Abandon

what? im open with tweaking abandon and randomness but against completely dropping it unlike pip

im definitely against the elitist view that randomness is a low skill low effort mechanic

Okay. In that case let me try to explain the point of RNG mechanics in a way that helps you differentiate good and bad rng.

So lets take a Gren vs Conscript match up. In every case that occurs (not just arbitrary ones), accuracy dictates that the Grens will win at long range because their long range accuracy chance is higher than the conscripts. The random roll of accuracy says that when given the odds, Grens will hit more shots at distance killing and forcing away the cons. So as the Soviet player, your goal is to maximize your accuracy by getting as close as possible since your numerical superiority and higher relative accuracy at close range will out muscle the Grens and force them away. This is how to use RNG mechanics to provide a dynamic and interesting fight because there is always the odds that the Conscripts at long range will plink a Gren model early, or the Grens will bully the Cons but in likely odds the winner will be whoever takes the engagement correctly and at worst you will have a 40 to 60 Manpower penalty for not being in the gods favor. Hardly a punishment but enough to keep things interesting. This is a core tenant of the game in many facets.

Now, when you take abandon or MGC mechanics. Things turn a lot harder in a negative way. The high rarity of these instances means that you cannot actively frontline consider them when making decisions as they often run counter-productive to winning an engagement. Not to mention if you were to consider them as your primary concern, games would quickly become defensive slogs with no interesting attacks and mere poking at each other from distance. Some people might like that but lord are they boring to play and to watch. But anyway, when looking at the other instance of RNG in the above paragraph, the main selling point is that it provides a constantly applying dynamic way to maneuver and take engagements to provide yourself the highest chance of success. You cannot fundamentally do this with abandon or MGC because they are arbitrarily divvied out by raw rng with no pre-emptive counter play. They happen on a whim and when they do happen in such an uncontrollable fashion you often lose the game as you've taken a roughly 400-800 Manpower disadvantage, and a 100 - 200 Fuel Disadvantage. This is harsh and destructive unlike a small engagement that results in a minor manpower loss. Those resources going directly to your enemy or being taken away from you in these instances is unpreventable in any logical scenario.

I just want you to see how it's not the act of RNG that people are upset with seeing as the game is based around the concept, but the implementation of it that goes against core game philosophy and only causes frustration when it occurs. It's a mechanic that actively hurts the game.

Because he knows that the flight curve of the football is deterministic and that it was not decided by random chance, but by his own incapability. If it were to be decided by random chance, he'd not train at all. Nothing of this has to do with CoH and abandon.

Your example is an own goal (badum ts)

The abandon mechanic is more akin to Russian roulette. It either does not happen or you get critical failure/success. And there is nothing you can do about it, it is pure kuck and the game screws you over.

i disagree, you can do everything about abandon. it is your choice to risk a dive or not.
some of you speak as if abandon is a game breaker. since when and which is a good example?

messi can train and have strong spatial awareness, but random factors during match may happens, the flight of the curve can be trained as much but still not perfect outcome like chess.

Okay. In that case let me try to explain the point of RNG mechanics in a way that helps you differentiate good and bad rng.

So lets take a Gren vs Conscript match up. In every case that occurs (not just arbitrary ones), accuracy dictates that the Grens will win at long range because their long range accuracy chance is higher than the conscripts. The random roll of accuracy says that when given the odds, Grens will hit more shots at distance killing and forcing away the cons. So as the Soviet player, your goal is to maximize your accuracy by getting as close as possible since your numerical superiority and higher relative accuracy at close range will out muscle the Grens and force them away. This is how to use RNG mechanics to provide a dynamic and interesting fight because there is always the odds that the Conscripts at long range will plink a Gren model early, or the Grens will bully the Cons but in likely odds the winner will be whoever takes the engagement correctly and at worst you will have a 40 to 60 Manpower penalty for not being in the gods favor. Hardly a punishment but enough to keep things interesting. This is a core tenant of the game in many facets.

Now, when you take abandon or MGC mechanics. Things turn a lot harder in a negative way. The high rarity of these instances means that you cannot actively frontline consider them when making decisions as they often run counter-productive to winning an engagement. Not to mention if you were to consider them as your primary concern, games would quickly become defensive slogs with no interesting attacks and mere poking at each other from distance. Some people might like that but lord are they boring to play and to watch. But anyway, when looking at the other instance of RNG in the above paragraph, the main selling point is that it provides a constantly applying dynamic way to maneuver and take engagements to provide yourself the highest chance of success. You cannot fundamentally do this with abandon or MGC because they are arbitrarily divvied out by raw rng with no pre-emptive counter play. They happen on a whim and when they do happen in such an uncontrollable fashion you often lose the game as you've taken a roughly 400-800 Manpower disadvantage, and a 100 - 200 Fuel Disadvantage. This is harsh and destructive unlike a small engagement that results in a minor manpower loss. Those resources going directly to your enemy or being taken away from you in these instances is unpreventable in any logical scenario.

I just want you to see how it's not the act of RNG that people are upset with seeing as the game is based around the concept, but the implementation of it that goes against core game philosophy and only causes frustration when it occurs. It's a mechanic that actively hurts the game.

how many games have you lost to abandon btw? do you just critise this mechanical because it does not conform to predicable expectations?

the counterplay is to destroy or recrew your abandon tanks. i mean if you allowed the opponents to crew and repair and reused against you, why cant you do it faster than them?

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'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 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.

So me saying the game suffered because of it doesnt tell you the i think the game didn't improve at that point? Okay

You talked about flame crits and all other rng crits being removed for a reason. Then after you campeign to remove mgc and abandon outright for those same reasons you go into tying them to abilities without any further context and implementation.
Its not strange that people jump to conclusions and assume you are not serious esp when you dont answer when asked how you would do this.

But thank you for giving more on how you would like it to be implemented. Believe it or not but with most things related to balance or implementation i agree with your positions. Just not on these crits and what to do.
Having them be short range and it needing to be a killing blow for abandon is indeed as it should be if tied to abilities. The thing is you get to decide where you get your free tank (with no oppertunity cost/wich should be required) and when the enemy tank looses its gun wich is to powerfull imo. This goes beyond nades and snares easely.

If anything is to be done its easiers to add oppertunity cost and nothing else. Tying them to abilities and units is to much work and time to get it right. If coh3 ever happens its should be put in there.

i disagree, you can do everything about abandon. it is your choice to risk a dive or not.
some of you speak as if abandon is a game breaker. since when and which is a good example?

messi can train and have strong spatial awareness, but random factors during match may happens, the flight of the curve can be trained as much but still not perfect outcome like chess.

Uh-huh, and as I've already explained to you: "Don't dive" is not a good player's response to a 1-5% chance of an abandon, because in 95% of cases the dive would have helped you, rather than put you massively behind. Only a bad player is dissuaded from diving because of Abandon and MGC, everyone else is simply fucked by RNG in 1-5% of cases, and there is nothing they could do about it.

Give an example of a similarly impactful "Random" thing that might happen in Football, do you sometimes join the opposing team if you get tackled without any teammates nearby?

Uh-huh, and as I've already explained to you: "Don't dive" is not a good player's response to a 1-5% chance of an abandon, because in 95% of cases the dive would have helped you, rather than put you massively behind. Only a bad player is dissuaded from diving because of Abandon and MGC, everyone else is simply fucked by RNG in 1-5% of cases, and there is nothing they could do about it.

Give an example of a similarly impactful "Random" thing that might happen in Football, do you sometimes join the opposing team if you get tackled without any teammates nearby?

no the example in football is, you are leading 1-0, do you sub in an attacker for a defensive mid and go for the kill by losing your holding midfielder?

can you trust your defenders to make up the space left behind while your front men try to score more goals.

risk and rewards, and extra skills to overcome chance.

or you can sit back and defend the lead. choices and different outcomes are good.

how many games you lost to abandon and mgc, and how many you won with? btw

im just saying random status are fine and is a closer simulation of a real battle than just 1s or 0s, black or white.

again i make a hypothetic scenario, with a $1m prize money, competing coh2 with core mechanics enabled and no restriction on maps and commanders.

do you think top players wont train for it? do you think spectators wont enjoy it?

But thank you for giving more on how you would like it to be implemented. Believe it or not but with most things related to balance or implementation i agree with your positions. Just not on these crits and what to do.
Having them be short range and it needing to be a killing blow for abandon is indeed as it should be if tied to abilities. The thing is you get to decide where you get your free tank (with no oppertunity cost/wich should be required) and when the enemy tank looses its gun wich is to powerfull imo. This goes beyond nades and snares easely.

A grenade has the ability to outright kill an infantry squad in one shot when used intelligently, and a snare when used correctly can guarantee a kill on a vehicle that would otherwise have easily escaped a situation. Both of these are comparable to MGC and abandon. Imagine if grenades were simply something infantry squads threw at random, and if they were thrown quickly and exploded immediately, and imagine if tank cannons or AT guns randomly snared opposing vehicles when firing. Both of these things would be exactly as impactful as random MGC and Abandons.

Nobody's suggested there be no opportunity cost to an ability-based abandon, nor to being able to knock out a tank's gun.

Honestly MGC should just be removed entirely, though, and an ability that might have caused an MGC instead cause the temporary "gunner injured" critical that stops a vehicle firing temporarily. Outright preventing a vehicle from fighting back until it's fully repaired is far too strong to be in the game at all. Abandon can be balanced through becoming an ability, but MGC really cannot be balanced.

how many games have you lost to abandon btw? do you just critise this mechanical because it does not conform to predicable expectations?

the counterplay is to destroy or recrew your abandon tanks. i mean if you allowed the opponents to crew and repair and reused against you, why cant you do it faster than them?

Have you read this thread? Because your questions are answered.
Yes its very rare, lose a match because abandon. But this extended unnecessary matches and are very frustrating. And when it´s so rare, why not remove?

No, it´s exist enough situations in this game, where you can´t do this. And you can´t play around, because good player must make dives.

A grenade has the ability to outright kill an infantry squad in one shot when used intelligently, and a snare when used correctly can guarantee a kill on a vehicle that would otherwise have easily escaped a situation. Both of these are comparable to MGC and abandon. Imagine if grenades were simply something infantry squads threw at random, and if they were thrown quickly and exploded immediately, and imagine if tank cannons or AT guns randomly snared opposing vehicles when firing. Both of these things would be exactly as impactful as random MGC and Abandons.

Nobody's suggested there be no opportunity cost to an ability-based abandon, nor to being able to knock out a tank's gun.

Honestly MGC should just be removed entirely, though, and an ability that might have caused an MGC instead cause the temporary "gunner injured" critical that stops a vehicle firing temporarily. Outright preventing a vehicle from fighting back until it's fully repaired is far too strong to be in the game at all. Abandon can be balanced through becoming an ability, but MGC really cannot be balanced.

mgc can be balanced by ensuring its rng values are fairly applied and can come into effect for either sides.

no the example in football is, you are leading 1-0, do you sub in an attacker for a defensive mid and go for the kill by losing your holding midfielder?

can you trust your defenders to make up the space left behind while your front men try to score more goals.

So your comparison in football to a 5% chance of a killed vehicle being handed to your enemy is... you subbing in the "wrong" player and the enemy then getting a goal because your entire team then somehow failed to then stop them?

Your team letting a goal through in football isnt random chance, that's being outplayed by your opponent. Are you even aware of what argument you're making?

mgc can be balanced by ensuring its rng values are fairly applied and can come into effect for either sides.

lol

Have you read this thread? Because your questions are answered.
Yes its very rare, lose a match because abandon. But this extended unnecessary matches and are very frustrating. And when it´s so rare, why not remove?

No, it´s exist enough situations in this game, where you can´t do this. And you can´t play around, because good player must make dives.

good players can make dives even with abandon on. /shrug.

i would say it is rare to lose game just because abandon happen

abandon meanwhile, is much less rarer than the above. aka. abandon is much more common than it is losing a game to abandon.

as such, why remove the possibility of using enemy tanks, a core mechanics created for coh2.

how many games have you lost to abandon btw? do you just critise this mechanical because it does not conform to predicable expectations?

the counterplay is to destroy or recrew your abandon tanks. i mean if you allowed the opponents to crew and repair and reused against you, why cant you do it faster than them?

Did you read anything I said? Do you comprehend words and concepts? This has nothing to do with my personal experience with abandon. It happens for me, it happens against me. It's fundamentally poorly designed is my point because it doesn't fit with other concepts of RNG the game is based around. The point of RNG mechanics is to provide a working system for conceptual play for strategic purposes while not having every result be purely binary in minor way with a win if I "x" or lose if I "y" way. Abandon and MGC deny strategic play, and if they happen will result in a much more severe I win the game if I "x" (Get the abandoned vehicle) or lose the game if I "y" (Opponent gets the abandoned vehicle).

Yes you can sometimes destroy the vehicle, sometimes you can't. When you can't the game is lost for whoever is on the unfortunate side of the abandon. The defending player is almost always going to result with the abandoned tank because players generally will be fighting over the defending players side of the map and the attacking player will likely have a lot more losses due to being the attacker. Like I literally don't know how to explain this to you any better.

Final try, Accuracy and Pen RNG mechanics good because strategy fun, Abandon and MGC mechanics bad because no strategy not fun.

So your comparison in football to a 5% chance of a killed vehicle being handed to your enemy is... you subbing in the "wrong" player and the enemy then getting a goal because your entire team then somehow failed to then stop them?

Your team letting a goal through in football isnt random chance, that's being outplayed by your opponent. Are you even aware of what argument you're making?



lol

in my example, you are the better team, dominating, leading 1-0, you decide to sub in an attacker to go for the kill. unluckily the ball hit the posts twice since your attacking change. and even worse luck, a long punt out by the opponent, your last defender, you captain slips, and since the rest of your team is in attack, and the opponent score, its 1-1.

what is the chance that happened to your reliable captain? poor guy.

Did you read anything I said? Do you comprehend words and concepts? This has nothing to do with my personal experience with abandon. It happens for me, it happens against me. It's fundamentally poorly designed is my point because it doesn't fit with other concepts of RNG the game is based around. The point of RNG mechanics is to provide a working system for conceptual play for strategic purposes while not having every result be purely binary in minor way with a win if I "x" or lose if I "y" way. Abandon and MGC deny strategic play, and if they happen will result in a much more severe I win the game if I "x" (Get the abandoned vehicle) or lose the game if I "y" (Opponent gets the abandoned vehicle).

Yes you can sometimes destroy the vehicle, sometimes you can't. When you can't the game is lost for whoever is on the unfortunate side of the abandon. The defending player is almost always going to result with the abandoned tank because players generally will be fighting over the defending players side of the map and the attacking player will likely have a lot more losses due to being the attacker. Like I literally don't know how to explain this to you any better.

Final try, Accuracy and Pen RNG mechanics good because strategy fun, Abandon and MGC mechanics bad because no strategy not fun.

i watched dozens of tightrope and ae casts. i played dozens of 2v2 rank 1000. i dont remember an abandon tank becomes an i win thing. it is still a p4, a tiger, a t34, a sherman, a cromwell, a whatever, it stills need to be recrew, it can still be countered even in enemy hands, just like any tank...

again, i feel like you are just arguing against the concept from an elitist pov discussion for sake of discussion, rather than something that has badly affected the game.

now to be fair, the OP may have just lost a rare abandon game, and felt the need to rant and started this topic.

in my example, you are the better team, dominating, leading 1-0, you decide to sub in an attacker to go for the kill. unluckily the ball hit the posts twice since your attacking change. and even worse luck, a long punt out by the opponent, your last defender, you captain slips, and since the rest of your team is in attack, and the opponent score, its 1-1.

what is the chance that happened to your reliable captain? poor guy.

~
Your ball didn't "unluckily" hit the post twice. The guy kicking the ball fucked up twice and missed. That isnt random, that is him not being good enough.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding what "Randomness" is.

"In chess you unluckily lost your bishops early" is analogous to what you're trying to argue.

i watched dozens of tightrope and ae casts. i played dozens of 2v2 rank 1000. i dont remember an abandon tank becomes an i win thing. it is still a p4, a tiger, a t34, a sherman, a cromwell, a whatever, it stills need to be recrew, it can still be countered even in enemy hands, just like any tank...

again, i feel like you are just arguing against the concept from an elitist pov discussion for sake of discussion, rather than something that has badly affected the game.

now to be fair, the OP may have just lost a rare abandon game, and felt the need to rant and started this topic.

Nobody cares about your anecdotes dude, nor do they care about your invented scenario of "someone losing because of abandon and being mad".

i watched dozens of tightrope and ae casts. i played dozens of 2v2 rank 1000. i dont remember an abandon tank becomes an i win thing. it is still a p4, and tiger, a t34, and it stills need to be recrew..

again, i feel like you are just arguing against the concept from an elitist pov, rather than something that has badly affected the game.

Your judgement of balance is already lacking given your insistence that the Brumbar is now UP with a 3% addition chance to Pen against it. It does not surprise me that you lack any and all understanding of the concept of resource advantage.

This does not come from an elitist perspective. It comes from a perspective of basic understanding of the game and it's working mechanics enough that I can freely comment on topics I can conceptually and practically understand. You should opt to post less authoritatively on topics you have little understanding of and seek to be more inquisitive from those who do. Eventually with enough learning you'll even reach a point where you can provide meaningful contribution yourself.

For an example, I just a few months ago considered Ass grens OP. Instead of whining and complaining how they're unbeatable I took the time to do a little research, play more games, and come to understand how to properly beat them with better unit positioning and a more tailored strategy to countering them. Now I can impart that wisdom onto others instead of perpetually complaining that they ruin the game.

~
Your ball didn't "unluckily" hit the post twice. The guy kicking the ball fucked up twice and missed. That isnt random, that is him not being good enough.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding what "Randomness" is.

"In chess you unluckily lost your bishops early" is analogous to what you're trying to argue.



Nobody cares about your anecdotes dude, nor do they care about your invented scenario of "someone losing because of abandon and being mad".

sometimes a tank round hits right at the turret critical point, bom turret down
other times the rounds hit the sides and bom your tank surviability goes down, but the turret still works.

like football, a shot may have that slightly too much lift that it spins a few cm off and hits the post instead of the goal. nothing wrong with player qualities.

/shrug.

like football, a shot may have that slightly too much lift that it spins a few cm off and hits the post instead of the goal. nothing wrong with player qualities.

/shrug.

Yes it is due to player qualities. That's you kicking the ball incorrectly, a modern football is designed to fly predictably.

You're still trying to argue that a football being a "few centimeters off" is somehow comparable to handing an opponent a vehicle in CoH2 through a 5% chance, and I have no clue if you're intentionally being obtuse or not.

sometimes a tank round hits right at the turret critical point, bom turret down
other times the rounds hit the sides and bom your tank surviability goes down, but the turret still works.

Non sequitur.

Your judgement of balance is already lacking given your insistence that the Brumbar is now UP with a 3% addition chance to Pen against it. It does not surprise me that you lack any and all understanding of the concept of resource advantage.

This does not come from an elitist perspective. It comes from a perspective of basic understanding of the game and it's working mechanics enough that I can freely comment on topics I can conceptually and practically understand. You should opt to post less authoritatively on topics you have little understanding of and seek to be more inquisitive from those who do. Eventually with enough learning you'll even reach a point where you can provide meaningful contribution yourself.

For an example, I just a few months ago considered Ass grens OP. Instead of whining and complaining how they're unbeatable I took the time to do a little research, play more games, and come to understand how to properly beat them with better unit positioning and a more tailored strategy to countering them. Now I can impart that wisdom onto others instead of perpetually complaining that they ruin the game.

i dont think voicing against the removal of core mechanics like abandon and mgc is due to lack of basic understanding of the game.

again, your post proves what i felt earlier. about the elistist pov, discussing on concepts like this, concepts over in game results, about shooting down people, about randomness is bad mechanics, about the need to align with the hulks and the 'pros', about lack of contribution because some are not elite enough to join in the chorus for removal of abandon.

i guess life is bad mechanic too.