The Problem with CoH2’s RNG: Consistency

I think this is a very competitive game by nature, the wbp is a testimony to that as it is one more attempt of balancing the game or the somewhat frequent tournaments but I also understand that some rng brings emotion and those "OMFG!!!" moments, that mix is what makes most people coming back.

So personally I would like to meet in a middle ground where rng to things like squad entities would be tied to the health percentage so entities dropping would be more predictable and could be avoided or explosions (mines, mortar, high explosive shells and more) wouldn't completly wipe a squad but instead, depending on the distance from the squad, would at max leave your squad with 1 entity and low health so players can have a chance to save that squad and thus making the game more competitive.

Finally, first honest man in the thread.

What I got from watching casts and playing games with my friends - people are getting tricked by their mind in order not to get into uncomfortable position where you admit your mistake.

Sometimes you just have to let this tiger go (while saving your own army) and try to take it down some other time.

When you talk about RNG you have to be completely honest with yourself and admit your mistakes.

Tbh I did not expect the abandoned tiger to be well... Abandoned. You could say I should have gotten an AT gun to support the tanks, and yes I agree, I should have done that. But fact is I did lose that match because of the abandon, yet I won the match after that one, because of a double abandon of enemy cromwells. Problem is I were obviously a better player than the first dude who got lucky with the tiger abandon, yet I were nothing compared to the enemy who lost 2 cromwells to me. The win ratio shouldn't change if the abandon mechanic got removed, since it is removed from both sides, right?

As I see it, it is an unnecessary mechanic for all units, except when the Sturmtiger is under fire while reloading.

the crew would mostly only abandon the tank, if the engine or main gun were damaged/destroyed, not if they had taken 20 shots and the tank still worked perfectly.

Ever heard of armor spalling? A non penetrative hit rips small metal fragments from INSIDE the armor plating, hurting, incapacitating or even killing crew. I'd leave my deathtrap too if my tank was hit and my mates were dead or dying. THIS is what abandoned vehicle is trying to simulate.

Weapon drops... I think if the squad is retreating, nobody would pick up a MG or a zooka, if they're just haulin' ass out of the harms way. If just moving, or not in that much of a pinch, a squadmate propably would pick up the squad weapon.

Actually is not really an abandonned, but more a "crew died but vehicule is still usable" if it was really "abandonned by the crew" they would go out and run like when you kill mortar crew and at gun gun crew and they just run

Ever heard of armor spalling? A non penetrative hit rips small metal fragments from INSIDE the armor plating, hurting, incapacitating or even killing crew. I'd leave my deathtrap too if my tank was hit and my mates were dead or dying. THIS is what abandoned vehicle is trying to simulate.

If for example a driver got killed INSIDE the tank, how on earth would you in a split second be able to remove the corpse? Is the rest of the crew supposed to drag him out with them? There is a body in the seat, how on earth can you just jump in and drive it without problems, while cuddeling with your dead comrade?

And as far as I know, a non-penetrating hit from a tank or AT-gun does no damage, right? It is only handheld weapons like PIAT or shreks which does damage on non-penetrating hits as far as I know.

If for example a driver got killed INSIDE the tank, how on earth would you in a split second be able to remove the corpse? Is the rest of the crew supposed to drag him out with them? There is a body in the seat, how on earth can you just jump in and drive it without problems, while cuddeling with your dead comrade?

And as far as I know, a non-penetrating hit from a tank or AT-gun does no damage, right? It is only handheld weapons like PIAT or shreks which does damage on non-penetrating hits as far as I know.

Ok, it's a bad simulation
Think of an 88mm AT gun hitting on the side of Sherman turret, not in 90 degree angle, but in lets say 10 degrees... The shell bounces off, but the sheer energy of the shell will dent the tank, thus creating spalling in the turret. Maybe commander/gunner KIA... Ok, the rest of the crew panic and run, and yes, the capturing german pioneers shouldn't sit on the lap of the dead gunner... Maybe the recapturing of abandoned vehicles should be optimized? Maybe all factions should have call in tank crews so that dumbass engineers don't start commandeering a tank like the best of 'em...

But in the end it's same for both sides. So it's not biased.

In real life germans had the habit of shooting "knocked off" or abandoned shermans and other tanks until they caught fire, or were totally destroyed. This was because the US had a good chain of spare parts and service. The same tank could be repaired and back on the field the very next day!

Ok, it's a bad simulation
Think of an 88mm AT gun hitting on the side of Sherman turret, not in 90 degree angle, but in lets say 10 degrees... The shell bounces off, but the sheer energy of the shell will dent the tank, thus creating spalling in the turret. Maybe commander/gunner KIA... Ok, the rest of the crew panic and run, and yes, the capturing german pioneers shouldn't sit on the lap of the dead gunner... Maybe the recapturing of abandoned vehicles should be optimized? Maybe all factions should have call in tank crews so that dumbass engineers don't start commandeering a tank like the best of 'em...

But in the end it's same for both sides. So it's not biased.

In real life germans had the habit of shooting "knocked off" or abandoned shermans and other tanks until they caught fire, or were totally destroyed. This was because the US had a good chain of spare parts and service. The same tank could be repaired and back on the field the very next day!

I know what you mean, man. You get hit by a crapton of kinetic energy, it will harm you or the tank in some way, but this is not reflected in game. If that was represented, a KT getting hit by 3-5 shells (penning or not) should be abandoned, right?
But lets say the abandon mechanic HAS to stay. How can we impove it, to make it fair? I would suggest something like a cap timer, so they crew can't just jump 2 meters straight up in the air, and fly down in the turret/drivers hatch and be ready to fight immediately. Maybe give them a 5-10 sec capture delay, so any low health tanks has time to flee if they can't kill the tank. Also while capping the tank, the crew could be vulnerable to small arms fire, just like when the ST is reloading.

More StarCraft and less what made CoH... basically CoH, right?

I mean why not just go and play StarCraft, it's obvious this game will NEVER be competitive.

And I see no point in Relic trying to abide to StarCraft's fanbase made up of competitive high APM mlg "pros" that go around trying to ruin other games when they get bored of SC2.

And now thanks to those same people Relic are making Dawn of War III into StarCraft with a Warhammer 40,000 skin on top, great.

Way to go assholes, first MOBAs and now turning good tactical games into StarCraft, just brilliant.

Note: No this is not directed towards Shadowada I have nothing against him, I'm just talking about it in general, I'm just noting my observations.

IMO the abandon critical is appropriate on light vehicles, but not tanks. Just for halftracks, scout cars, etc.

In my mind, the abandoned critical is the perfect answer to a component of COH1 gameplay: bike/jeep pushing.

But on tanks and such, it's a little tougher to manage. I think in the first mod i built after WFA, I gave every faction vehicle crews that could be purchased at t0. All abandoned tanks could only be crewed by tank crews.

It was a work in progress.

I mean why not just go and play StarCraft, it's obvious this game will NEVER be competitive.

This is the focal point of the whole discussion. I'll refer to here and say that RNG has a place in (a -yes- competitive CoH).



But it has to be a little bit more consistent. First of all, I do believe that CoH has a competitive nature and if we look back at all the great tourneys back in vCoH and last ESL Summer for example, I'd say we have seen that CoH is indeed very competitive and has always been.

However, the years and years of inconsistent RNG has still managed to take a toll on CoH's competitive side and many excellent players left CoH behind. You're saying that it's a lost cause and even though I'd like to agree and toss it out just to settle this debacle of a discussion and franchise identity issues, I must disagree. I'm sure that CoH has good prospects on being a competitive RTS, but the franchise has to be firmly directed into one direction or the other by it's owners. Currently imho, we are not getting best of both worlds, but rather the contrary. How are we supposed to treat CoH with the right (non-(competitive)) attitude if the people on the other side don't kinda know themselves. This is the part where I'd concede the point to you.

With relic on the dev side, the game will never be able to quite live up to it's competitive potential.
However, this doesn't necessarily mean we have to give up on that entirely.

We can still set the stage for competitive environment where the people who put the most work in get the best results. But now comes the most important part: We have to achieve this while balancing between fun and consistent. Fun doesn't necessarily mean inconsistent and consistent doesn't have to mean boring. How much inconsistency and fun do abandoned vehicles, model drops, tank misses and penetration really add ot subtract from the game?

I believe that finding answers to this question is worthwhile to explore and that we can have a competitive CoH and if relic won't give it to us, we'll make our own. The enduring efforts of our community modders have proven that there is will to achieve this goal.

This is the focal point of the whole discussion. I'll refer to here and say that RNG has a place in (a -yes- competitive CoH).

The problem with GG's comparisons is it is comparing the inconsistent and random CoH2 RNG to more consistent RNG in games like Hearthstone and LoL. Back in LoL Season 2, they refined their crit algorithm so if you have 2% crit chance, you will reliably crit 2 out of every 100 auto attacks. CoH2 doesn't have this level of consistency since you can have tanks miss multiple times in a row while having tanks hit multiple times in a row. Sometimes models drop while other times they don't. It is random and outside of player control & influence. Also people focus on tank combat as the main RNG in CoH2 while RNG is a systemic problem influencing basic inf combat.

Something people are missing is I'm not against RNG but am against bad RNG. At the end of the day, the deciding factor in a game needs to be playerskill so RNG needs to be something the player can influence and play around. With model drops and tank combat, the player can't influence these at all. In a card game, I can calculate the probabilities and play around them. I might lose to something that only happens 2% of the time but at least I know. Take for example in coh2, snipers vs buildings. There is a 50% chance of hitting so 1 out of every 2 shots should hit but I've had times where a sniper is able to hit 5+ times in a row while other times it missed 5+ times in a row. As a player, I can't influence that at all.

Also I didn't mentioned this in the original post since it is big enough topic on its own: Relic can't "experiment" with their version of RNG since basic balance changes takes months to get out and tons of bugs are still in the game. If the game were more polished, it would give relic more room to experiment with RNG but having a wonky RNG system on top of shitty & nonexistent balancing, is a bad combination (and I would argue that even with good balance, it would be undermined by the shitty RNG system).

More StarCraft and less what made CoH... basically CoH, right?

I mean why not just go and play StarCraft, it's obvious this game will NEVER be competitive.

And I see no point in Relic trying to abide to StarCraft's fanbase made up of competitive high APM mlg "pros" that go around trying to ruin other games when they get bored of SC2.

And now thanks to those same people Relic are making Dawn of War III into StarCraft with a Warhammer 40,000 skin on top, great.

Way to go assholes, first MOBAs and now turning good tactical games into StarCraft, just brilliant.

Note: No this is not directed towards Shadowada I have nothing against him, I'm just talking about it in general, I'm just noting my observations.

I'd say they are making DoW3 closer to LoTV since SC2's problem was lack of micro since it boiled down to who could execute macro timings the best. With Legacy of the void, they added a bunch of micro based units to inject variety based on player skill into the game. I think it is a good thing to have this influence DoW3 since it is a good way to get variety into a game rather than "herpa derpa lets add random RNG to make it funz" as well as add a higher skill cap by having a focus be on micro rather than just macro.

One of CoH2's major problems is the sheer amount of variables in the system. If balance was on point, Relic would be able to experiment with all these variables but they can barely juggle one thing at a time so there is no way they can juggle all the balls in the air. By streamlining cover, damage, abilities, asymmetrical design, it should make the DoW3 better.

You can't implement LoL's algorithm for CoH2.

LoL's thing wants to emulate a 15% crit chance. That crit chance doesn't matter who you are targetting (i.e., regardless of whether what you are targetting is an m20 or a king tiger). In CoH2 the chance of success depends on who's firing the shot, and who's taking the shot.

LoL is a game about controlling 1 single unit. Of course you are paying attention to whatever that unit does, because otherwise you'd get bored. In CoH2 you are controlling X units. You don't have the luxury to count every single shot.

Porting LoL's algorithm to CoH2 will make it so stupidly abusable.

Honestly I am content with the current amount of RNG.
The only thing that sucks are mortar wipes but with the spacing coming in WB 1.7 hopefully this won't be that big issue anymore.

CoH2 got rid of most of its RNG. Without RNG the game would be boring.

+1

Have we still not come to grips with the fact that CoH2 was never meant to be a competitive game?

Also, I don't think consistency is the word you're looking for. Standard deviation from expected outcome maybe? Extra credits has a good video on this. They call it 'the delta of randomness' (and they use Heartstone as an example too).
The delta of randomness

Tank combat is a good example of frustrating RNG, I agree with you there. Infantry combat, no. It's not random. Each model has its own health pool that is added to the health bar of the squad. If you see a 5 man squad with very little health, it simply means that all models are low health. Similarly, you could have a 5 man squad lose one member while all others are full health. He was closer to the enemy and got focused down. It sucks, but it's not random.

Personally I love the RNG in this game, it is what sets it apart from most other strategy games.

You don't know for sure going into engagements exactly what is going to happen, you make educated guesses based on what you know. This is way more interesting that starcraft where you know exactly what is going to happen, the battle itself doesn't even matter because you already know the outcome. In coh2 staring at that one retreating model with no health running hoping one of the 8 5% chance to hit shots connects is exciting. You can play the odds, try to push your advantage even when you are behind. Straight up strength doesn't matter when there are so many ways to influence the RNG to give you an advantage. This is a game about strategy and tactics more than brute force; the ability to push the odds in your favor more than your opponents is way more important than intense micro in coh2. It also reflects actual fighting, where you don't know for sure what's going to happen next.

The game works perfectly fine with these RNG mechanics, there are only a few things that need to be tweaked to be more reliable. The super rare game changing occurrences like nuclear plane crashes have mostly been dealt with. They took away the bs heavy engine crit from mines and most of the crappy random vehicle debuffs. In my opinion abandons and weapon drops are fine, they work to punish over extension. It would be better if they made it more reliable to guess when an abandon would occur, but it's really not that big of a deal. If you are getting into fights where you don't have time to get in one more shot without losing then you were already gambling you were going to win.



Also wada I'm not sure you understand how probability works. You complain about missing 6 shots in a row, that's just a statistically really rare occurrence. There is no reason to bastardize the working system now to give players with bad luck an advantage. That would be incredibly exploitable, keeping it pure ensures a fair game between both players. You have just as much chance to miss 6 shots in a row as the other guy.

I dont think anyone is saying to get rid of RNG but instead make RNG a bit more predictable. As said above, if a sniper has 50% of hiting its target inside a building and misses the first shot (RNG) he should hit the secound shot instead of resetting the RNG everytime he is going to take a shot making him miss countless times.

I'd say they are making DoW3 closer to LoTV since SC2's problem was lack of micro since it boiled down to who could execute macro timings the best. With Legacy of the void, they added a bunch of micro based units to inject variety based on player skill into the game. I think it is a good thing to have this influence DoW3 since it is a good way to get variety into a game rather than "herpa derpa lets add random RNG to make it funz" as well as add a higher skill cap by having a focus be on micro rather than just macro.

One of CoH2's major problems is the sheer amount of variables in the system. If balance was on point, Relic would be able to experiment with all these variables but they can barely juggle one thing at a time so there is no way they can juggle all the balls in the air. By streamlining cover, damage, abilities, asymmetrical design, it should make the DoW3 better.

Listen, I can see that people are getting bored with SC, but CoH and DoW have always and I mean ALWAYS been their own things.

Even in StarCraft's "deathmatch" mode or whatever you wanna call it, where you can SORT OF turtle, it has never been like what you can do in DoW or CoH.

Plus it's a Rip-off of DoW, and it's obvious, I mean, reapers from SC really don't remind you of Warhammer 40k's Assault Marines? The Space Marines themselves are the base for the Terran Marines. Zerg? Tyranids. Protoss? Eldar.

And yes yes, DoW was later than SC, that's why it stills holds up until today, while many people have left SC behind because of it's obsolete graphics while people to this day are still developing mods for DoW.

I'm not trashing or hating on SC, as a SC player myself, I have nothing BUT respect for the game and what Blizzard have done with it, and what they're continuing to do with it, however, I much rather StarCraft keep to what IT is and DoW and CoH keep to what they are, and they are large scale tactical games, based not on superior micro like it is in SC, but superior positioning, using the cover mechanic of both games, some luck, and upgrades/right units for the job, StarCraft doesn't have short/mid/long range combat, StarCraft doesn't feature much units that fire on the move, StarCraft doesn't feature a LOT of things that are in both DoW and CoH, and that is why, I believe that DoW and COH will never achieve StarCraft's competitive status, because there are simply too many things that are not directly in the player's control.

That is why I don't agree in which direction Relic are taking their beloved series, they'd rather make money and lose fans than gain more fans and more money by actually not trying to reach competitive status with their games and whoring DLCs.

Both DoW and CoH were made with a lot of love, and you can clearly see that, with so much character and attention to detail in everything, just have a look at some of the voice videos on YouTube of CoH units, their speech, their chatter, it just sounds and feels humane, organic, real, nothing can compare to it, it gives character to the ordinary units and Armies, for me DoW II and CoH 2 just fail at that, and DoW III will continue to fail at that, because they've lost the love with which they made their first games back in the 2000s, it's all about the money and abiding to the new generation of competitive MOBA and StarCraft players and making OP shit cost real life money and be sold as DLC, those are 2 of their major problems as I see it.

I dont think anyone is saying to get rid of RNG but instead make RNG a bit more predictable. As said above, if a sniper has 50% of hiting its target inside a building and misses the first shot (RNG) he should hit the secound shot instead of resetting the RNG everytime he is going to take a shot making him miss countless times.

That is statistically as likely to happen as hitting every shot in a row. You already know for sure that the follow up shot has a 50% hit too, why skew the odds? Do you want a guaranteed miss if you hit the first shot?

There are lots of people who love CoH2 and would vote for getting rid of the RNG factor precisely because of that. The amount of these people is very clear on Twitch streams hosted by leading players and during various tournaments.

Speaking of the latter, if you claim to love this game you should be concerned how it has failed in wider promotion compared to competitive RTS games, precisely because of the RNG mechanics that eliminate any reasonable e-sports factor from CoH2. And that failure means we're now looking at community-made balance patches to save this game from losing its playerbase.

I've played CoH series since 2010 and I definitely don't love its flaws, so please don't speak on behalf of people like me when making these public declarations.

Sorry for making you think that I spoke for you, was not my intention.
On topic.
I think that you also want a different game. Please explain or try to explain to me some things.
How do you remove RNG from all indirect fire?
And how do you remove RNG from WW2?
Ok, it can be done but then it would be a game like "Company of Starcraft" or "Command and heroes, Zero Hour" or something like that.
Please consider this, I am not talking about abandoned vehicles or plane crashes on troops and things like that. You can remove all these things, some of are already gone in the name of competitive gaming (Blizzards are also gone, not that it bothers me but they didn't bother me so much when they were in the game).
But to make a different game out of COH2 just to make it e-sports ready, that is to much for me to accept.
Not every game has/must to be RNG less, get over it already (not only you personaly) and play other competitive games. As i said, there are plenty of them out there