RNG

didnt know that one, thanks

Even when it's such a big feature of the subject matter?

I acknowledge you can say that isn't directly pertinent to how a game's rules should be built, but IMO that would greatly detract from the game. A reasonably representative reflection of the subject matter is part of COH's charm; the very fact that deflection exists is one of the things that attracts me to it.

All this talk about abandoned vehicles is another case in point. If I were to guess, the main reason it's there is to drive home the fact that armour must, absolutely must, be supported by infantry. It's a way to encourage play that is both better, and more faithful to the realities of the theme. Being careless with armour will punish you with more than just losing the armour, and the very fact that it can happen forces you to think about it. You've been forewarned, and if it happens to you now it's your own fault.

IMO, this is a good feature, both in terms of play and game design. I really don't believe that pure RNG decides games; experts, as they say, make their own luck, and I think if you win a game through RNG, you probably already had it in the bag, and if you lose because of RNG you probably already lost.

Even if there are some cases where a turnaround is purely due to fluke, just, you know, brush yourself off, recognise that shit happens, and get over it.

The only way to have luck is to work on it, of course good players are building their own luck but I can also remember some games where pure RNG finally decide who win the game between two major players.

The question isn't the RNG itself but what do you allow in the form of RNG, and how much and how long. Like the OP proposed it, you can build an incremental chance to hit every time you shot at a unit. RNG will still be there but with a limit.
You can decide to apply a rule that say a unit cannot miss more than 3 times in a raw. A unit with X armor value cannot deflect more than 3 times in a raw another unit with Y fire stat value etc...
Even Coh1 had a deflect damage so you were always doing a certain amount of damage if your wheren't missing.

There are many way to control the randomness of actions performed in game and I'm glad to see Relic is actually thinking about it.

Ok, let me put it another way. How often do you think games are decided by luck?

1 time in 10?
1 time in 100?
1 time in 1,000?
1 time in 10,000?

My feeling is, it's probably even less than that, and that there fore this whole question is totally insignificant. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe you and others can pile in and paint a picture in which it happens more often than I think.

On a related note, though, a challenge: of all the games YOU have won, how many do you think you really deserved to lose, but happened that day to be favoured by Lady Luck?

didnt know that one, thanks

It's awesome eh

Ok, let me put it another way. How often do you think games are decided by luck?

1 time in 10?
1 time in 100?
1 time in 1,000?
1 time in 10,000?

My feeling is, it's probably even less than that, and that there fore this whole question is totally insignificant. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe you and others can pile in and paint a picture in which it happens more often than I think.

On a related note, though, a challenge: of all the games YOU have won, how many do you think you really deserved to lose, but happened that day to be favoured by Lady Luck?

You're off topic, games decided by RNG is only an aspect of the issue.
We're talking about game mechanism that haven't any limits. I repeat myself but it is far more confortable to face a churchill than a Panther. Because you have a better control of what damage output you'll deal to a unit with a lot of HP and less armor than the opposite.

Put it simple, you can shot at a panther and not miss a single time with a m10, you can hit all your 20 first shot (far more enough to kill it), or you can see any of your 20 shots deflected, and all the other after because each shot is unique and have the same % of chance to hit.
Now you can decide that you want more regulation on it, leave some RNG in the process but make sure the panther will not be killed in either 5 shots or 20.

You're talking about matchmaking or heroes?

Because there are heroes entierly based on RNG and random chances, all the crits, all the random autoattack stuns, all the RNG weapons.

Talking about heroes. E.g. Axe's counter helix works through pseudo random distribution. Let's say Space cow has 17% chance to bash, if there are no bashes on the first hit, the second attack will have a slightly higher chance. No idea how it actually works mathematically though.

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

You're off topic, games decided by RNG is only an aspect of the issue.

It's not off topic at all. If RNG is such a big deal, then asking how significant an impact it is has, or players believe it to have, is not at all unreasonable. I am actually quite curious to know, because it increasingly seems to me that this is an argument about something which, even if you don't like it, just doesn't matter very much.

I don't know exactly how many games were played in the course of OCF; a couple of hundred I would guess. Asking how many of those you, or anyone else, think were won by blind chance is entirely fair.

We're talking about game mechanism that haven't any limits. I repeat myself but it is far more confortable to face a churchill than a Panther. Because you have a better control of what damage output you'll deal to a unit with a lot of HP and less armor than the opposite.

I don't dispute that; where I disagree is that I don't think it means that one is preferable over the other. All it means is that they work a bit differently, which is entirely appropriate for a game based around asymmetric balance.

I think the chance-to-hit and chance-to-deflect mechanics are good ones that enhance the game. You're entitled to disagree if you like, but this is an expression of taste rather than a declaration of fact.

It's not off topic at all. If RNG is such a big deal, then asking how significant an impact it is has, or players believe it to have, is not at all unreasonable. I am actually quite curious to know, because it increasingly seems to me that this is an argument about something which, even if you don't like it, just doesn't matter very much.

I don't know exactly how many games were played in the course of OCF; a couple of hundred I would guess. Asking how many of those you, or anyone else, think were won by blind chance is entirely fair.

Since RNG Gods are blessing everyone equally (so far), it is relatively equal, but it doesn't mean it make a match fair, it means you'll lose and win equal amount of match because of it, now you can see it or not, you can even name it RNG or not, as you say it a matter of interpretation and preferences. You can also add skill and game mechanism awareness to force your chance and opportunity to turn a situation at your advantage and so make it less RNG only decision.
There are always momentum, when you are low in chance or high, I think it has a name in poker, but don't remember it.

It's not off topic at all. If RNG is such a big deal, then asking how significant an impact it is has, or players believe it to have, is not at all unreasonable. I am actually quite curious to know, because it increasingly seems to me that this is an argument about something which, even if you don't like it, just doesn't matter very much.

I don't know exactly how many games were played in the course of OCF; a couple of hundred I would guess. Asking how many of those you, or anyone else, think were won by blind chance is entirely fair.

First of all i'm not gonna say that either pseudo random distribution or the actual system is better. I'll say penetration/deflection and hit/miss is fine. Could it be improve? Probably. Does the effort is worth the result? Probably not at this point.

Having said that, i'll say it's not a matter of losing/winning a game rather than the experience for the player. It's a matter of putting certain constraints to the results RNG might throw to you and this is what is has been done for the last 2 years.

Look at plane crashes, Rifle Company or Partisans. Damage from planes have been tone down dramatically, Partisans always spawn with PPSH, Rifles always arrive with vet1.
Ironing out the rest of extremes cases is a matter of will and time. What comes into my mind:

-240mm Howitzer from armor company > make first shell be accurate, reduce a bit radius and let it be russian roulette for the rest of the rounds.
-Osstruppen reserves: they might come with vet3 and LMG or just plain vet0. I'll go for a middle route (which ends up in a buff) of 1LMG and only 1 squad with vet.
-Abandoned mechanic > crit, at least, light engine damage first
-Ram