Looking at the Magic The Gathering Hall of Fame makes this abundantly clear. Most players in the HOF have surprisingly few (for someone not familiar with the game) major tournament wins. What you will find are a lot of players who almost always do well. This is because the effect of randomness on the outcome increases as the skill gap between the players decreases. You can win basically any tournament by being good and lucky, but you have to be elite to be in the top-8 with anything resembling consistency
Maxime Teppe Its still frustrating though when you use hypergeometric formula or whatever but good decision making increases your chances by 10%. Or when you lose 1/30000 roll you feel cheated with all your formulas.
Not pitchshifted enough, and I can't help but notice the N(D) coefficient still equals 1.
But you see it is a -1.
No you see, N(D) means "Not(Dan)", because it's a measurement of the things that it is not, and the X-axis value is Dan because we want to measure its non-Dan-ness. What you are looking for is the Dan-ish coefficient, invented in 1974 by Joseph Stalin and immediately set on fire by the people of Copenhaguen for unrelated reasons.
Imagine if other sciences went by their equivalent of "Just playtest it" or "Go with your gut".
Math? "Just sketch some stuff out"/"Go with what looks right".
Astronomy? "Just watch the skies and see where the planets go"/"Go with your gut, man".
Medicine? "Just send it to clinical trials." Or you could _literally_ go with the gut...eurgh.
Sometimes science is more art than science Timothy. A lot of people don't get that.
Sorry man, I usually agree with you, but gaming is more of an art. You wouldn't criticize film for trying to prove that only x scenes can use y lighting, or in painting that all x type of picture must use y colour palette, just because a majority of people like those.
For math and astronomy, that is literally how it used to be done until very recently (last 250 years or so)
To be fair, you could say both of those are somewhat built into the scientific method (Making a hypothesis based on initial gut feeling, and testing it in experiments to see if it works).
The difference between those things and game design is that game design is an art
I think that RNG formula definitely needs to diverge for single player vs multiplayer. There's that innate call for fairness against playing a human being that just compounds the salt from poor rng. (he got lucky AND I got unlucky)
Also account for the exponentially greater frustration caused by losing something that has a higher chance of success
Rew Rose Less people get fustrated though as the success rate gets higher
Yes but the non-zero chance of absolutely soul crushing RNG-gone-wrong moments is what needs to be accounted for.
(I personally -temporarily- stopped playing Pokemon after missing 5 _Thunderwaves_ in a row, a non-offensive support move having 10% chance of missing, since this happened over 3 matches my ladder rank plummeted)
It's just really hard to gauge which players actually know that is true and from the ones who were overconfident and are just spewing toxin.
BMVfilms, this happens in paper ccg's, too. That random factor is supposed to help balance the game. A phenomenal deck with an ace pilot does have the capability to lose to another player with a "lesser" deck. As much as I hate the phrase, it's the heart of the cards being an equalizer.
"... still not a Dan."
I wish more people possessed your level of self - awareness XD
As much as we all miss Dan, I'm sure we'd all rather still have extra credits than the project end because he left. For this I thank you and the entire Extra Credits team.
What I would do with rare boss drops, is a "shard" system. like a boss might drop a rare weapon or item, but the chance is low. I make it so that the boss has a chance to drop the weapon, but is guranteed to drop a shard of that weapon. So by collecting enough shards, the player is guranteed to get the weapon after a set amount of tries, but there's also the excitement in the chance that you might get the rare item.
Evan Galea "At least you get something" is not a bad approach, especially if you specifically give them a path to get exactly what you're offering. But it will still inevitably lead to some frustration ("I'm tired of trying to get the item the easy way... Why doesn't it come up?") because you can't really avoid that. No matter how much you try to present something as something extra, if it's a known thing it will quickly turn into thinking why you're not getting it.
this is basically like dungeon currencies
Huge kudos for leaning in with the joke at the end. Shows some real class and instills me in confidence for you going forward. Well played, Matt.
Y'know what Matt? I was honestly very upset over your _'not Dan'_ -ness, but that last bit *made my day~!*
LOL Love that equation at the end. Your presenting voice has already improved dramatically in just a few episodes, and I'm sure the improvement will continue. I really liked the way Dan presented (especially the high-pitched thing), but even he got a lot better over time from the early days.
RNG = random number generator/ion
I had to stop the video to look for the answer. So I put it here so that you don't have to. ;)
RNG in video games just means randomness, or something the player cannot control. typically, its used for RPGs like Dragon Quest or World of Warcraft, where you swing your sword and hit a slime for 10 damage the first time, but only 8 damage the second, and a critical strike for 26 damage the third time! lets say slimes only have 9 hp, so two of these slimes died in one hit, but one of them didnt. the Numbers were Randomly Generated based on your characters stats and gear. it was RNG.
but other games like Cuphead or Super Mario dont have a lot of numbers to run. or even any numbers, really. none that i can see! but you never know what a boss is gonna do, theres no set pattern. its just... Random. so we call it RNG.
this is (primarily) a video game development channel. if you watch their videos and you don't know what rng is, chances are either you're new here or do not actually look into games or their design, and simply watch to be entertained and possibly educated
Tom Jackal What?
I watch to be entertained and usually educated ;)
I am just a gamer who likes to learn. this is the first time that I need do some research to understand a video on this channel (I've been a subscriber for at least 2 years)
That's sorta the point of the channel, isn't it? He learned something new here, so goal achieved, right?
Hey, glad to hear you're taking feedback on your new role as the voice of Extra Credits, Matt! For what it's worth, I think you nailed it in this episode.
Too much randomness is when you make all the right moves and still lose.
Or make all the wrong moves and win.
hmm, what happens if both players make all the right moves? is one of them not right enough?
Pete Magnuson Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Which got me thinking: does a game level of complexity direct affect the importance of RNG? I mean, if there is always a clearly optimal move, there is a very high chance that RNG will decide the game. On the other hand, if the optimal move is often unclear, the probability of the game being decided on a bad move is much higher.
The thing is when we are talking about true randomness, there is no truely a-priory correct move. Without knowing for a fact what is going to happen, we cannot decide on a move that will win all the time, which is what I would consider a "correct" move. Of course in hindsight, once you do know the random variables, you can look back at the game and determine the optimal strategy for that game, but there is no guarantee this same strategy is gonna be optimal for the next game aswell.
However in the context of games containing a random element, people will often lable the move that has the biggest potential for winning or the smales potential for loosing as the "right move", but even then we as players need to be aware that those kind of moves are not guaranteed to win, they will just increase the odds. In fact if games were designed in a way that made this kind of strategy one that always wins, it might provide a false sense of riskslessness and can be in a fundamental way very weird.
Let's look at a simple example, say we have three playing cards, two red and one black, the game is simple: the cards are shuffeled each turn and the top card is flipped face up, but before that happens you need to call wether it will be a black or a red card, the game is played over three rounds and the cards are returned to the deck at the end of each round, you win if you get the top card correct at least 2 times. Now without knowing the top card, we cannot make a call that is correct 100% of the time, but we can go for the obvious choice and call red each turn (as the chance for having a red card at the top is 2/3). This is the strategy that will result in the highest chance to win, but you will still loose about 26% of those games. Is this too much randomness?
Sometimes that's just life though.
Something that has me enjoying Matt's new voice is that the writing style hasn't changed much. He adds a lot of great energy and as a precocious cat owner i enjoy the cat jokes. But if I really want to, I turn the speed up and can imagine Dan Prime saying the script too. If I really want to hear DP's voice, I have hundreds of videos to hinge rewatch. Keep being you, man.
I think RNG in game is fine if you don't pay for the RNG (cough paid lootboxes cough) and the drop is tradable
I'm all in for lootboxes and random loot if it isn't paid with real money, and you can trade it with other players if you don't have the luck in farming it
So you would love to play a game that is nothing but skill, until the last boss, which can only be defeated by good RNG?
Elijah Miller The game doesn't necessarily need a last boss.
I feel like the way Japanese developed games handle paid RNG loot is something that more Western developers should do.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly, there's a federal law in Japan where random chance games have to have some level of guarantee. For example, the Mono Mono machine in Danganronpa tells you how many coins you have to put in the machine to tilt the odds of repeats in your favor. The same goes for mobile games where randomized prizes, paid or not, have to tell you whether you have a 50% or 75% chance of something happening and what you have to do to to tilt it in your favor. I much prefer semi-blindness to total blindness.
Different games for different audience.
I hav no problem with Slay the spire as I feel my decisions matter and I still sometimes have to hope.
But personally a lot of RNG is frustrating for me as I love to make strategic plays and having 6-12 Dmg without a crit ist agravating to me. RNG is a tool just like all other gameplay features. Knowing how and when to use it are important and so is the Frustration you are causing.
So while I could say you are right(cause for you that may be true) it should only be used if needed and then with this equation in mind.
Slay the spire is too much rng for me. If the RNG says you lose, you lose. Playing well makes you safer, but theres still room for bs.
I don't see much potential in using RNG, but just noticed how fascinating it looks when applied to visuals and other assets which DO NOT interfer with game mechanics! I'll mention few impactful parts of the game where randomness can come in cost: loot, awards, fights, plot reveal, impactful decisions, time trials, meaningful puzzles, changes in locations, sometimes even the order in which dialogues appear on save reload (because it still breaks the fourth wall).
I really like Enter the Gungeons approach with the dodge roll and the blanks here, in that, even if you get yourself in a situation, where you can't possibly move out of the way of the bullets, the game gives you 2 tools to negate all damage, meaning that you can avoid something unavoidable. However, both of mechanics can't be spammed, so the game remains almost free of frustration throughout the whole experience.
Jonas Wizard
Except when you fight the ammoconda/mine flayer/high priest,
Most annoying bosses in the entire game
That little ending bit was definitely enough for Matt to win me over. You may not be pitch shifted Dan but you give it your all and I greatly appreciate that.
Don't be to hard on yourself, you're going a great job!!
"divided by still no Dan"
How dare you, kitten? :D
What about when it is extremely grating when RNG screw you over repeatedly? Like you're playing a match in Pokemon and is sweeping your enemy until suddenly your Hydro Pump(acc 80%) starts to miss 2 times in a row, Rock Slide (acc 90%) also misses, and your last Pokemon gets flinchedhax to death from something that isn't even Serene Grace, costing you the match when strategically wise, you never picked a single wrong option?
Reito Shizaki *cough* Whitney *cough*
Also the pain of using a Togepi in HGSS but it has Hustle
Yeah, the amount of RNG in Pokemon is what makes competitive a shitshow, especially since doubles increases the number of RNG rolls every turn and the volatility is higher.
I think that Fire Emblem did RNG well in modern games despite being an extremely punishing game in general. The 2RN (or Weighted 2RN in FE Fates) system evens out the RNG to closer to what a human would expect the payout would be, even if the displayed numbers aren't the correct percentages (which I should mention that HIT is never explicitly expressed as a percentage, only a number between 0 and 100).
Reito Shizaki i
For the most part, competitive Pokémon players avoid moves with less than 95% accuracy (Surf or Scald over Hydro Pump, Flamethrower over Fire Blast, etc.), and since Individual Values and Effort Values are more or less standardized, you can get a good idea of what will happen during a turn when you see which Pokémon are present. See an Alolan Ninetales with Snow Warning, and you can expect a first-turn Aurora Veil.
The highest element of chance in high-level Pokémon battling is the lack of information about your opponent, particularly since critical hits do less damage than they used to. Pokémon like Salamence and Celesteela are dangerous less so for their stats and more so because they can execute several different strategies well, and thus the roll of the dice becomes what your opponent has chosen to do with them once you see they have them.
That being said, I do prefer double battling for their volatility. Triples more so, but they were removed in Generation VII.
As someone who is fairly new to D&D, I love looking back at old videos and noticing all the things that used to just be “some weird dice”.
I've wanted an RNG video for a while
I gotta hand it to you, even though you (James) could have easily turned this series into a megaphone to broadcast your hypothesis and academics work to a wider audience than most game designers can even dream about; you haven't (much), so far at least. It's a very responsible and respectable choice, because this channel's reach means any single video could influence possibly millions of people's belief systems when it comes to games for a very long time.
Although that being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a video on James' additions to the aesthetics of games list, I believe the only one you've told us is cultivation.
I love these theories that combine aspects of psychology and economics. Psychological economics? Economic psychology? It's something I find fascinating
I'm still sad that Dan left but I'm also very happy that Mat took over the narration. Love you guys. Do more history stuff like the one on Mary Seacole.
That's interesting. I remember that someone else claimed that Gary Gygax said that between 75% and 80% of rolls should succeed if the players want to feel proficient, but fallible. I wonder if it's possible to create a Portnow number for D&D campaigns.
Dunno. I haven't run the numbers on 5th but 4th (at launch) was 55%. An average character/bonuses/gear/enemy combo was successful on a 10 or higher for the whole game. Running a party of four (the design spec) meant everyone got to do something on their turn. An average monster taking average damage needed to be hit 4 times to be killed.
Most of the math (again, at launch) did a pretty good job of expanding the fun zone of DnD which used to be 5-8ish level before most of the game kinda broke down.
After launch? Power creep. Great googlymoogly the power creep.
Currently 5e keeps pretty close to the 55% area, but it isn't as tight as 4e (no minions for example means that a chump enemy might take more time than expected).
Since the average check has a DC of 13-15 and the average bonus is +3 to +5 (if proficient), characters will generally succeed 50-60% of the time. The rate might be a bit higher in early levels as most combat DCs start at around 12 and increase slowly over the leveling process to a maximum of 18-20.
By the time the DCs are that high the players usually have +7 to +9 bonuses if proficient, keeping roughly the same 50-60% chance.
Outside of combat, Expertise skews these numbers. Expertise gives someone about a 15% increase in chances of success, giving classic skill-focused classes (Bard and Rogue) a boost outside of combat.
As for the power creep, 5e seems to be reining it in. For now.
(I haven't done all the math but this is pretty much what I've seen.)
I have been waiting for this episode literally since I found Extra Credits. Thank you for making it! The absolute worst RNG abuse I have ever seen has been from games where the player is extensively punished for out-of-player-control events. Some highlights for you...
Many of the early Dragon Quest games have extremely RNG-centric battle engines where a party can be completely competent and still lose horribly against an enemy that a party 5 levels below them could theoretically wipe the floor with no problem. DQ games steal half your money on hand and warp you back to the last save point you used if you die, which stings quite a bit since it not only invalidates your time spent traveling, but also potentially takes more of your money than you actually earned during said progress (especially early on and in DQs without banks).
Final Fantasy IX has some very big RNG issues, including the encounter rate engine (1 to 255 steps between battles) and the enemy attack system (most enemies have a handful of basically-ineffective attacks and one "rare" super-attack that is an order of magnitude more powerful than anything else they can use). Losing a battle in FFIX invalidates all progress since your last save via a game over, making it at least as bad as DQ (potentially worse if you're frugal with the banking system in DQ games).
And finally, Terraria. Oh, Terraria... Every damn thing about enemies and events in that game is random: how many spawn, how often, when events take place, when the game decides it's going to throw super-enemies at you, literally every possible aspect of regular exploration is a constant series of dice-throws. You might wander for miles and see 2 enemies. You might find yourself bogged down in a non-event area with a never-ending wave of enemies from all sides for what feels like an eternity. You might suddenly find yourself killed in one hit by a "rare" enemy spawning right in front of you and attacking you without any chance to react. And when you die, what you lose can range from half your money (easy), all of your money and items (normal), or your entire save file (hardcore). In all cases, you're shot back to your last save point, just like DQ and FF9 (yes, even hardcore; you wander as a ghost).
All of these games have insanely high frustration levels because of their RNGs. And yet, all of them are highly praised. Why? Because most people will never experience their frustration potential. But for the unlucky ones who do, they are awful, AWFUL games.
I have to say. You've grown on me
I am suddenly reminded of when Extra Credits first started and I loved everything about it except the RIDICULOUS HIGH PITCHED VOICE they chose to use. It grew on me as well. :)
classic case of stockholm symdrome
jk
This is an excellent lens to examine grind through - anything that counts as grind in a game (something the player is doing purely as a means to an end, like obtaining enough materials to build something) should be looked at in terms of time cost and frustration
I would like to mention the Hearthstone example would have a different frustration number. This is due to the "win streak bonuses" you can obtained and as your win streak increases the amount of stars(won games) gained increases. This could increase the value (taking how long the winstreak took) or decrease it (not attributing one star to one win)
I liked that little joke at the end. I think you're really starting to hit your stride, dude! You really shine when you put personality into your work. Keep doing what you're doing, you're doing great!
In engineering, you can control only what you can mesure. So this video is really usefull for aplying a good method on working with RNG.
Nice video! ^^
Dear Extra Credits,
I love this series. It is a wonderful tool for learning the concept I need, but otherwise wouldn't know to ask or look for.
Please consider defining terms like RNG or whale, maybe by referencing privious videos where its available. I know it would be a great help for those not already invested in the profession or series. On this occasion I found myself googling RNG and hoping it was correct over following a link to one of you other videos. I have gotten lost for hours in the series before following such an exciting trail. I hope this is helpful. Thank you again for making these videos. They are priceless to me.
Zoey is so mean at the end of the video :c
This Equation is amazing.
As a Speedrunner THIS is what really made me think. Losing a run over RNG happens regurlarly, and this formula explained why many people are way more frustrated than others.
This is amazing and can describe a speedgame near the masterlevel with a good RNG-Value something I was looking for, for a long time.
To me, RNG is too much RNG when it breaks the laws of common sense to screw you. Modern XCOM/Battletech RNG is too much RNG. Classic X-Com RNG was good because projectiles were actually present in the game and went on a path, meaning that it wasn't possible to miss point blank, because the bullet couldn't go backwards or at a 90 degree angle into the ground when aiming horizontally.
"laws of commom-sense"
so, you didnt watch the part of the video about gut feeling?
That's arguably more a problem with the visualization, though, rather than the core design. Missing a shot point blank in XCOM could be reasonably justified by saying the gun jammed or the bullet bounced off a thick point in the armor. It'd be a nice touch for turn based tactics games to have different animations for an improbable miss, though it's easy to see why the cost might be deemed unacceptable.
Anything with a percentile or diceish system will be like that. In Morrowind if you had no points in Blades you could watch your sword hit an enemy and be told you missed or did no damage. I made that mistake once and spent 20 minutes trying to kill a mudcrab with a dagger.
I'm usually OK with it in XCOM because the same thing can and will happen to the enemy.
The RNG in XCOM and Battletech does screws with you but if you lose a mission because of a dice roll then you made a mistake as a commander somewhere during the mission. While, you rarely miss with a lethal injection in the original X-Com, your rookie's stats are a toss up and so is overwatch. I've lost plenty of rookies because a sectoid walked out of a door, shoots someone watching the door, then walk back inside.
First point: In the beginning this video was really confusing, but by the end I found it really interesting.
Second point: I've been with this channel for a very long time and Dan was absolutely an integral part of each video. That being said, Matt I feel you have not only held up the standard of Dan's position, but you have also made it your own. I think you were a great choice to fill in Dan's shoes and I am looking forward to the future of this channel with you being it's voice.
Personally, I wish more games used RNG with memory rather than "pure" RNG. By that I mean that the RNG keeps track of how often it paid out and adjusts itself to keep the RNG triggers somewhat consistent. DOTA 2 does this, for example. If you didn't land that crit a bunch of times in a row, the probability for getting it increases to make sure that you don't feel like you keep getting screwed over. People don't have a very good instictive understanding of pure randomness and it just feels really bad when you miss a 50% hit 6 times in a row.
Pinball does this, actually. Most pinball machines made from the mid-80's and onward have what's called "random awards" (the developers have official terms, but they trademarked them), in which the game draws from a list of bonuses and gives the player one. Each machine keeps track of how many of each award it's given out since it last powered up and checks it against the intended probabilities of each award as programmed into the game. It'll then try to pick something that's come up less often than intended.
Digital remakes of Fish Tales are well known among those who play it for giving out extra balls like candy, for instance. This is because Fish Tales checks to see when the last time it was it gave out an extra ball and makes it increasingly likely the longer it's been. When you start up a digital version of Fish Tales, that counts as the machine having been turned on. It sees an infinite amount of time has passed since its last extra ball, and as a result, you get a 100% chance of that extra ball on your first random award.
Like in one (or even all?.i don't know) civ games if u have 33% chance of winning, u WILL win on the third attempt
The expressiveness and humanity of 2:45 is _astounding_ xD
Hey, super interesting and informative video! Do you think it's intentional for game designers that Grinders experience the greatest frustration due to RNG, relative to the other two categories of players you mentioned? Since Grinders make up the largest proportion of a free-to-play game's player base, it makes sense for (profit-seeking) designers to *want* to frustrate these players, to the point that they begin considering putting money down to advance in the game. It's a risky move, though, since that has the potential to make players opt out of playing the game altogether. My guess is that a player's level of commitment to the game, plus other dispositional factors, could help to predict an individual player's decision to either make a micro-transaction or leave the game entirely.
Unfortunately it's very intentional, and the #1 reason why I try to avoid "free to play" games these days. Going "free to play" affects the core design of the game, because you want to prod people into paying money, because that's how you make money. Also because publishers are pushing for long term games that last years and years. This makes such games an excruciating grind unless you're willing to fork over the money.
I think that is a very dangerous line. You could argue that changing x% of Grinders to Payers is worth loosing y% of Grinders since they would have never paid any money anyway. The Problem here is the shrinking playerbase as a whole. Since Grinders make up most of it they usually also contribute (and consume) the biggest portion of all content that is based around your game. So loosing ANY player usually results in a worse experience for all other players which could easily snowball for a smaller game.
I think Heartstone used to be good to both grinders who consistently played and the ones who went on frustration break, I don't know it it is true anymore though. At some point in my experience I felt like new sets pretty much just read "counters everything older them me, keep up scrub" instead of adding to the experience as a whole and rebalancing the game.
@Michael Woods Basically for most of its existence - you can spend months and months grinding for high tier tanks. I eventually stopped playing that game, and that was more than a year ago.
While F2P design limits your design choices, not every F2P has to be "pay to win". Most games are designed to make money in a very short timespan, not to keep people playing. I think, Fallout Shelter did it really, really well. People who are playing a game for a long time and enjoying it are becoming more likely to invest in the game over time.
I'm just glad that Extra Credits has more "game developer themed" videos again
This feels a bit reductive. The equation provided here might be useful, but it really only adds one minor tool to the set of ways to analyze randomness. The calculation/estimation of the values which are put into the equation seems more important than the actual resulting value. Finally, this fails to take into account the value of play time which does not end in a win state. Not all games have win states and not all games intend for the player to regularly reach that win state. Dwarf fortress being a good examples of a game where this calculation will yield misleadingly huge frustration coefficients.
Even though Dan's voice in the show was a formative part of my youth and I was said that he had to step down, I'm glad that Matt is here to take up the mantle. You go Matt, keep being awesome.
Please keep it up, you are doing a great job despite your Dandy-cap
The art on this episode was super well paired with the discussion. Excellent work.
The very mention of ‘postulate’... this’ll be a technical one :O
That last bit - I belly laughed for a good 5 minutes *wipes tears from eyes*
Awwww, oh noooo the end
I love finding ways of working around RNG. Figuring out when "risk vs reward" encourages reckless play is awesome to me.
_slowly stares at team fortress two_
_throws a sandwitch at you_
I find that crits are basically never the deciding factor between a win or a loss in a game of tf2
well random crits, crits weapons and buffs do.
sethraptor one random crit will most likely not change the outcome of a match. Problem being that they are a source of great frustration and they scale off the damage you make, thus if you are doing well you have an even greater chance at popping a random crit at anyone who tries to end your streak
a random crit resulting in an undeserving kill (which not every random crit is) is unlikely to change the result of a match. Crit weapons and buffs are not random, and yes I should have written "random crits" instead of just "crits".
RNG is a fickle mistress. It can feel incredible when it all works in your favor, but crushing when they turn against you. I really liked this analysis on it. Also, that ending joke was pretty great.
Someone finally explained why I couldn't stand hearthstone! I was in that last category.
it's really cool when you start playing Slay the spyre you feel the game is very reliant on RNG, but slowly (at least i did) you realize you can manipulate your deck more than you would initially think, allowing for a more controlled and strategic aproach, and when it works, it is inmensely satisfying
'Some whale' how did they go from despising the term to using it casually
I really like one of the design decision abbey games made for Renowned Explorers - when calculating damage, RNG can only make you deal a tiny bit more damage than the amount displayed before making a shot. Thanks to this, you only get positive RNG stories, while it's still rare enough that you can't really count on it while making tactical decisions.
* cough * XCOM 2: RNG-esus * cough*
In ironman mode it must have a loss of over 9000
Herp Derpingson x-com's rng is an oddity. It is rather cruel, but it also won't break the game because to a good player that's not going to lose the match.
But building a replacement soldier costs do much too.
But as you gear up losing them is also less likely...
Well, there's the mess!
This is because Xcom series are TRUE random games.
In Xcom 2 you actually have 30% chance to hit, in any other game each time you don't hit that chance actually increases without it being told to you
Xcom at least puts the enemy through the same RNG hell.
If you are loosing campaigns to rng, you are not prepared to face that difficulty level. It would indicate that you are either stumbling too much on the field, don't have your priorities straight at home base or on the world map.
It does, and the game does favor the player, in this sense: most monsters have lower base aim values than leveled soldiers.
Their high health pools make for a paradigm were everyone of their hits on you is felt more than the hits you land on them, but you get more shots in.
Proper engagement usually gives you numerical advantage too, which tips that action economy in your favor.
That in perspective, xcom plays surprisingly like d&d
As soon as I heard the narrator say "do what your gut tells ya" I knew I needed to hear an entire extra video with that voice alone. Matt if you could do this I will do something possibly
So, I wonder where darkest dungeon lies on the frustration with RNG scale...
... I feel like you've slowed down since the first video you've taken, which I totally appreciate! It's so much easier to pay attention (audio-processing disorder), and it'll be so nice to use them in classes (because I'm bringing video games into my lit class).
Can you make that thinking game emoji a real thing? I would love to share that with friends
Well i cant speak for the EC crew, but as an artist i can make the image for you, any specific size or resolution you want it to be in?
Emmanuel Vargas Thanks for your quick response! I’m not an artist so if you are to create the image I will trust in your skill. Thanks so much for being part of my favorite channel!
You're too nice of a person, please get out
Alright *politely fades away*
why don't you just screenshot that part?
I was really hoping y'all would talk about Gwent with this! It advertised itself as leaving less to rng than most other card games, but that lack of rng actually ended up causing other frustrations like particular decks being nearly unbeatable, one or two cases of rng deciding entire games (the coin flip for who has to go first being a big one) and a certain level of staleness for many strategies. Currently they're totally rebuilding the game from the ground up to address many of these concerns; I'm excited to see what they come up with.
lol zoey
I love the fact that the "Not a Dan" thing is still rolling, that finish was wonderful!
this feels like an absolutely deserved dig at paradox's entire game design
This feels like a rather unnecessary dig at a fairly wide catalogue...
SOMEbody can't control their RNG
meh in most of their games it is mostly have more troops and you win especially ck2
Honestly in most paradox games RNG nearly always only matters if your troops aren't significantly different to your enemies, which isn't hard to do. Stack some modifiers, and you're good to go, RNG or not.
I only see a real problem with EU4's RNG when your 32 year old 6 6 6 ruler dies and is replaced by that 15 year old 1 1 1 ruler who will live on to be 80. But that can spice your game up a bit :)
Love the equation at the end for Crole's Cadence Calibration, and please keep up the cat gags.
Too much RNG get rid of loot boxes.
"Divided by still not a Dan" alright, that made me laugh, your cool with me Matt
You're*
Is this Portnow's Postulate really that important? Shouldn't we just be reducing RNG frustration across the board plain and simple? Like, I think there are more important things to discuss or teach people around RNG.
For example, there's the principle of RNG inputs and deterministic outputs. Many procedural games, show this principle. They present you with a randomly generated situations but how you work your way through it is up to you. The game Into the Breach is a shining example of this, with random enemy combinations in islands, and random spawns. But despite this, there is no randomness in your attacks and movements. This way, RNG brings diversity in challenges but it is rarely, if ever, the reason for a loss.
We should also focus on how we present RNG. Players should be able to see or at least easily calculate important probabilities.
*I don't know if you've already made videos on these topics.
"Shouldn't we just be reducing RNG frustration across the board plain and simple?" I wouldn't really say that. RNG frustration, at least how it's defined in this video, is integral to many of my favorite games. Games like Slay the Spire, Darkest Dungeon, Don't Starve, Rimworld, Dwarf Fortress, etc wouldn't be nearly the same without mechanics that increase this. I'm personally a huge fan of games that throw random hurdles at me, and I have to manage to keep things together as well as I can manage. Maybe this postulate would be better off using the term "RNG stress", rather than "RNG frustration", since for some games (like Rimworld and DF especially), the eventual collapse into catastrophe at the hands of RNG is most of the fun.
Lynte Eyet It's not that people are looking for a certain amount of RNG frustration in of itself. It's just a side effect to wanting to use randomness in general for whatever reason (balance, variance, beginner friendliness, etc.).
I think so. I'm nerding out about how it could be a stepping stone into measuring the impactful meaning of an experience on an experiencer.
In college I am part of ACM Sig-Game. Every semester, we make a game that people code AI to play. This is a 24-hour code Jam competition. Due to this, we minimize RNG. We mirror our maps and run AI through tons of games to make sure a lucky spawn didn't determine the winner. We even give the AI perfect information and make everything constant during play. 24 hours is a lot of time to lose due to RNG.
"this video is unlisted"
wat
This is the first EC I've watched in years; I'll miss you, Dan :(
Tfw to you the whale is the one making $20/hour
quinn
$200/hour. He said the whale is 10x less frustrated than someone making $20/hour (i.e. wagering 1 hour).
Quinn is saying that to him, even 20 an hour is rich
That last equation was so self aware it makes me smile
This idea warrants testing.
(Which for those that do not know means is something very interesting that needs to be explored more to see if it can be used as a useful tool when it comes to game design. I would gladly test the idea and write a paper on it if I had a research grant do so. sounds like a interesting concept to test.)
Testing? Just go with your gut feeling. ^^
I never ask my gut for advice. It never comes with any good suggestions. Which is not so odd as it actually lacks a brain...
But yeah. You want to figure how thing actually do work. The scientific method. ^_^
This new narrator is really starting to come into his own. Well done dude, well done.
Here's an RNG for Python:
def diceroll():
print("Enter number of die sides")
s=int(input("Number of sides:"))
print("You rolled:")
print (randint(1,s))
return()
you don't need to return from a function that isn't returning anything, it does that automatically. Also, you don't need to use braclets after the return statement, it's a key word, not a funtion.
What If I wanted to add a bell shaped curve so that say, a six sided die returned mostly 3s, 4s, and 5s?
Here's another one:
# Selected randomly by dice roll
print(2)
Lol python
xkcd much? ;D
This video really puts into perspective why I've hated gambling so much, seeing how every time I've been offered a round it was while I was making very little money.
what did math do for us?
math made all those pesky videogames work, that's what :P
Have you seen Keith Burgun's work? the one about classifying randomness into two groups (input and output randomness)and putting them in opposite ends of a spectrum?
I find that take very interesting
Hello
Blaze And Pig hello
Blaze And Pig howdy
I like the "spoiler* written into the leg of the giant monster crushing the Ironclad.
Ok, I love the self humor about the narrator change. Keep up the good work :)
Zoe has returned!!! No seriously guys, y'all are doing an awesome job with this transition, and I am so happy with all the new content y'all have produced. : )
Overwatch kill cam is an example of a mechanic that greatly diminish frustration... because it gives the player a small info advantage and in some cases, it even converts it on a positive feeling (like funny/unlikely kills)
This kind of reminds me of XCOM. A lot of people hate XCOM because you can lose soldiers, missions, and even entire squads to RNG. And it can be especially frustrating in late game ironman. But to me, that's the fun. While I'm sure I'm wrong about this, I think that XCOM's central design philosophy is risk/harm management. So, when you start a mission, you advance and position your soldiers in such a way so as to minimize risks. You cover sight lines, you bounce between pieces of cover, you do everything you can to give yourself the best odds possible when you enter an encounter. And when you do enter an encounter, you again engage in threat management. How many risks are you willing to take? Is that 74% worth taking? What'll you do if you miss? What is the worst case scenario for this one turn? Should you open fire, or hunker down for survival? Should you risk a charge and flanking shot, or fall back, and let the aliens walk right into your overwatch trap? And when things do inevitably go to hell, what then? If your medic goes down, do you retreat and evac the survivors? How many dead soldiers is TOO many for the mission to no longer be worth it? Even when things go wrong in XCOM, your potential responses only grow, creating amazing counterplay.