Why I Am Against Heavy RNG in Job Design

[RaionKansen]

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.

They've been making these posts for over a week and they haven't even completed MSQ. Its bizarre behavior. They're either making AI posts or its someone on an alt account because they've burned their reputation on their main.

Another to my ignore list collection

[BabyYoda]

They've been making these posts for over a week and they haven't even completed MSQ. Its bizarre behavior. They're either making AI posts or its someone on an alt account because they've burned their reputation on their main.

Another to my ignore list collection

So far I've been accused of being:

- A troll
- An AI
- Someone who burned their reputation on their main
- Someone who hasn't completed MSQ

At this point, I'm honestly more curious about what the next theory will be than the RNG discussion itself.

The funny thing is that none of those theories actually explain why my argument is wrong.

If anything, it's impressive how we've managed to travel this far away from the original topic.

Makes me wonder who is actually trolling the discussion at this point.

[Valence]

Another to my ignore list collection

It would have saved so much time and keyboarding...

[BabyYoda]

The posts above are a perfect example of what happens when people run out of argument before they run out of keyboard.

The topic was RNG design. The replies ran straight to MSQ progress, AI theories and ignore-list speeches.

Anything except the actual point.

That is not debate. That is dodging with confidence.

If heavy RNG is good design, explain the decision it creates. If all you can do is attack the poster or clap for ignore lists, then the argument is still standing and the replies already folded.

Heavy RNG without control, timing, tradeoffs, or meaningful adaptation is not depth.

So again:

What meaningful decision does heavy job RNG actually create?

[Carighan]

Well like I argued before, your anti-RNG stance is easy to argue (against): All MMORPG history and context disagrees with that RNG-y design is bad or unwelcome. In fact all MMORPG history and context shows that it's helpful in expanding class design possibilities, allows for more ability types, ability varieties and customization (if your game has that).

That does not mean RNG-y class design is without pitfalls. But as FFXIV itself masterfully showcases, static non-RPG design is also full of pitfalls, and any other MMORPG can easily crib from FFXIV why a fully-solved design is just bad.

Now of course, you argue you want the RNG to come externally. This is in fact an interesting shortcut: It means you can add randomization to all classes at once, instead of having to design it on a per-class basis. Say all bosses now have randomized ability uses, far more random damage output, semi-randomized damage intake (so there are phases where they are vulnerable that you cannot fully plan for, you gotta react and pull your biggest hits in those, but how long will you sit on them waiting or a vulnerable moment to come?), etc. That's clever. Far less design work, and it's easy(-er) to balance on the class side as it affects all classes evenly. Not exactly, but close enough.

But, it also has a bunch of downside insofar that it drops a slew of potential benefits of more random-based class design for no reason other than saving dev time:

* It cannot provide class identity through randomization or the absence of it. Meaning static-rotation as all classes are right now is also no longer possible.
* It prevents using RNG-elements for class balance.
* It limits player choice. Right now players cannot opt into proc-based, resource-based or dynamic-branching class designs. In your design, they could not opt into static-rotation, proc-based or resource-based designs. That's just as limiting!
* Encounter design is now as limited as the current one, just in the opposite direction basically.
* Again, we know from essentially all other MMORPGs that it's just not good design. In particular WoW and EQ1 during their long tenure tried ~everything, and reverted or modified most elements over time. We know what works or doesn't work by just looking at them. Not necessarily just their current form, but their entire history. We can also look at FFXIV's static nature and see that despite over a decade of filing the edges off, no, it doesn't work well in light of an ever-expanding class roster. They're now trying a different approach to working around that, so they realize it's an issue at least.

[BabyYoda]

...

I think I should clarify my position a bit.

I am not against RNG by itself. Many games use RNG in very fun and interesting ways.

What I am against is RNG that gives the player no real choice. If the only interaction is “a proc appeared, press the glowing button,” then that is not very engaging to me. It feels like wasted potential.

I mentioned this in a few places earlier, but my issue is not randomness existing. My issue is randomness that does not create a decision.

For example, imagine Dancer getting an RNG proc, but instead of it simply being “press this button,” it gives the player a choice between two different actions depending on the situation.

Maybe one Feather action is better when your gauge is below 50%, while another is better when your gauge is above 50%. That already creates a small interaction between RNG and job design.

Then you can take it further. Maybe Feather 1 is better during one encounter phase, while Feather 2 is better during another phase because of movement, burst timing, target count, or boss vulnerability. Now the RNG is not just random damage. It is creating a moment where the player evaluates the situation.

That is the kind of RNG I can support.

So the distinction I am making is:

RNG that interacts with the job = good potential.

RNG that interacts with the encounter = also good potential.

RNG that only says “you got lucky, press the button” = weak design.

My point is not “RNG bad.”

My point is that RNG should create decisions, adaptation, timing, or tradeoffs. If it does not do that, then it is just variance, not depth.

[Carighan]

What I am against is RNG that gives the player no real choice. If the only interaction is “a proc appeared, press the glowing button,” then that is not very engaging to me. It feels like wasted potential.

I mentioned this in a few places earlier, but my issue is not randomness existing. My issue is randomness that does not create a decision.

Aaah, yes of course. Sorry, my bad.

I fully agree with that. E.g. the current Dancer actually has this bad-RNG-design, as their 1 and 2 coinflip to be a 3 or 4 instead. So the overall usage never shifts, you just sometimes press button Y instead of button X, with the same button use and button effect and place in the rotation and overall rotation profile. Or like Monk with their weird thing. Or Red Mage or Bard, in fact this not-actually-proc-elements is the issue with all current procs in the game.

The RNG I have in mind broughtly splits into three categories, based on the archetypes of designing RPG classes:

• Proc-based, i.e.: There is some randomized element you need to react to. But, you are of course correct that if all this does is make you press a button that does not impact the rest of your gameplay then this is meaningless and can be removed at absolutely no loss or cost to the class design.
  And in fact should be removed, it's just bloat.
  But meaningful proc-based classes can go from very simple (e.g. your procs make you press GCDs that naturally then shift other GCDs backwards, but you also got ongoing buffs and cycles that constantly mis- and re-align leading to a completely unstable rotation, pure priority list class is what this ends up being) over passive procs that you need to support with non-proc active abilites up to rather complicated multi-proc cycle classes that edge onto dynamic-branching class design or hybridize into it.
• Resource-based, that is basically gauge-based or charge-based designs that however cannot have a reliable resource level. Imagine if instead of gaining 10 gauge, you gained a random 0 to 20. Naturally over time this favors the average, so it's soooomewhat reliable. But you could go medium~long stretches being starved, and others where your "rotation" is just spamming your spender really.
  These again can be as simple (you have dedicated gauge builders) or as complicated (gauge depends entirely on external factors you cannot even control indirectly) as desired.
  They also can be more complicated than just a gauge or a charge, e.g. buffs you apply have a randomized duration and hence you need to then adjust on-the-spot how to plan your next X seconds so that after that semi-rotation you can re-apply the buff.
  Proper pet classes fall into this due to the often unreliable nature of pet action queueing and pet pathing. At least for games where pets aren't neutered to be essentially externalized DoTs with a model, which sadly... don't really exist any more I believe, they're just too janky. But look at old Necromancer in DAoC or old Demolock in WoW for examples of this.
• Dynamic branching, which is a variable-rotation design where your ideal next rotation constantly swaps into a different "branch" based on input you receive externally. The simplest design here is a reactive almost Dark Souls like setup where your attack sequence gets interrupted and/or shifted into a different attack sequence based on boss attacks.
  Now in DS these attacks are often very strictly pattern-based so this could at best be pseudo-chaos, but combine encounter-side randomness into this and you got proper RNG design.
  The reason this isn't just proc based is because you as the player see an external input and actively cause the shift in rotation. It's just that you cannot predict when you might need to do so. This can further be augmented by push-your-luck designs (e.g. dodge vs the tougher parry->counter in CO:E33) where you got multiple choices how to branch your rotation, and they're of different risks.

[BabyYoda]

..

I agree. If we want RNG jobs, I would rather see real RNG that creates different decisions based on multiple factors, not just a glowing button replacing another glowing button.

That is why I think roguelikes are one of the best examples of RNG design. They constantly give you choices. You are offered different options and must decide which one fits your current run. Sometimes a path is weak in one run but becomes very strong in another. The randomness creates adaptation, not just reaction.

I also think FFXIV should look more at the psychology of why players enjoy the same job for multiple expansions.

When I play Monster Hunter, I mostly play Great Sword. When I play League of Legends, I mostly play K'Sante. These classes are not necessarily complex in terms of buttons, but they have a strong mastery curve. They are easy to understand, but hard to fully master.

That is the important part to me: a job needs a clear baseline expectation, but also long-term potential. Something that makes you feel, even after 100+ hours, that you can still improve and express yourself better.

FFXIV is good at making players attached to jobs thematically, but I think its current RNG design rarely adds to that attachment. Most procs feel more like execution checks than real decisions.

They ask: “Did you notice the proc?”

They rarely ask: “What is the best choice here?”