Fighting games need more randomness

[SneakyTortoise]

No, but I am predicting that this will happen more often @ 9:45.

I know watching that is like porn to you scrubs, but I consider it horrendous gameplay.

But, how could such a random game possibly achieve consistent winners and placers?

No game, that doesn't require skill, could possibly hope to achieve consistent winners and placers. I don't know how you can't see that.

 

[xInfra Deadx]

What in the fuck did i just read...?

 

[NHDR]

Fighting games don't need randomness to grow, just easy combos. And an in-depth tutorial mode that explains everything to novice players. Killer Instinct has a pretty good tutorial in that regard, for example. The scene would grow because players would feel empowered, yet the game itself would not be compromised by the insertion of "luck" and randomness.

 

[Matix218]

Mk11 needs prat falls

 

[Juggs]

Actually, @gamemk is right to an extent. Maybe not more randomness specifically, but more aspects to where pure skill isn't the only way you can win, such as Xrays. It sucks for the true competitive gamer, but in order for fighting games to get really big and for the the scene to grow, the accessibility factor needs to overshadow most other components of the game. It's not the fluffy idealistic solution, but nothing rarely ever is. However, like Poker, the good player will still win in the long run.

 

[Hini]

But, the vets with years of experience would just dominate even more with easier combos. That's the thing with MKX and the 50/50's, and it was the problem with the parry in Thirdstrike. When you give vets and noobs access to easier tools, you just make it easy for vet players. The decision making is the problem. Vets are better at thinking through situations in the game because some are naturally better, and some are drawing on years of experience. The games get to a point where nothing in the game happens to surprise a veteran player, and they pretty much control everything that happens in the game. That doesn't happen in most sports.

Yes but the reason why new players dont stick with fighting games isnt because they get dominated by veteran players, its because it takes a long ass time before they feel like they are actually even playing the game, easier access to combos and the game in general, would help players feel like they start playing the game and their opponent instead of fighting against the controls.

 

[Hini]

Actually, @gamemk is right to an extent. Maybe not more randomness specifically, but more aspects to where pure skill isn't the only way you can win, such as Xrays. It sucks for the true competitive gamer, but in order for fighting games to get really big and for the the scene to grow, the accessibility factor needs to overshadow most other components of the game. It's not the fluffy idealistic solution, but nothing rarely ever is. However, like Poker, the good player will still win in the long run.

But accessibility doesnt need to come in the form of "I always have a chance against players that are better than me", there are a few things that really helps a game to keep players interest.

Easy to use controls, players can jump right into the game and start doing stuff instead of struggling with fireball motions.

Sense of progression, something that makes a player feel like they are earning something with the time they put in, it can such a simple thing as experience points towards getting new skins/color variations.

Being able to play with friends, 2v2 tag?

 

[Icy Black Deep]

By the way, the worst thing for a casual gamer is to just die with no clue what's happening.
That's why MKX's 50/50s are the worst kind of randomness. "He used a string I never saw before and it hit me low, so next time I blocked low. But then it hit me overhead so the next time I blocked low and then overhead. But then it hit low again so I blocked low, high, low, but this time the third hit was an overhead!"
That and block infinites. Being able to [mash] poke out of pressure is really the only thing you can expect an inexperienced player to do. They're not going to find gaps in the middle of the string that can be armored through.

 

[seniorcuddlebuns]

Even if there is luck, tourneys and other competitive settings just advocate for it to be turned off anyways or disable it for tournaments. Team Fortress 2 had servers with random crit and I NEVER frequented those as you could outplay someone for 3/4ths of the time engaging them and a lucky critical hit makes you lose the fight. Nothing is more frustrating than winning only for something out of your control to kill you. Sure, you and the other person both have the opportunity to randomly crit, but there's no agency (outside of using a weapon that can't randomly crit) in it so it doesn't matter.

In League of Legends, there was a stat on the perks skill tree that let you have 4% critical hit chance at the beginning of the game for free. There were tradeoffs to picking this stat as you couldn't pick something else to get it, but if someone picked Tryndamere or Gangplank they could randomly crit you and potentially win the lane, off a 4% random chance. The community, both pros and casuals alike, thought the free 4% crit chance was so annoying that Riot eventually removed it from the skill tree. And League has slowly been removing a lot of random factors like dodge which let you randomly avoid damage, etc.

Don't screw over people who actually took the time and wanted to get better at the game with whacky nonsense

 

[protools27]

In order for fighting games to grow, and have the average joe or joe-ette feel like they have a shot at winning big, the games need more randomness, like poker. I don't think it can get big just as a spectator sport, and it will be interesting to see if it stays as popular as it is after the shift from Usf4 to sf5.

I don't know how someone would make it more random, but that's the only way for it to get really big imo.
Maybe if they added something like random items: power boost item that increases health and certain characters can get to it faster than others but they have lower health; an item that boosts speed; and a mystery item that can cause damage if you use it or lead to another power advantage(Imagine the salt/hype that would come if neither player used the mystery item and it could have won the game. You could even reveal it after a game ended, like when someone folds in poker and would have won). You could also bet meter to acquire the item the fastest, like if I have 3 bars, and you have 2 bars, and we both see a random item appear--if I bet my 3 bars by doing some motion before you do, or before you reach it I get the item but I lose the meter. So, it's a trade off, but one that doesn't require a ton of skill other than reaction time and meter management.

You would have bad beats, where luck would beat skill, but it might be hype and it would let bums feel like they have a shot, which brings in more money.

Anyone agree/disagree? Since it's a competitive site, there will probably be a lot who disagree or who just don't care, but I don't think it's such a bad idea. It's better than making characters that can do stupid powerful attacks(cough El Fuerte) that seem difficult to make sense of(I have figured out Fuerte though), and random but only for one player.

Just a thought I had, wondering why weaker players go to tournaments that they almost have no chance of winning. I know some people go to hang out, but it seems like more people would go if they thought they had a shot.

To me the lack of randomness in fighting games is what makes them the best competive game. Before I was big into the fgc, I played a lot of madden. The main reason I stopped was do to the randomness of the game. Basically in madden certain plays beat certain defenses, so it's a mind game of knowing what defense your opponent is in, and using the best play to counter it. For instance, a tight end streak is really good against a cover 3 zone defense. And there would be games where I would read the cover 3 defense, set my tight end on a streak, throw it to him when he's wide open, only for him to drop a sure touchdown due to randomness. There would also be times where I would call a run, pick up about 20 yards, only for my running back to fumble the ball. There was nothing more frustrating as a player then to lose to circumstances outside of your control. That's the beauty of fighting games, it's just you and your opponent, and for the most part whoever reads there opponent the best, knows the match up best, and generally has put more time in will come in on top. If the lower players wanna beat the better players, well they will have to grind it out and put in the work.

 

[juicepouch]

But, the vets with years of experience would just dominate even more with easier combos. That's the thing with MKX and the 50/50's, and it was the problem with the parry in Thirdstrike. When you give vets and noobs access to easier tools, you just make it easy for vet players. The decision making is the problem. Vets are better at thinking through situations in the game because some are naturally better, and some are drawing on years of experience. The games get to a point where nothing in the game happens to surprise a veteran player, and they pretty much control everything that happens in the game. That doesn't happen in most sports.

ease of use only helps new players. Sako will hit 1 frame links that joe average doesn't even think are possible, my point being no matter what difficulty it takes to do optimized combos the top players will do it

I will agree fg's need more useful tutorials to help inundate new players to mehanics and gameplay considerations they migh not understand how to utilize

 

[Sonson21]

You know, a lot of people complained about the randomness in Marvel, and dropped it for said reason. In competitive play random isn't something that's welcomed.

 

[vicious1024]

Introducing randomness isn't going to make competitive gaming any more popular than it already is. I can only see this annoying the existing player base.

Fighting games, specifically, aren't as popular as other genres because of how much execution affects the learning curve. Overcoming that entry-level to intermediate skill gap is extremely difficult because of it.

 

[Skkra]

This should seriously be looked at as a long term issue. How can we get more casual players to feel like they have a chance in the bigs?

You can't. I don't stand a chance playing against Peyton Manning, and the average joe shouldn't stand a chance against Sonic Fox. In a competitive endeavor, particularly something that will be a spectator sport, people don't want to see randomness and mediocrity. They want to see the best.

Even in poker, you see the same group of players over and over and over and over going very deep. Skill will always trump randomness in the long run. Obviously Phil Hellmuth doesn't win the WSOP every year, but you get my point.

What we really want isnt more player feeling like they have a chance in the big leagues. We want more players having a chance in the big leagues. Fighting games are very different than professional football or hockey, where you need to train pretty much full time to stand a chance. This is a game you can play in your living room. You can get good enough to play with the pros.

Honestly though, as far as "FGC as a sport" goes, what we really want is just more people understanding the games, so we add more spectators. Viewers = ads = money.

 

[LRK128]

I think the learning curve is too high for this to actually happen. The players you listed have over 20+ years of experience playing fighting games. Also, even with young players like Sonic and Nuclkedu, the competitive scene seems to be growing pretty slowly.

I started this thread because I got bored beating people in Street Fighter online with 20 year old strats that they can't stop.

Give me 1 more year that'll make it 2 and i'll show you high learning curve son

 

[chemicalNova]

KI has a sort of luck factor to it as well

I think KI has a great system going on. The combo break and counter break systems are incredible mindgames and it makes spectating so fricken hype (let alone playing).

 

[WakeUp DP]

NO.

MKX already does this with safe 50/50s, 25/25/25/25s, Vortexs & Block infinites.

 

[LRK128]

No, but I am predicting that this will happen more often @ 9:45.

I know watching that is like porn to you scrubs, but I consider it horrendous gameplay.

was expecting
you disappoint

 

[Juggs]

Introducing randomness isn't going to make competitive gaming any more popular than it already is. I can only see this annoying the existing player base.

Fighting games, specifically, aren't as popular as other genres because of how much execution affects the learning curve. Overcoming that entry-level to intermediate skill gap is extremely difficult because of it.

You do have a point in regards to the execution. It takes longer to become even average at fighting games because there's so much you have to learn even just with your own character, not to mention match-ups and knowing what other characters can and can't do. So most casual players just button mash and learn fatalities, and when they lose a lot they just get bored and want to play something else.

 

[shaowebb]

In regards to the OP, they tried that...it was called Smash Bros Melee with items. Then someone lucked into 3 legendary Pokemon, won and even he said it was bullshit and wasn't fair.

Random does not equate fair in any sense. If someone loses because they weren't good enough then that is in fact still fair. Its not really exciting seeing random stuff work because there is inheritly no skill or strategy required in the act. In other words, for something to look like an accomplishment and be exciting it needs to actually be an accomplishment and take skill. Random stuff does not require skill so in so far as a spectator sport goes it pretty much is a hype killer when someone gets a get out of jail free tool handed to them for no reason.

Case in point, stage hazard deaths like bird or someone getting that laser cannon or the beetle or the galaga ship in Sm4sh are pretty heavily reviled amongst even casuals. Random is bad. Get good is the best thing you can tell folks to do.

 

[ResetReptile]

Sorry dude, but this is just stupid. This is a game of skill not a game of luck. Almost all competitive games (LoL, WoW) are based on skill and how much you've put into the game. How is it fair to have high level people lose to noobs because of the luck factor? It doesn't incentivize people to try and get better at the game.

And poker is much more about intelligence and knowledge of the game than luck. Yeah some idiot could go all in on the first hand, but no high level guy is going to make stupid decisions like that.

 

[Tony at Home]

There's plenty of ways to get more players involved in the genre that don't include harming the meta-game with randomness.

It's just a hard pill for some to swallow for some reason, but arbitrarily hard controls need to go. That's one of the big things. There was actually a debate here about whether a dedicated run button should be an optional controller setup, and the opposition's stance was "it adds to the meta if it's hard to do" and "we need to reward high execution".

 

[Enigma642]

None of the suggestions here are going to work. Video gaming has several impossible hurdles to overcome before having a chance at mainstream.

Here is a couple for example:

1. Quality of online play. Every casual tries online. Most casuals even attempt to learn small combos in training mode. Most will practice for an hour or two in training mode, then attempt the same combo online, and fail miserably due to lag. Only a very tiny percentage of users overcome the lag barrier. Most don't even realize that input delay is the problem. And even if they do figure that out, it is still hard as hell to get used to timing your combos without visual and audial aids. This is a serious issue. It leads to frustration, and 99% of the people who bought MkX will get bored and drop the game fairly quickly...just like any other regular single player game.

2. As a spectator sport, video games in general are stuck with a niche audience, a small one at that, and the general public's perception of video game players is going to have to change before this will ever improve. I go to work and there are hundreds of people there, not a single one of them interested in video games, and even if I tell them about competitive gaming, their first thought is "wow these people must have no life". That perception is rampant and I don't see it ever changing.

 

[Shark Tank]

Hearthstone sounds like a game you'd like op.

 

[Pakman]

One of the biggest turn offs of fgs is that the skills you learn at a basic level simply just aren't transferable - MK plays differently to SF, which plays differently to KOF etc. Even the button presses (the very first thing you do) are very different between games and characters - for casuals this can be quite alienating and difficult for them to even bother venturing deeper down the respective games rabbit hole.

With FPS for example, this isn't the case. Even when the inputs change slightly from game to game, its nothing you can't learn in a few minutes - the overall dexterity requirement to play at a basic level is small and simple.

FGs by their nature demand more and require more learning time, which is fine but the mass market doesn't always have that time available.

But instead of dumbing them down to appeal to mass market, developers should instead embrace the inherent complexities of their games and focus on transparency: stuff like idk a hitbox/hurtbox viewer in game, with appropriate explanation and examples; a clear and concise tutorial that is inbuilt into the main story mode; clear explanation of move types and properties and exercises focused on dealing with common situations (KI does this well, but I would go a step further and have seperate trials for all characters)


Its not randomness that is needed to attract new players (although I fully understand the points made, FGs are closer to Sports in that they require time investment to get better at them - the whole point of FGs is you vs me, nothing more and nothing less) it is instead simplicity and transparency.