How much impact on outcomes do you think RNG really has?

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 08:01 AMDullahan

Well no, the deciding factor of that game was tech choices and getting greedy on the Panther kill. As I said before, playing conservatively will prevent this sort of thing.

Three M4C Shermans isn't a very balanced force. Certainly sounds like the sort of composition that a Panther eats for breakfast, and depending on positioning (Front armour? Rear? Range etc.), penetration (Only ~40% chance to penetrate panther up close.), supporting units etc it's still a risky fight even with the overwhelming tank force. Maybe if you had a more well rounded arsenal with say, some tank destroyers and infantry based AT, it might have gone a bit better.

A t70 can kill a stug on a good day too, I'm sure the shermans had it in the bag.


But hey, I'm sure it was strictly the RNG's fault.

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 08:38 AMKreatiir

You absolutely have 0 clue about how RNG can change games.

Jump back to quoted post28 Oct 2015, 16:25 PMDullahan

But then the question is: what bone headed decision did you make with the tank that caused it to be in a situation where it could happen? (Overextended, under significant AT fire, running over mines or whatever.)


There's always a few tactical errors preceding these sorts of things.

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 08:58 AMDullahan

RNG can change encounters.

A game is comprised of many encounters, and the overall outcome of a game is dictated by a lot more than a single encounter.

Jump back to quoted post28 Oct 2015, 23:03 PMDullahan

That's a calculated RISK.
Emphasis on the word risk.

You make the decision knowing that is a possible, if rare, outcome.

You can blame RNG for it happening, but if you play conservatively rather than take a risk going for the throat such a thing will never happen.


It's a high risk, high reward gamble and it's silly to blame the game when it doesn't go the way you wanted it to.

Moreover, even if your gamble fails, it's not like you're anywhere near out of the game. (Unless you ragequit.)

Jump back to quoted post27 Oct 2015, 19:33 PMAustralian Magic

1/10? Seriously? WHy would anyone vote for 1/10?
Every tenth plane is crashin on your troops and makes you lose a game?
Or every tenth vehicle is abandoned?
Yea, sure

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 09:28 AM__deleted__

The higher level of play the more players overextend their vehicles.

Just look at that match. panzer 4 overextended because it attacked and overextended centaur that need to overextend because brits cant win without them....

Go and tell DevM and OMGPOP something about overextending. I think they know the game better than you

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 09:33 AM__deleted__

Calculated risk is something like i will wipe 4 squads with centaur or it will die.
Losing tank is enaught punishement. NOt giving it to enemy. Abanonemt is silly and you cant argue that.

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 09:42 AMsamich

Apart from the fact that RNG determines the strength of every single one of your units in every single situation.

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 09:48 AMDullahan

Sometimes you can overextend a vehicle to take advantage of your opponent not being ready for it, but at that level you generally want to know where his potential AT is. It's still risky, seen a lot of games end when the centaur rush runs over a teller mine.






I disagree, I think vehicle abandonment is great punishment for reckless use of a vehicle. If you don't have anything nearby to capture it/destroy it or force off your opponent to capture it more safely, then he very well deserves it. Vehicles get abandoned at such low HP that damn near anything can blow them up.

It's also fun and makes for more interesting matches.

Shall we also say the same about support weapons or weapon drops? If you're against vehicle abandonment for the reasons you stated, then surely just for the sake of consistency you should be against those too. Or is that exempt because it was in vCoH?