Pseudo rng

There are much more RNG in this game than people usually think, I remember a poll where people stated having 10% games lost or win by RNG. Imo it is much more, people tend to only remember big impact RNG situation like the one sratchedpaintjob described (tank diving lost). There are much more occurring in every game starting at your very first engagement. Those aren't winning or losing the game for you but accumulated, they put their certain weight in the balance than you think if you don't pay attention and use it for you.

When I play 1vs1, I can detect my rush or bad momentum. I usually stale and wait when I see too much RNG occurring against me and wait for its end. When I'm on a rush, I try to be a bit more greedy and see if it pay off.

About slow firing unit, there is a simple solution. You make them always doing a base damage if not missing.
If your tank does full dmg, you can secure 50 damage and then apply % on the 150.

if ones has a 75% chance of winning, then one has a 25% chance of losing. the enemy then has a 75% chance of losing and 25% of winning. its PROBABILITY, so it IS A ZERO SUM GAME. probability always adds to 1, therefore if you lose percentage, the enemy gains the equal amount.

Your ignoring outcomes where "the situation is not resolved". We're discussing game mechanics here, not only win loss resolutions. I've given you a perfectly good example of a mechanic that allows both.

yes, i knew the risks. but it was the best decision i could make. if a game does not reward me for good decision, i can complain.

No, you can't. Because you "good" decision was to risk everything on one decision. To RISK everything on one decision. And that necessarily implies the possibility that you might lose.

it seems to me like you want a game where the worse players wins a significant amount of time. try hearthstone, it might be made for you.

Well even if that were true, it still wouldn't support your argument, because it would only confirm that there is a good sized audience for games with more chance in them than you happen to prefer.

However, that isn't true; because you could have played more cautiously, you could have preserved your units, you could have decided that the gamble wasn't worth it. And at some practical level, the abandonment mechanic is there precisely to punish players for making such overly ambitious thrusts, although we probably don't need to muddy the waters by getting into that.

My argument instead is that judging risk, stacking odds, etc, is part of what make a good player. There would be nothing wrong with a player look at that scenario and deciding that however tempting and juicy the bait, the 1-in-10 odds of losing everything are too bad. To have been willing to do it with another, expendable unit, if one had been available, but not the one they absolutely couldn't lose. I don't share your view that taking this chance should automatically be regarded as the best decision available. And therefore I do not share your view that this is a problem in need of fixing.

Your ignoring outcomes where "the situation is not resolved". We're discussing game mechanics here, not only win loss resolutions. I've given you a perfectly good example of a mechanic that allows both.

have you ever watched poker? each time the players get a hand, a win percentage shows up, which changes depending on the open cards. im talking about that. and no, there is "situation is not resolved" after a round of coh2, you either won or lost. your example does have another option, therefore it is absolutely not accurate.

No, you can't. Because you "good" decision was to risk everything on one decision. To RISK everything on one decision. And that necessarily implies the possibility that you might lose.

having a player lose, although he made the right decisions is bad game design. or at least not competetive game design

My argument instead is that judging risk, stacking odds, etc, is part of what make a good player. There would be nothing wrong with a player look at that scenario and deciding that however tempting and juicy the bait, the 1-in-10 odds of losing everything are too bad. To have been willing to do it with another, expendable unit, if one had been available, but not the one they absolutely couldn't lose. I don't share your view that taking this chance should automatically be regarded as the best decision available. And therefore I do not share your view that this is a problem in need of fixing.

assuming you have no other option to kill the t34 (which we can do, its a hypothetical situation), it is the best decision:

95% *100 points + 5%*(-200)=85>0 (1tank=100points)

so overall the player not diving is the worse player. he wins 50% of the time, while the other wins 90% of the time. i honestly dont know how you can still think that not basediving is the better option....

so ultimately one question remains:
do you want a game where in ?10%? of the cases the clearly better player looses due to RNG?
if yes, no point to argue with you anymore, as you have clearly no intent to make a game competetive, which pRNG is trying to achieve

have you ever watched poker? each time the players get a hand, a win percentage shows up, which changes depending on the open cards. im talking about that. and no, there is "situation is not resolved" after a round of coh2, you either won or lost. your example does have another option, therefore it is absolutely not accurate.

You are clearly mistaken. What I said was that the RNG in CoH2 produces events in game that are mostly predictable but with some surprising ones. Among those result,s any given one among them may contribute variably to the final result, and specific choices made can easily have the effect of both winning the game in this particular mechanical resolution, or losing it in that resolution.

having a player lose, although he made the right decisions is bad game design. or at least not competetive game design

But they did not make the right decision. They made a reckless decision and paid the price.

so overall the player not diving is the worse player. he wins 50% of the time, while the other wins 90% of the time. i honestly dont know how you can still think that not basediving is the better option....

What I've been pointing out is that it is a RISKY decision. And that you cannot then complain if you take a risk and lose. That's what risk is. You keep trying to claim that merely because you consider the decision "good" it should therefore be guaranteed to succeed, but there is no reason that this should be so.

do you want a game where in ?10%? of the cases the clearly better player looses due to RNG?

Claiming they are the "better player" is relying on a fact not in evidence. The situation is that the player is confronted with a risk that they can choose to take, or not. If they are so afraid of the 10% chance of losing that they decide not to gamble, that is NOT a bad decision. It is a choice, and many players with different play styles, more or less aggression, will weight the options differently. That's a GOOD thing, and much more fun the pre-scripted outcomes you seem intent on imposing.

if yes, no point to argue with you anymore, as you have clearly no intent to make a game competetive, which pRNG is trying to achieve

I want games in which players can show off their courage, their grasp of circumstance, or their force-conserving caution, because this is more interesting, and more entertaining. I do not want to see the game reduced to a slide show of set pieces, as you seem to.

You are clearly mistaken. What I said was that the RNG in CoH2 produces events in game that are mostly predictable but with some surprising ones. Among those result,s any given one among them may contribute variably to the final result, and specific choices made can easily have the effect of both winning the game in this particular mechanical resolution, or losing it in that resolution.

the way you said it was totally wrong. a certain instance cannot increase and decrease the chances of winning

But they did not make the right decision. They made a reckless decision and paid the price.

you have two buttons. one says: win 90%, lose 10%. other says: win 60% later, lose 40% later. which button do you press? which one?
Now we should have established what the better decision is....

What I've been pointing out is that it is a RISKY decision. And that you cannot then complain if you take a risk and lose. That's what risk is. You keep trying to claim that merely because you consider the decision "good" it should therefore be guaranteed to succeed, but there is no reason that this should be so.

what i argue is, that such sitauations are so important in a game, that if risk is involved, the game is not competetive. you can point out as long as you want that it is risky, but that doesnt change that point that it is a good decision

I want games in which players can show off their courage, their grasp of circumstance, or their force-conserving caution, because this is more interesting, and more entertaining. I do not want to see the game reduced to a slide show of set pieces, as you seem to.

LOL. you know, in 90% one wouldnt even notice pRNG ingame (if it is implemented well). do you think that 90% or your coh2 games are a "slide show of set pieces"????

the way you said it was totally wrong. a certain instance cannot increase and decrease the chances of winning

I did not say it wrong; you confused a roll of the dice with the totality of victory or defeat. And of course discrete moments can affect the final outcome, it is the accumulation of them that decides the matter.

you have two buttons. one says: win 90%, lose 10%. other says: win 60% later, lose 40% later. which button do you press? which one?

This is still pointless. Why should it be 60/40, frex? You're cherrypicking an entirely self-serving scenario. Not that it even matters, because whatever choice here doesn't justify giving any player victory on a plate that they did not themselves achieve.

How on earth can you pretend to be arguing in favour of competitiveness if you want some sort of hippy moral "justice" to determine who wins, instead of play of the game?

Now we should have established what the better decision is....what i argue is, that such sitauations are so important in a game, that if risk is involved, the game is not competetive. you can point out as long as you want that it is risky, but that doesnt change that point that it is a good decision

This is pure sophistry, because you're still trying to redefine a decision that LOSES a game as being "good", for which reason the result should be "fixed" to produce the "correct" outcome. That's sheer nonsense.

LOL. you know, in 90% one wouldnt even notice pRNG ingame (if it is implemented well). do you think that 90% or your coh2 games are a "slide show of set pieces"????

This is your own scenario, and it's what I'm working with - however ludicrous it may be.

This is still pointless. Why should it be 60/40, frex? You're cherrypicking an entirely self-serving scenario. Not that it even matters, because whatever choice here doesn't justify giving any player victory on a plate that they did not themselves achieve.

well, that is the thing with a thought experiment. now answer the goddamn question: which button do you press?

How on earth can you pretend to be arguing in favour of competitiveness if you want some sort of hippy moral "justice" to determine who wins, instead of play of the game?

is it not competetive, when the better player wins? or in other words: is it not just, when the better player wins?

This is pure sophistry, because you're still trying to redefine a decision that LOSES a game as being "good", for which reason the result should be "fixed" to produce the "correct" outcome. That's sheer nonsense.

i defined a situation that WINS the game in a absurdely high amount of time (95%). how do you get that "losing" part???