RNG

Oh i definitely agree with that, I think RNG wipes of full squads from one, say, T70 shot are AIDS. I'm all for reducing and removing egregious RNG.

well they fixed the greatest offender in terms of being wiped in one shot, the Raketenwerfer, some while ago.

Oh i definitely agree with that, I think RNG wipes of full squads from one, say, T70 shot are AIDS. I'm all for reducing and removing egregious RNG.

Then also P4 and LeFH and Stuka, etc...? Would that also be included?

RNG is what makes this game entertaining.

Extreme RNG is what makes this game even more entertaining....but even more frustrating for tournament gameplay.

To be honest I'm fine with extreme RNG because of the entertainment value, but I know other players would flip a desk because of it, which is understandable.

RNG is what makes this game entertaining.

Extreme RNG is what makes this game even more entertaining....but even more frustrating for tournament gameplay.

To be honest I'm fine with extreme RNG because of the entertainment value, but I know other players would flip a desk because of it, which is understandable.

Even though I won last game, in a decisive moment, where it was make or break, my vet0 Jackson bounced 2x in a row on super low hp vet0 panther at about medium range (so 8% chance of bouncing) that managed to get away. If that ain't RNG, I don't know what is. I didn't rage or anything, but we had a good laugh with the jokes on the [All] chat.

I can understand that the RNG can be more than decisive and turn the tide in tournies, but that's what gives them the entertainment value. I don't know if the general COH2 population watches the games because they want to see a lot of keys pressed or what, but I'd reckon is they want to see some sick RNG balls-out plays that pay off.

RNG is what makes this game entertaining.

Extreme RNG is what makes this game even more entertaining....but even more frustrating for tournament gameplay.

To be honest I'm fine with extreme RNG because of the entertainment value, but I know other players would flip a desk because of it, which is understandable.

Even though I won last game, in a decisive moment, where it was make or break, my vet0 Jackson bounced 2x in a row on super low hp vet0 panther at about medium range (so 8% chance of bouncing) that managed to get away. If that ain't RNG, I don't know what is. I didn't rage or anything, but we had a good laugh with the jokes on the [All] chat.

I can understand that the RNG can be more than decisive and turn the tide in tournies, but that's what gives them the entertainment value. I don't know if the general COH2 population watches the games because they want to see a lot of keys pressed or what, but I'd reckon is they want to see some sick RNG balls-out plays that pay off.

I think one has to differentiate between extreme RNG which is in some way in control of the player and the ones without it. Also the effects and how the player can react to it.

For example: someone using attack ground to fire a shell which could extend over the 60 range of the pak is betting in extreme RNG, but that's purely on player input.

I wouldn't mind having deadlier plane crashes if they created a gameplay scenario were players could play around it. Ex: planes don't immediately crash but fly around a bit. 50% of them go OOB on a typical 2v2 map but the other 50% will crash after say 10s on a selected part of the map on which players receive an alert a crash is coming. Think like an offmap artillery warning UI.

I don't mind extreme RNG as long as it doesn't remove options from players.

In the case of infantry squads bunching up together, i think a better approach for COH3 is allowing players to choose between 2 formations types and giving some kind of debuffs on the spread out one.

RNG is what makes this game entertaining.

Extreme RNG is what makes this game even more entertaining....but even more frustrating for tournament gameplay.

To be honest I'm fine with extreme RNG because of the entertainment value, but I know other players would flip a desk because of it, which is understandable.

Exactly, it makes it interesting to watch, that is why it is doing so well at the moment. People are watching people play and the RNG is the unique advantage the COH2 has over its competitors.

People don't realise just how much of a failure SC2 was, considering the pedigree it came from, the sales of it and the sheer esteem that SC1 was held in, the numbers that are playing it are dismal. It's because its boring to watch, boring to play. It's because its the same equation as Warcraft 1.

COH turned that all its head, it basically combined board games with die roll's to a RTS and made it fun. Sometimes, you play well, it goes badly, sometimes, you get outplayed, luck helps you. Most of the time, it goes as per statistics.

I get the frustration with MGC, they could be toned down a little. Plane crash change was completely unnecessary, its moment's like that that get people hooked on the game. I still remember playing Emperor - Battle for Dune (Sequel to Dune2) and the one game that I remember the most was a game when I was playing as Hakonnen vs Atreides and he managed to build up a huge tank force and he started marching towards my base and I took out a few on the sides with my missile tanks but because he had so much tanks on the sand, the sandworm came out and ate a big chunk of his tanks, completely RNG. It allowed me to stop the advance and turn the game around making a win that has lasted in my memory for over 25 years now.

Stop thinking about it from a E-Sports perspective, Relic needs to think about it from a standard player perspective and what it is like to watch the game. I like watching Tightrope play because he gives comments on what is likely to happen RNG wise in a particular skirmish on the map but then watch him sook when luck goes against him and then the tempered enjoyment he displays when luck goes his way. You can see the internal dilemma in his head, he knows luck always comes back and lately, he has had a hard time re-conciliating that luck always comes back around.

It's interesting, it makes watching COH one of the best games to watch. It's one of the reasons why I like watching PUBG and not CS-GO. As someone who won money playing CS, someone who was paid to go to the US to report on CS and someone who has been involved in gaming for 30 years now, you need to think about what will bring numbers and this puerile madness that seems to have crept in will kill the biggest competitive advantage that COH 2 has. PUBG is the same, the actual core of the game is unparalleled. It is far more fun to play that CS-GO, its far more enjoyable to watch because it has a little bit of RNG to it. Sometimes, you come up against someone looking the wrong way, sometimes, you get a crate but for the majority of it, its about skill. CS-GO is perfected, every line is basically understood, every play has been worked out, basically no luck whatsoever. Very repetitive and you can now see that it is starting to struggle again after the Free to play and the massive bounce that gave it competitively for the last year. Mark my words, it will slowly go the way of SC2.

RNG is what makes this game entertaining.

Extreme RNG is what makes this game even more entertaining....but even more frustrating for tournament gameplay.

To be honest I'm fine with extreme RNG because of the entertainment value, but I know other players would flip a desk because of it, which is understandable.

Von is the man!

Exactly, it makes it interesting to watch, that is why it is doing so well at the moment. People are watching people play and the RNG is the unique advantage the COH2 has over its competitors.

People don't realise just how much of a failure SC2 was, considering the pedigree it came from, the sales of it and the sheer esteem that SC1 was held in, the numbers that are playing it are dismal. It's because its boring to watch, boring to play. It's because its the same equation as Warcraft 1.

COH turned that all its head, it basically combined board games with die roll's to a RTS and made it fun. Sometimes, you play well, it goes badly, sometimes, you get outplayed, luck helps you. Most of the time, it goes as per statistics.

I get the frustration with MGC, they could be toned down a little. Plane crash change was completely unnecessary, its moment's like that that get people hooked on the game. I still remember playing Emperor - Battle for Dune (Sequel to Dune2) and the one game that I remember the most was a game when I was playing as Hakonnen vs Atreides and he managed to build up a huge tank force and he started marching towards my base and I took out a few on the sides with my missile tanks but because he had so much tanks on the sand, the sandworm came out and ate a big chunk of his tanks, completely RNG. It allowed me to stop the advance and turn the game around making a win that has lasted in my memory for over 25 years now.

Stop thinking about it from a E-Sports perspective, Relic needs to think about it from a standard player perspective and what it is like to watch the game. I like watching Tightrope play because he gives comments on what is likely to happen RNG wise in a particular skirmish on the map but then watch him sook when luck goes against him and then the tempered enjoyment he displays when luck goes his way. You can see the internal dilemma in his head, he knows luck always comes back and lately, he has had a hard time re-conciliating that luck always comes back around.

It's interesting, it makes watching COH one of the best games to watch. It's one of the reasons why I like watching PUBG and not CS-GO. As someone who won money playing CS, someone who was paid to go to the US to report on CS and someone who has been involved in gaming for 30 years now, you need to think about what will bring numbers and this puerile madness that seems to have crept in will kill the biggest competitive advantage that COH 2 has. PUBG is the same, the actual core of the game is unparalleled. It is far more fun to play that CS-GO, its far more enjoyable to watch because it has a little bit of RNG to it. Sometimes, you come up against someone looking the wrong way, sometimes, you get a crate but for the majority of it, its about skill. CS-GO is perfected, every line is basically understood, every play has been worked out, basically no luck whatsoever. Very repetitive and you can now see that it is starting to struggle again after the Free to play and the massive bounce that gave it competitively for the last year. Mark my words, it will slowly go the way of SC2.

Basically this. Not just Relic, but applies to some members here too.

eek-sport would not apply to most of us.
And when things shift to eek-sport, the need for financial rewards. Design of the game will change, and even standardisd to meet eek-sport players' past expectations of other series.

So what if some pro SC2 eek-sport player gave up on coh2 midway. I say bye!

Also the dream that coh2/3 will have split meta design, to cater for eek and non eek-sport. Is all a dream

Games development are already a tight ship. Relic are tiny and dont have history of efficient output.

You virtually cannot design a game to meet 'competitive' eek-sport and at the same time RNG fun. Just a few toggles you say? Nope. Dont count on it.

A lot of original coh2 ideas would never been born. Did Relic ever fix dow3?
If, and when coh3 is planned, you can bet a eek-sport direction, will kill the history of the series.

Basically this. Not just Relic, but applies to some members here too.

eek-sport would not apply to most of us.
And when things shift to eek-sport, the need for financial rewards. Design of the game will change, and even standardisd to meet eek-sport players' past expectations of other series.

So what if some pro SC2 eek-sport player gave up on coh2 midway. I say bye!

Also the dream that coh2/3 will have split meta design, to cater for eek and non eek-sport. Is all a dream

Games development are already a tight ship. Relic are tiny and dont have history of efficient output.

You virtually cannot design a game to meet 'competitive' eek-sport and at the same time RNG fun. Just a few toggles you say? Nope. Dont count on it.

A lot of original coh2 ideas would never been born. Did Relic ever fix dow3?
If, and when coh3 is planned, you can bet a eek-sport direction, will kill the history of the series.

I agree that the game should be primarily focused on fun and enjoyment for the player.

I always liked the fact that the secondary gunner could be disabled, maybe not the way that it was done in COH1 but still, not sure why they decided to make the gunner invulnerable.

A simple fix for main gun critical is to keep it as is and make it a chance of 33/33/33 Main gun crit/Secondary Gun Critical/engine damage instead. That way, you might lose your secondary gun or get engine damage rather than just a main gun critical.

I also understand that may need recoding but then you have to wonder why they decided to waste precious coding time on putting in officer retreat functionality.

In regards to events like plane crashes:

I made a topic a long time ago, I remember most people dismissing it, but I went into detail of how I believe many of the events that are written off as being random are not actually random.

I believe that the system will calculate destruction in the environment. This why it's fairly common for planes to nail opjects so frequently on the way down. This calculate destruction does not happen just with plane crashes. You can even predict most events with high accuracy before they occur, by analyzing the available environmental objects available for destruction.

A great example is a tank firing on a squad of infantry. Tanks have low accuracy and do lot of missing. This makes them perfect for this topic. A tank fighting an infantry squad with no environmental objects around will have more randomized looking missing shots. However, if you introduce an object in path, the object will always get hit when a miss is rolled. Since tanks miss nearly every shot they make, the object will get hit. This is actually something you can use to give your squads more time to fight a tank in real games. Don't put your men in cover, they are guaranteed to get hit by the main gun's area of effect. Against a panther, you want to hide behind cover, because it has low area of effect. Against a king tiger or sherman HE shells, avoid cover. The cover will get hit and your men will take area damage.

You can exploit this by putting an object between your infantry and the tank, but not being close enough for cover bonus. The object will likely get hit instead of your men. This can give you a solid 5-10 seconds of fairly safe exposure.

Going back to planes. Do you notice the planes come down on squads, tanks, and buildings a lot? The game will calculate when a hit needs to be rolled to hit an object and that is when the hit will be rolled.

Why would this be done? It creates drama, excitement, and novelty to a match.

I think this is deep in the game though, perhaps not even within coh2, but actually in the essence engine. What point is all the destructible environment if it doesn't get destroyed?

I wonder how many instances of soldier getting smashed by falling planes there was in real life? I doubt there where many. Yet it's fairly common in coh2. It isn't random, it's calculated. It's simulated rng and calculated mayhem. It's just enough to make you believe it's rng.

Why are the pro RNG guys getting counfused between what's been talked about here we have:

A) functional RNG, affecting the regular mechanics of the game in an evenly distributed and understandable way.

Most people are fine with this, it highlights the strategy and tactis of CoH, and devalues the mechanical elements, which is the style of CoH that we all like.

B) cinematic RNG, affecting one player in a huge and unpredictable way with little to no counter play or player input involved.

With B you consider RNG that makes the game less fun to play/watch for the competitive scene, so if there's an option to remove it for competitive games only that should be our approach.

Can we ensure we're on point/message here, no one is against A, and if they are I haven't seen them speak here.

...

Can we ensure we're on point/message here, no one is against A, and if they are I haven't seen them speak here.

The problem is what fall under category A and what under category B.

For some for instance "main gun critical" is A and for other is B...

There even some people who think that max ranges shots from TDs should always hit and penetrate enemy targets...

That is not what is being said at all AE.

What we are saying is that the balance team seems to be amalgamating the competitive scene with auto match. In saying that, I think they are doing a great job for the most part. They just need to see the bigger picture and understand what makes the game so much fun to play.

No one here is arguing that slightly different rule set for competitive isn't a good idea but what we are talking here is what will sell COH and what will keep players who play the game playing the game.

Steralising the game so that it pure from a RNG perspective which while from a competitive standpoint is better, what is more important, people watching and enjoying that game or the players?

Just watch a streamer play, watch them carry on like chooks when RNG goes against them, then laugh out loud when the gods are on their side.

There is room for both, don't ruin the competitive advantage that COH2 has.

Coh2 is an RTS game revolving around risk management. Every engagement is a gamble, but your odds are well known to you and your opponent, because stats of units are bound to veterancy and can be learned from various sources. Moreover, experienced players can tell an outcome of given engagement with high fidelity and without ever memorizing stats, based purely on their ingame experience.

When games involve very high or very low chances of success, that's a good design because it leads to predictable results of an engagement, so players can decide if they want or do not want to take the risk. What is a bad design, is when there are 50/50 odds for actions that carry significant consequences. A good example of a bad RNG handling by the game is Age of Wonders 3 with nets, entangling and shock having usually around 50% chance of having huge impact on an engagement with very little that can be done to improve the odds. Luckily, Coh2 main gun destroyed and abandon (criticals with big impact) have very low chance of happening or are gated behind some extra requirements like low health etc. They add to the game by making the engagement-gamble more complex and not just a simple equation based on which you can say "yeah, I can dive and will be fine".

I think that the RNG elements (except for plane crashes which are super random) are well implemented in current version of the game and punish close calls in vehicle combat. Abandons always surprise and can turn the game around. Let's not forget that it's not that easy to recover an abandoned vehicle. Abandoned vehicles can hardly move and are very fragile with their ultra-low health. Unexpected engagement outcomes can make one match feel different from others which makes the game more interesting in my opinion.

People can keep insisting that MGC and other "Cinematic" RNG mechanisms that have the power to swing games are somehow the "main thing" that brings excitement to CoH2 players all they like.

It doesn't make it the case.

They can also keep pretending that somehow the game is being "Sterilised" by their removal, but that similarly isnt the case.

B) cinematic RNG, affecting one player in a huge and unpredictable way with little to no counter play or player input involved.

With B you consider RNG that makes the game less fun to play/watch for the competitive scene, so if there's an option to remove it for competitive games only that should be our approach.

Can we ensure we're on point/message here, no one is against A, and if they are I haven't seen them speak here.

Unless tournaments are going to be played on special mod that removes that RNG, every single player is going to suffer removal of it, making the game more competitive and more boring.

This is what happened to DoW2 (synch-kills, the very thing that made the game so popular and cinematic got removed to please the 40 players playing competitively) and this idea of removing RNG that affects outcomes came to life giving us generic DoW3.

I don't want CoH to end up as generic RTS and each patch dealing with that outcome changing RNG is making the game more boring to watch and more generic across the genre.

Why are the pro RNG guys getting counfused between what's been talked about here we have:

A) functional RNG, affecting the regular mechanics of the game in an evenly distributed and understandable way.

Most people are fine with this, it highlights the strategy and tactis of CoH, and devalues the mechanical elements, which is the style of CoH that we all like.

B) cinematic RNG, affecting one player in a huge and unpredictable way with little to no counter play or player input involved.

With B you consider RNG that makes the game less fun to play/watch for the competitive scene, so if there's an option to remove it for competitive games only that should be our approach.

Can we ensure we're on point/message here, no one is against A, and if they are I haven't seen them speak here.

+1

People can keep insisting that MGC and other "Cinematic" RNG mechanisms that have the power to swing games are somehow the "main thing" that brings excitement to CoH2 players all they like.

It doesn't make it the case.

I would argue it's the opposite actually. Having extreme RNG like MGC and abandon that can turn a game around may actually deter players from making risky - and thus exciting - plays because they fear it might backfire on them. At least in tournaments.

Why are the pro RNG guys getting counfused between what's been talked about here we have:

A) functional RNG, affecting the regular mechanics of the game in an evenly distributed and understandable way.

Most people are fine with this, it highlights the strategy and tactis of CoH, and devalues the mechanical elements, which is the style of CoH that we all like.

B) cinematic RNG, affecting one player in a huge and unpredictable way with little to no counter play or player input involved.

With B you consider RNG that makes the game less fun to play/watch for the competitive scene, so if there's an option to remove it for competitive games only that should be our approach.

Can we ensure we're on point/message here, no one is against A, and if they are I haven't seen them speak here.

At least one person is against A, he finds it unfortunate that accuracy was ever implemented, and its unfortunatly to late to remove accuracy entirely.

The "pro rng crowd" doesnt want to play tournament mode everytime. We are fine with a tourny mode or play list, next to regular if possible.