Why I Am Against Heavy RNG in Job Design

[RaionKansen]

snipped

I'm pretty convinced BabyYoda is a troll. I don't see how they can genuinely make so many obscure/ignorant/out-of-touch posts in such a short period of time over the last week and they haven't even caught up on MSQ

[Nero-Voidstails]

I'm pretty convinced BabyYoda is a troll. I don't see how they can genuinely make so many obscure/ignorant/out-of-touch posts in such a short period of time over the last week and they haven't even caught up on MSQ

even if someone doesn't finish a story they can still see issues overall. I don't think 100% invalidating someone opinion is also a problem in itself that's why you take what you think is important and give more to that point that's all

[BabyYoda]

I'm pretty convinced BabyYoda is a troll. I don't see how they can genuinely make so many obscure/ignorant/out-of-touch posts in such a short period of time over the last week and they haven't even caught up on MSQ

This is an alt account, not my main.

But the fact that you had to check my profile instead of addressing the argument says enough.

If your best response to a design discussion is “you did not finish MSQ,” then you already lost the design discussion.

[SakuraMidnight]

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I don't think adaptation automatically equals mastery.

RNG only creates mastery when it creates meaningful decisions. If the correct answer is almost always obvious, then what you're testing is reaction, not decision making.

Take Dancer for example. When a proc appears, the vast majority of the time the answer is simply to press the proc. The gameplay changed, but the decision didn't. The game rolled the dice, then told you what button to press.

What made old AST more interesting wasn't the randomness by itself. It was the tools surrounding the randomness: Royal Road, Spread, card management, and planning around imperfect hands. In other words, the interesting part was the decision-making layer built around the RNG.

That is why I would argue that the depth came more from the management systems than from the random draw itself.
This is also why I am more interested in uncertainty controlled by the player rather than uncertainty resolved by the game.

For example, imagine if AST didn't simply draw a random card. Instead, pressing Play could start cycling cards above the target every second, and pressing Play again would lock in the current card.

Now the question is no longer “what card did RNG give me?”

The question becomes:

Do I take this decent card now because the burst window is about to start?

Do I wait another second and risk losing timing?

Do I settle because mechanics are coming?

Do I delay for the specific card I want, knowing there is a cost to waiting?

To me, that is far more interesting than a pure random draw, because the variation still exists, but the outcome is tied to timing, awareness, and player decision making.

That is my issue with RNG.

I don't dislike uncertainty. I dislike when the uncertainty is resolved by the game instead of by the player.

I'm not saying RNG and deep design can never coexist. I'm saying that when RNG jobs are actually interesting, the depth usually comes from the decisions surrounding the RNG, not from the RNG itself.

And if the decision-making layer is doing most of the heavy lifting, then I would rather focus on creating meaningful decisions directly instead of relying on random outcomes as the primary source of variation.

Babyyada i like your post keep it up dont let them hateful trolls and haressers bully you off the forums.

[Ilisidi]

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I don't think adaptation automatically equals mastery.

RNG only creates mastery when it creates meaningful decisions. If the correct answer is almost always obvious, then what you're testing is reaction, not decision making.

Take Dancer for example. When a proc appears, the vast majority of the time the answer is simply to press the proc. The gameplay changed, but the decision didn't. The game rolled the dice, then told you what button to press.

What made old AST more interesting wasn't the randomness by itself. It was the tools surrounding the randomness: Royal Road, Spread, card management, and planning around imperfect hands. In other words, the interesting part was the decision-making layer built around the RNG.

That is why I would argue that the depth came more from the management systems than from the random draw itself.
This is also why I am more interested in uncertainty controlled by the player rather than uncertainty resolved by the game.

For example, imagine if AST didn't simply draw a random card. Instead, pressing Play could start cycling cards above the target every second, and pressing Play again would lock in the current card.

Now the question is no longer “what card did RNG give me?”

The question becomes:

Do I take this decent card now because the burst window is about to start?

Do I wait another second and risk losing timing?

Do I settle because mechanics are coming?

Do I delay for the specific card I want, knowing there is a cost to waiting?

To me, that is far more interesting than a pure random draw, because the variation still exists, but the outcome is tied to timing, awareness, and player decision making.

That is my issue with RNG.

I don't dislike uncertainty. I dislike when the uncertainty is resolved by the game instead of by the player.

I'm not saying RNG and deep design can never coexist. I'm saying that when RNG jobs are actually interesting, the depth usually comes from the decisions surrounding the RNG, not from the RNG itself.

And if the decision-making layer is doing most of the heavy lifting, then I would rather focus on creating meaningful decisions directly instead of relying on random outcomes as the primary source of variation.

In theory, yes. Practically it means you are watching the cards over one person instead of whether the boss lifted a pinky and is going to cleave left and you have two seconds to get to their right side.

Which is the other issue with some of the RNG jobs, instead of watching the boss, you watching the hotbar. And nothing everything has nice audio or haptic reactions to notify you it's up, or the fights let you hear the notifications. Apparently there's a sound effect for having hit the position right, how many people can hear that.

[Valence]

If I give two jobs the exact same decision-making layer, and the only difference is that one gets its situations from RNG while the other gets its situations from encounter design, resource constraints, timing pressure, or other deterministic systems, why is the RNG version inherently better?

I feel you're kinda building windmills to fight against with that arbitrary opposition between both.
None is better than the other.
They're also not mutually exclusive.

Because when I look at old AST, the part I find interesting isn't that the card draw was random.

It's what I chose to do after seeing the card.

Likewise, when I look at DNC burst optimization, the interesting part isn't that a proc happened.

It's how I manage the constraints that follow.

The very reason that the constraints on DNC happen is precisely because of the RNG. If it was a linear, predictable gain, you'd get a linear, predictable burst rotation that never changes like MCH.

Choosing what to do with a card on AST depending on what's needed by the encounter itself or the state of the party is one thing.
Choosing what to do with a card you couldn't predict and have to deal with, is another thing.
Both can work alone without the other being a thing, but they can also work in tandem as a double layer of agency and decision making.

Again, it's not mutually exclusive.

I'm pretty convinced BabyYoda is a troll. I don't see how they can genuinely make so many obscure/ignorant/out-of-touch posts in such a short period of time over the last week and they haven't even caught up on MSQ

I disagree with someone = they have to be a troll
Someone disagrees with me = they have reading comprehension problems

Forums never change


Edit: I tend to have similar views to the OP, but definitely not in this thread.

[BabyYoda]

In theory, yes. Practically it means you are watching the cards over one person instead of whether the boss lifted a pinky and is going to cleave left and you have two seconds to get to their right side.

Which is the other issue with some of the RNG jobs, instead of watching the boss, you watching the hotbar. And nothing everything has nice audio or haptic reactions to notify you it's up, or the fights let you hear the notifications. Apparently there's a sound effect for having hit the position right, how many people can hear that.

I don't think that's really the issue.

In my example, the cards would appear above the player rather than on the hotbar, so the information is still part of the play space.

More importantly, every meaningful system competes for attention to some degree. Gauges, cooldowns, buffs, debuffs, resources, party frames, and encounter mechanics all require awareness.

If we reduce gameplay to simply watching the boss and reacting to animations, we lose a lot of the management and decision-making that creates depth in the first place.

The question isn't whether a system requires attention.

The question is whether that attention leads to meaningful decisions.

[BabyYoda]

I feel you're kinda building windmills to fight against with that arbitrary opposition between both.
None is better than the other.
They're also not mutually exclusive.



The very reason that the constraints on DNC happen is precisely because of the RNG. If it was a linear, predictable gain, you'd get a linear, predictable burst rotation that never changes like MCH.

Choosing what to do with a card on AST depending on what's needed by the encounter itself or the state of the party is one thing.
Choosing what to do with a card you couldn't predict and have to deal with, is another thing.
Both can work alone without the other being a thing, but they can also work in tandem as a double layer of agency and decision making.

Again, it's not mutually exclusive.



I disagree with someone = they have to be a troll
Someone disagrees with me = they have reading comprehension problems

Forums never change


Edit: I tend to have similar views to the OP, but definitely not in this thread.

I think that's a fairer response than simply calling people trolls.

Disagreement isn't the issue. The issue is when people jump to personal attacks and then act surprised when the conversation becomes less friendly.

On the actual topic, I agree that RNG and deterministic systems are not mutually exclusive.

Where I disagree is that I don't think the value comes from the randomness itself.

With old AST, the interesting part wasn't simply drawing a random card. It was deciding what to do with it.

With DNC, the interesting part isn't simply that a proc happens. It's how RNG interacts with resource management and burst planning.

That is also why 8.0 DNC worries me. If the burst-planning layer gets reduced and the job becomes closer to simply spending what it gets, then the RNG may still exist, but much of the decision-making disappears.

At that point, most of the planning just becomes "save feathers for burst" and that's about it.

So I keep coming back to the same question:

If removing the planning layer makes the job shallower while the RNG remains, doesn't that suggest the planning was doing most of the heavy lifting, not the RNG itself?

[BabyYoda]

Babyyada i like your post keep it up dont let them hateful trolls and haressers bully you off the forums.

Thank you, Sakura. I appreciate the kind words.

One thing I genuinely like about your posts is that even when discussions get heated, you always seem to bring a positive energy with you. The forums could definitely use more of that.

[Elephantality]

I'm pretty convinced BabyYoda is a troll. I don't see how they can genuinely make so many obscure/ignorant/out-of-touch posts in such a short period of time over the last week and they haven't even caught up on MSQ

Game is way too long to wait until finishing it before posting opinions. I'm still in Stormblood, and I expect to be stuck there for a very long time.