Brawl- and Randomness: public opinion poll

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So Brawl- fans, we're having a disagreement in the Backroom...

Do you feel that the somewhat new direction Brawl- is taking, and more specifically, the new tack in regards to randomness, is detrimental to your enjoyment of the game?

In the upcoming patch release, we are/were planning on removing several random elements (examples: removing PK flash's effects/limiting it to a far more linear number; ditching ROB's random Fsmash laser; dropping Ike's OHKO counter), be it by changing how it works (making rob's laser work above a certain charge only, for example) or just removing it and compensating elsewhere (removing Ike's OHKO counter but buffing overall KBG).

Do you feel that this is negative for the overall development of Brawl-, or do you support the removal of random elements? Did you love the randomness of various parts of the game, or did you dislike them? Please state your opinion here...

 

[Slashy]

I think the discussion is to which random parts to keep. I don't really like the random f-smash laser, but stuff like Luigi's tripping is great.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

There was actually discussion to re-add that... I'd agree, luigi's trip is somehow... Iconic to brawl-. Maybe as a movement option (hint hint!).

 

[[TSON]]

The two sides of the argument:

1. Randomness that is already established should not be taken away -- but rather molded in a way that still keeps the randomness, but makes it less centralizing or broken, and keep our current fanbase while making the game somewhat legitimate for tournaments.
E.G. "Take the bull by the horns, and make it move where you want it to go."

2. Randomness that is already established should be done away with, so that our "core audience" can shift completely into more of a competitive area.
E.G. "Let the bull run away, buy a new bull that looks better."

(And then there's #3, BPC & TSON stfu.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

TSON, my issue is not centralization or brokenness. It's a move basically either doing its normal effect... or killing you. Again, I ask: have you ever been hit by the PK flash effect that does... nothing? It's just outright ****ty design.

My personal opinion: there are in fact some cases where randomness is justified. Things where the randomness is an inherent balancing factor or leads to "cycling" (think Peach's Turnips or DDD's waddles); and in some cases you simply can't effectively separate the randomness from the move (G&W's Judgement, the aforementioned two) without a complete redesign. That's not in anyone's best interest.

However, purposefully injecting randomness into the game should be avoided. What if Wolf's laser occasionally did 50% with no warning whatsoever? What if Warlock Punch came out randomly in 10 frames instead of 90 every once in a while? What if... You get the point. Obviously, neither of those random effects are game-breakers. Just like Ness's PK Flash occasionally OHKOing vs. occasionally doing absolutely nothing is–it's not a move you're going to use a lot, and it's clearly not a huge deal that it's random. But it still inserts a random element into the game-one which is detrimental to competition... and poor design altogether! And then there are the ones that actually matter. Imagine if in a tournament match you have a solid stock lead and then suddenly you get hit by the OHKO counter (the normal counter wouldn't have come close to killing you). Or if you land just out of range of ROB's fsmash, ready to counterattack, and he gets the laser effect-completely randomly, you just missed your punish, and maybe even died.

This is another issue where I think it's not diluting Minus's formula at all, but it's just ****ty game design. For reference: this is what I'm talking about. Why did we add randomness? Canon? I have never even seen a mother game; for all intents and purposes, the Melee and Brawl versions of PK Flash are canon. ****s and Giggles? Yes, because a random 1/25 chance of a OHKO is a really ****ing good idea. I don't want to make this game competitive to the exclusion of casuals, but this is the wrong way to do it. It's like with tripping-sakurai wanted to make the game accessible to casuals, but guess what: everyone hated it, including the casuals.

This is my stance, and I support removing quite a bit of the randomness currently present in Brawl-.


EDIT: I'm going to quote the team's latest addition, "TheEffinBear" (for he is awesome):

The best source of randomness is the players themselves, because people are so very bad at being truly random. The interplay between these patterns and actually predicting them, which leads to predicting your opponent's predictions and changing your patterns to counter your opponent's predictions, which leads to etc etc. There's a LOT of gameplay that comes out of prediction, and innate randomness in a move throws a lot of that out the window.

So yes, for the sake of competitiveness, you definitely should want to remove or at least minimize randomness.

But another aspect of randomness is very very undesirable: the frustration it causes in its victims. Valve has put a lot of work and analysis into TF2 for making it enjoyable experience with as little frustration as possible, some of which they explain in this blog post: <snip>

What I really want to focus on is:

* "...for death to be a positive experience, players had to feel like they could have avoided dying if they'd done something different. [...] If you don't know what killed you, that death is failing in providing you the feedback it's supposed to, and you won't be able to figure out what you could have done differently. Unsurprisingly, we saw that these deaths were highly aggravating to players, and in sufficient number caused new players to stop playing entirely. Trying to reduce the number of these deaths in TF2 was done through a variety of changes. It was one of the reasons why we chose to remove the hand-held grenades that each class had in TFC, which were one of the primary causes of these deaths."

This directly applies to a lot of what Minus does with the increased mobility, which helps you engage your opponents (likewise for my Samus 2.0 changes which help remove her 1.6 keepaway game that just obliterated certain characters). But it also applies to randomness, especially the part about TFC's grenades: if you and your opponent reiterate an identical sequence of moves with identical spacing, etc, but one of those iterations results in you being OHKO'd, that's quite frustrating. Or from the other end, if one of those iterations results in your move just failing to do anything, that's also quite frustrating.

For an example of HOW frustrating this kind of randomness is, harken back to the earlier days of vBrawl. Compare the incredible volume of complaints about Ike's "combo" of "opponent trips -> f-smash" with how many times that ACTUALLY happened. How often did a random trip actually change the outcome of a match? It's not necessarily rational to hate the random tripping as much as all that, but the fact remains that the community LOATHED and practically revolted against it (wasn't "No random tripping" like the first hacked Brawl code ever?). Engaging your opponent is one of the very foundational things that a fighting game IS, but a random trip rips you out of that situation and forces you to suffer the random number generator's whims and punishments for a moment -- these trips are "highly aggravating to players, and in sufficient number caused new players to stop playing entirely".

Now, I grant you: moves with innately random components are significantly less frustrating than the random tripping. But the same elements are present for that same type of frustration: eating a random-chance OHKO in a fighting game doesn't typically make players "feel like they could have avoided dying if they'd done something different". It feels like a fluke (and as a random-chance OHKO, it is!), not a moment of having been outplayed and an opportunity for improvement. It tends to drive players away rather even if the average risk and average reward are perfectly balanced.

 

[[TSON]]

TSON, my issue is not centralization or brokenness. It's a move basically either doing its normal effect... or killing you.

And what I'm saying is, nerf the killing aspect to be cool and not ******** on some moves.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

K, what's the fix for Ike's downB?

 

[[TSON]]

Nothing, because of how many conditions have to be met for the chance to even activate.

 

[Flutter NiTE]

Uggh... How I wish to be in the B-BR. I think the randomness should stay in. But maybe every character should have SOME sort of randomness as well? R.O.B has the fsmash laser shot. What if, for example, a random thing Pikachu could have would be his Down B to have a 2-3 second stun property? (while Pikachu and opponent are on the ground beside eachother). The randomness is what makes B- fun, don't take that away, add to it.

 

[Life]

There is good randomness and bad randomness IMO.

Good randomness is like on Norfair where you have tons of warning (bar arguably the geysers) and you have to reformulate your plans on the fly to deal with the new situation.

Bad randomness is like tripping--no warning, no strategizing, just the game decides the winner and loser regardless of what you do.

 

[[TSON]]

lemme make this even more simple.

Balance randomness?
OR
Remove randomness?

(this poll is completely irrelevant)

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Balanced randomness. Ike's OHKO counter is hilarious, but not competitive. To put it in the words of fUddO, some of the elements of Brawl Minus feel like they were thought up by drunken frat boys.

 

[Flutter NiTE]

Some like it as a competitive game, and some like it more as a party game. (I personally like it as both...) It would take a LONG time... but if you released two versions, a competitive and a party edition....

mehh... my 2 cents

 

[JOE!]

I'd say balance randomness

also, is there a list of moves that would be considered as "random" that'd be affected by this?

 

[iLink]

If you can make the random aspect not as silly as OHKO'ing you, it isn't THAT much of an issue although I kinda detest random stuff happening all the time.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

While randomness is often a factor in gaming, and is liked by most casual gamers, it does not provide a benefit, and actually is detrimental. In regular Brawl, we have to deal with it, no choice. You have all the choice in the world concerning hacking. Get rid of it, that's what I came here for

 

[Life]

I will reiterate my previous statement.

Randomness, done well, enhances the competitiveness of a game (Norfair would be nothing if everything had a fully predictable pattern).
Randomness, done poorly, destroys competition (obviously).

 

[Alopex]

The complete removal of randomness is unnecessary. No one complains about G&W's Judgment even in a competitive scene.

What happens instead is that the move gets mostly ignored by G&W players and its victims don't usually mind the OHKO because they realize the player took a sizable gamble with the execution of the move.

This is fair randomness. You can get screwed, or you can make out like a bandit.

Just having a move randomly fail, or do nothing, is unfair randomness. Why? Because it could be the only element in a sound strategy that did not deliver. And it wasn't even the player's fault.

If the effect is not too overpowered, then even one-sided randomness can be balanced, a la Waddles&Gordos. Getting hit by a Gordo isn't the end of the world, and victims don't sweat it too much, but it's a sound boost to the DDD player, which he really only got through sheer random luck. But it was a tolerable amount of luck.

I think Brawl- needs this randomness, as it adds to the overall feel of the game. Balance it, keep it, make it fair, even if it's the randomness that was created by the BR itself. Just because you injected randomness into a move, doesn't mean you have to remove it - just polish it to fairness. A lot of Brawl- players play Brawl- because it's a bit less serious a game.

Less serious =/= less competitive.

TvC is less serious than SFIV. It's not less competitive. Though it is less played... which is a shame. BUT STILL! The point! It stands!

 

[mugwhump]

There is good randomness and bad randomness IMO.

Good randomness is like on Norfair where you have tons of warning (bar arguably the geysers) and you have to reformulate your plans on the fly to deal with the new situation.

Bad randomness is like tripping--no warning, no strategizing, just the game decides the winner and loser regardless of what you do.

I agree with this.

For randomness in stages, warning is good. Gives both players the chance to adapt, and keeps things fun.

Neutral randomness, that influences the match but not in a way that directly favors one player, is also good. Like WarioWare choosing which minigame it does randomly. It keeps the game fresh and makes players adapt, but doesn't obviously give one of them the advantage. The opposite would be WarioWare randomly choosing which player becomes invincible, an event which is clearly in that player's favor.


For character attacks, I think all you need to avoid is highly polarized randomness. By which I mean there being an extremely small chance of something random happening (especially if it's massively beneficial or detrimental). An example would be explosive capsules spawning in front of your character's attack in melee, or tripping when you dash. Could you have built your strategy around the chance it would happen? Sure, but it happens so rarely that it's more cost-effective to simply ignore the possibility and play normally.

Good randomness is less polarized and more moderate. Like Zelda's d-tilt tripping her opponent, where there's an average chance of something mildly beneficial/detrimental happening. The trip happens frequently enough that it pays off for Zelda and her opponent to strategize around it. Peach's f-smash is another example, or Link's arrows as they are now.


Basically:

• warning = good
• Neutral events > biased events
• 50% chance > 1% or 99% chance.

 

[Zef]

uhh
no lol

 

[ryuu seika]

So you've got pointless and annoying randomness in this brawl mod that makes it uncompetitive and in some cases downright stupid? Mind if I have it?

 

[DVDV28]

Increase the yeses by one and decrease the nos by one. I change my vote.

 

[Slashy]

Donkey's barrel's are a nuisance.

 

[standardtoaster]

Donkey's barrel's are a nuisance.

In what way? The same thing could be said about any projectile or item. >_>

 

[Evilagram]

I think that random elements should be balanced for a range of power, similarly to a move with a sweetspot. A lot of RPGs have random elements, like dice rolls or RNGs, but they maintain balance all the same. Hell, look at TF2, it does fine.

Random elements activated by the players are a lot less of an issue than random items spawning at random times at random spots on the stage.

If there is a random element with multiple outcomes, I think it should be balanced as a move with the power of the average of the most and least powerful outcomes.


I am in favor of random moves. Stages work too, as long as there is warning, thus enabling players to accommodate.

 

[Xinc]

Perhaps just a bit of randomness and chance would be nice, but no more. Like, keep Luigi's trip and Ike's counter... but I'm not so sure that adding any more randomness would be good.

 

[JOE!]

thinking some more, I think randomness works the best when you can see it coming.

For example, you're fighting GW, you KNOW he has the hammer, and that there's a chance of it ruining you, or conversely being a meh attack (or even popping out an apple for you to steal).

Alternately, when playing with items, you don't exactly know when or where an item can show itself, and what it means for the match. It could be anything from a relatively harmless Mr Saturn to a Smart-Bomb that you happen to activate by being knocked into it or such.

Why the Hammer is accepted and the Item scenario isn't, imo, is that the former is a "Gamble" and the latter "Randomness for the sake of random" (for lack of a better term). Both the GW player and his/her opponent(s) enter the match knowing there's a risk to be had with the judgment hammer (as well as Luigi with his trip, Peach's Turnips, Ike's Counter, etc) and are ok with it because they know the requirements for the randomness to occur:

-The move must be done by X character
-They must be in range of or activate (Ike) said move

Said moves are also not usually greatly beneficial to the characters tossing them out (except maybe peach who uses it for spacing) so players don't usually get aggrevated by being confronted by said moves, and when the chance of X does occur that isn't in the victim's favor, they seem to accept the fate as it was a gamble on both their ends and it so happened that GW/Ike/Etc came out on top that time.

With the latter example, all parties are subject the "RNG" as nobody knows what could pop out and where. It's like playing in a minefield where one second you could be winning due to being (better), and the next your foe gets the edge on you just cus they got that lucky item, or you happened to be in front of a (literal) mine.

So in short, i think Randomness is completely fine as long as it's a Gamble both players know and accept, not randomness for the sake of being random. Make sense?

 

[[TSON]]

We're talking mostly movewise here btw

 

[JOE!]

Well yeah, i was just using the comparison to items as theyre an obvious source of "randomly random" in the game

 

[Leo Kitsune]

Hmm... Well, the randomness is hilarious, but not good for competition.

Easiest way to do it: Make two separate builds. One has the hilarious randomness (think Ike's OHKO counter), the other does not (for example, Ike's OHKO removed or made a move that has to be triggered in a special way, like Captain Falcon's ability to Falcon Punch much faster after a Smash Taunt).

I personally love the random factors, and I wouldn't want to see them go forever.

 

[[TSON]]

Do you actually want to get into a heated debate or are we just going to accept "randomness is bad for competition" as law because brawl+ decided that

 

[JOE!]

but it's not as long as it is not randomly random, but a gamble

 

[Life]

I refer AGAIN to my posts above.

For those of you who aren't on 40ppp (noobs ):

There is good randomness and bad randomness IMO.

Good randomness is like on Norfair where you have tons of warning (bar arguably the geysers) and you have to reformulate your plans on the fly to deal with the new situation.

Bad randomness is like tripping--no warning, no strategizing, just the game decides the winner and loser regardless of what you do.

I will reiterate my previous statement.

Randomness, done well, enhances the competitiveness of a game (Norfair would be nothing if everything had a fully predictable pattern).
Randomness, done poorly, destroys competition (obviously).

 

[Supreme Dirt]

LOL Mr. Saturn is NOT harmless.

Seriously, the number of characters who can basically OHKO you if they can get you just standing somewhere doing nothing (i.e. shield break) is pretty high. Most with fully charged smash attacks, but others have their own options.

 

[JOE!]

it's harmless compared to say the home-run bat.

it's only good if it gets a shield break at a good %

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Well, every character I play has what amounts to a OHKO at low %s (Ganondorf with Warlock Punch, Bowser with fully charged FSmash, King Dedede with same) so getting a shield break with any of them basically amounts to a lost stock.

 

[smashbro29]

Hmm... Well, the randomness is hilarious, but not good for competition.

Easiest way to do it: Make two separate builds. One has the hilarious randomness (think Ike's OHKO counter), the other does not (for example, Ike's OHKO removed or made a move that has to be triggered in a special way, like Captain Falcon's ability to Falcon Punch much faster after a Smash Taunt).

I personally love the random factors, and I wouldn't want to see them go forever.

I don't think further fragmenting ourselves will help all that much.