Main gun destroyed. Why does this exist?

Why does this crippling RNG crit that can completly turn a fight exist. It's 100% RNG dependant yet rewards players for being lucky.

Probably because tanks should usually not be isolated or the only unit capable of defending itself in an engagement.

Turret damaged and destroyed I think was more interesting/fun though.

If you didn't notice yet, the game is trying to emulate reality. Everything in this game is random based not only the crits.

If they game was trying to emulate reality it wouldn't be balanced. We'd see 10 shermans for every Tiger on the field. No one would play axis if they had to fight 10 shermans. People play games for fun not to simulate realism.

Because you're aaa's backup troll account.

You know it MVGame

I like that feature

I don't see the issue with random vehicle crits.

But +1 to that turret destroyed crit that was really cool to see in the beta/ closed alpha.

Anyone have a link where they have that destroyed turret? The visual was pretty cool!

I don't know why people think all RNG is bad tho lol.

If they game was trying to emulate reality it wouldn't be balanced. We'd see 10 shermans for every Tiger on the field. No one would play axis if they had to fight 10 shermans. People play games for fun not to simulate realism.

If the game was not trying to emulate reality we would see laser guns, flying tanks and ufos. See? I could argue the same.

Obviously, while trying to emulate reality, a game needs to sacrifice this and that for playability and gameplay. The fact that in ww2 the sherman outnumbered the tiger is represented by higher building costs of the latter.

If the game was not trying to emulate reality we would see laser guns, flying tanks and ufos. See? I could argue the same.

Obviously, while trying to emulate reality, a game needs to sacrifice this and that for playability and gameplay. The fact that in ww2 the sherman outnumbered the tiger is represented by higher building costs of the latter.

the point is to promote fun and fair play so while the tiger is more expensive, it allows usf to have more shermans on the field. However due to balance and map design, it is hard to effectively counter a tiger with shermans so you don't see this play anymore. The random RNG crits is a similar thing where they mimic reality but degrades the competitive integrity of the game so it should be removed. Stuff should happen mainly because of player influence and the random stuff should be consistent enough for players to account for it.

the point is to promote fun and fair play so while the tiger is more expensive, it allows usf to have more shermans on the field. However due to balance and map design, it is hard to effectively counter a tiger with shermans so you don't see this play anymore. The random RNG crits is a similar thing where they mimic reality but degrades the competitive integrity of the game so it should be removed. Stuff should happen mainly because of player influence and the random stuff should be consistent enough for players to account for it.

Yes, fun and fair play. Rng is fun and a tiger which costs more than a sherman is fair. Your premise is wrong: "competitive integrity" can for sure also be achieved with rng elements. The point is then risc management instead of number crunching calculation.

Competitve integrity can be still be achieved with RNG elements. Look at card games, you have X% to draw cards Y or Z to win you the game but based on the # of cards in your deck you can calculate your chances and hope for the best. If I take the calculated risk of diving a sherman with a panther then I'm almost certain I'm going to win with my higher frontal armor and combatblitz/blitzkrieg; I take that dive. However you can't factor in the fact that your opponet has a completly random RNG based crit happen to your tank that suddenly turns his retreating no threat sherman into a game ending tank that can now do whatever it likes because your tank can no longer fight back. Those situations, coupled with other things like the more expensive axis tanks are game losing.

Shadowwada wasn't saying remove all RNG, he said to remove complete RNG factors that players have little to no control over.

Competitve integrity can be still be achieved with RNG elements. Look at card games, you have X% to draw cards Y or Z to win you the game but based on the # of cards in your deck you can calculate your chances and hope for the best. If I take the calculated risk of diving a sherman with a panther then I'm almost certain I'm going to win with my higher frontal armor and combatblitz/blitzkrieg; I take that dive. However you can't factor in the fact that your opponet has a completly random RNG based crit happen to your tank that suddenly turns his retreating no threat sherman into a game ending tank that can now do whatever it likes because your tank can no longer fight back. Those situations, coupled with other things like the more expensive axis tanks are game losing.

Shadowwada wasn't saying remove all RNG, he said to remove completle RNG factors that players have little to no control over.

Your 2 arguments are contradictional. First you say that competitivity can be achieved even with RNG and then you mention that main gun destroy critical is bad, because it´s random.

The problem is that it isn´t.You can calculate your risk when diving with panther. Main gun critical only occurs under 25% of tank health. This means that enemy either have to severly damage your panther with shemran (i don´t know how is that possible, with already damaged sherman) or your panrther must have already been damaged (then you didn´t calculate it right) or he have some other source of reliable AT you either ignored or not counted about. Either way, you can calculate your risk-reward part here. Also diving too much into enemy frontline isn´t good. If you do so, you should know about risk as well. And even if you lose your main gun, sherman alone shouldn´t be able to finish your panther because of panther speed and frontal armor allowing him to retreat back behind puppeten frontline. If you lack frontline or you dived too far then it´s once again mistake.

Abandon is bad RNG mechanic because it occurs too unfrequently (5% chance) while being so gamechanging (you should be punished for losing tank, not also for giving it to the enemy.) Main gun critical is fine because it only occurs under 25% of tank health (and should) and happens frequently. You know about it, you know the consequences, you can count it and it´s not so random ad abandon.

In my opinion main gun critical RNG risk under 25% of tank health is fine.

I'm not saying all RNG is bad, I'm saying game changing RNG is bad. The entire coh2 small arms combat is RNG dependant and I have no problem with this, but they don't have a small arm mechanic that makes weapons jam and makes a squad being unable to fight. I'm saying main gun critical is bad because it has the potential to be game changing RNG, similar to abandon tanks. You say abandon tanks is bad RNG but you can "calculate" for yourself that you might lose the tank and then it gets abandoned in a dive. These 2 scenarios are similar.

I'm not saying all RNG is bad, I'm saying game changing RNG is bad. The entire coh2 small arms combat is RNG dependant and I have no problem with this, but they don't have a small arm mechanic that makes weapons jam and makes a squad being unable to fight. I'm saying main gun critical is bad because it has the potential to be game changing RNG, similar to abandon tanks. You say abandon tanks is bad RNG but you can "calculate" for yourself that you might lose the tank and then it gets abandoned in a dive. These 2 scenarios are similar.

No they aren´t. In any way, except by having risk.

losing main gun only means you lose DPS source. Tank canstill back up freely and other sources can help you protect it. Also it happens only at ceratin conditions, often and doesn´t give enemy that big advantage.

On the other hand abandon is stupid because that risk is too small to count it (in 1 out of 20 cases tank gets abandoned). This means that in 19 out of 20 fight you will for example kill enemy tank while losing your as well. You want it this way, trade was efficient. But in 1 out of 20 fight you will give enemy your tank, giving him big advantage. This itself would be fine if there were many decissive tank fights, but there are like 1-2 per match resulting into 19 won matches and 1 lost without any chance of outcome, stupid.

You lose what could be your only DPS source, if that is the case then an enemy tank has no problem diving you head first with little regard for its own life. This problem is most prevelent on OKW as you can't ever afford to get a schreck because sturms are required in to many roles. For other factions with forms of handheld AT this is a significantly smaller problem. As for AT guns, rakatten MVGame but you can't have rakattens diving the enemy base like tanks can as they're don't have 90mms of steel plates.

Regardless though this is more of a flamepost because I lost a vet 4 P4 and a full HP command panther because I decided to dive after a sherman that only had 1 shot left. They couldn't even land the shot mainly because of new map which is ever so fun to play on. Then they were both killed by callin meta M10 because main gun destroyed on my panther and a single zook captain and rifle nade.

You are wrong. Like all crits in coh2, the main gun destroyed crits doesn't reward a lucky player. It rewards the one that is more prepared for its occurence, on either side. So in fact it rewards all that we expect from good player: strategic thinking, failure anticipation, good risk management and quick reactions.

remove the feature please

You are wrong. Like all crits in coh2, the main gun destroyed crits doesn't reward a lucky player. It rewards the one that is more prepared for its occurence, on either side. So in fact it rewards all that we expect from good player: strategic thinking, failure anticipation, good risk management and quick reactions.

I'd never state something so blatantly like "you are wrong" when it comes to opinions. Was noganno wrong when his command panther took an overshoot from Helpinghans cromwell and sank it that ultimatly ended the game? Hans got lucky and he took home real world money for that RNG. I don't doubt Hans skill in the slightest and noganno knew well the dangers of ice. But still RNG decided something that came down to real money. How does main gun crit not reward a lucky player? It's 100% RNG dependant and when it occurs and rends that tank useless against opposing armor/infantry. People seem to be missing the point. No one goes into a situation thinking, "hmmm if i dive I could recieve main gun destroyed and lose my tank" No one goes in and think their tank is going to get abandoned. The only thing people think is if their are AT weapons, snares and mines. If those are all checked off as not there or maneuverable around then people will dive for kills. Every top player thinks in this form.

I'd never state something so blatantly like "you are wrong" when it comes to opinions. Was noganno wrong when his command panther took an overshoot from Helpinghans cromwell and sank it that ultimatly ended the game? Hans got lucky and he took home real world money for that RNG. I don't doubt Hans skill in the slightest and noganno knew well the dangers of ice. But still RNG decided something that came down to real money. How does main gun crit not reward a lucky player? It's 100% RNG dependant and when it occurs and rends that tank useless against opposing armor/infantry. People seem to be missing the point. No one goes into a situation thinking, "hmmm if i dive I could recieve main gun destroyed and lose my tank" No one goes in and think their tank is going to get abandoned. The only thing people think is if their are AT weapons, snares and mines. If those are all checked off as not there or maneuverable around then people will dive for kills. Every top player thinks in this form.

In case of noggano the risk was unnecessery and huge, it was as risky as diving your tank way behind enemy lines. The chances of loosing tank in this situation were so high it was simply a mistake. And in fact it was most probably shift order bug that lost him this panther as nobody sane would take that risk in this particular situation.

As for crits I'm glad you mentioned abandon as this is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. If you well manage the risk, you always have additional tank, TD or AT-gun that can kill abandoned tank, yours or enemy, if it is not possible to recrew by your forces. This is what almost all good players do in tank engagements, especially the big ones where the chance for abandon are much higher.

The same applies to main gun crit - you need to be close enough to your forces, so that you can escape with your tank in case it gets the main gun crit, or even worse, the engine crit, that is much more popular thanks to mines and snares. Otherwise the manouver you are trying to pull off can be labeled only as very risky - it may be benefitial in the end, but you shouldn't try it unless you absolutely have to.

The crit simply changes the situation you are in from trying to trade effectively in an engagement to trying to save your vehicle. The ability to disengage without losses in an event that suddenly changes the course of action is exactly what differs good players from bad ones. No matter if this ability comes from cautios preparation or brilliant micro.