RNG

In coh2 the "RNG" simply ruins the game - this game has been around long enough that by now I should know the answer to "who is going to win this firefight" "should I retreat now?" ect

But I don't and the top players don't know either - I often see them getting squad wiped due to the ridiculous nature of RNG ( and just how bad retreating works in this game) you can have a full health squad get wiped on retreat, even when retreated perfectly, all because of some crazy crits.
The worst thing is a lot of these factors are 100% completely out of the players hand. No advanced micro, no advanced knowledge of strategy or the map can eliminate these critical and broken RNG moments

And why so much people play poker then? RNG is extremely big factor in poker.

In a game with RNG skill is a value that determines your ability to minimize chance of losing.
In the poker you can always calculate your chances based on information you have: total number of cards (the deck), cards in your hand, open cards on the table.
You can do same in CoH: theoretically - based on unit stats or practically - based on tests.

According to my tests Tiger wins vs IS-2 on mid distance with 75% chance (won 3 times in a sample of 4)
That means if I play Wermacht I will ALWAYS take the 1v1 fight with IS-2 on mid distance, and if I play Soviet I will ALWAYS avoid 1v1 fights with Tiger on mid distance.

You need to make such tests with your friends (ofc, if you have any ).

You can make it for different units, cover types, distances, veterancy levels, etc.

As a result you will gain knowledge of which circumstances favors you, so you can minimize risks of losing.
Noone is protected from epic unluck, but pro-players minimize influence of unluck.

I hope you got my point.

In my opinion having a game go from the utmost quality to extremely low quality is a cause for concern so I do write posts about the physics engine and other things that ruin the game.

I cant agree with you on this point, because i actually like the second game more than the first. I think it is about taste and preferences. The more fast-paced gamestyle of Coh2 suits me more

Your post refers to things back in COH , these "elements" you speak about with competent players - go watch a single cast from COH 1 from pro players and they actually use movement, cover, range and armour ( through vetting) to get a one up on their opponent.

Im yet to see a convincing example of this in coh2. I have played the first game for hundreds of hours and put in a lto of time in COH2, im not the best but im not some complete noob that knows nothing about the game.

I like watching Siberian, and he uses it a lot, even uses barbed wire to block the enemy from using green cover, and i think every other good player uses cover a lot. I know i do, and i am not considered good!

TO me clicking on mg upgrade to win any fight is not a skill, not is completely spamming nades, or molotovs to get ridiculous random kills even when the enemy moves out of the way. Nades in the first game were a risk, you had to spend a lot of fuel on something that might never pay off, in this game they are no risk as they come without upgraded for soviet, and most players float so much resource that spamming them is no issue, and you get so much muni income that you never feel short changed.

Soooo, upgrading your grens with LMGs is not skill, and just ruining the game? What about Bars for americans in vCoH, or the upgrades they have now in CoH2? it is a big part of the game. The upgrade is meant so the grens can be used lategame, cause the americans, and russians will bring out tougher units, which the Ostheer doesnt have a real counter for without the lmg upgrade. Removing that will just take away any lategame inf for them. Also, the Riflemen already start as the unit with most dps, giving them bars, and letting the grens just stay where they were would be gamebreaking and ruin the whole faction!

Yeeeeep, this game has too much RNG, Relic still thinks it's a good idea to have such a luck based game and even more crazy they think this game is ready for esports.

Not when there are moments where vehicles can get abandoned by random crit. ( sneak attack!, two hits, halftrack abandoned, main gun destroyed, engine destroyed .....SU85 dead.... )

Not when flame abilities require luck to do damage. ( I even seen units just swimming in a fire barrage and lived just fine, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES!! )

Not when mines are still able to wipe infantry squads. ( like they never really fixed that, they just made it a little less frequent )

The full engine destroyed on full hp tanks still seems to still be there, although I see it less, it should be gone 100 pct. This hurts when using heavy tanks when there are times when a Tiger is rushing to kill my tanks flank, or my AT guns or whatever, three AT nades doesn't do shit. Meanwhile in another game I rushed by Tiger in and one AT nade got its engine damage to a point it had to crawl back to the base.

I think you guys exaggerating RNG role too much.

In a game with RNG, skill is a value that determines your ability to minimize chance of losing.

QFT.

In your examples you don't mention cover, are units on the move, are the squad spread out resulting on some models to be far ahead resulting on getting more hits, are all the models on cover, etc.

It was said before, but I may say it again:
CoH2 is less RNG than vCoH per design, several elements like the small arms criticals were removed.
Both games use a ton of RNG. Accuracy, penetration, criticals , ...

Besides that you contradict yourself...

In COH there is no chance in hell that a builder unit would consistently be able to kill mainline infatry in a stragith 1 v 1 fight - now add in more units, and worse game design and you get the RNG in coh2.

Consistently? That would mean it's not the RNG.
And I think flamerspam was a valid tactic D:

CoH2 has a more complex weapon behavior at different ranges. vCoH basically had only pairings where it's best to get as close as possible or stay as far away as possible. In CoH2 there are quite some squads which are relatively disadvantaged (they can still win, but not for cost) at short and long range, but are advantaged at mid range. This requires a lot more knowledge of the game than in vCoH.

only real stupid rng is the plane crashing killing units. it makes sense, but it literally can be the most single unfair game changer. i mean, out of control tank hitting another tank does damage right?

only real stupid rng is the plane crashing killing units. it makes sense, but it literally can be the most single unfair game changer. i mean, out of control tank hitting another tank does damage right?

Plane crashes and destroyed engine criticals (e.g. from mines) are one of the RNG things that can have a major impact on the outcome of the game and shouldn't be in there.

AT-nades, artillery and most of the tank combat is a also a coinflip after coinflip, but less harsh and more manageable because usually there are more coinflips involved.

Infantry combat, with the exclusion of flame weapons, is the most predictable of them all.

vCoH had more RNG in some places (repeating 5% bug, infantry crits, snipers) and less in others (AT-nades, T34 ram, flame weapons, increased lethality of tanks). Overall i wouldn't say it was less RNG dependent by a long shot.


And out of control tanks don't do any damage by ramming into things, but they still can drive over infantry.

getting killed on retreat isnt an rng crit thing. in coh2 your squads arent as safe while retreating as they were in coh1. in coh1 i think you received some kind of bonus while retreating to take less damage. in coh2 that isnt there anymore and retreating units are just as easy to kill as non retreating units, just they are fleeing faster than you can chase.

I know that snipers atleast have increased accuracy vs retreating units. other units in the game might have similar bonuses.

Repeat after me: there are no crits* in small arms combat in coh2. There are no crits* in small arms combat in coh2. Small arms crits are one of the things they REMOVED RNG wise.

*Pathfinders and Jaegers kinda have them, but theirs are 100% chance on hit, so doubt you're complaining about that.



So I take it you think Coh1 was also a bad game? Because, you know, it actually had small arms criticals. And an even more convoluted low health vehicle crit system than coh2.

while i don't exactly recall how coh1 worked, and i already forgot how coh2 works exactly...

calling the coh1 vehicle crit system "convoluted" compared to coh2 would at least be drastically overexaggerating, if not outright untrue. the crit system was the same for all tanks with a few notable exceptions (a bergetiger/ketten should never get a "main gun destroyed" critical). the coh2 system is way more complicated in that regard (or at least used to be, when i last checked).

asneakyfox explanation sounds more reasonable for infantry (def bonuses on retreat are lower/maybe even non-existant)

getting killed on retreat isnt an rng crit thing. in coh2 your squads arent as safe while retreating as they were in coh1. in coh1 i think you received some kind of bonus while retreating to take less damage. in coh2 that isnt there anymore and retreating units are just as easy to kill as non retreating units, just they are fleeing faster than you can chase.

I know that snipers atleast have increased accuracy vs retreating units. other units in the game might have similar bonuses.

don't retreating squads in coh2 have .45 recieved accuracy bonus, or something in that line?

It was said before, but I may say it again:
CoH2 is less RNG than vCoH per design, several elements like the small arms criticals were removed.
Both games use a ton of RNG. Accuracy, penetration, criticals , ...

Besides that you contradict yourself...



Consistently? That would mean it's not the RNG.
And I think flamerspam was a valid tactic D:

CoH2 has a more complex weapon behavior at different ranges. vCoH basically had only pairings where it's best to get as close as possible or stay as far away as possible. In CoH2 there are quite some squads which are relatively disadvantaged (they can still win, but not for cost) at short and long range, but are advantaged at mid range. This requires a lot more knowledge of the game than in vCoH.

Look you are right technically as coh had more variables going for it - coh2 there are less but they are implemented really badly. I am not against rng in fact I think its a huge part of the appeal COH had for me I just think its been implemented terribly into COH2 - the it has no finesse, and a lot of engagements are just a roll of the dice and that it not how a rts should be.

Yeeeeep, this game has too much RNG, Relic still thinks it's a good idea to have such a luck based game and even more crazy they think this game is ready for esports.

Not when there are moments where vehicles can get abandoned by random crit. ( sneak attack!, two hits, halftrack abandoned, main gun destroyed, engine destroyed .....SU85 dead.... )

Not when flame abilities require luck to do damage. ( I even seen units just swimming in a fire barrage and lived just fine, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES!! )

Not when mines are still able to wipe infantry squads. ( like they never really fixed that, they just made it a little less frequent )

The full engine destroyed on full hp tanks still seems to still be there, although I see it less, it should be gone 100 pct. This hurts when using heavy tanks when there are times when a Tiger is rushing to kill my tanks flank, or my AT guns or whatever, three AT nades doesn't do shit. Meanwhile in another game I rushed by Tiger in and one AT nade got its engine damage to a point it had to crawl back to the base.

+1

And why so much people play poker then? RNG is extremely big factor in poker.

In a game with RNG skill is a value that determines your ability to minimize chance of losing.
In the poker you can always calculate your chances based on information you have: total number of cards (the deck), cards in your hand, open cards on the table.
You can do same in CoH: theoretically - based on unit stats or practically - based on tests.

According to my tests Tiger wins vs IS-2 on mid distance with 75% chance (won 3 times in a sample of 4)
That means if I play Wermacht I will ALWAYS take the 1v1 fight with IS-2 on mid distance, and if I play Soviet I will ALWAYS avoid 1v1 fights with Tiger on mid distance.

You need to make such tests with your friends (ofc, if you have any ).

You can make it for different units, cover types, distances, veterancy levels, etc.

As a result you will gain knowledge of which circumstances favors you, so you can minimize risks of losing.
Noone is protected from epic unluck, but pro-players minimize influence of unluck.

I hope you got my point.

I understand what you are saying - but understand what I am trying to say. I like the rng in coh but I think the rng in coh2 is really badly implemented into the game.

Its so bad in fact that its almost impossible to predict how any fight is going to turn out due to the huge randomness factor.

I would say in general terms that in coh there was a 1/100 chance of something crazy and unexpected happening that added to the game ( mg gunners with mp40 killing someone ect), and the rest played out like expected.

In coh2 it feels like about 50% of the time something unexpected happens in a fight and not in a good way. This is just too much and its just badly implemented into the game.

Even with using all these factors to maximise your chance of winning the battle it still happens way too much and if making elite level play impossible

words

Mr.King could you maybe just record a bunch of your games for the sake of sience? Focus on one unit, or make it a couple if you got the time. Record your viewings and cut out the fights involving those 2 units(propably a lot of early game fights). And then post the thing to youtube, so we can discuss your data.

As it has been stated, there are a lot of non-rng variables a really good player can know about and use to his advantage. Not knowing about them and afterwards judging what happened in that particular engagement is prone to produce misinterpretations. And the worst it hinders any improvement in the situation. Not saying you dont know your shit.

Just small example, con vs gren fight. both got vision at max range. con perspective: u shoot it out from green cover for a few secs, when u see the mgdude starting to reload or when u anticipate it, you oorah the shit out of that distance between the two of you and get in close. You throw ur nade when in range to deny the gren cover and win propably anyway, but still you pray to rngesus. Or you just run in head on, loose 2 models in the process and another when throwing that molly and are heavily dependend on rngesuses love for you molly, but propably loose anyway to a better player who anticipates your molly and dodges it mostly.