4 ms·
Heh, if only the hit chance was actually the hit chance. Very often the same attack, e.g. three strikes with 60% chance, yields something like 30% hits when the
by dozzie 8y ago
Heh, if only the hit chance was actually the hit chance. Very often the same
attack, e.g. three strikes with 60% chance, yields something like 30% hits
when the situation is repeated multiple times (save-attack-load-attack).
- LoSboccacc 8y agoIn a game I did I had to face this exact kind of cognitive bias with predictable randomness. Our brain sucks at experiencing chances due to fixation on negative emotions. Eventually settled for running each chance twice and picking the best outcome and that felt more matching the player expectations, but in the end I just removed the chance aspect.
- pdpi 8y agoThere was a funny issue with that sort of thing in (IIRC, the American version of) several Fire Emblem games. In an attempt to make the RNG feel less random, they actually generated two 1-100 numbers for each roll and averaged them. This has the effect of making numbers close to 50 likelier than extreme values, which in turn makes extreme probabilities even more extreme: a 5% chance to miss becomes a .3% chance to miss after this averaging.
- j_4 8y agoI couldn't find the article I was thinking of, but it had a number of gamedevs admitting to manipulating hit ratios like this. In a similar vein, it's generally a good idea to make gambler's fallacy true under the hood. Goes a long way towards having less angry, frustrated players.