Why is this game heavily RNG/Luck based?

[PossessingSpirit09]

Basically, my progress is pretty much decided by the weapons I get in the first few levels. It's the difference whether I blow past the first boss, or not even got to him.

Call me a scrub/NOOB, but I hold onto my opinion that it's too RNG based for its own good.

[Bravo]

Outside of item argument you haven't made any counter-points to how a bad luck run is as enjoyable as a good luck one. Most of your post was just contradicting "you aren't supposed to" "stop doing that" etc. That doesn't make provided examples less reliable or effective, more than it hints at you not being able to deconstruct them directly.
The counter examples of how you are supposed to utilize said mechanics aren't even that good, for upgrade kits damage scaling isn't anywhere good enough for them to provide any meaningful difference without upgrading said kits first which would entail carrying them around regardless and as for the heart core, you might as well recycle it, because that's pretty much the equivalent of how much use you are getting out of it (and might as well spend it on something reliable like item stacking than getting a miniscule ~200hp buff).

I haven't stated that one can't complete a bad luck/handicapped run, I've said that it's going to be way less enjoyable and feel like a chore especially if you want something out of your run, have some excpectation, like getting a decent shotgun on a close range class, or getting a suppressed weapon on a more stealthy class, or getting a long range weapon/marksman weapon on a, you get the point. Let's say that even this example is a matter of taste preference (and you've missed the point entirely) then I'll provide an alternative, a very clear cut example that delineates the good and bad luck runs into fun and not so fun categories - low altitude hovering fighter jet and cargo apc boss roll.
If you don't have enough movement for the former one or if you don't have invulnerability on dashes, then, you are screwed, you either hide behind temporary cover or risk shooting at the boss and the risk is high, since if you make a mistake - the boss will melt you.
As for the APC boss - it's a bonus stage with no fail condition and overall higher reward. Yes, if you aren't doing good in your run you might not get much out of it, but hey ("but hey", if you had a good luck in your run, this lucky roll will help you snowball even further), at least you get a free pass to play more normal stages in hope that you get a gunshop spawn with a decent weapon.
There is just not comparison, one is clearly better (as in more useful, not talking about gameplay design) than the other and it's only luck that separates one from the other.

There is nothing "perfect" about first floor weapon rolling, it's about reliability. Rolling for a perfect weapon would obviously take forever and close to no one would actually prefer wasting so much time rolling to just playing the game instead, however at the same time I don't think anyone would also find no item/no weapon first floors crate rolls enjoyable. Hell, even an item crate roll is just so much more inferior to a weapon one at that stage of the game.

First, lets get the elephant out of the room, if you haven't obtained every tokenable item and you don't remember item mechanics by heart - the system is close to being worthless.
Second, there are non-legendary/non-starter items, that would win the games for you, but will fall off hard, down to useless on loop/challenges. These items I would consider to be crutches, they only help you wipe the floor with the easiest the game has to offer and will not help you get any better as a consequence.
Third, a lot of items are just not that good at their base power and again, it's pretty common to not see an upgrade shop for a third or even half of your run. So most of the time you are relying on the base kit of your class, which while strong has specializations which are usually range and as a consequence weapon dependant (which as we've already established - is not a reliable factor in this game).

To reiterate: the game is heavily RNG/Luck based just as the OP states. The fact that the game is also heavily skill based doesn't somehow negate that, since in certain proportions those aspects aren't exclusive.
No one argues in favor of detrimentally less reliable approaches, more than more effective ones. And even though bad luck runs are bound to happen regardless, the strategies are designed to counter them through said effectiveness. However, countering is not negating and the difference in how the luck affects ones run (and as a consequence the enjoyment of said run) is enough to be called drastic.

[RiftRipper]

From your previous post, it was difficult to tell what you expect of a run so (based on your terminology regarding FAILING a run due to being "handicapped" by "bad luck" with the Heart Core) I figured you were talking about non-loop gameplay. Now that you have clarified that you expect and aim for your runs to go deep into the loop, I find your previous post more agreeable.

The thing I primarily agree with you on is finding shops and upgrade stations more reliably. This would make the token system more useful. In it's current state, it usually forces a weapon into a shop too late into a run so I have usually already committed to another weapon that may not be the type I was hoping for (for example, getting a DMR as Sniper, but I don't find this to be a deal breaker). This is much less of an issue for items since they can be recycled, but a weapon cannot. Maybe if we could recycle a weapon and get half (rounded up) the upgrade kits we used on it back there could be more flexibility here. Whether or not a run generates with Heart Core or Artifact pieces can also be a pretty big difference if you're trying to "break the game."

Regarding other aspects of a run, however, is where differences in tastes come into play. For me, a lot of the fun and satisfaction I get from this game can come from defying the odds and going as far into the loop as I can when I get dealt a bad hand. I find "good luck runs" to be less entertaining in the non-loop levels as the game is just significantly easier and less engaging overall, and in the end it can sometimes feel like a hollow victory where I was "carried" by luck (Even though, as we agree, skill is still a large part of your success).

I don't think there should be some way to assure the appearance of the really lucrative things like the Armored Transport (APC boss) or Unstable Mass (Slime boss) because then there would be no reason for the other encounters to exist in their current states. The Raptor (Jet boss) and the Arena Masters just don't do as much for the player and it would be completely folly to take either of these on. This relates to the "lack of balance" you mentioned in the last paragraph of your previous post. But what's the best way of going about this supposed lack of balance? Do you make encounters like the Raptor more lucrative and make the game unnecessarily easier? Or do you make the Transport and Slime less lucrative? I'm not a fan of either solution because it would make runs more predictable and homogeneous. I think the RNG plays an important part in keeping the game unpredictable and more based on skill rather than memorizing what mechanics and item interactions can be broken for your benefit (I find the latter to be a big problem in other roguelikes such as The Binding of Isaac).

So, in conclusion, I think the current RNG is fine because it encourages more practice with different loadouts and improvisation - something I find more enjoyable than snowballing for most of the game until my loadout hits the breaking point where one mistake kills me. I don't think it's worth reducing RNG to allow for more late-game runs if it means making the early-mid game worse.

---------------------------

These are largely unimportant to the point so I'm saving them for this separate section. Feel free to address these or not:

- How much do you get for recycling the heart core? What do you typically do with it? I've never tried it, but given its starting item power I doubt recycling it will provide much in the way of meaningful item power upgrades. I typically activate it between two squads of enemies in the 2nd area and get ~+300 max health (without needing to upgrade its power) since I know I can't rely on the appearance of the Unstable Mass or a Massacre quest.

- Holding on to a single item upgrade kit allows you to maintain an upgraded stack so I don't find this to be much of an issue. I still find it better to use upgrade kits (without finishing the stack) when available as even a pistol can be plenty effective in the mid-late game, even in the loop where a pistol has sometimes taken me all the way back to the final boss. Alternatively, I just bite the bullet and commit to a non-pistol that I'm not crazy about and it performs much better than I expected. Unless I'm playing a class like Breacher and a highly impractical gun like the Yoko Lagann shows up - that's where I draw the line.

- You mention that close to no one would want to reroll the first level in hopes for a better outcome, but I've seen more than enough of this in the communities of other games so I'm lead to believe it's fairly widespread (Unfortunately. I think it's pretty lame).

- I don't have a whole lot of hours in this game and I find it pretty easy to remember what items do what for the purpose of the token system. Weapons are harder to remember given that they lack descriptions like items and have more stats. It would be good if these got descriptions in the database too.

EDIT: I thought about the bulleted list while I was out and decided to remove it, but by the time I got on you were already typing up your reply, so it's back.

[Bravo]

The prime context isn't loop gameplay, the context is the difference between a good luck run and a bad luck run (and maybe a bit about game design and balancing in general). In comparison to a good luck run bad rolls will still be bad and having to carry kits and the core in comparison to not doing so - IS being handicapped.
I didn't even state that the higher goal is exclusively looping, it was also challenges. The broad idea is the progression through the game, potentially through higher difficulties and so on, as in not limiting yourself to what you can do at the time, but the whole range of challenge that a game offers you and how you go about it. Scaling that approach up or down will not change the core of the issue - the game is heavily rng based, potentially to a fault.

2nd paragraph, no objections from me, for the exeption of the artifact pieces. As long as artifcat chests can spawn and full artifact collection nets you only a single perk, I don't see a big issue with it, especially since artifact perks are usually meh.

The problem with bad luck runs, is that the gameplay becomes a chore. It's like Enter the Gungeon, where the most effective way of playing it is pistol clearing the first stage perfectly every run. As a dedicated challenge, sure, I don't mind that, but if the game forces you into that through its design - then I have absolutely every right to criticize it for that.
As for the good luck, I don't disagree that too much of it can make the experience stale, however I generally was arguing for reliability, for balance, and not essentially straight buffs. If there are class related weapons and there are weapon type related perk bonuses, then I want to reliably get said weapons and utilize said bonuses, and when I do, I don't want to hamper my ability to get better weapons from said category. I don't mind it being limited or conditioned to the extent where it becomes balanced. Like, again, a simple example, the DMR conversion perk: it's close to impossible to proc, it's an on roll single time bonus and I believe it's not even that good by itself. The game is not reliable enough to make it a decent maybe somewhat underpowered set building perk, where instead it's complete and utter garbage, waste of a slot.

If either of the obvious solutions doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't mean that the problem is already in the less complex, less affecting state possible. For slime boss I think the solution is simple, if you have a heart core - force the slime boss encounter, if you don't - arena masters. If it limits the experience for people that don't want to bother with HC, make it to be optional for it to be random when you don't have the item, since essentially outside of that instance there isn't much difference between the too in terms of how they operate.
However APC is essentially a bonus stage, where Raptor is a boss. Well, if its a bonus stage, then it should have some thought through conditions. Maybe a challenging side arena/set of stages of some sort or terror level check (in an imaginary hypothetical world where it's actually a thought through mechanic).
When these variations don't have conditions you are not awarded for your skill, you are awarded arbitrarily.
As for the game getting broken, reliability and meta have nothing in common in terms of balance or enjoyment and any combination of states of the former can result in different combinations of the latter, hence why I believe there can be fair and balanced reliable meta, it's just a matter of thought put into the game design. If you fear that if in the current state the game is so poorly designed, that introducing reliability will make it worse, then you are just swiping actuall problems under a rug by trying to fix them with crutch level solutions. In other words, procedural generation shouldn't be the outlet through which game design problems should be solved. Random generation should be a taste enchancer that makes things fresh and spicy, not confusing and muddy.

- It was more of a rhetoric than actual evaluation. 200-300 hp is like nothing, where a lucky shop roll with a good item or a weapon would be much more valuable option to spend it on given the choice.
- If you are still going to carry the upgrade kit, then it's worse than either saving them for a potential main or using as you acquire them to have an additional item slot. Compared to auto-upgrade weapon scaling, difference in damage between good and bad weapons and just hp scaling in general, shop and kit damage upgrades are laughable, close to absolutely worthless. Kits could make a difference if you invest in them, but if you are doing so with a bad weapon you are not only not making the weapon significantly better, but are also waisting an essential item slot.
- I've said, that no one would want to reroll for the perfect roll. As for a decent or a good one if someone is feeling cheeky - that's something that I have implied someone could and would do, if they wanted their game to be more reliable.

[RiftRipper]

I emphasized the loop in my previous post because, in my experience, how far I make it there is the main difference between good and bad luck runs. The class (insanity) challenges ignore the loop entirely, so if a player regularly does well in the loop in 145% classic mode, where the game is more difficult, they stand a good chance of completing the tougher challenges at their required difficulty levels regardless of luck.

As for the gameplay being a "chore" during bad luck runs; I think this is just an effect of adhering to the meta too strongly. I understand you want to hold out for something good, and sometimes I try for a few floors as well, but unless something changes I think it's preferable (more effective, varied, and fun) to go off-meta when things aren't going well quickly. People believing too strongly in the meta and not considering other options is why I'm apprehensive about this game getting an effective, reliable meta.
The only real "solution" to making it more reliable I can think of was the "more shops" solution I mentioned in my previous post. And I'm not thinking about raising the percent chance of a shop occurring, I'm thinking something like "Item shops every X floors, Weapon shops every Y floors, etc."

I'm gonna agree with you 100% that DMR Conversion module has some serious problems. Probably the one truly flawed module.

As for your solutions for reliability with things like boss encounters, I've considered some things like those myself. Things like a boss being forced if the player has a specific item would probably be a bit unintuitive, but something like a "select destination" terminal like we get every few floors for adjusting the Terror Level may work. Of course, this terminal could be dependent on whatever factors were decided on for enabling an encounter. In particular, I really liked your idea of linking the terror level to specific boss encounters. If this were linked to the terminal I mentioned, it could even give feedback/information to the player, such as showing a destination greyed out with a line like "TERROR LEVEL TOO HIGH!". Of course, such a thing would likely require some changes to the Terror Level mechanic to flesh it out a bit more - it's pretty obscure in its current state unless you compare Classic to Madness Mode. If setting the destination with the current terminal design ends up being too powerful, it can charge a credits fee. Risk of Rain 2 has a mechanic where players can pay to set the next level that works well.

[Shrike]

there is a balance from highly RNG based, like Isaac or Gungeon to no luck based like Helldivers
The less random elements the more repetitive it is however. I think the balance is pretty much in the middle, you can have crazy combinations but also 95% of items and weapons are worthwhile and its mostly about your movement and aim.

There may be bad variant combinations but there are no weapons that can not last until loop.
I can cheat myself a railgun in first room but if I dont play attentive I will still die on first floor with it. Power curve is very flat and blue weapons are very good and viable when upgraded. There are no bad base weapons just bad usage, everything is buffed to hell, same for items.

Of course do weapons like T800, Impaler, Crossbow, RPG etc require noticeably more skill than others but the power is there.

You also get flooded with items which Im not a fan of right now, 8 slotted in first rooms is a bit nonsensical.

Does loop require certain cheese items and weapons to be most effective? Surely.
Does the main game rely RNG to do well? Surely not.

Mantra of this game is "anything can work" and its balanced to exactly that. If you can make it work is the other thing.

[Bravo]

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that the "RNG is perfectly balanced" rhetoric sounds more like a mantra designed to convince yourself and not the others. It's not the scale that should decide the balance, it's the quality, the effect.

Ok, lets say we are confining ourselves just to non-loop content. Assuming we are good players and are jacking the terror level up with every available opportunity, potentially even with a madness button (but that's a stretch, obviously) won't there be weapons that it would be close to impossible if not impossible to beat LD or even an APC with? Even if you don't have any problem playing normal levels no way in hell you are going to beat said bosses with weaker weapons (not even talking about the pistols). Theoretically there may be a possibility that given all of the available supplies it is mathematically possible to manage that feat, but then there is also the heat mechanic that basically halts your dps to a crawl, because it's not designed to work with continuous fire for the length of your entire ammo reserves.
But then you could recommend lowering the terror level and taking items, that would play the non-loop content for you, and at that point you will just be telling me to play on the easiest difficulty possible with the only valid goal being: doing the bare minimum (i.e. beating LD in non-loop).
The truth is glaringly obvious, there are a lot of weapons that are only good as a replacement for your pistol and a stepping stone towards weapons that have some umpf behind them, and whatever the weapon has that umpf can be decided by class specializations and abilities. If the weapon is good, but doesn't fit into the specialization (and let me point out, the intersection area of these two is usually very small, sometimes even less than 4) it creates margin of error, the inconsistency that will substantially increase the probability of getting hit (which in later stages of the game might as well mean death). No stability on SRs or even marksman rifles would mean that you'll be missing crucial headshots if not the entire shots themselves, no ammo regen or damage reduction on MGs would mean that you won't be able to maintain the required RoF to effectively suppress the enemy, if you don't have damage reduction, dash extensions and speed with a shotgun (or some smgs) and make 1 wrong move - you pop.

For single shot weapons, if you have random active reloads on then they become borderline unmanageable and if you don't roll last straw, well, into the trash the weapon goes.
For proactive type weapons, the ones where you need to charge before they fire, those struggle from the fact that the latter stages (past your build planning) favor heavily good reactive gameplay which is at odds with the proactive concept.

The fact that you get flooded with items has nothing to do with the game being too heavy on rng or not.

Does the main game content include challenge modes or terror level, where completion of the former is required for class unlocks? Because if so, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

I don't doubt that it's the idea, that you want to approach designing the balance of the game with, however there are several issues. One, the act of moving towards said goal doesn't guarantee you actually moving closer towards achieving it, two, is the goal worth achieving (in its literal meaning) and does the foundation support it, because with enough difference and variations there are going to be situations where the idea just doesn't hold up (just look into your argumentation, you already cutting large chunks of your game out of the scope so that it would fit into that narrow idea).
I'm perfectly fine with the core experience, however, with all the new additions the game as a whole from a layman's point fo view is as skill intensive as it is RNG heavy. I don't really find one worse than the other, hell, they are both very rough and flawed, but ignoring that the latter is even a thing is a really skewed and biased perspective.

@RiftRipper
About the shop idea, I'm thinking about something similar along those lines, however, guaranteed shop spawns can make things a lot easier. Maybe the rarity should be limited by the floor the shop spawns in. Like for example, before 1st boss there are only uncommon and rare for randomly generated and uncommon for guaranteed, for 2nd there are also potentially epics, but only up to rares for tokened, and so on. That way you are still going to have the variety, but also will have the reliability for when the variety is at the detriment for ones enjoyment.

[Shrike]

I bet for any weapon that you name as bad, theres a person saying he thinks its amazing.
Yes you wont kill LD with a rpg or M79 most likely, but thats why you have 2 (3) slots and more than plenty upgrade kits. You can easily get to LD with any of the light blue weapons. These examples do sound a lot like a weapon usage thing. From these examples you give I am very reassured that there is no issue.

Weapon specialization is also largely irellevant. A breacher can use sniper rifles extremely well, a sniper can use shotguns to amazing effect. Thats just not true. Any class can use any weapons to 95% of their effect easily. There are no restrictions or negatives on any weapon usage anywhere.

APC is also not supposed to be beaten in normal circumstance, thats more of an achievement.

But thats the good part of the game, there is a big learning curve, and things you like at the start you may dislike when you become more experienced, and vice versa. Maybe some things are also just not your playstyle, but that does not mean they are weak or need a buff, or that there is RNG at play.

[Bravo]

I don't care about the potential amount of people that could say "you're wrong" about any particular point that I'll make, it's the quality of said argument that matters.
Damage upgrades from kits and upgrade shrines don't scale too good, in fact they are generally garbage and not worth spending your resources on. They won't alleviate the awfulness of a weapon to any meaningful degree.
With high terror level it doesn't matter if you have 2, rarely 3 or more weapons, if they are all bad or mediocre, you are going to spend exponentially more time, where the likelyhood of you dying or failing increases to the point of being a guaranteed. Pretty sure that if you spend enough time on LD the entire arena just explodes and I'm not talking about the mines.

How can you say that weapon specialization is largely irellevant if there are classes with a particular design in mind?
Also you've missed the point, it's not about good weapons doing good, it's about weapons not doing good enough to perform their job. Yes, aim weapon bad guy, click weapon, bad guy dead. But within a dynamic of the engagement missed shot due to not enough stability rate matters, missing a guy or two through the line of defense matters, having a requirement to react a few miliseconds faster when you cant really spare any matters. Those curcial holes in your defenses will kill you.
In a challenging engagement breacher will not be able to place required headshots and will get hit if he were to stabilize with his lower rate. Assuming that sniper uses slugs, shotguns just have too much base deviation to land a headshot even if you stabilize them perfectly, and the effective engagement range is just too close for comfort.

The last paragraph doesn't address any particular point that I have made. Like the same way I could say that:
"While having a vision may fuel your enthusiasm and give your energy to continiously work and develop your game, it may also cloud your vision in terms of how things turn out to be. The vision itself may not even be sophisticated enough to support everything that you are doing and by continuing in that direction you are amassing problems, incompatibilities, digging yourself into a hole out of which, given enough time, you won't be able to get yourself (or to be precise, the game) out of, because fixing and making everything right would just require so much more effort that you won't be bothered to spend."
To point out, I haven't came here to ask for some change. Balancing, buffing, nerfing, shuffling things around wasn't the main point, it's just if I were criticize something, should as well offer some solution, give some productive input. I don't even mind that there are objectively inferior and superior weapons, it's contrast, it makes a picture brighter. I came here, because pretty much every single reply to the OP thesis was that RNG in this game is insignificant, get gud.
Yes, sure, he has trouble even beating the first boss, but that doesn't really matter. If one can only jump, he jumps, if one can reach for the stars, he will certainly do, however telling the latter one to scale his ambitions down so that he can just reliably jump or telling the former to just learn to jump higher and reliably (since the more able people can do it reliably) is missing the forest for the trees. The one that can do small things reliably NEED to do them reliably to do more demanding things and the ones that don't will learn to do them reliably, since they are already trying. However no matter ones skill platoe everyone will have to deal with the same things at their appropriate level of development and in this case that would be the massive difference in benefit or drawback from a good or bad rng roll.
Missing or ignoring that important aspect is a massive fault in judgment by itself without any particular balance or mechanic evaluation.

[Shrike]

Lets go through all lowest tier blue weapons:
- Tactical observer - especially when found early extremely strong, easily up to loop
- Spectre - clearly strong enough until loop especially with 75 kills upgrade
- Medic FMG - downright broken when you get it early, far less weak than it should
- Enforcer Carbine - clearly fine until loop
- Spas 12 - probably more DPS as other more rare shotguns, easily until loop
- Twin Mill - easily strong until loop, especially with boss room upgrade
- AKSU - high damage, easily find until loop
- QBZ - kinda broken with the right upgrades, easily until loop
- Type 89 - pretty high damage, scales well with upgrades, should be good

- R2000 - rather low dps, depends on attachments - hard but debatable
- Ballistic Bow, again very strong if you get it early due to stacking, but takes skill - debatable
- Impaler - Very high damage now, but should have a secondary - debatable
- M79 - That is a niche weapon, OK, No - 100% relies on a secondary

So 3 weapons out of the lowest tier blue ones are debatable or just reliant on a secondary, and 1 is not viable to loop,


People constantly say things like "Nailgun is god awful" and then other people say "Nailgun is amazing" or flamethrowers would be bad when they deal 2500 damage a shot without upgrades with full piercing and AOE dot. If you dont play nailgun close range, dont wait for impaler to settle or play flamer not around corners and kiting, or dont have a good timing with T800 per example, they will suck.

Maybe you are great with the skills a nailgun wants, maybe someone else with T800 or with RPG. Bad weapons in this game are basically weapons that do not fit your skillset (yet) but definitely not in terms of balancing, rarity power curve or raw stats. (and unlucky variant combinations of course) and many weapons do drop, so chance you have nothing you can use should be near zero.

RNG can definitely give you a very strong boost and make you win where you otherwise havent, that is of course intended and part of the fun

But to the notion that you need RNG to win the game and that you can find bad weapons that wont be able to complete the game despite having the skill required to consistently win at the selected difficulty, to that I have to say a very clear no.

And even if that were the case, I cant possibly buff weapons more, its all buffed to hell and i cant possibly make weapon power curves any more flat. Blues already compete with epics and legendaries and more people complain that legendaries are not worth it when you just can have blues upgraded.

I think its in a very good state, where skill is overwhelmingly key but you also have the highs and lows of a roguelike. But of course, difficulty is a unsolvable dilemma for any game ever as everyone is different.

There will be some noticeable changes in the future of the franchise, let me know what you think at that point.

[Bravo]

I'm feeling like I'm going to engage a strawman argument, since I didn't express the idea that the more common weapons aren't good enough for their rarity (to reiterate, I'm completely fine with that in terms of balancing in general), but alright.

- AKSU - "SMG" with an intermediate cartridge, very solid choice for SMG specialized maining;
- Medic FMG - alright, but past initial 10 points can be trashed, goto non-loop "sidearm";
- Spas 12 - alright for damage and ammo, but outclassed by better shotguns;
- Tactical observer - favors abuse more than it favors fair play, somewhat good (weapons that require you to use them constantly for them to get better have a massive drawback), potentially upright broken since it's an auto-upgrade weapon;
- Spectre - only good enough as a sidearm for dodge stacking;

- Type 89 - meh, better than the other bad or mediocre weapons of the rarity, but is not good enough to go for conciously;
- Ballistic Bow - decent for tactical challenge type of gameplay on rogue classes, awful for anything else;
- Nailgun - pistol replacing sidearm;
- Enforcer Carbine - fair substitute if you got sniper kar98k ammo and are baiting for apollo or emminence, but otherwise completely useless;
- R2000 - the arena currency boost version is decent, as for LR it's awful, even on Sniper due to abysmal stability, would've put it into bad category if it wasn't for the alternative version;

- QBZ - early game weak against shields, late game leads you straight into the overheat, just doesn't compare to SCAR or MAG47;
- Twin Mill - complete garbage, maybe performs well as a sidearm, but you have to remember to switch to it for upgrade to proc and it just doesn't compare to how much more other auto-upgrade weapons will get, well, auto-upgraded;
- Impaler - charge up proactive weapon, maybe the ammo is worth it for some kind of obscure shotgun marksman build, but that requires very lucky rolls;
- M79 - obviously very specific and even then it's pretty weak.

Out of all of the weapons, the only one that I think is challenge, high TL and or loop viable as a main weapon is AKSU, everything else is at best a rarely used sidearm, at worst even not worth the Vital Data Collector discard. Some of the weapons have set (through ammo) or character stat building potential, but almost always not worth pursuing given an option and are always discarded in preparation for the loop (if the benefit was entirely squeezed out of them).

_____________________________________________________________

Alright, since we've got to the point where we agree that the game is heavily RNG based (without forgetting that it's also skill intensive), is it possible, that there are design flaws, which given the massive difference between rolls may affect your enjoyment in a negative way and can be addressed without drastically affecting the overall balance or enjoyment of the game?

If you want to discuss balance issues or go through some arguments with me that you've found silly hit me up with invite or link me the discussion that you want me to participate in, otherwise don't know how the nailgun topic is related.

The notion is that you need both skill and RNG to achieve the goals that are appropriate to your level. If you are a novice you need all of your skill and good luck to go past the midpoint of 140, if you are a veteran you need all of your skill and good luck to loop or beat a hard challenge with one of your weaker classes. That doesn't mean one can't go into an overdrive mode and perform above their 100%, but expecting someone to be always ready to go into that state just to counter bad design centered around luck is being misguided by your judgment.

I understand, that you might be bothered by the whole lot of other aspects regarding the game or discussions surrounding it, and that your attention might be spread across other things outside of this specific conversation, but if you bring the irrelevant aspects into the conversation or miss the relevant bits and pieces due to being distracted I can't do anything but point out that as a direct reply the content of your post becomes complete nonsense, ramblings of a madman, a monologue into a void.

Originally posted by Brav♂:

To point out, I haven't came here to ask for some change. Balancing, buffing, nerfing, shuffling things around wasn't the main point, it's just if I were criticize something, should as well offer some solution, give some productive input. I don't even mind that there are objectively inferior and superior weapons, it's contrast, it makes a picture brighter.

Since I criticized the RNG for it's faults, my suggestions have been centered around making the game more reliable in an enjoyable way and not around touching the game balance.

Originally posted by Brav♂:

@RiftRipper
About the shop idea, I'm thinking about something similar along those lines, however, guaranteed shop spawns can make things a lot easier. Maybe the rarity should be limited by the floor the shop spawns in. Like for example, before 1st boss there are only uncommon and rare for randomly generated and uncommon for guaranteed, for 2nd there are also potentially epics, but only up to rares for tokened, and so on. That way you are still going to have the variety, but also will have the reliability for when the variety is at the detriment for ones enjoyment.

So for example, if we were to token 1 weapon from every rarity, then the spawn of each would be guaranteed and the rarity would correspond to your current non-loop progression.
Sure, there are also other bits and pieces of suggestions, that I didn't flesh out or systemize like that, but if you are interested and won't be bothered about going through each of them, then I don't mind going through and reforming them into a more concise and presentable form.

[Shrike]

I bring up the lowest tier weapons as they are the anchor of winning and prove that RNG is not an issue to get to loop, as you cant get any worse drops than the blue ones, so that must be logically the central point in the argumentation about RNG. You argued about bad or non class fitting weapons causing "Bad RNG", and this is argumented against as such basically dont exist and that by design, neither do "wrong weapons for class" exist - thats just class aesthetics - performance wise everything works on every class perfectly. If you cant make blue weapons work which are clearly balanced with insanely flat power curve, then the issue is with your skill level being below the difficulty or the weapon type skill requirement, not with the weapons. Also you should watch your language there.

Well no, this is only true if you play noticeably above your difficulty level. If you dont, it is reliant on skill If you do, it is yes reliant on luck as you say. If your skill does not match your difficulty level it of course must rely on luck to win. A novice playing on 140% is clearly above his skill level. But the best experience is to play a little above your skill level.

There is no shame in using a lower difficulty level than you think you should play at, thats just Ego and take a difficulty that is right and where you are not reliant on a lot of luckly drops to win. Its 100% in your hands how you want to scale it, so technically this discussion is completely nonsensical from the beginning. If you want to rely zero on RNG just pick a difficulty that is fitting.

When I play at 220%, 95% of my deaths are by mistake, theres just very little RNG at play in dying. Having 25% lower DPS makes the game harder by giving more window for mistakes but its never making you lose. Taking damage makes you lose.

[Bravo]

Again, you are scaling the situation down to the hypothetic situation where a skilled player is trying to achieve something below his level. Sure, that lower level is something that's going to be the extent to which most players experience the game, but at the same time they are not the experienced players and they can't handle less viable weapons at the same performance level that skilled ones would. Encouraging said players to become experienced to beat the plateau of difficulty they are on would also mean that they would scale their goals to a higher level, meaning they won't be aiming to do something they already are able to. It's not about shame or ego, it's just neither stimulating nor helpful to do things you already have no trouble doing.
The game sets up various goals through its design: beating the game, beating the game in 140%, beating 140% with every character, farming data for research / prestige / challenge mode tries, beating challenge modes, beating all challenge modes on a class , beating all challenge modes on all classes. And then there are postgame goals like setting up some personal challenges or doing said challenges on hardest difficulty available. An answer to having a problem with any of these shouldn't be "go down to a stage where you won't experience the problems you are experiencing, since it's pretty much guaranteed that with your skill level you won't", because it no shape or form helps the former person get over the problems or achieve relevant goals, nor represents a baseline of experience.

That's the top-down perspective, and now for bottom-up, both of which I've already gone through in my previous post.
Someone who struggles with the easiest of challenges, can neither hypothetically scale down their goals, nor simply get better. Those people will play the game at the appropriate level and will learn and experience things as they try. Telling them that more knowledgeable more able people don't struggle with said challenges won't do anything for them and their problems.
Yes, there is some information that will absolutely turn the situation around, however once the player gets a hang of it and uses it to wipe the floor with the challenge that they previously struggled with, they will scale their goals and will encounter the same problems that they've experienced earlier, because the information itself didn't fix said specific problems (assuming we are talking about general advice on how to become better). That tiny timeframe, where a person beats a goal that is below his achieved skill level, but he doesn't realize it - is extremely insignificant in terms of an overall picture. Yes, that would leave a high impression, but once the person realizes it, it's already gone, the new challenges already lay before him and the time is to move forward.


Can you please explain how (or why) the dynamic, the situation that you are trying to represent as a valid argument is a realistic representation of ones experience. Because I feel like I am repeating myself, reiterating or expanding on things over and over, and instead of getting my argument point by point deconstructed as being wrong or faulty I just get contradicted by a differing opinion, that seemingly exists outside of what I've been talking about, but at the same time somehow trumps my arguments and opinions.
Please conceptualize a model in all of its intrinsic to the topic of the thread detail and provide examples that would support the theory as one representing reality to some extent. Because I feel like we are going in circles, and maybe me attacking your position would lead to a different result.

I think I've made a fair counterpoint, however, since it took so much text expanding on, I'll try going over other points in a more concise matter, so as to not leave your other arguments without a reply, but not pollute the conversation. If needed I'll elaborate on any of them.
- Everything can't work on every class perfectly and can't be just a matter of taste, if there are mechanical differences in principle, and there are. Saying that there are not - would mean that all weapons and all classes are essentially the same and no combination would make a significant difference.
I assume you are conflating personal skill and ability to work around aspects like engagement range and weapon mechanics, with intrinsic strengths and weaknesses of weapons and classes.
- You keep bringing up flat power curve, but that's not even true, some of the weapons that auto-upgrade have far steeper graphic than others.
- It's pretty subjective what the best experience should be (who are you to decide what is a fitting difficulty for a particular person), however what I can say for sure, is that I and the OP are both generally content with challenges that we are facing and are just trying to see how our observations align with reality by expressing our opinion. And even though we are at widely different levels I see how his observations on some aspects perfectly align with the ones that I have. If that doesn't represent something, then neither should the uniform opinions expressed earlier.
- It's not about the distinction between preferring RNG or reliability, it's about faulty aspects of RNG design that are unfair (as in arbitrary, bad, not thought through) and affect your experience negatively.
- When playing at higher stakes at more advanced levels, the less significant things become the most crucial, a few ms in reaction time, a few points in damage, a few less bullets in the mag may decide the entire outcome, and then they can also stack up. However, the difference we are talking about here is actually massive in comparison. I even entertained your idea of showing by example through ranking weapons how one can in principle is better than the other, but you didn't even acknowledge it. Sure, it was basically just a contradiction, but for that particular format of argument and for the amount of resource available this was the best I could do.
If there was a reliable numerical data, I would be able to calculate how much exactly one weapon is better than the other. I'm entirely capable of doing that since I've already done that.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1434499736
- If I water down my language even further, it will hinder the clarity of things that I'm trying to point out. If you value politeness and feelings over working things out through honest discussion then we can stop right here.
I don't think I was either emotional or have been intentionally overstepping the boundaries for the sake of personal gain. When people did reply to OP with non-sequitur - I pointed it out.
When you have made a counterpost, where argumentation was detached from the contents of mine and was focused primarily for justifying your own view on the issue - I pointed it out.
When you continue making points that don't directly confront the ones that I've made and bring things into the conversation that aren't properly justified or even relevant - I pointed it out.
I will also point out that I don't hold your status as a developer as a signifier of a person that is more right or more able at making sound arguments than anyone else, nor as an authority figure that has power over this conversation. If you won't make a proper case for your points and will find an excuse to abuse the forum moderation power to extrude me out of this topic and potentially the community you want to surround yourself with, then that will be just that and nothing else.

[Wet Noodle]

Yeah it's the nature of rogue likes. Anyone here saying that this game is totally skill based is smoking copium (ahem Shrike ahem). I will say that Synthetik does a better job at being more skill based compared to other roguelikes, but it's still an RNG machine at the end of the day. If Shrike wanted his game to be 100% skill-based, he shouldn't have made a roguelike.

That said, OP probably shouldn't be playing a roguelike if the RNG is that much of an issue to them.