It's time for Main Gun Crits to go

I suppose there's the difference, because I find nothing particularly fun about random events I have no control over.

Coh2 is full of those events, accuracy scatter pen deflection damage, these also decide engagements quite a bit, ive had a single pgren model retreat through 3 4 model ppsh cons squads and he lived. Only dow2 and coh2 can have this. Irritating for me good for my opponent.

There is no logical reason to remove all that because you get frustrated by the core mechanics, aswell as that all the games you mentioned have all what you want in a rts. I am sorry the only logical thing is go play those if you dont want rng.

I dont go to a vegan restuarant if i want to eat steak or deer, there are other places that give me that vegans joint wont.

Coh2 is full of those events, accuracy scatter pen deflection damage, these also decide engagements quite a bit, ive had a single pgren model retreat through 3 4 model ppsh cons squads and he lived. Only dow2 and coh2 can have this. Irritating for me good for my opponent.

There is no logical reason to remove all that because you get frustrated by the core mechanics, aswell as that all the games you mentioned have all what you want in a rts. I am sorry the only logical thing is go play those if you dont want rng.

I dont go to a vegan restuarant if i want to eat steak or deer, there are other places that give me that vegans joint wont.

RNG, and particularly random criticals, are not the core design principle of COH2, no matter how much you want to pretend that they are. Logical reasons have been given to you.

RNG, and particularly random criticals, are not the core design principle of COH2, no matter how much you want to pretend that they are. Logical reasons have been given to you.

A main difference between COH and other RTS is the economy.

In other RTS the economy needs more attentions and battle are effect by how can how many units one can produce.

COH economy is simpler so player can focus in fights and try effect battle directly. That involves RNG so that the player need to keep an eye on the fight adapt his strategy instead of knowing from before and simply keep producing more of units A so he can beat his opponents units B.

This is one of they key differences between COH and other RTS. If fight outcomes where predetermined than the economy (or some other aspect would have to be more complicated)

A main difference between COH and other RTS is the economy.

In other RTS the economy needs more attentions and battle are effect by how can how many units one can produce.

COH economy is simpler so player can focus in fights and try effect battle directly. That involves RNG so that the player need to keep an eye on the fight adapt his strategy instead of knowing from before and simply keep producing more of units A so he can beat his opponents units B.

This is one of they key differences between COH and other RTS. If fight outcomes where predetermined than the economy (or some other aspect would have to be more complicated)

The thing that makes you focus and concentrate on engagements is the various high-impact abilities that units have, such as Grenades, not the RNG involved in combat.

If encounters were "Predictable" this would not mean you were less required to micromanage engagements, it would mean you are incentivised to do so further, as you would be incentivised to put yourself into a position where you know you will win, rather than just "hoping" for good RNG.

Which other RTS match COH2, but without egregious random factors like Main Gun Crits? No, Starcraft, AOE2, Warcraft, etc are nothing like CoH2.

If it's an infinitesimally, and meaninglessly tiny chance then why do you care if its even in the game?

SC2 No.

WC3: plenty of heroes with crit/dodge. Same with some items effects. Item drops.

AoE2: ranged units without ballistics (which is minor outside trebuchet war). Map generation. If the gold spawns "bugs" out it's gg. If you have a mid to late game civ against an aggressive one and your resources are in dubious position it's gg.

Just do a separate game mode or customization. Like historical skins. For those people who don't like the original CoH2, let them play in a sterile castrated vacuum. I love the game since it was created. And I do not want that for such people I would not get pleasure.

....

There is RNG who's chances can be directly influenced and RNG that can't.

Accuracy is going to be RNG almost no matter what(unless your "chance to hit" is at least 100%), but you can control HOW accurate your unit is by changing the distance between it and its target, by ordering it to stop moving, by applying ability buffs such as For Mother Russia.

Main gun crits currently cannot be controlled or effected by the attacking player. There is no way to increase your chance to crit ON ATTACKS if you are attacking, or decrease the chance to crit if you are defending.



A similar situation exists in world of warships and world of tanks. Ammunition detonations have a very low chance to simply one shot the player when struck. Both WoT and WoWS are full of RNG, but its RNG that has many instances in a single battle which means a player will usually end up with an average of sorts.
Nobody is really bothered if a panzergrenadier misses 10 shots in a row because he may well fire 5,000 rounds a match. It's going to even out eventually.

Main gun crits are at an unpredictable percentage with no way for the players to really govern the frequency they occur, but worse is that they are often game changing when they do occur.



My proposal is a compromise, leaving main gun crits as a concept in game, but restricting the RNG aspect, to dealing damage to the unit before being able to apply the crit.


"Deal at least 76% damage to a unit(which has an RNG aspect to it), if the unit has an engine critical, any further damage dealing abilities that apply a mobility impeding effect will also(or instead) apply a main gun crit."

Show Spoiler

Main gun crits currently cannot be controlled or effected by the attacking player. There is no way to increase your chance to crit ON ATTACKS if you are attacking, or decrease the chance to crit if you are defending.

Show Spoiler

A Player controls criticals as much as he controls penetrating shots.

In order for one to score a critical one has to penetrate a unit that is under certain threshold.
There for by increasing the chance to penetrate one can increase the chance to get critical, one can avoid getting a critical by not fighting under the threshold.

It is simply an extra effect of penetrating shot.

A Player controls criticals as much as he controls penetrating shots.

So.... pretty high level of control.
You can choose to engage or not to engage vehicles depending on their chance to pen vs your chance to be penned and evaluate your chances from there.

Just as you can choose to keep engaging with low health vehicle or to retreat.

Thank you for supporting crits with this actually decent for once argument.

So.... pretty high level of control.
You can choose to engage or not to engage vehicles depending on their chance to pen vs your chance to be penned and evaluate your chances from there.

Just as you can choose to keep engaging with low health vehicle or to retreat.

Thank you for supporting crits with this actually decent for once argument.

Since you seem to be unaware of how penetration works (no surprise there) let me explain something to you.

Gun have increasingly lower penetration with loner range. Thus by moving closer one has higher chance to get a penetrating shot.

Vehicles have front/side armor and rear/side armor (which is lower). Front/side applies to front half of the vehicle and Rear/side armor applies to rear of the vehicle. Thus flaking increases the chance to get penetrating shot.

Glad to be of help.

Now read again my post ("A Player controls criticals as much as he controls penetrating shots.") and you will see that I did not say if it was high or not I simply pointed out that it the same.

So.... pretty high level of control.
You can choose to engage or not to engage vehicles depending on their chance to pen vs your chance to be penned and evaluate your chances from there.

So, dont... use your vehicles then?

Really poor arguments if you'd call them that, because you are forcing the player to play around something that has super low chance of happening, while simultaneously it is a game changer IF it happens. You dont do that. The 1 shot difference or even two shot difference between a vehicle taking out another happens so often in this game that to then be thrown a crit in your face as such that it isnt a bounce/miss is insulting because you cant and shouldnt be thinking about it, the chance of happening is too small. But when, god forbid, the pumas main gun gets destroyed upon closing in on the 1 hp aec or vice versa aec gets abandoned its almost always a game changer, and ive not seen a single argument to defend this 'mechanic'

So, dont... use your vehicles then?

Or... don't put them in disadvantegous positions?
You know, it might not be that obvious to everyone, but T34 in front of KT isn't going to end well and no amount of RNG luck on T34 will change it, while you can make a bet vs OKW P4.

Really poor arguments if you'd call them that, because you are forcing the player to play around something that has super low chance of happening, while simultaneously it is a game changer IF it happens. You dont do that. The 1 shot difference or even two shot difference between a vehicle taking out another happens so often in this game that to then be thrown a crit in your face as such that it isnt a bounce/miss is insulting because you cant and shouldnt be thinking about it, the chance of happening is too small. But when, god forbid, the pumas main gun gets destroyed upon closing in on the 1 hp aec or vice versa aec gets abandoned its almost always a game changer, and ive not seen a single argument to defend this 'mechanic'

Like betting on grens sniping a rifle before they get close?
Like maxim suppressing something before it throws nuclear/lava nade?
Like arty actually hitting what you were intended to hit with 1st shot?

Game is absolutely FULL of these low odds events.
You have some influence over most of them.

And the ones you don't are/were already removed, like plane crash unit wipes.

The remaining ones are the very reason why the game is still so fresh, engaging and interesting to play AND watch.

Sorry, but these are not unfair.
They may cost you the game, but you know the risk and if you commit anyway, its 100% on you.

I can understand that some competitive players don't like crits, but I think there are even more casual players who do like them. Therefor I'd like to propose an idea which keeps the feature, but makes them more predictable and less a deciding factor (and more realistic).

There seem to be two major complains about crits: the randomness and the extreme effect of losing the gun.

1: Re-introduce an engine crit (one of the many variants), but only for rear penetrating shots. That encourages to outplay your opponent and can be avoided by good play.
2: The gun critical can be tied to frontal penetrating shots and changed to an already existing gunnen/loader injured crit which is temporarily.

The total crit chance stays the same, rear hits can cause a severe crit, frontal hits can cause a temporarily crit. Chances and durations can be tweaked ofcourse.

(This is easy to implement, it took me less than 1 hour to implement a similar idea for all vehicles in my mod)

A Player controls criticals as much as he controls penetrating shots.

In order for one to score a critical one has to penetrate a unit that is under certain threshold.
There for by increasing the chance to penetrate one can increase the chance to get critical, one can avoid getting a critical by not fighting under the threshold.

It is simply an extra effect of penetrating shot.

The penetration chance can be directly effected. The crit chance is tied to the penetration chance. Its a chance within a chance. You can control the first chance-that of the penetration rate. You cannot control the second chance, that of the crit rate.

There's no "AHAH! Now that I have successfully fulfilled condition 1, I can attempt to fulfill condition 2." There is no attempt involved, there's no "attack ground, RNG skillshot" which despite being rng, still relies on a degree of player skill and control.


There is no way to change your chance to crit on pen. It would be like having damage be variable. Instead of a tank doing 160 damage per shot, it would instead do 0-320. You have no way of controlling that aspect. Sure you can get hits in, but you don't know if you'll two shot the enemy tank, or barely do any damage at all. Of course the chances of actually two shotting a tank would be really low, so that would make it ok.... Right?



I'm fine with there being RNG. Most aspects of RNG in this game can be directly effected- you can INCREASE your accuracy, you can INCREASE your penetration chance, you can REDUCE your scatter. These forms of RNG are perfectly fine.

I can understand that some competitive players don't like crits, but I think there are even more casual players who do like them. Therefor I'd like to propose an idea which keeps the feature, but makes them more predictable and less a deciding factor (and more realistic).

There seem to be two major complains about crits: the randomness and the extreme effect of losing the gun.

1: Re-introduce an engine crit (one of the many variants), but only for rear penetrating shots. That encourages to outplay your opponent and can be avoided by good play.
2: The gun critical can be tied to frontal penetrating shots and changed to an already existing gunnen/loader injured crit which is temporarily.

The total crit chance stays the same, rear hits can cause a severe crit, frontal hits can cause a temporarily crit. Chances and durations can be tweaked ofcourse.

(This is easy to implement, it took me less than 1 hour to implement a similar idea in my mod)

this sounds like a good compromise!

Or... don't put them in disadvantegous positions?
You know, it might not be that obvious to everyone, but T34 in front of KT isn't going to end well and no amount of RNG luck on T34 will change it, while you can make a bet vs OKW P4.

Even top players cant avoid these situations such as my example with the puma and the aec. These situations appear naturally, and no matter the input by players the outcome is sometimes decided by these crits.

Like betting on grens sniping a rifle before they get close?

This isnt as swingy and doesnt decide a game

Like maxim suppressing something before it throws nuclear/lava nade?

This isnt as swingy and doesnt decide a game

Like arty actually hitting what you were intended to hit with 1st shot?

Artillery has multiple inputs, player getting vision, aiming, delay between shooting and hitting target, player being able to react inbetween, with counterplay by target artillery pieces.

Game is absolutely FULL of these low odds events.

This is totally off point and im not sure whether or not you read what people have issue with.

You have some influence over most of them.

And the ones you don't are/were already removed, like plane crash unit wipes.

The remaining ones are the very reason why the game is still so fresh, engaging and interesting to play AND watch.

Yes, but im not advocating for removing the 'mechanic', but changing it just as most people in this thread is giving different solutions. Though I will admit I would personally prefer to see it removed rather than having it in this current state, because it is simply not on par with the rest of the mechanics in CoH2 and it doesn't fit in. Many people have given different solutions to how these criticals could remain in the game, in a way that they are fair, controllable and improve the experience. In its current state crits don't add anything to the game except frustration unless you can atleast hint to what part of this that you enjoy.
Also, ask yourself this: would the game be more or less fun if engine damage had a 10% chance of happening after snaring a vehicle under the 75% threshhold?

Or... don't put them in disadvantegous positions?
You know, it might not be that obvious to everyone, but T34 in front of KT isn't going to end well and no amount of RNG luck on T34 will change it, while you can make a bet vs OKW P4.

But you do realize that completely not using a half health tank can often cost you the game because you're not getting the most out of it?

If you play the game you should realize that pushing a 25% medium with your 50% medium is something every player with at least half a brain would do in 90% of the situations (especially as Allies where you trade up). Still you can just suffer the main gun crit in the first shot and your tank is basically gone.

Like betting on grens sniping a rifle before they get close?
Like maxim suppressing something before it throws nuclear/lava nade?
Like arty actually hitting what you were intended to hit with 1st shot?

Are you seriously comparing a potentially lost engagement or losing 20-50 MP more than the enemy to losing a tank that costs >300 MP and >110 fuel??

Talking about apples and oranges mate...

Game is absolutely FULL of these low odds events.
You have some influence over most of them.

And the ones you don't are/were already removed, like plane crash unit wipes.

The remaining ones are the very reason why the game is still so fresh, engaging and interesting to play AND watch.

Sorry, but these are not unfair.
They may cost you the game, but you know the risk and if you commit anyway, its 100% on you.

Right. Is that also why all the "gunner injured" etc crits have been removed? They basically occurred in every tank shoot out in the first builds of the game. Where's your post about bringing those back?

But you do realize that completely not using a half health tank can often cost you the game because you're not getting the most out of it?

If you play the game you should realize that pushing a 25% medium with your 50% medium is something every player with at least half a brain would do in 90% of the situations (especially as Allies where you trade up). Still you can just suffer the main gun crit in the first shot and your tank is basically gone.


Are you seriously comparing a potentially lost engagement or losing 20-50 MP more than the enemy to losing a tank that costs >300 MP and >110 fuel??

Talking about apples and oranges mate...


Right. Is that also why all the "gunner injured" etc crits have been removed? They basically occurred in every tank shoot out in the first builds of the game. Where's your post about bringing those back?

So far all the arguments "For" main gun crits have relied on apples-to-oranges comparisons, or some strange argument that "Some people like them so you can't remove them because they'll leave the game!", as though Main Gun Crits are the only thing that makes people play CoH2.

It's a little egregious when these people are also insisting anti-MGC parties "Have no arguments".

So far all the arguments "For" main gun crits have relied on apples-to-oranges comparisons, or some strange argument that "Some people like them so you can't remove them because they'll leave the game!", as though Main Gun Crits are the only thing that makes people play CoH2.

It's a little egregious when these people are also insisting anti-MGC parties "Have no arguments".

If you don't like it, go play chess. There is perfect balance and no critical damage. Do not go where you are not asked, the game is fine. Critical damage has been in this game for seven years. Let's delete them because you don't like them, let's further castrate the game.

If you don't like it, go play chess. There is perfect balance and no critical damage. Do not go where you are not asked, the game is fine. Critical damage has been in this game for seven years. Let's delete them because you don't like them, let's further castrate the game.

Case in point.