Dogs of War Online

Who likes RNG? answer: nobody. While RNG is part of the game and i am ok with it, it should NOT be part of the skills and talents units can get.

Who would take a talent or skill that does something awesome...once in a while? answer: nobody unless it comes in the package (hello flesh golem) or you are "forced" to take it (ring of ice/mist) in order to access an upper tier.

My baseline is: when i take a skill/talent it should do what i want when i want and provide expected results. The player who uses its skills and talents better will win, that is the game i would like to see and i hope the community as well.

The bad RNG skill/talents at the moment are:

- Insensitive (Flesh Golem) = 50% chance to cancel enemy's spell/miracle
- Assassin (Assault units) = 10% chance to score a critical hit
- Ring of ice (wolven lonewolf) = 50% chance to cancel enemy's arrow
- Ring of mist (wolven lonewolf) = 50% chance to cancel enemy's spell/miracle
- Survival instinct (Lion/Grave guardian) = 15% chance to cancel normal damage (melee only ?)

3 of them are as reliable as coin tossing and 2 do something awesome...once in a while. As a comparison, other talents like Elusive...are great even though they simply lower the chance of making your unit get hit (so still RNG) but you actually expect (key word) your unit has a very low chance of getting hit while disengaging.

I would like to gather in this topic the possible ideas in order to remove some extra RNG from the game. I will be sharing my ideas soon

EDIT:

here are my ideas to make those skills less luck dependant and interesting so that there is more interaction:

Insensitive -> make it work like hardboiled but only for spells (not my idea but i really liked it). Maybe absorbing 3 damage can be enough. This would make bad omen/e-touch quite hard counters vs it but golem has such a high accuracy that usually bad omen impacts slightly and e-touch can be played around/dispelled if the pala dies.

Ring of mist -> same as insentive but with a duration. Dispelled if the caster dies.

Ring of ice -> EDIT: a better solution might be that it applies the vivacity buff (+2 DOD on ranged attacks)

Assassin -> critical hit chance to 100% if the enemy unit is surrounded by 2 or more units. Alternatively, if hit rate is higher than 100% it will automatically crit.

Survival instinct -> The unit doesn't suffer the penalties by being surrounded.

This game is not overly random. Increased spell diffs is actually adding a lot more random I would say. MoA necro has 80% heal chance if unijured. Chosing MoA still leaves a 1 in 5 fail if you are healthy and not engaged. ET is also similar chance and equally life threatening if it fails, you are right next to the guy who is now not effected.
I am not complaing about random elements, they are rarely the major factor in a game of DoW IMO. I am just saying that the trend appears to be more towards a risk vs reward mechanic (I like that for excitement) and it would appear quite deliberate by the devs.

P.S Read my "injury System of The Future" under suggestions and let us know what you think!

Errol Flynn wrote:This game is not overly random. Increased spell diffs is actually adding a lot more random I would say. MoA necro has 80% heal chance if unijured. Chosing MoA still leaves a 1 in 5 fail if you are healthy and not engaged. ET is also similar chance and equally life threatening if it fails, you are right next to the guy who is now not effected.
I am not complaing about random elements, they are rarely the major factor in a game of DoW IMO. I am just saying that the trend appears to be more towards a risk vs reward mechanic (I like that for excitement) and it would appear quite deliberate by the devs.

P.S Read my "injury System of The Future" under suggestions and let us know what you think!

but you see...respite of the death falls into the category of skills that i expect the outcome (i do not know it but im fairly sure it will happen). I expect it can succeed often so i can plan my strategy around it. A 50% chance is just a coin toss...how can you plan your strategy around it? 10% and 15% chances are even worse. Again, how can you plan your strategy around it?

You are looking from your point of view. If you have a 50% chance to avoid a spell or shot your opponent cannot 'plan' on hitting that unit. The opponent if not a fool, will actually be unlikely to target it. If he does he is weighing the risk vs the reward. So from your strategies point of view you cast the spell and welcome your opponent risking his activation on a 50% chance of hit if the spell/shot is even successful. It favours the user most definitely and in the context of a game is a extremely solid strat even at 50%. If it was higher than 50% it would effectively be spell/ranged immunity ie: nobody in their right mind would target the effected unit.

You are looking from your point of view. If you have a 50% chance to avoid a spell or shot your opponent cannot 'plan' on hitting that unit. The opponent if not a fool, will actually be unlikely to target it.

Not exacly - opponent will eventually target the golem sooner or leater because of no other targets - and with 50% he have 25% for puting twi scourges in golem dealing quite serious damage - or he have 25% for do nothing ... and its bad.
Yes you have 50% that it worked as intended but you also have 50% for opposite - so its still a coin toss

Errol Flynn wrote:You are looking from your point of view. If you have a 50% chance to avoid a spell or shot your opponent cannot 'plan' on hitting that unit. The opponent if not a fool, will actually be unlikely to target it. If he does he is weighing the risk vs the reward. So from your strategies point of view you cast the spell and welcome your opponent risking his activation on a 50% chance of hit if the spell/shot is even successful. It favours the user most definitely and in the context of a game is a extremely solid strat even at 50%. If it was higher than 50% it would effectively be spell/ranged immunity ie: nobody in their right mind would target the effected unit.

yes this is a good point. I'm not saying that the best would be an immunity or a higher percentage, my aim here is to remove the random factor completely. However, sometimes the player is forced to shoot/cast a spell on those protected units (either because there is no other target or because they are threatening some important unit) and this is were the RNG kicks in and - to me - where the fun ends.

please notice im fine with abilities that have a chance between 70-100% , same as hit percentages as they can be manipulated by the players.

edit: ninja'd by DW

Do you remember telling people that if they do not like RNG they should play chess? I remember both of us using that line pretty regularly. Now you are trying to totally sure up your strat. I don't really get where the issues with RNG in a dice game are coming from. Survival instinct always seemed a little too unpredictable for its AP cost, but a player in my lion build post just suggested I take it. Interestingly enough chess is originally thought to have used dice. Cultures and eras prohibiting gambling changed that. Random is reality. It is a better tactics game IMO if there are things that cannot be planned for. A failed roll means you have to adapt, not just watch something play out. There is no commander of forces ever who could guarantee the outcome of anything. All they can do is try and stack the odds in their favour. That is why although chess is a perfect game, things like this are more exciting and in many ways more a realistic simulation of battle.
You can build to minimise chance. If you don't like failed rolls then you should do that. I find the players who get most upset with 'luck' in these games are the ones who try and take the least chances. If you build to not roll any bad dice failures really hurt and they will still happen every game. You are better off rolling dice and learning to roll with the punches at the same time.

Hello everyone, i am quite new on the game so don't act if I say something already said.

I had to post because I especially like the randomization of the game.

I don't want it anywere through as it would be like a yam's party and not a strategic one. But the fact is, at the beginning, Dogs of War was created by rackham to put a bit RPG background on the world of confrontation. RPG comes with randoms.

Randoms in this context means that a single squeleton, normally put out the grave just to fulfill the will of his master could be so inspired that he shot right in the face the big bad lion wizard (just an example ). Randoms means that the game is not over until the last unit is still alive (even if I seriously doubt about the fight between Golem and Puppet ).

I don't play long enough to say if insensitive was a good idea on a war machine, but assassin or survival for me are good for what they do : giving a chance the unit be far more deadly as expected. The AP price seems too high through.

Errol Flynn wrote:Do you remember telling people that if they do not like RNG they should play chess? I remember both of us using that line pretty regularly. Now you are trying to totally sure up your strat. I don't really get where the issues with RNG in a dice game are coming from. Survival instinct always seemed a little too unpredictable for its AP cost, but a player in my lion build post just suggested I take it. Interestingly enough chess is originally thought to have used dice. Cultures and eras prohibiting gambling changed that. Random is reality. It is a better tactics game IMO if there are things that cannot be planned for. A failed roll means you have to adapt, not just watch something play out. There is no commander of forces ever who could guarantee the outcome of anything. All they can do is try and stack the odds in their favour. That is why although chess is a perfect game, things like this are more exciting and in many ways more a realistic simulation of battle.
You can build to minimise chance. If you don't like failed rolls then you should do that. I find the players who get most upset with 'luck' in these games are the ones who try and take the least chances. If you build to not roll any bad dice failures really hurt and they will still happen every game. You are better off rolling dice and learning to roll with the punches at the same time.

You are missing my point and the whole discussion. I'm super fine with RNG as long as it can be manipulated by the player. Having higher odds than your opponent is a key part of the game and should not be touched. I'm 100% fine with mages failing their spells, arrows missing and scattering and what not. My issue is about those skills that i mentioned which add no possibility to manipulate their outcome and it just boils down to luck. They can perform so good or so bad without any chance from your side or your opponent to increase/decrease the odds of their success.

I once won a game that i had no business winning during closed. It was my lonewolf (20-15 hp) vs 3 lion archers (full hp) my ring of ice made me dodge practically all arrows that hit it and i won. Once i had another case with a lion of war which "blocked" with survival instinct three times in the game and felt tougher than a golem. The opposite is also true where those skills do exactly nothing and you regret having spent the AP. All in all they range from AWESOME to RUBBISH without the possibility to increase/decrease the odds.

EDIT: on top of the page, my suggestion to make those skills more interesting and less luck centered.

I think you are missing the point a bit Deep Blue. The 50% spells are not just resistance, they act as a deterrent from being targeted in the first place. So the toss of a coin analogy is not accurate. It is risk vs reward. Is the chance for a good outcome good enough? Can I deal with the failed outcome? these are the questions you need to answer as the timer ticks. You can have a situation where a 20% chance, because the reward would be so great and you can handle the failure is worth the risk. You could also have a situation where and 80% chance is not good enough because the reward is not great and you cannot handle the failed outcome. An example of that would be when a necro heal could give 10 HP or kill the unit. Good odds but it still may be more important to keep the unit on the field than potentially give it 10 HP.
For the vast majority of games the guys who minimise risk will be better off, every so often who dares will win.