Abandon

No, it's a random punishment from RNG.

You can slap that label on literally anything involving everything that isn't stuka dive bomb.

Losing your tank is punishment enough for a poorly executed dive. There is literally no reason to further punish a player by handing the tank to his opponent.

Then don't commit to pontentially unrecoverable engagements?
Don't commit into armor engagements when your only source of anti tank is your own, sole vehicle?

Intelligent aggressive play is to be encouraged, which is what a dive is. It isnt an "Overextension".

Dive by definition is overextension, because you're commiting your unit balls deep into opponents territory with no support at all with expectation that it is going to be worth it.
Dives don't come out of "intelligent aggressive play", they come from desperation about wanting to off high value unit behind enemy front line.

In most cases a dive is the only way to deal with rocket artillery, given that there is zero reason for it to be close enough to the frontlines to be in direct combat. An even slightly intelligent player will move his rocket artillery to a safe position if a coordinated push happens, which prevents such pushes from actually dealing with those units.

You don't need medium tank or better to uncover arty and drop offmap on it.
Again, it has nothing to do with intelligence, dives come from desperation and very rarely opportunity, unless its a stomp, you don't exactly expect your unit to come back.

We've had a lot of these dives in last 2v2 tounrnament.

Mines already exist to counter this sort of play, there isnt a need for RNG to decide to make it even MORE punishing for no good reason.

There isn't need for any RNG at all.
You can just have starcraft with ww2 skins.
In fact, game like that already exist and I see no reason why you would want to shape this one into it instead of going to play that other game. The name is Sudden Strike series.

You can slap that label on literally anything involving everything that isn't stuka dive bomb.

Alright, and? The fact remains that Abandon and MGC are examples of overly impactful, uninfluencable, and entirely random events that aren't good for the game. We aren't talking about Accuracy or Penetration, which are both things you can actually influence in myriad ways.

Then don't commit to pontentially unrecoverable engagements?
Don't commit into armor engagements when your only source of anti tank is your own, sole vehicle?

Your punishment for going into a "Potentially unrecoverable engagement" and it going badly is the loss of a vehicle. There's 0 reason there should be an added chance to hand a vehicle to your opponent on top of that, nor that a close engagement be swung before a vehicle is actually defeated through the game randomly deciding your gun should be destroyed.

Accuracy and Penetration are already enough "Flavourful RNG" in a tank duel. The only thing that further RNG rolls add to the equation is frustration. Do you think random engine criticals, and the various other random criticals that were removed from the game should return as RNG events when a vehicle is penetrated? If not; Why not?

I'm not certain as to whether an MGC being rolled can prevent a vehicle from being destroyed, incidentally. It often seems as though this crit will leave a vehicle on minimal HP if the shot would otherwise have destroyed it outright, but I'm not certain if that's just an illusion.

Dive by definition is overextension, because you're commiting your unit balls deep into opponents territory with no support at all with expectation that it is going to be worth it.
Dives don't come out of "intelligent aggressive play", they come from desperation about wanting to off high value unit behind enemy front line.

You don't need medium tank or better to uncover arty and drop offmap on it.
Again, it has nothing to do with intelligence, dives come from desperation and very rarely opportunity, unless its a stomp, you don't exactly expect your unit to come back.

We've had a lot of these dives in last 2v2 tounrnament.

Your solution to a Katyusha or a Panzerwerfer or Calliope is to drop offmap onto it? Which offmap? Do you have an appropriate offmap in every commander? If you don't, are you just expected to be constantly barraged with no counterplay?

"Medium tank or better" isnt necessarily what's being discussed, incidentally. My preferred vehicles to perform this sort of dive are not t-34s, but light vehicles.

Making good trades is indeed intelligent play. Trading a 222, Luchs, T-70, AEC, Stuart, Puma etcetera for one or more rocket arty vehicles is what a smart player might do if the situation arises. They're, again, already punished by the game if they fail, through their vehicle being destroyed. Why exactly does there need to be a random chance that either the target or attacker is abandoned when killed, rather than being outright destroyed? Why isnt the accuracy and penetration calculations that had already been done enough?

Though in the case of Mediums these would be used if you're diving something like a heavily damaged Elefant, ISU-152, Jagdtiger, or some other heavy tank.

What does the fact that dives happened in the 2v2 tournament have to do with anything?

There isn't need for any RNG at all.
You can just have starcraft with ww2 skins.
In fact, game like that already exist and I see no reason why you would want to shape this one into it instead of going to play that other game. The name is Sudden Strike series.

I'm really not sure what makes you think the sole difference between Starcraft and CoH2 is that CoH2 has RNG, more specifically in terms of overly impactful RNG like MGC and Abandons, nor am I seeing how removing or reworking either of those turns the game into SS or SC. Feel free to come up with a real argument, though.

Being in a position to just hand an abandon to your opponent, without the ability to destroy it and deny it, is a failing on YOUR part.

Diving into enemy base and kill sniper/heal/tank and your tank gets abandon. How can you avoid this?

im blown there are still people defending the idea that abandon in a ladder setting makes any sense whatsoever

im blown there are still people defending the idea that abandon in a ladder setting makes any sense whatsoever

I think people are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point )))))

After-all, you cannot be wrong on the interwebs right?

I think people are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point )))))

After-all, you cannot be wrong on the interwebs right?

And a reminder to all:

The problem is this:

Show Spoiler

To be clear Angelus main gun crits and other "bad" RNG (main gun crit in this example) should definitly be an option in casual matches or campaign, but it has no business in ladder.

Anyone who doesnt understand the real problem with some of the "bad" RNG (main gun crits, abandon, planes randomly wiping squads, etc.) in COH ladder specifically need to read and understand this portion of the article (below) in its entirety. I quoted direct from it in this thread to make it easier for everyone.

Sourced by my article: https://www.coh2.org/news/87123/company-of-heroes-3-with-whiteflash-addendum

The RNG Dilemma

I have to now talk about something in detail so everyone can fully appreciate where I'm trying to take you because, in a lot of ways, it is a part of the soul of COH and this has to be thought about carefully. I'm talking about the chance interactions that are built into every single match. I will refer to this as RNG. It is a massive part of COH, and should remain so. As far as artillery strikes, mortars, and infantry firing at each other, etc., it makes a ton of realistic and gameplay sense to maintain the RNG in many cases.

In other cases, this RNG normality starts to break down. The examples I'm about to give aren't intended to be the norm, but they happen often enough that every single person who has played Company of Heroes has had something like this happen to them. The example below is double snipers in perfect positioning to ambush an enemy sniper. The player has been patiently awaiting the enemy to come into a well prepared kill zone. And then... this happens...



The sniper gets away and what should be a tactical victory turns into a fail and potentially you will lose a sniper or worse. Now you could say, "well it happens to both sides occasionally so its OK" but that doesn't make a difference in a single game. In a single game where advancing in a ladder, or keeping a winning streak going, or competing when there is huge amounts of money on the line, or just trying to enjoy the game... it's flawed. You can't have situations where players do every single thing right in tactical situations and lose. You're removing a key element, fun, from the game. It doesn't work. It breaks the spirit of many players to come back and enjoy the game. It's objectively wrong design when we look at this specific example.

Another specific example, is an antitank gun vs a tank at close range. We have a very impactful tank, the T-34/85, and a Pak designed to counter tanks. The player with the pak sees the weakened tank, the tank player isn't microing after a battle and leaves his tank exposed, the pak player correctly moves his AT gun into position and at a very close range...



But the Pak misses and the tank escapes. The Pak player did everything tactically correct and the satisfaction, payoff, reward, whatever you want to call it has been stripped from that player. This inherently doesn't make sense.

RNG Solutions

Now, I can hear everyone saying, "you better not talk about removing RNG from COH!" and I'm 100% in agreement. What I'm driving at is the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness has to be curbed to everyone's benefit. I want to say that again, the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness is the problem here. It's not the RNG in general that is the problem. The problem is that in these highly impactful moments there aren't clear lines. There are very likely many solutions to this, two of which I will illustrate. To be clear all this discussion on this one area of the game (close range AT RNG) is to illuminate the rougher edges of COH so that it can drive towards a flourishing ladder and be one step closer to the "made by jesus" asymptote. Relic will indeed have to analyze and thoroughly test every aspect of the game much deeper than this to arrive at what makes the most sense. And, in general, I will again point to the original COH1 factions design and what made them so compelling and reciprocal.

To highlight my point here, imagine if you were one of the North America’s most successful and well-known Esports players like Huk (who got frustrated with COH and left for SCII) and you miss an AT gun shot at close range on a last shot on a vehicle that wins or loses the game. And, it's for tens of thousands of dollars... that is the breaking point for a lot of people who consider themselves pros and would want to get into a game like this in a serious competitive way. The thing is... the COH mechanics are compelling and amazing so they would be interested. But if the difference is a dice roll, like a close range AT gun shooting a tank, and it misses, that just won't work in a competitive environment. The high impact units is where this matters. However, if it takes 30 shots to kill a unit it's OK and actually desirable to have random chance mixed in there because the impact of missing a single shot is much lower, but if an AT gun takes 3 shots to kill a tank and it misses the last shot at point blank range, it can be a deal breaker. I got a chance to have Huk look at this specific paragraph and he commented.

"For argument sake I think chance in games is good, but obviously to the degree they have it is bad, your example being good."
Huk


Image credit to Dustin Steiner

I would even suggest Relic and/or SEGA temporarily employ some of these RTS pros and take advantage of their deep RTS knowledge, experience, passion and perspectives. They could be called upon during certain stages of the development cycle and may be a valuable asset which would potentially benefit everyone.

As it stands, units that get closer to other units have an increased chance to hit, which means the edge case of missing at close range is all the more frustrating when it does happen. In this specific case, I will be talking about AT guns only, but this can apply to snipers, tank vs tank battles and any high impact unit. Artillery among other things doesn't apply here as stated before, each unit has to be looked at and individually calibrated. One solution to AT guns could be to layer a system that basically says, if an enemy tank is within (I'm using 50% here but pick any close range number) 50% of the max range of the gun then the AT gun will hit 100% of the time. This will remove edge cases. And players, knowing that they will have 100% chance to hit at certain ranges, will play differently in specific tactical situations because they will benefit from this 100% zone on the AT guns.



Another important improvement from this is that when an AT gun misses a kill shot at long range, they will know that they COULD have changed their tactics and positioned their AT gun close enough to have a 100% chance to hit, and thus, there is rational to the miss. The ability for players to rationalize these kinds of impactful moments are critical, especially to new players. In other words, I could have increased the risk for reward but it essentially is, on some level, my fault that it missed because I wasn't willing to take the risk to get closer. This is a far cry psychologically from an AT gun missing a kill on a tank at point blank after having done everything right then the player says "well it didn't matter WHAT I did I was never going to get that kill". That kind of helpless disillusionment is dangerous for the health of the game, the competitive spirit, and the community. Many of the hardcore fan base simply accept that this is part of the game, with AT guns in this example, but it is unnecessary and is one of the needless rough edges of the game.

Another potential solution is to change AT guns so as shots miss, the next shot chance increases. The target would have a timer attached to it that increases the chance to be hit by any other AT gun in a cumulative manner until the timer expires. This would reduce some of the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness but in a different way. You could have a modifier specific to both the target and the shooter or maybe just a modifier on the target if you dodged a tank shot in the last x seconds, the next one has a higher chance to land, something along these lines. Or perhaps some combination of both solutions would be best, or something totally novel! This is where thorough testing and a keen sense of game mechanics will reveal what is best.

A good example of a gameplay element that is impactful and has well defined lines built into the mechanic is the way that you fire a panzerfaust or AT grenade at a vehicle. The vehicle goes inside the range circle, the player takes the risk of getting close to the vehicle to obtain the reward of killing or snaring the vehicle, the player clicks the vehicle to faust and regardless of how far away the targeted vehicle gets after the action is taken the faust lands 100%. There is a tactical satisfaction that comes with knowing you did the right thing and you get the payoff, conversely the player with the tank knows he messed up because he got into range of the faust and the vehicle getting hit is his fault. There are clear lines for the players and that's important. Other elements that follow this trend where a player knows a game element will act a certain way is when a teller mines hits a vehicle or a smoke grenade conceals an area or when a flame grenade damages infantry in a building.



Please keep in mind I'm giving specific examples and solutions, but they are only examples, and the solutions presented have no testing or data to back up whether or not they would work. I'm trying to illustrate the rough edges that COH presents and providing a possible concept to address them. Much more work than this will have to be done for a new game. The meat of COH, the fundamental mechanics, are so strong that with thorough design, testing and analysis Relic can knock COH3 out of the park. All of this "edge case" discussion is, to get back on topic, part of refining fundamental game subtleties to propel the competitive scene, get players interested in the franchise, and satisfy players to the point where they want to stay. Especially new players.

if you made it this far let me also add this evidence to illustrate the absurdity of the problem...https://clips.twitch.tv/GlutenFreeSarcasticAlligatorLitFam

Improvement isent hard fact. Its down to perception mostly. Not eveything initiated as improving ends up improving anything and does the opposite.
Giving the maxim good suppression with its high mobility back then is a good example of a improvement failing to improve.

As for the abuse. The demo was considerd abusive by even using it once or twice per game before it got nerfed to the ground. It could seal games if used right.
Tying mgc or abandon to abilities will have the same or even stronger impact if used right and be much to strong.
It would encourage even more passive play, but this is probably the intendid.

I do think certain prerequisites or way of engagement before getting a chance to get both is a good way to look at it, just not with abilities as i explained.

And if it would be tied to wich abilities should it be tied?

Improvement isent hard fact. Its down to perception mostly. Not eveything initiated as improving ends up improving anything and does the opposite.
Giving the maxim good suppression with its high mobility back then is a good example of a improvement failing to improve.

As for the abuse. The demo was considerd abusive by even using it once or twice per game before it got nerfed to the ground. It could seal games if used right.
Tying mgc or abandon to abilities will have the same or even stronger impact if used right and be much to strong.
It would encourage even more passive play, but this is probably the intendid.

I do think certain prerequisites or way of engagement before getting a chance to get both is a good way to look at it, just not with abilities as i explained.

And if it would be tied to wich abilities should it be tied?

Improvement is hard fact. Attempting to improve is not the same as improving.
Giving the Maxim good suppression would undeniably be improving the Maxim. Nobody other than you is suggesting this would have improved CoH2 at the time, however. Stop misusing words.

Stop talking about entirely irrelevant things like Demo Charges. Give an example of how MGC/Abandon as ability-based criticals could be abused. Then feel free to explain how this encourages passive play at all.

You haven't explained anything, you've stated vaguely that "It could be abused", and talked about completely irrelevant topics like Demo Charges. Explain in detail or give up.

im blown there are still people defending the idea that abandon in a ladder setting makes any sense whatsoever

Some people prefer their success and failure to be entirely tied to dicerolls than to actual effort, apparently.

Improvement is hard fact. Attempting to improve is not the same as improving.
Giving the Maxim good suppression would undeniably be improving the Maxim. Nobody other than you is suggesting this would have improved CoH2 at the time, however. Stop misusing words.

Stop talking about entirely irrelevant things like Demo Charges. Give an example of how MGC/Abandon as ability-based criticals could be abused. Then feel free to explain how this encourages passive play at all.

You haven't explained anything, you've stated vaguely that "It could be abused", and talked about completely irrelevant topics like Demo Charges. Explain in detail or give up.

Read what i wrote and dont be an ass, you know full well i refered to the maxims goldens days where you could spam it a-move it and win the game like this. So yes you are correct the maxim was improved back then but the effect was that the rest of the game suffered for it.

You are the one asking for examples of abuse. I gave you a clear abused abilitie as an example. That you lack capabilities to compare or put thing side by side to reach conclusion and write it off as irrelevant isent my problem.
Getting inf one shotted by a one click ability all the time qualifies as such abuse. Getting mgc or abandon at the click of a button all the time does as wel.

You already said that rng mgc and abandon encourages passive play at a small chance of it happening
Now having it always available at a single click at will not somehow?
Either give details how you would implement these as i asked you to do or stop contradicting yourself.

Some people prefer their success and failure to be entirely tied to dicerolls than to actual effort, apparently.

Where is the problem with that.

Everybody, except certain tryhards and tournement players like it. There is nothing wrong with having some rng in the game.

Ladder is meaningless for over 99.99999999% of the playerbase.
If you are skilled -> you will win nonetheless.

In terms of overall impact on your results abandons are negligible.

If you cant handle some bad rng -> dont play the game

Read what i wrote and dont be an ass, you know full well i refered to the maxims goldens days where you could spam it a-move it and win the game like this. So yes you are correct the maxim was improved back then but the effect was that the rest of the game suffered for it.

And as I explained to you, The Maxim was Improved in that instance. Nobody but you has implied that this means the game might have been improved, and this has nothing to do with anything. You're making really bad arguments that aren't even related to your point.

You are the one asking for examples of abuse. I gave you a clear abused abilitie as an example. That you lack capabilities to compare or put thing side by side to reach conclusion and write it off as irrelevant isent my problem.
Getting inf one shotted by a one click ability all the time qualifies as such abuse. Getting mgc or abandon at the click of a button all the time does as wel.

You're giving an example of an entirely different ability, with an entirely different purpose, which is irrelevant. Give an example of a situation in which an abandon ability could be "Abused".

Unsurprisingly being able to wipe entire squads (or groups of squads) for 100 munitions, and requiring that a Minesweeping unit babysit every single infantry engagement was imbalanced, and so this was nerfed. This didn't have an RNG component though, so I'm still not sure why you're bringing it up. This is completely irrelevant, again.

You have the ability to play around an abandon ability (Which would likely be a doctrinal ability on a niche unit, not a core ability on a faction's starting unit like Demo Charge is), through avoiding the unit in question, or even through something such as Smoking to prevent the ability being targetted. Abandons and MGC would then have an opportunity cost involved, whereas now they are simply a roll of the dice.

You can't play around random abandons except through "not dying", given their infrequency.

You already said that rng mgc and abandon encourages passive play at a small chance of it happening
Now having it always available at a single click at will not somehow?
Either give details how you would implement these as i asked you to do or stop contradicting yourself.

You cannot play around RNG MGC and Abandons except through "not dying".

You also seem to be implying that an abandon ability would be a case of "One click and any vehicle is abandoned, no matter the situation", rather than a reasonable person's interpretation of an ability like that, which might be a low-damage, short-ranged ability that must get the killing blow on a vehicle to trigger an abandon. If the ability were even a skillshot of some type then you would have the added counterplay of predictive movement, in the same way as Grenades are balanced.

You notice how Snares (And the even more extreme Immobilisation critical) are tied to unit abilities and not through random chance? You see how they aren't abusable, and are something you can play around because of that? This is how Abandons and MGC should be.

Where is the problem with that.

Everybody, except certain tryhards and tournement players like it. There is nothing wrong with having some rng in the game.

Ladder is meaningless for over 99.99999999% of the playerbase.
If you are skilled -> you will win nonetheless.

In terms of overall impact on your results abandons are negligible.

If you cant handle some bad rng -> dont play the game

The game already has plenty of RNG. It doesn't also need Random abandons and MGC. They add nothing but frustration.

IF you can't handle the game ever changing, back up your version and play it offline.

The game already has plenty of RNG. It doesn't also need Random abandons and MGC. They add nothing but frustration.

IF you can't handle the game ever changing, back up your version and play it offline.

You wanna change sth. that isnt broken. Abandons are no frustation, they are fun.

You wanna change sth. that isnt broken. Abandons are no frustation, they are fun.

Should we revert to the release version of CoH2, given that changes are inherently bad?

They are incredibly frustrating, and I really can't see why RNG dictating something rather than you being able to it yourself is "fun". I like to play games, not have them played for me.

Should we revert to the release version of CoH2, given that changes are inherently bad?

"I got my nail chipped! Doctor, just rip my arm off, it'll be better this way!" kind of logic here.

They are incredibly frustrating, and I really can't see why RNG dictating something rather than you being able to it yourself is "fun". I like to play games, not have them played for me.

They also are incredibly rare and add to the spirit of the series - unpredictability.

There are whole genres built with nothing but RNG with well known and acclaimed titles.

And one more time, if you can't take potential loss, don't commit to a move. Its perfectly valid to play safe and not overextend.

Abandoned vehicles already have main gun and engine destroyed, if you can't deal with that, you've lost anyway.

They also are incredibly rare and add to the spirit of the series - unpredictability.

There are whole genres built with nothing but RNG with well known and acclaimed titles.

And one more time, if you can't take potential loss, don't commit to a move. Its perfectly valid to play safe and not overextend.

Abandoned vehicles already have main gun and engine destroyed, if you can't deal with that, you've lost anyway.

The main disconnect I see with defenders of current abandon is the lack of understanding in how impactful an abandoned vehicle actually is to a game and just how easy it is to recover when it happens. It's rare, but it absolutely removes any notion of skillful play once it does happen and flips the table sideways in a way that isn't fun for anyone looking for a good game.

Couple of examples. My USF vs a friend of mine's Wher a few days ago. He wins the early engagements with good 42 usage, and wipes one of my rifles which I figured the game was over. I plant a Rifleman mine back in my territory and my opponent correctly pushes me back and attempts to wipe a rifle on retreat with his Flamewagon. (If he doesn't pressure me with his advantage I can come back into the game and remount an offensive.) He hits the mine (he didn't know I was Heavy Cav) and I clean up his Flamewagon with a Rifleman at nade +some small arms. It abandons, I clear the zone, repair it in about 10 seconds and suddenly the game has gone from me 100% of the time losing, to me winning on the spot. I get a Stuart out and there is nothing my opponent can do against a free Flamewagon (Which keeps it's upgrade by the way when you recover it) and a Stuart even with an infantry advantage. I roll him over and the game is over before mediums even come out.

Or literally just last night. Automatch Sov vs Wher. I have 2 T-34/85's vs 2 Paks, A Stug and a P4. I successfully flank his Stug and P4 from the north on Nexus with a couple Cons and my T-34's (I am in a losing position as he owns 2 VP's and has good coverage meaning the onus is on me to apply offensive pressure as my opponent has turtled up.) On the flank, I kill the Stug and unload into the P4. I lose one of my T-34's and the other has a Pak wall staring it down as it lands the final shot on his P4. It abandons. I can't stay because I am one hit from death to his Pak Wall and my Cons have been forced to retreat due to him moving his second MG that way. I can't follow up on this and what should have been a 130 Fuel to 210 Fuel and full armor advantage trade of which I played correctly. Turned into a 130 Fuel for 90 Fuel trade with equal armor because I got dicked by a 5% chance.

If my friend in the first instance had more time to mount an offensive with his infantry based numerical superiority and either remove me from the flamewagon or kill it himself the game wouldn't have swung so hard and we would have been back on equal footing which would have been fun as he had infantry, and I had Fuel. In the instance that did happen he had no possible way of coming back since I could repair the Flamewagon before he could even hope to respond. If abandoned vehicles had a longer downtime and a Fuel cost this situation would have not nearly been as bad for him.

In the second instance, my only hope was cracking his position and despite the fact I correctly out maneuvered my opponent and escaped with my armor mostly intact. I could not gain any actual advantage on my push because he could repair and recrew his P4 faster than I could repair and bring to bare my infantry to stop him. If abandoned vehicles had a munitions and fuel cost to keep them out of the game longer and to cost more to account for essentially being a free tank I could have used my advantage in armor to make moves elsewhere on the map and maintain footing in the match, perhaps even with another good maneuver I could even take advantage while my opponent was vulnerable. Unfortunately none of that happened as my opponent successfully zoned me until he could bring out a Tiger to seal my fate as I couldn't answer it.

Neither of these instances can really be compared to other acts of RNG such as accuracy and pen chance because you can account for those by playing "correctly" in the second example, I took one of my T-34's and brought it close to the rear of the P4 because I knew I was likely to lose a vehicle in that engagement and I wanted to put as much consistent damage on the P4 as possible since I was perfectly content with trading one of them off for both of his vehicles. This ensured I didn't run into Pen chance problems and it ultimately worked out in killing the P4 despite the abandon.

The mechanic has no proper counter-play at the moment because often times playing around the chance of abandon is counter-productive to winning the game and when it does happen in a way you can't control it will always decide the game in the favor of the player who acquires the vehicle. It can be improved to be less game deciding with proper timing penalties and resource costs which for some inexplicable reason the "fun" crowd seems to be against despite the fact that it's a rare plague upon the game when it happens currently.

The main disconnect I see with defenders of current abandon is the lack of understanding in how impactful an abandoned vehicle actually is to a game and just how easy it is to recover when it happens. It's rare, but it absolutely removes any notion of skillful play once it does happen and flips the table sideways in a way that isn't fun for anyone looking for a good game.

Oh believe me, I have lost and won games by abandon myself. 4 total maybe?
But vast majority of them were pre abandon "nerf", as of now, unless you dived a single suicidal vehicle and basically given it to enemy/he gave it to you, its not even possible to recover it against equally skilled opponent who wasn't completely forced off the field.

The mechanic basically decides the games in so tiny, minor, insufficient % of games that I see this whole thread as little more then another "I lost one game, I think I lost it because X, therefore I will rant about X to have it removed" kind of thread.

Take literally any tournament we've had recently and count how many games were won or lost because of it.
You'll find out that this is not an actual issue, but a result of people running out of things to bitch about.

Take literally any tournament we've had recently and count how many games were won or lost because of it.

Well... none... because they've been using tourney mod for about a year now that removes it. Because naturally all the high tier competitive players voted to get rid of it.

^