Relic is heading in the direction we asked them to go!

So they're going to transform COH2 into a MOBA like.

Funny enough there actually was a MOBA-like mode in CoH1 in the third expansion pack. It was the first MOBA-like game I've ever played, I was fucking terrible at it. A year later I played League of Legends and realised that's what CoH1's mode was inspired by. I was fucking terrible at that too

Don't even ask me how DOTA went.

Am I the only person who doesn't want this game to be a 'massive esport?' I want it to be *fun* Esports don't look fun to me. I'd be happy for it to be a small, niche esport.

RNG is fun. WTF, how did that happen? fun.

The people who don't like it tend to be the ludicrously competitive types who don't find anything fun unless it involves them winning.

They need to consider their lives.

The people who don't like it tend to be the ludicrously competitive types who don't find anything fun unless it involves them winning.

RNG can be fun, when used correctly. Not when its overwelming in a game. You should still be able to counter bad stuff that happen to your squads. Like a grenade that does 0 damage or 100 damage randomly. I can see how this can work pretty frustrating...

Use it in parts of the game, but not everywhere, and not too much!

I play this game for fun to, but I like to have a competetive and fair matchup. I lose? No problem. Losing is part of the game, if people don't understand that, thats pretty sad.

Am I the only person who doesn't want this game to be a 'massive esport?' I want it to be *fun* Esports don't look fun to me. I'd be happy for it to be a small, niche esport.

RNG is fun. WTF, how did that happen? fun.

The people who don't like it tend to be the ludicrously competitive types who don't find anything fun unless it involves them winning.

They need to consider their lives.

It's not simply about "massive E-sports" mate. It's very simple: If they game grows with big events, more players join the game, relic earns shitload of money, they develop the game even more and release more content, more patches and more dudez with stuffz, which at the end means more FUN.

Of course RNG is fun, it's one of the basics of Relic's games, but I don't think the major issue here being the RNG stuff. We do have a lot of RNG in other competitive games For example, Dodge chance in LoL (which was removed for REAZONZ), Critical chance in other moba games and a lot of other RNG based mechanics. Even in FPS games, your accuracy and gun recoil are RNG based. I think the problem with ESL is not the RNG. Although, there are a lot of RNG based problems in game which needs to get fixed, not for the sake of E-sports but for our sake. Like Kuble taking 4 shots from SU85 and other stuff.

Bottom line, RNG is not the problem, RNG is a part of many competitive games.

I don't care about e-sports. I play this game for entertainment only. I already have job and don't need another.

RNG works for both sides. Player with more skill will have more chance to win. Skill is the ability to minimize RNG effect on the game outcome.

If you don't like when your blob is obliterated by crashing plane then don't gardening blob!

The reason i would be hyped would be because its the best marketing for a multiplayer game. And coh2 has the potential to dig into this, and is close.

As a result the game i enjoy for whatever reasons would see more support of higher qualtiy then when it wouldnt get that attention.

The reason u dont want to watch 4th class soccer is because the game isnt balanced. The players keep having gamebreaking bugs, mitfielder got drunk the night before and that decides the game because he has serious pathing issues. To much rng, cause they just cant reliably shoot in one direction.
Coh2 is better then that, but its still second league soccer, and not many people watch that, cause there is still the real deal.

Am I the only person who doesn't want this game to be a 'massive esport?' I want it to be *fun* Esports don't look fun to me. I'd be happy for it to be a small, niche esport.

RNG is fun. WTF, how did that happen? fun.

The people who don't like it tend to be the ludicrously competitive types who don't find anything fun unless it involves them winning.

They need to consider their lives.

I am not ludicrously competitive type, yet I still hate RNG.

Your comment also implies that reason game is fun is because of RNG.
Game can be just as fun without RNG deciding games randomly and doing things that are out of players hands.

That nullifies your entire 'fun' argument

The three most popular competitive games right now (LoL, Dota 2, and CSGO) have incredible amounts of RNG. RNG isn't inherently good or bad.

Regardless, CoH2 is never going to be a serious competitive game. It wasn't designed for that, and it's not being supported with that in mind either. Maybe if they had from the beginning designed CoH2 for competition it could have been a modestly popular competitive RTS, but not now; it's too late for that. The ESL tournament is a marketing ploy, nothing more.

The three most popular competitive games right now (LoL, Dota 2, and CSGO) have incredible amounts of RNG. RNG isn't inherently good or bad.

Regardless, CoH2 is never going to be a serious competitive game. It wasn't designed for that, and it's not being supported with that in mind either. Maybe if they had from the beginning designed CoH2 for competition it could have been a modestly popular competitive RTS, but not now; it's too late for that. The ESL tournament is a marketing ploy, nothing more.

What RNG are you referring to in the LoL and DoTA 2? I know CS:GO RNG is the bullet spread based on the pattern but it's really minimal.

Critical hits, uphill miss, not sure about LoL but in Dota literally every single autoattack is randomized in a range of possible damage values. Again in Dota, camp spawns are semi-random, Roshan spawn is semi-random, there are entire heroes designed completely around RNG (Phantom Assassin, Ogre Magi). Bash, entangle, maim...

The list goes on. There's an insane amount of RNG in those games.

Critical hits, uphill miss, not sure about LoL but in Dota literally every single autoattack is randomized in a range of possible damage values. Again in Dota, camp spawns are semi-random, Roshan spawn is semi-random, there are entire heroes designed completely around RNG (Phantom Assassin, Ogre Magi). Bash, entangle, maim...

The list goes on. There's an insane amount of RNG in those games.

It seems DoTA has some serious RNG in there. I can't say much but how would you compare DoTA 2 RNG with CoH2 RNG? Seems just as random to me based on what you said.

What's there to say? It's just part of the game. Sometimes crazy shit happens, most of the time normal shit happens. I never had a problem with RNG in CoH, you just have to play with it in mind. A good player knows when the odds are in his favour and when they are not, and structures his gameplay accordingly.

RNG in Dota is different than RNG in CoH, because Dota is a different game than CoH. Never, in the history of CoH or Dota, has a game been decided by RNG. If you put yourself in a situation where you have to rely on random chance to win, it's your own damn fault when the chips don't fall in your favour.

...

Well said, lad.

RNG hasn't got much to do with CoH or CoH2 not being a successful competitive game. What is holding it back is the following:

• Extremely bad first impression. Not gonna lie, the game was dog shit when it launched in June 2013. It's a lot better but first impressions are important and I don't feel as if Relic have made a big enough effort showing the gaming scene at large all the effort they have put into the game to make it better.
  
  
• Non focused developer. A small developer that has multiple audiences (single player, comp stomp, multiplayer etc.) but spreads its resources far to thin to cater to all of them. Case in point being the recent Ardenes Assault DLC and with the run up to that content the lack of multiplayer balancing being done because it was all hands on deck to ship the DLC.
  
  
• Confusing Marketing. It ties into the last point but who is Relic's major audience for this game? WW2 enthusiasts? Competitive gamers? People who just like to recreate armies? No body really knows and you can see that with Relic's shotgun approach to marketing to just try and target anyone and everyone. What happens is that they build up everyone's hopes only for everyone to be left slightly disappointed because it didn't fully fulfil their needs.
  
  
• Performance. You need a fairly powerful PC to run the game smoothly. Most of the big competitive games can run quite well on very modest hardware. They have a very low monetary barrier to entry, some of them are even free to play.
  
  
• Relatively small player base which is a result of the previous points. The competitive scene for CoH is just a small fraction of the whole community but its also the same for many other successful competitive game. However having a really large player base by virtue gives you more competitive players and a bigger competitive scene.
  

RNG in Dota is different than RNG in CoH, because Dota is a different game than CoH. Never, in the history of CoH or Dota, has a game been decided by RNG.

i'm a little confused here. if you're talking about the first game then i won't comment because i haven't played it. if you're talking about CoH2 then it's false as games are decided by RNG. it's not a majority, or even a plurality of them, but it certainly happens.

Am I the only person who doesn't want this game to be a 'massive esport?' I want it to be *fun* Esports don't look fun to me. I'd be happy for it to be a small, niche esport.

I would in fact suggest you hold the majority view.

What's there to say? It's just part of the game. Sometimes crazy shit happens, most of the time normal shit happens. I never had a problem with RNG in CoH, you just have to play with it in mind. A good player knows when the odds are in his favour and when they are not, and structures his gameplay accordingly.

RNG in Dota is different than RNG in CoH, because Dota is a different game than CoH. Never, in the history of CoH or Dota, has a game been decided by RNG. If you put yourself in a situation where you have to rely on random chance to win, it's your own damn fault when the chips don't fall in your favour.

The difference between DOTA2 RNG and COH2 RNG is Valve controls its RNG. And to make sure RNG doesn't break the game balance put mechanisms to limit it. It is as simple as putting timer or count control on RNG actions.
You know like, side armor have 50% chance to be rear or front armor. So you put a count with timer on it. If RNG's god decides to take front armor value to a 1st shot, automatically the next shot withing 5 seconds will take rear armor value.
And each time it takes front armor value, again and again.

Or like you set an incremental % value, if the 1st shot is front armor value, so the next shot in the next 5 sec has 70% chance to be rear armor value and if not, it goes to 90% etc...

And of course you adapt your overall units values base on those mechanisms. (numbers above are purely random, please don't come and argue on it)

And so you have RNG and fun but you control its upper and lower limits. And you avoid stupid 3 or 4 side shots bounced in a raw because it took front armor value every time and completely break the game.

The difference between DOTA2 RNG and COH2 RNG is Valve controls its RNG. And to make sure RNG doesn't break the game balance put mechanisms to limit it. It is as simple as putting timer or count control on RNG actions.
You know like, side armor have 50% chance to be rear or front armor. So you put a count with timer on it. If RNG's god decides to take front armor value to a 1st shot, automatically the next shot withing 5 seconds will take rear armor value.
And each time it takes front armor value, again and again.

Or like you set an incremental % value, if the 1st shot is front armor value, so the next shot in the next 5 sec has 70% chance to be rear armor value and if not, it goes to 90% etc...

And of course you adapt your overall units values base on those mechanisms. (numbers above are purely random, please don't come and argue on it)

And so you have RNG and fun but you control its upper and lower limits. And you avoid stupid 3 or 4 side shots bounced in a raw because it took front armor value every time and completely break the game.

That's not exactly how it works. PRD is generally implemented so that the first proc chance is actually lower than the desired average value.

http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Pseudo-random_distribution

For example, Slardar's Bash has a 25% probability to Stun the target. On the first attack, however, it will only have an ~8.5% probability to bash; this is its PRD constant C. Each subsequent attack without a bash increases this probability by 8.5%. So on the second attack, the chance is 17%, on the third it is 25.5%, etc. After a bash procs, the probability resets to 8.5% for the next attack. These probabilities average out so that, over a moderate period of time, Bash will proc very nearly 25% of the time.

Furthermore, there are still elements of pure randomness, such as bash, evasion, Ogre Magi's Multicast mechanic, Faceless Void's Backtrack, etc.

i'm a little confused here. if you're talking about the first game then i won't comment because i haven't played it. if you're talking about CoH2 then it's false as games are decided by RNG. it's not a majority, or even a plurality of them, but it certainly happens.

I'm talking about both games. If a player puts himself in a situation where he needs to rely on random chance to win a game, he's fucked up somewhere along the line. Every time you rely on a single roll of the dice, you're taking a huge risk. Good players know that if, over the course of a game, you take only those risks that have a positive chance of resulting in a favourable outcome, you won't have to rely on a single instance of RNG luck to win you the game.

Games aren't decided by single decisions, they're decided by the culmination of all decisions in the game. If you're focusing on a single instance of bad luck and blaming that on a loss, you're neglecting to consider the several hundred other decisions made throughout the game that ultimately brought you to a situation where you were forced to rely on luck to win.

There's no such thing as a 100% chance to win a game, especially when you're talking about a game between two players of similar skill. All you can do is give yourself the best possible chance of success. That's why best-of-1 games in tournaments and single ladder games don't really tell you anything about the relative skill of two players, because in a single game anything can happen. That's just how competition works. It has nothing to do with RNG.

I'll give an example from CoH1, because that's the game I know best. In CoH1, snipers only had 50% accuracy against regular infantry targets that were moving, including other snipers. That meant a countersnipe attempt against a moving target had a 50% chance of success. 50% chance isn't very good when you consider the cost and game impact of a sniper, yet many lower-level players relied on countersniping and got very angry when they missed, and blamed their losses on RNG even though it was plainly clear that countersniping was unreliable.

Good players, however, realized this and adopted different tactics. Rarely in high-level games anymore do you see players building snipers and hiding them while they wait for an opportunity to countersnipe. Instead, they realized that the best thing to do was to use your own sniper as a deterrent, draining manpower at a similar rate to the opponent's sniper and using tools like flanking, vehicles, and artillery to limit the enemy sniper's effective time on the field. If you can keep your sniper at the front for more total time than your opponent's, you're going to kill more infantry and drain more manpower, which is the primary use of a sniper in the first place.

In adopting this style, players were able to avoid the inconsistency that comes with relying on low-probability RNG as a cornerstone of your gameplay. By controlling the sniper rather than going all-in on a countersnipe, players were able to rely on their positional and tactical skills instead of putting the outcome of the game on a random element that was out of their control.

There are always alternatives to consider when dealing with random elements in a game. The best players will find ways to minimize their exposure to high-risk-high-reward plays and naturally gravitate to the "safest", most consistent style possible.

I dunno, I think a lot of RNG complaints have a lot to do with map design.

Most maps are ridiculously tiny as far as battles go, with almost all of the action taking place in the space of one or two screen lengths. Given that there's often only one or two passable terrain paths for armies to move through to these zones, the odds that one of those planes circling a 30 meter radius is going to crash down on top of someone's forces starts rising pretty high.

I mean, on most maps I cannot even execute a flank without advancing through or around 1-3 territory points. And since CoH2's pathing has considerable issue handling chokepoints, units just naturally form themselves into recipes for disaster.

To clarify, I'm not saying random gameplay elements are good, I'm just saying there's nothing inherently good or bad about randomization. Arguing that a random gameplay element should be removed solely because "Random = Bad" is a very narrow-minded view to take, especially when there are so many examples of randomization working well in competitive games.