A Case Against the Base Resist Chance

2Next

Replies

  • DarthMufasa4
    214 posts Member
    edited April 24
    What? Thats just a dismissal. I got your point, it just wasnt a particuarley convcing argument or else a funny joke. The idea of comparing who goes first with chess with the 15% tenacity is nonsensical and just distracts from the current issues tha potency/tenacity has right now
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    What? Thats just a dismissal. I got your point, it just wasnt a particuarley convcing argument or else a funny joke. The idea of comparing who goes first with chess with the 15% tenacity is nonsensical and just distracts from the current issues tha potency/tenacity has right now

    1. Yes, it was funny.
    2. There is no issue with potency/tenacity.
  • DarthMufasa4
    214 posts Member
    edited April 24
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    What? Thats just a dismissal. I got your point, it just wasnt a particuarley convcing argument or else a funny joke. The idea of comparing who goes first with chess with the 15% tenacity is nonsensical and just distracts from the current issues tha potency/tenacity has right now

    1. Yes, it was funny.
    2. There is no issue with potency/tenacity.

    So when people say its "part of the game", which do they prefer? the pre tm overflow mechanics or after? Because rng on who went next on 100% tm was, and im gonna use quote marks "part of the game"

    Whenever our resists fail because of a potency check, the person experiencing that loss cant do anything about it, its not always in their control what eams they pick (in pve context for example). And most people just experience frustration whenever it happens. So yes i do think there are issues with it

    And to clarify, no i dont think it was funny, because it simply wasnt true. coin flips arent a part of chess, in the slightest. The idea that its used to go first is entirely arbitrary. Now some people dont mind laughing at things which they know arent true, but that isnt my humour.
    Post edited by DarthMufasa4 on
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    What? Thats just a dismissal. I got your point, it just wasnt a particuarley convcing argument or else a funny joke. The idea of comparing who goes first with chess with the 15% tenacity is nonsensical and just distracts from the current issues tha potency/tenacity has right now

    1. Yes, it was funny.
    2. There is no issue with potency/tenacity.

    So when people say its "part of the game", which do they prefer? the pre tm overflow mechanics or after? Because rng on who went next on 100% tm was, and im gonna use quote marks "part of the game"

    Whenever our resists fail because of a potency check, the person experiencing that loss cant do anything about it, its not always in their control what eams they pick (in pve context for example). And most people just experience frustration whenever it happens. So yes i do think there are issues with it

    And to clarify, no i dont think it was funny, because i simply wasnt true. coin flips arent a part of chess, in the slightest. The idea that its used to go first is entirely arbitrary. Now some people dont mind laughing at things which they know arent true, but that isnt my humour.

    There are instances where things can't be evaded, resisted, etc. These are specific cases where the devs wish it to be so. In other cases the base resist chance exists, and I see no problem with it. You believing you should be able to create a situation where you can be guaranteed to inflict a debuff is just as arbitrary as the way it is (except that the way it is acfually has valid reasoning - avoiding infinite loops, etc).
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    What? Thats just a dismissal. I got your point, it just wasnt a particuarley convcing argument or else a funny joke. The idea of comparing who goes first with chess with the 15% tenacity is nonsensical and just distracts from the current issues tha potency/tenacity has right now

    1. Yes, it was funny.
    2. There is no issue with potency/tenacity.

    So when people say its "part of the game", which do they prefer? the pre tm overflow mechanics or after? Because rng on who went next on 100% tm was, and im gonna use quote marks "part of the game"

    Whenever our resists fail because of a potency check, the person experiencing that loss cant do anything about it, its not always in their control what eams they pick (in pve context for example). And most people just experience frustration whenever it happens. So yes i do think there are issues with it

    And to clarify, no i dont think it was funny, because i simply wasnt true. coin flips arent a part of chess, in the slightest. The idea that its used to go first is entirely arbitrary. Now some people dont mind laughing at things which they know arent true, but that isnt my humour.

    There are instances where things can't be evaded, resisted, etc. These are specific cases where the devs wish it to be so. In other cases the base resist chance exists, and I see no problem with it. You believing you should be able to create a situation where you can be guaranteed to inflict a debuff is just as arbitrary as the way it is (except that the way it is acfually has valid reasoning - avoiding infinite loops, etc).


    Yes there are instances where things can be evaded or resisted as an inherent chance and i think post mods that these are bad for he game, where if they were removed, player enjoyment would be higher.

    Now, the devs made 100% tm not random, which do you prefer? before or after

    Because otherwise no gamer should ever question any game under your logic, i mean its not inherently broken there its ok. If a player has higher potency than enacity then the effects should indeed have the same result each and every time. As i said before, i can see how early swgoh would have benefitted from this, but we are 5 years on from that, and mods have changed everything.


    So no, its not arbitrary, no player feels happy when their counter fails, it just adds to any reasons they wanna pick on he game for.

    "except that the way it is acfually has valid reasoning - avoiding infinite loops, et"

    Actually under your logic, this isnt true. games can be made with loops, thats possible. Its how the first rancor was beat, the devs actively chose to avoid those to enhance player enjoyment (and to raise more money and it didnt incentivise player spending, and i dont blame them for that). But this inherent chance of missing and resisting seems arbitrary to add in the first place and seems coutner intuitive for a game to have, especially when the devs have changed the game to fit the times like with 100% tm, because they achnowledged something was wrong even though it was "part of the game"
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

    Whoosh!

    Can you respond to people’s points with anything more than unfunny one-liners?
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    What? Thats just a dismissal. I got your point, it just wasnt a particuarley convcing argument or else a funny joke. The idea of comparing who goes first with chess with the 15% tenacity is nonsensical and just distracts from the current issues tha potency/tenacity has right now

    1. Yes, it was funny.
    2. There is no issue with potency/tenacity.

    So when people say its "part of the game", which do they prefer? the pre tm overflow mechanics or after? Because rng on who went next on 100% tm was, and im gonna use quote marks "part of the game"

    Whenever our resists fail because of a potency check, the person experiencing that loss cant do anything about it, its not always in their control what eams they pick (in pve context for example). And most people just experience frustration whenever it happens. So yes i do think there are issues with it

    And to clarify, no i dont think it was funny, because i simply wasnt true. coin flips arent a part of chess, in the slightest. The idea that its used to go first is entirely arbitrary. Now some people dont mind laughing at things which they know arent true, but that isnt my humour.

    There are instances where things can't be evaded, resisted, etc. These are specific cases where the devs wish it to be so. In other cases the base resist chance exists, and I see no problem with it. You believing you should be able to create a situation where you can be guaranteed to inflict a debuff is just as arbitrary as the way it is (except that the way it is acfually has valid reasoning - avoiding infinite loops, etc).

    Sure, and us believing that reaching 100% tm at the same time shouldn’t be a coin-flip is just as arbitrary as it being a coinflip. I’m still struggling to see where you’re making a point, unless your point is that any mechanic different from the ones currently in the game is arbitrary... (?)

    The last few hours worth of messages were DarthMufasa actually making reasoned points — even if they’re ones you disagree with — and your defense being “ur wrong, I’m funny”. Get over yourself.

  • TVF
    29597 posts Member
    edited April 24
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

    Whoosh!

    Can you respond to people’s points with anything more than unfunny one-liners?

    He wasn't wrong though, you did miss his point. Also, I laughed.
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • DarthWeevil2
    20 posts Member
    edited April 24
    Whilst dice games exist, i dont believe the rng being presented as the 15% resist is common in them. Taking dungeon and dragons 5e for example, you have a dc that you have to overcome. If you beat it, thats it. That would be the rng component, the specific role of the die.

    Whereas what being done with this is just an additional die roll where if you roll a d100, then it can resist as well. Now ill say this, in said dice games it would be a terrible mechanic if only because it would slow the pacing of the game and id only want it if it was a flavour to a specific spell, rather than an inherent mechanic to every spell in the game.

    Now to be clear, i think early game swgoh could have benefitted immensely from this before people had access to mods, this enables some chance for game modes like galactic war, or else the ls and ds nodes. However, if im going into lstb and i lose because of a 15% resist chance thats outside of my control, no one is happy about that. I could have 5000000% potency and that 15% still messes me up. And to be extra clear, i do not have control over members in certain squads, and therefore it seems even more messed up to provide a mechanic which will be net negative overall

    To cap it off, most people arent aware this base chance even exists, making the argument that players should account for it somewhat questionable

    And this 100%. Even if your point is that the 15% resist chance cancels itself out in PvP (heavily debatable as fatal showed), what about PvE? Do you really want to go 3/4 in LS Geo because your gas didn’t land daze on Dooku in the P2 Ahsoka/gas mission? Is that something that makes you happy, even if you specifically modded for a high health/potency build, watched numerous guides, and prepared heavily for the mission?

    Power to you if you’d enjoy that. I do not understand how the 15% resist chance makes the game more fun in any way in the context of competitive PvE game modes like LS Geo.
  • DarthWeevil2
    20 posts Member
    edited April 24
    There’s already an element of rng in which particular wave composition you get in LS Geo. You bring the best suited teams with the best suited mods to prepare for that. Now, on top of that wave rng (the equivalent of the dc roll DarthMufasa mentioned), you have to deal with critical debuffs getting resisted out of nowhere. Ouch.
  • TVF wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

    Whoosh!

    Can you respond to people’s points with anything more than unfunny one-liners?

    He wasn't wrong though, you did miss his point. Also, I laughed.

    Good for you, but that doesn’t matter. It matters that his point is either,

    1. I’m funny nonexistent
    2. you’re wrong or presented so poorly it’s not clear what it is even though his responses are all one sentence or less.
  • DarthMufasa4
    214 posts Member
    edited April 24
    TVF wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

    Whoosh!

    Can you respond to people’s points with anything more than unfunny one-liners?

    He wasn't wrong though, you did miss his point. Also, I laughed.

    He actually was, its not a part of chess. He just relied on people not knowing better than he did (and jokes tend to fall apart if you know its not true). In any reasonable discussion, evading the point by hiding within jokes to distract people or demean them seems counter productive. With most people just ignoring any questions or points ive (and others) have raised
  • DarthWeevil2
    20 posts Member
    edited April 24
    TVF wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

    Whoosh!

    Can you respond to people’s points with anything more than unfunny one-liners?

    He wasn't wrong though, you did miss his point. Also, I laughed.

    He actually was, its not a part of chess. He just relied on people not knowing better than he did (and jokes tend to fall apart if you know its not true). In any reasonable discussion, evading the point by hiding within jokes to distract people or demean them seems counter productive. With most people just ignoring any questions or points ive raised

    :hesright:

    BullDog actually put forward an argument. Cyril is just avoiding saying anything of value and hiding behind dumb one line jokes. From what I’ve been told, swgoh forums aren’t the place for that. (And the chess analogy, like you mentioned, makes no sense at all).
  • TVF
    29597 posts Member
    Hahahaha
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

    Whoosh!

    Can you respond to people’s points with anything more than unfunny one-liners?

    that's what she said
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

    Whoosh!

    Can you respond to people’s points with anything more than unfunny one-liners?

    that's what she said

    Looks like you've failed to land that "joke" due to 15% base resist chance. I doubt that anyone except for that Onyx wannabe above is even laughing at your "jokes."
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    Vicarmar wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

    Whoosh!

    Can you respond to people’s points with anything more than unfunny one-liners?

    that's what she said

    Looks like you've failed to land that "joke" due to 15% base resist chance. I doubt that anyone except for that Onyx wannabe above is even laughing at your "jokes."

    Ha! I'll buy that for a dollar.
  • Vicarmar wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

    Whoosh!

    Can you respond to people’s points with anything more than unfunny one-liners?

    that's what she said

    Looks like you've failed to land that "joke" due to 15% base resist chance. I doubt that anyone except for that Onyx wannabe above is even laughing at your "jokes."

    Don't mention the secrets of swgoh discords here :kekwcatgiggles:.
  • Nebulous
    1475 posts Member
    I’ll take a stab at this.

    In card games like Texas hold ‘em/mtg/etc. there is rng element in the shuffle. Players buy into this risk when they pick up the game. As far as mtg is concerned, players attempt to mitigate the rng top deck by inserting max allowed cards to help tick the chance to draw, but it’s never 100%. To me, this rng feature is what brings some excitement. If I got to pick my cards in poker/mtg every hand, it would get boring really quickly.
    .

    Now in regards to the base 15% resist chance, I do believe this is a healthy element to the game. Other than 2% dodge and some crit avoidance, there is already little variance to the game. Battles would be quite prescriptive. As much as it does suck to miss a highly desirable debuff, it’s quite satisfying to land the desirable debuff. This satisfaction only exists because the base rng to miss. This is what grips us before we press the skill button. This is what manufactures these memorable emotional responses. As people, we just have a tendency to attribute more weight to negative events rather than positive. We just take them for granted.

    I’d also like to add that the base resist works both ways. What if the defending player failed to land a debuff on the offensive player due to rng resist? Would the moral compass require a retreat in this situation? What about an argument that the defense AI isn’t very good so perhaps defense needs some help winning? If all equitable battles became scripted and we knew the outcome before the battle started, do we even need an offense or defense in the game?
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    Nebulous wrote: »

    I’d also like to add that the base resist works both ways.

    Why yes, yes it does.
Sign In or Register to comment.