RNG
Posts: 378
The mechanic of RNG need to be change, My suggestion:
After a miss roll, the next roll will have higher success chance.
Likewise, after a hit roll, then next roll will have lower success chance.
<Warning! Statistic calculation is not for people with bad IQ>
For example, pak 75mm with 160 penetration that hit IS2 370 armor. 160/370 ~= 43%. Let's say the first roll is bad and the shot is not penetrated.
The next roll however, will roll twice. After first role 160/370 and somehow the shot is still miss, the second roll is called with same chance.
With two chances, the success rate increase to about 64%, quite better.
But of course there may be better solution. Right now I don't have better method than this.
Posts: 670
Posts: 543
Posts: 521
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
With two chances, the success rate increase to about 64%, quite better.
I think it's 68%, or am I mistaken? 0.43*1+0.43*0.57=0.6751
Don't really like that idea. I'd rather like to see increased far AoE for arty and deflection damage for AT. Even though it would takes away quite much tension from playing with and against axis tanks.
Posts: 474
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
I once had an pak gun that kept sniping my infantry, it was so annoying.
I know that pain. Had a Raketenwerfer kill 4 man of a shock troop once.... not to mention that Raketenwerfer who wiped a retreating unit of mine.
Posts: 378
I'm fine with RNG honestly. And this would be quite an indirect buff to USF tanks in general considering how much they get penned and almost never bounce.
If you follow my calculation, then this is no buff to any faction. Because weak penetration gain only weak penetration chance at next shot (10% + 10% of 90%, or only 9% for example) while strong penetration gain better amount (20% + 20% of 80%, or 16%).
This was meant to reduce, but not remove, the RNG dependency. I never did say RNG was bad after all.
Posts: 170
If you follow my calculation, then this is no buff to any faction. Because weak penetration gain only weak penetration chance at next shot (10% + 10% of 90%, or only 9% for example) while strong penetration gain better amount (20% + 20% of 80%, or 16%).
This was meant to reduce, but not remove, the RNG dependency. I never did say RNG was bad after all.
You basically suggested a strong buff to AT weaponry, nothing else. I don't want to be an the other side of the buff, having a Tiger die to massed weak AT (su-76 anyone?).
It could be done by implementing pseudo random, but the game has so many RNG calculations that it would be quite difficult to do.
On top of that, I believe RNG is part of what makes coh2 appealing. It produces a feeling that the devs intended to put in the game. The only RNG thing I could vote against is the abandon mechanic, that's just stupid because of how low the chance is and the massive impact on the game it has.
Posts: 1276
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
Posts: 484
CoH2 has a terrible system that depends too much in RNG. I'm not talking about a single lucky mortar shot that wiping a squad, but when a raketten, each shot kill 2 models for three consecutive times, or a panther that bounce for 9 shots of 75mm gun at short range, then something is wrong.
Baloney. That isn't how probability works; in fact it's suggestive of the gambler's fallacy.
Humans have a tendency to attribute intentionality to an uncaring universe, which is why we make this mistake. You see if often when people play XCOM; they berate their character, saying "how can you miss an 88% shot?" or whatever it may be. And the answer is, quite easily, 12% of the time in fact. Which is about 1 in 8, so not that rare, really.
The mechanic of RNG need to be change, My suggestion:
After a miss roll, the next roll will have higher success chance.
Likewise, after a hit roll, then next roll will have lower success chance.
Really? so let's game this out; you just repelled an attack by a heavy tank, a Tiger say. You ATG has scored hits; one more will kill it. But now, according to your proposed system, because you just hit it, the odds of hitting again are lowered. Does anyone really want that?
I suspect that little could be more confidently guaranteed to produce maximum rage.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4
Posts: 498
Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7
Even great civilization have rng - for example 99% chance that archers will defeat spearman for example , but 1 of 100 times spearmen will win and you will loose your capital. 99% of times you willwin with archer and enemy will loose a spearman
Posts: 446 | Subs: 2
Posts: 269
Posts: 1384
Sterilizing the game by removing RNG just makes for a stale tactical environment. Maybe a few people will ragequit a bit less because they're blaming an instance of RNG instead of the dozen or so mistakes they made throughout the game prior to an unlucky case of plane crash, but we'd end up with a more boring game.
Everyone always talks like removing all RNG is necessary to become a competitive game, especially eSports. This isn't really true. The one requirement of being an eSports game is the ability to generate money. This is why Starcraft 2 is dying and why Counterstrike is exploding. This is why no one watches Quake or Unreal anymore but Call of Duty and Halo are rocking MLG. Having lots of people that want to watch a game is all that matters.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
If you don't like it so much, change the game to the one that have appealing to you mechanic, don't try to break it for people who like it as it is.
Livestreams
17 | |||||
10 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
13 posts in the last week
25 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, privateelene
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM