Pseudo rng

In Dota 2, pseudo RNG usually applies to attack modifiers. So when you attack, you are guaranteed damage, but any extra effect(if it procs) when you attack is a just a bonus. And that's what it means, just a bonus to maybe help you out in that fight. You don't rely on your attack modifier's extra effect to win you fights, you rely and calculate your strategies on what's guaranteed aka your attacks. Dota 2 is not a RNG-heavy game, and that is good.

Now CoH2, is based AROUND RNG. Almost every attack is based around RNG, and thus a big portion of the game relies around luck. Sure the game is about strategy too, but when a lot of factors depend on true RNG, it paints a picture that CoH2 is as reliant on chance as it is on strategy, which is not fitting for an real-time strategy. CoH2 should be all about strategy, with a bit of RNG on the side to keep some flavour.

Pseudo RNG, while still being RNG, helps alleviate the randomness by a bit. And that's how it should be implemented. In small increments. For example, Axis tanks usually have 50% accuracy on the move. With pRNG, they would have something like 40% now, with each miss granting about 10% chance on the next hit. Pseudo RNG in CoH2 would be best implemented in small amounts AND with more priority towards generalist units(units always in fights, for ex. generalist tanks) and with less priority towards specialist units(units you reserve until their countered unit arrives, for ex. AT guns). Why? I'll explain.

Moving back to Dota 2's pseudo RNG. Dota 2 is a game where your character is almost always in action. Either attacking other enemy characters, or attacking enemy NPCs. Thus Dota 2 can afford more radical pseudo RNG ranges, like Slardar's bash with a 25%(8% actual, with a 17% gain) chance to proc. You must always be attacking/farming in this game, meaning you'll miss out on progressing if you try to abuse the system by saving up your increase proc chance (not attacking).

Now if these kind of pseudo RNG ranges were to be implemented in CoH2(which is what I imagine most of the disagreers would be thinking) then it would benefit units who fire a lot(small arms, MGs) and screw over slow firing units(heavy tanks' guns, AT guns). Which is why these slow firing units should only get a small reduction in their pRNG ranges (like 1%-5%) because IF not, their first shots(which are the only ones that usually count) in the start of a battle will get affected negatively due to their very low chance to connect. Their "punch" won't be as hard anymore.

And so with CoH2, it would be best to implement pseudo random distribution in small amounts. Not very much, yes, so one might ask "why implement it at all?". Because pseudo RNG aims to eliminate, or at least, reduce the frustrating parts of true RNG. Maybe it won't reduce the RNG radically, but it'll certainly help turn CoH2 to more strategy, and less luck.

Smith, Penals got sort of a similar mechanic at Vet 1

I guess if you could make it so that you get increased chance to hit, pen or whatever you choose, vs a certain target types, this bonus will work vs the particular target types and go away after successfully performing the said action vs the particular target types



Easier said than done and doing every unit will be a pain, I dont know if its possible my understanding of mod tools from my time messing with it could be very wrong

The Penal modifier is down to how many squadmates are alive or not. In that case, the state of the system is "stored" on the number of actual squad models alive.

In order to implement any sort of pseudoRNG, at the very least we need a counter that goes up when there is a non-penetrating hit, and a counter that resets when there is a penetrating hit (and ideally, no change to the counter when there is a miss).

Then, to make things worse, the base (counter=0) percentage seems to be a non-linear function of the desired penetration percentage. I am not completely sure about this part, but this is what the numbers on the "standard percentages" table say to me on scratchedpaintjob's link. This means, that even if we could implement the counter, we couldn't just multiply the (modified) counter with base penetration. Like:
- If your multiplication would work correctly on P4
- It will probably completely fuck up Tigers
- and vice-versa

There might be a way to completely reshuffle armour and penetration for every single vehicle and gun to achieve the desired base (counter=0) penetration probability. However, since I don't know what the function used should be, I have no idea how to do it, etc.

Thus, you need:
- The counter
- Change the way to calculate the penetration chance on the first attempt according to function used in Dota2
- For every attempt thereafter: multiply the counter with the base penetration chance

The Penal modifier is down to how many squadmates are alive or not. In that case, the state of the system is "stored" on the number of actual squad models alive.

In order to implement any sort of pseudoRNG, at the very least we need a counter that goes up when there is a non-penetrating hit, and a counter that resets when there is a penetrating hit (and ideally, no change to the counter when there is a miss).

Then, to make things worse, the base (0-counter) percentage seems to be a non-linear function of the desired penetration percentage. I am not completely sure about this part, but this is what the numbers on the "standard percentages" table say to me on scratchedpaintjob's link. This means, that even if we could implement the counter, we couldn't just multiply the (modified) counter with base penetration. Like:
- If your multiplication would work correctly on P4
- It will probably completely fuck up Tigers
- and vice-versa

Assuming that we're only implementing this for penetration, you could simply have a weapon add an upgrade to the target every deflection that reduces armour by a percentage. You then simply have the weapon remove all accumulated upgrades on a successful hit (i.e., on damage). The upgrades would also expire when the target leaves combat. The AEC uses something similar for its Tread Shot.

Unfortunately, I don't think this would be worth implementing at this point. The current system is easier to grasp and Relic is unlikely to want to implement it.

Assuming that we're only implementing this for penetration, you could simply have a weapon add an upgrade to the target every deflection that reduces armour by a percentage. You then simply have the weapon remove all accumulated upgrades on a successful hit (i.e., on damage). The upgrades would also expire when the target leaves combat. The AEC uses something similar for its Tread Shot.

Unfortunately, I don't think this would be worth implementing at this point. The current system is easier to grasp and Relic is unlikely to want to implement it.

That's probably the closest we can get to pRNG. However, I don't think that this implementation will have the desired effects:
- The buff needs to go on the attacker that missed (and needs to stay exclusive)

.. although the more I think of it, the proposed pRNG system will only really benefit prolongued 1v1 fights. If you have a swarm chasing down a wounder Tiger (penetration chance: 33%), it's even more likely that the wounded Tiger will escape with "bullshit RNG" than the current system that we have. That's because your "bad luck" vs that "darned low HP tank" cannot be cashed in by the other tanks in the swarm.

In dota2, you very likely have a very high rate of attack, thus you get to cash-off your RNG at the desired target. In CoH2 you have (relatively) slow-firing tanks, with 4-5 penetrating hits resulting in death.

Now CoH2, is based AROUND RNG. Almost every attack is based around RNG, and thus a big portion of the game relies around luck. Sure the game is about strategy too, but when a lot of factors depend on true RNG, it paints a picture that CoH2 is as reliant on chance as it is on strategy, which is not fitting for an real-time strategy. CoH2 should be all about strategy, with a bit of RNG on the side to keep some flavour.

People keep peddling this nonsense and it never gets any more true.

First of all, there is a huge difference between RNG and luck. RNG produces a probabilistic distribution of outcomes which in fact is quite reliably predictable, most of the time. It does allow, however, for some outcomes to arise that are several standard deviations from the norm.

This does not mean that outcomes are reliant on luck; it means that some outcomes are surprising. And that adds to the game by keeping it new, keeping things uncertain, forcing players to adapt top the unexpected, showing their chops in responding to circumstance. And in the context of this game, that is absolutely thematically appropriate.

Now, If you were to say: "I would PREFER that there is less RNG, my TASTE is for less RNG", I would have no dispute with you, and probably wouldn't be writing this post. But when you, and others, make claims that your preferences are absolute and universal, then you get right up my nose.

Because pseudo RNG aims to eliminate, or at least, reduce the frustrating parts of true RNG. Maybe it won't reduce the RNG radically, but it'll certainly help turn CoH2 to more strategy, and less luck.

Or as someone else might put it - someone like me - it would significantly reduce the charm of the game, make it much less interesting as an exercise in strategy, and less representative of the material it represents (i.e. WW2).

First of all, there is a huge difference between RNG and luck. RNG produces a probabilistic distribution of outcomes which in fact is quite reliably predictable, most of the time. It does allow, however, for some outcomes to arise that are several standard deviations from the norm.

This does not mean that outcomes are reliant on luck; it means that some outcomes are surprising.

yes, those "suprising outcomes" are bad or good luck. pseudo RNG just means that those events are much rarer.
therefore RNG=luck in some situations

That's probably the closest we can get to pRNG. However, I don't think that this implementation will have the desired effects:
- The buff needs to go on the attacker that missed (and needs to stay exclusive)

.. although the more I think of it, the proposed pRNG system will only really benefit prolongued 1v1 fights. If you have a swarm chasing down a wounder Tiger (penetration chance: 33%), it's even more likely that the wounded Tiger will escape with "bullshit RNG" than the current system that we have. That's because your "bad luck" vs that "darned low HP tank" cannot be cashed in by the other tanks in the swarm.

In dota2, you very likely have a very high rate of attack, thus you get to cash-off your RNG at the desired target. In CoH2 you have (relatively) slow-firing tanks, with 4-5 penetrating hits resulting in death.

i think there are ways around that
one method is giving "first shot" bonus stacks to slow firing units, depending on their ROF. another way is a mix between RNG and pseudo RNG

yes, those "suprising outcomes" are bad or good luck. pseudo RNG just means that those events are much rarer.
therefore RNG=luck in some situations

That rather misses the point. It's not just luck like some bolt from the blue. It's 'luck' in the form of calculated risk, stacking the odds, taking advantage of circumstances - all of which are demonstrations of mastery, not mere chaotic accident.

...

How did my post offend you? Or rather, where did I say that my opinion is "absolute and universal"? To clear any misunderstandings, I'm just saying that: since CoH2 is what most people call an RTS, AND is marketed as a real time strategy, I'm stating my opinion that it should have more strategy, with a little bit of RNG on the side to give the game some flavour and to keep its historical WWII theme.

And all I am saying is that pseudo RNG is a less frustrating form of RNG, and in a way, a degraded form of true RNG. It is true that real RNG is what this game is more suited for, with CoH2 being modeled after WWII and it tries to be as realistic as possible. But we are playing a game for either fun and/or competition, and there are times when RNG either rewards you too much or punishes you too badly where you (sometimes) don't deserve it, leading to less fun and a feeling of unfairness for people who played smartly. True that RNG adds skill to the game by testing you when one gets unlucky and has to find a way to deal with it. It's just that pseudo RNG limits the reward you get for being too lucky, or limits the punishment you get for being too unlucky.

Like I said in my post, RNG (and thus the "charm" of CoH2) won't be gone like you fear, just turned into a less frustrating form of it.

That rather misses the point. It's not just luck like some bolt from the blue. It's 'luck' in the form of calculated risk, stacking the odds, taking advantage of circumstances - all of which are demonstrations of mastery, not mere chaotic accident.

first of all, in some situations you do not have enough repetitions to stack the odds (one shot at sth.)
second of all, even in situations where you can stack the odds, RNG can still be against you, so in other words, you can get punished for the right decision. in poker people play so many rounds that this evens out, but in coh2 you have situations which dont even out in one game. one example:

your enemy has a t34 with pretty much no health left, you have a PZ4 with enough health to tank three shots. as your enemy has no further at, you basedive your enemy to kill off his tank. now, it can happen that your pz4 misses and bounces, but the t34 hits and penetrates 4 times and your tank gets abandoned. the odds of that are very low, so you took the right decision by basediving him, but out of the blue sky you got unlucky, and now its pretty much gg.

the thing is that one situation lost you this game

How did my post offend you? Or rather, where did I say that my opinion is "absolute and universal"?

Where you said it was "not fitting" for strategy games. This whole argument that strategy and RNG are in some way opposed is not true, has never been true, and stating it as a given simply asserts a preference as if it were fact.

RNG has been in strategy games for very nearly as long as they have been around. The Royal Game of Ur dates back to 2400-2600 BC and was played with three tetrahedral dice.

As the wiki entry on boardgames puts it: "Many games require some level of both skill and luck. A player may be hampered by bad luck in backgammon, Monopoly, Risk; but over many games a skilled player will win more often[18] and the elements of luck can make for more excitement, and more diverse and multifaceted strategies, as concepts such as expected value and risk management must be considered."

So this argument that reducing RNG enhances strategy is wholly unsupportable; the very reason that RNG is present in strategy games is to enhance strategic depth.

Now as I've already indicated, this doesn't mean that RNG is mandatory either; it's an aesthetic choice. And if we treat it as such, I have no problem with people expressing their preferences - no accounting for taste, after all.

Like I said in my post, RNG (and thus the "charm" of CoH2) won't be gone like you fear, just turned into a less frustrating form of it.

But to people with tastes like mine, it is NOT frustrating, it is enhancing, and your goal if reducing it would make the game less fun. And you're entitled to make the case for what you prefer, but not to assert that it is the way, the truth and the light.

first of all, in some situations you do not have enough repetitions to stack the odds (one shot at sth.)

That's the strategy part.

now, it can happen that your pz4 misses and bounces, but the t34 hits and penetrates 4 times and your tank gets abandoned. the odds of that are very low, so you took the right decision by basediving him, but out of the blue sky you got unlucky, and now its pretty much gg.

the thing is that one situation lost you this game

But you're not explaining why this is a Bad Thing. It isn't that you were unaware of the risks. You gambled, you lost: deal with it. Making this judgement call is absolutely a strategic decision, and to mandate that there is some necessary outcome that the game should produce for you denies that choice, and that judgement.

You could have played it safe. You didn't. That's not a good call, it's a bad one, and the fact that you paid the price is not unfair.

That's the strategy part.

what do you want to say with that?

But you're not explaining why this is a Bad Thing. It isn't that you were unaware of the risks. You gambled, you lost: deal with it. Making this judgement call is absolutely a strategic decision, and to mandate that there is some necessary outcome that the game should produce for you denies that choice, and that judgement.

You could have played it safe. You didn't. That's not a good call, it's a bad one, and the fact that you paid the price is not unfair.

thats just wrong
what this situation describes is a player making a good call (because diving the base and killing his only tank increases your chance of winning quite a bit on average) and getting punished for that because of bad RNG.

so yes, in some comes the outcome should be mandatory, or at least a lot more than it is now. look at Hearthstone: pretty much every championship there is a new champion, because the amount of RNG is too damn high. fortunately this is not the case for coh2, but even in coh2 some games (imo ~10%) are decided by luck

what do you want to say with that?

The repetitions part. This is a function of build order, positioning, etc.

thats just wrong

No, it isn't.

what this situation describes is a player making a good call (because diving the base and killing his only tank increases your chance of winning quite a bit on average) and getting punished for that because of bad RNG.

But it's NOT a good call. There's an old adage that you should not gamble what you cannot afford to lose. If you lost a game because you carelessly threw away the one unit you couldn't afford to lose, that's your fault. Your mistake. The safer option was available to you, and you didn't take it. Learn your lesson and make a better strategic choice next time. Or at least, own the fact that you are taking destiny in your hands, and don't be a sore loser about what "should" have happened.

But it's NOT a good call. There's an old adage that you should not gamble what you cannot afford to lose. If you lost a game because you carelessly threw away the one unit you couldn't afford to lose, that's your fault. Your mistake. The safer option was available to you, and you didn't take it. Learn your lesson and make a better strategic choice next time. Or at least, own the fact that you are taking destiny in your hands, and don't be a sore loser about what "should" have happened.

a call you make that increases your chance of winning is a good call. therefore the safer option is a bad call, because it decreases your chances of winning. all that blabla about "safe", "unsafe", "destiny" doesnt change anything

and btw, that adage is often very wrong. if you are on the losing side and you play safe, most often you dont have a chance of winning. a gamble is the only option to increase your chnaces of winning

and please, stop using "you". its not me, it is a hypothetical player (i want that to be clear because it means that im not rageposting).

a call you make that increases your chance of winning is a good call.

But you don't want to increase your CHANCE of winning, you want it to GUARANTEE winning. Otherwise you should be able to accept that the gamble may not pay off. That's what chance means.

And no, it's still not a good call. You increased your chance of winning, and also your chance of losing. Well guess what, shit happens sometimes. The universe doesn't owe you success. You can take the risk, and show your courage, but I see no reason you should have any right to expect the outcome be assured for you.

and btw, that adage is often very wrong. if you are on the losing side and you play safe, most often you dont have a chance of winning. a gamble is the only option to increase your chnaces of winning

If you are already losing, there isn't anything you can't afford to lose, is there? So the desperation play is entirely sensible.

and please, stop using "you". its not me, it is a hypothetical player (i want that to be clear because it means that im not rageposting).

I'm using it in the generic sense.

But you don't want to increase your CHANCE of winning, you want it to GUARANTEE winning. Otherwise you should be able to accept that the gamble may not pay off. That's what chance means.

And no, it's still not a good call. You increased your chance of winning, and also your chance of losing. Well guess what, shit happens sometimes. The universe doesn't owe you success. You can take the risk, and show your courage, but I see no reason you should have any right to expect the outcome be assured for you.

one increases the chance of winning and losing? dude, show me how that works and you will win a noble prize!!
on a more serious note, it can only increase or decrease your chance (5th grade mathematics) and this specific call increases it.
please, dont talk about universe or courage or that shit, it really doesnt help making a clear point
now, i agree that RNG can make a game more interesting, but good game design makes it that the better player still wins because he adapts better. now in such a case there are way too few possibilites to adapt, therefore one has to cut the amount of RNG involved

one increases the chance of winning and losing? dude, show me how that works and you will win a noble prize!!

This is not a hard concept. The probability of winning and that of losing are not necessarily a zero sum game, in many circumstances.

here's an easy example: roll 1d6, you win on 6 and lose on 1; reroll on anything else. You have an option to "Go Big Or Go Home"; if you choose to GBOGH, you win on a 5 or 6, but lose on a 1 or 2; you reroll on 3 or 4.

Thus, as you can see, it is quite possible to increase both the chance of winning, and the chance of losing, simultaneously.

And this is exactly what happens in the scenario you describe, in which a player risks the one unit they absolutely, positively, cannot afford to lose in the hopes of closing the game down here and now. It's a perfectly reasonable decision to make - but it does increase the chance of both winning, and losing too.

on a more serious note, it can only increase or decrease your chance (5th grade mathematics) and this specific call increases it.

Clearly 5th grade math isn't adequate for the task. At a more advanced level, there are a whole bunch of effects that can flatten a distribution curve, thus making both top end and bottom end outcomes more likely.

please, dont talk about universe or courage or that shit, it really doesnt help making a clear point

I'm afraid these are quite relevant concepts. This is a game played for the joy of competition, in large part - and that requires that the risks be real, so that people can claim the kudos due for mastering them. That is quite literally a huge chunk of the reason people play: bragging rights.

now, i agree that RNG can make a game more interesting, but good game design makes it that the better player still wins because he adapts better. now in such a case there are way too few possibilites to adapt, therefore one has to cut the amount of RNG involved

In the particular scenario you proposed, sure, there is no opportunity to recover - because you specified that if they lost that unit, they also lost the game. That's a very good reason to NOT take such a risk.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

This is not a hard concept. The probability of winning and that of losing are not necessarily a zero sum game, in many circumstances.

you either win or lose a round of coh2, therefore the sum of winning and losing is one. no point to argue here

And this is exactly what happens in the scenario you describe, in which a player risks the one unit they absolutely, positively, cannot afford to lose in the hopes of closing the game down here and now. It's a perfectly reasonable decision to make - but it does increase the chance of both winning, and losing too.

you are mixing up the chance of winning and the standart deviation. and btw, the situation i described does not broaden the standart deviation by too much, because bad results are so unlikely

In the particular scenario you proposed, sure, there is no opportunity to recover - because you specified that if they lost that unit, they also lost the game. That's a very good reason to NOT take such a risk.

you either dive him, win in 90% of the cases or dont dive him and win in 50% of the cases. do you dive him or not? you do

you either win or lose a round of coh2, therefore the sum of winning and losing is one. no point to argue here

Correct, but we were talking about the CHANCE of winning, which is not zero sum.

you are mixing up the chance of winning and the standart deviation. and btw, the situation i described does not broaden the standart deviation by too much, because bad results are so unlikely

No, I'm not. I invoked the standard deviation only in the context of specific outcomes, not of game win or loss.

you either dive him, win in 90% of the cases or dont dive him and win in 50% of the cases. do you dive him or not? you do

Fine, sure, as I've already agreed. What you DON'T do is cry that RNG must be "fixed" if the 10% case happens to come up and you lose. You knew the risks.

Correct, but we were talking about the CHANCE of winning, which is not zero sum.

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.

Fine, sure, as I've already agreed. What you DON'T do is cry that RNG must be "fixed" if the 10% case happens to come up and you lose. You knew the risks.

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.
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.