Lets fix RNG

OK I have written a few posts that suggest big or quite dramatic changes to the game as I saw fit.

I want to talk about smaller stuff that I think would improve the game.

Some of the things that really annoy me is the vagueness, the randomness and the lack of specificity of units and damage.

What I mean is things like the su 85 getting consitant inf kills or the fact that I have watched hundreds of top play games and I still cant tell if a group of cons or grens is going to win a fire fight.

Some things need to be firmed up. such as the cons vs grens there needs to be a hard and fast rule so people know that for example in a con vs grens scenario lets say grens always win unless use of cover or molatovs ect or grens win at range and cons edge it at closer ranges, ect ect. Right not its like 50/50 and in my opinion that is not what you want in a stragey game, you want to be able to tell when to take a risk and when to run, when to stay and fight. Iv watched many times where the player is making a sensible play only to lose a squad due to some RNG bullshit and vice versa.

These sort of things stop great players from being able to create decisive maneuvers which are exciting and win games.

THere needs to be less vagueness and RNG and more concreteness and finesse in the game. That means that some things need a slight buff, and some things need a nerf ( flame weapon crits for example, at guns/at tanks consistently killing inf)

This also means that some units liek at guns need to be the reliable hard counter to tanks while su 85 for example should be made vulnerable to a few more units the same goes with p4 ect but I for one think the panther is at a good spot as it basically cannot kill inf providing it does not have a top gunner.

I still have big issue with mortars and arty as its basically got nothing to do with the player choices and everything to do with randomness which determines its effectiveness, this is a terrible idea and measures need to be taken to bring these units effectiveness and put it back to the players hands.

Id suggest mortar and arty mechanics from coh ( accuracy modifiers at range, slow passive shot timings, and more reliable barrage abilities as well as clear indication of ordinance flight paths and slower mortar ordinance flight to be able to see where its shooting from and where its going to land, for both sides ie the side shooting and the side receiving the shot)

Anything that makes the game more clear cut is good and anything that makes most if not all units "jack of all trades" dilutes the strategy of the game in my opinon, and this is further worsened by the inherent randomness of nearly all types of fire being it, flame, small arms, tank shots and arty/mortar.

Does CoH2 in fact use a random number generator? A lot of things described as "RNG" seem a probability rather than a random occurence. Obviously, if there are probabilities assigned, it still would not always benefit the game.

Does CoH2 in fact use a random number generator? A lot of things described as "RNG" seem a probability rather than a random occurence. Obviously, if there are probabilities assigned, it still would not always benefit the game.

Not sure, i use RNG in a vague sense meaning that basically a lot of outcomes in this game are very hard to predict and not in a good way.

In a way that robs the game of strategy and ruins otherwise great play, as well as adds a buffer for bad play.

This makes the game less fun to play and to watch. I watch a lot more games than I play and I see so many inconsistencies and random deaths in engagements that it really should be fixed because its bad for the casual gamer as well as the pro player.

Not sure, i use RNG in a vague sense meaning that basically a lot of outcomes in this game are very hard to predict and not in a good way.

In a way that robs the game of strategy and ruins otherwise great play, as well as adds a buffer for bad play.

This makes the game less fun to play and to watch. I watch a lot more games than I play and I see so many inconsistencies and random deaths in engagements that it really should be fixed because its bad for the casual gamer as well as the pro player.

Barely anyone would disagrees with this, but there are instances where a probability creates an interesting gamble. CoH1 example: using propaganda war to countersnipe a retreating sniper with a probability of roughly 50%.

If this would not be a gamble it would be an easy trade off and every player would spend 100 munitions to kill a sniper, because it would be worth it every time. But what if the cost of propaganda war was 250 munitions?

CoH2 has difficult issues such as ram. The ability itself is to strong to always work, unless you price it big enough. Would you be willing to spend 100 munitions to get a guaranteed ram or would you prefer a free gamble with a succesful ram probability of 50%?

If you bring out the randomness and such of it, then you remove the possibility of a real match. CoH is not a "you do or don't do this you win" like starcraft. It requires strategy. As such is the nature of motars and artillery, of course they are going to be somewhat random. They aren't sniper weapons. There are a lot of different variables that come into play when a projectile is in flight. I think your proposals are unreasonable if the game is to retain it's charm.

I understand your argument but I do think there needs to be a certain bit of randomness in the game. Not to the extent that CoH2 is currently at, but even in vCoH you could never really be sure if grens would beat rifles, it really just depends on the situation. But I do not like squad wipes, at all. For a game that stresses unit preservation and retreating to save vet, I really can't understand anything, mines, Strafe, lucky heavy mortar, building collapse crit, flamer blowing up crit, that just wipes an entire squad. I remember, this has been fixed, shooting a rifle nade into a perfect two story building which got crited and collapsed killing the squad inside, that doesn't even make sense from an engineering point of view. What I really don't want to happen is for CoH2 to become to close to Starcraft where everything can simply be reduced to numbers and the outcome can be predicted by math. The game would just be boring to me if you knew that 100% of the time cons would lose to grens 1v1. It would also take away from micro because if you were in a 1v1 con v gren, you just just look away and not have to worry about that battle because you knew 100% you were going to win. The great thing about CoH is that you have to be looking all over the map, making sure the things that are going well continue to do so and if they're going bad, you get the hell out of there. I also remember how much fun it was in vCoH when my at gun would be firing on some Armored cars and there was just that one hit left that was needed to destroy it but the at gun kept missing. But at the last second, when the AC was back in the fog of war but still visible, you make that last hit to destroy it. It's what kept the game always exciting, leaving you on the edge of your seat. If it was always a guranteed hit or miss, the game would become transparent leaving only a bunch of numbers and probabilities moving on the map.

dont lose your time posting this, all these trash coh1 fanboys actually like randomness in a game, its amazing

I don't mind the RNG in this game. In fact, I think it adds to it's charm. War is messy and it's reflected quite nicely in this game. This game is not aimed at E-sports like SC2 is so I don't really see any reason for change.

CoH is all about calculating risks and making decisions, similiar to poker. That's what makes the game special and interesting.

The changes you seem to ask for would destroy the very character of CoH.

this game has probably the worst community of all, one guy is saying "coh2 is not aimed at e-sports" like this game was some kind of joke and not a serious rts game with many tournaments, the rest keeps pretending this game is coh1 and trying to find an excuse for RNG existance they also hate sc2 secretly im sure

CoH is all about calculating risks and making decisions, similiar to poker. That's what makes the game special and interesting.

The changes you seem to ask for would destroy the very character of CoH.

+1

CoH is all about calculating risks and making decisions, similiar to poker. That's what makes the game special and interesting.

The changes you seem to ask for would destroy the very character of CoH.

yeah thats why I will never start gambling Soooo many bad luck :/

this game has probably the worst community of all, one guy is saying "coh2 is not aimed at e-sports" like this game was some kind of joke and not a serious rts game with many tournaments, the rest keeps pretending this game is coh1 and trying to find an excuse for RNG existance they also hate sc2 secretly im sure

I don't think the game is a joke. It's just not aimed at E-sports. You can't have randomness in an E-sport, because like other sports, E-sports are about skill rather than luck. SC2 is a nice example of a proper E-sport, as each element of the game is in the players control. A shot will always deal X damage, armor always prevents Y damage, etc. In this game, a shot might deal X damage, Y, or none at all. There is a lot of luck involved which is outside of the players control, which means this game can't be considered an E-sport.

I don't think the game is a joke. It's just not aimed at E-sports. You can't have randomness in an E-sport, because like other sports, E-sports are about skill rather than luck. SC2 is a nice example of a proper E-sport, as each element of the game is in the players control. A shot will always deal X damage, armor always prevents Y damage, etc. In this game, a shot might deal X damage, Y, or none at all. There is a lot of luck involved which is outside of the players control, which means this game can't be considered an E-sport.

Actually you will find the games that are "esports" are the ones that generally are more accessible than others and are fun to play. Due to this the game will build a large enough player base that can support competitive play as you need some degree of monetization of the player base to support the cost for running such events.

We'll take LoL as an example, compared to players who play DoTA2, DoTA or HoN it's considered an inferior game with less depth and takes less skill to play however it's the most played game there is right now and that's because of a few reasons. Firstly it was one of the first free to play games, this makes the game incredibly accessible as you don't have to pay for the game. You simply download and play games. Secondly it requires a modest PC to run the game smoothly, this again makes the game incredibly accessible.

The luck factor hurting a game's chances of being popular argument is something I don't agree with. Games which have a strong luck element are also very popular, more popular than any competitive video game in fact. The World Series of Poker championship this month had over 6000 participants from all over the world take part and poker is perhaps the best example of a competitive game with a strong luck element. You can't chose the cards that make up your hand but you do the best with what you have.

CoH is all about calculating risks and making decisions, similiar to poker. That's what makes the game special and interesting.

The changes you seem to ask for would destroy the very character of CoH.

coh1 was great pricesely because the RNG had a lot less of an effect on battles and a calculated risk was as good as the calculation , i have seen plenty and i meant every letter of it examples in coh2 where a well calculated risk goes to hell because the RNG god didnt want it while dumb and stupid decisions like ram can have a profound effect for example against a tiger and no ramming a tiger or at nading from the front is not a calculated risk , its an act of desperation . Skill planes getting multiple squad whipes even when you were spot on retreating is not a calculated risk , mollies getting lots of crits isnt a calculated risk its spamm same as con and grenspam , it will pay off at some point through weight of numbers alone , mortars getting squad whipes esp with the precisions shot crap isnt a calculated risk either .

"Only one more element is needed to make war a gamble 'chance'. No other human activity is so continuously or universally bound up with chance.... And through the element chance, guesswork and luck come to play a great part in war’ -Carl von Clausewitz, On War.

If you remove some of the wild chances in CoH, we might as well go play StarCraft with territory sectors. It's part of the charm.

The undecisive maneuvers are NOT the RNG's fault, but rather the entire building, small arms fire mechanic. The fact that buildings give you star trek shields, and that soldiers are firing BB guns, makes flanking much less satisfying.

The RNG has onthing to do about it. In fact, the ONLY thing helping those flanks is hoping for the criticals to trigger. Remove them, and you have starcraft.

"Only one more element is needed to make war a gamble 'chance'. No other human activity is so continuously or universally bound up with chance.... And through the element chance, guesswork and luck come to play a great part in war’ -Carl von Clausewitz, On War.

If you remove some of the wild chances in CoH, we might as well go play StarCraft with territory sectors. It's part of the charm.

The undecisive maneuvers are NOT the RNG's fault, but rather the entire building, small arms fire mechanic. The fact that buildings give you star trek shields, and that soldiers are firing BB guns, makes flanking much less satisfying.

The RNG has onthing to do about it. In fact, the ONLY thing helping those flanks is hoping for the criticals to trigger. Remove them, and you have starcraft.

How long has it been since you've played if I may ask?

I like the chance involved in CoH. You know X unit will reliably beat Y unit almost all the time. It also makes every match a unique and epic story rather than a monotonous grind, which I find SC & Dota to be (not saying they aren't good games, just my preference).

There's 3 VP's left for the opponent and my squad is capping the tipping VP point, their Tiger is lining them up, and I don't know what's going to happen...

I like the chance involved in CoH. You know X unit will reliably beat Y unit almost all the time. It also makes every match a unique and epic story rather than a monotonous grind, which I find SC & Dota to be (not saying they aren't good games, just my preference).

There's 3 VP's left for the opponent and my squad is capping the tipping VP point, their Tiger is lining them up, and I don't know what's going to happen...

I kinda like it as well but there's a fine line between chance playing a good role (VCoH) and chance being overdone in a game (CoH2 atm, check out a sniper just killing a full man conscript squad at full health).

So yeah, what most people are asking for here isn't a complete change of RNG, they just want it to be toned down a bit which I agree with.

Agree with post. COH2 is way more random than vCOH, and not in a good way.