RNG has too much of an impact on games

If there's anything that's stopping CoH2 from being competitive, it's how BIG of a role RNG has in the game. Currently, the role of RNG is so large that it in fact mitigates skill to a drastic level, meaning that a good player with bad luck can lose to someone of far lower skill - something that should not be possible in a competitive game.

Firstly, let's look at COH1's RNG system. In CoH1, most stats were fixed. Guns did a fair amount of damage, there was a fairly low kill-crit chance on infantry, and vehicles didn't crit at all. In addition to this, the accuracy on vehicles was very high - AT guns were (estimating here) about 80% accurate, if not more. This meant that positioning, flanking and the use of cover was EXTREMELY important in order to be effective at high level play.

Now lets compare that to CoH2's RNG system. In CoH2, kill-crits on infantry can be rolled at any HP level - essentially it's possible for a full-health squad member to die in 1 shot, if a crit is rolled. In addition to this, kill-crits are INCREDIBLY common. It's not unlikely to lose half of a squad (full health) to a single volley of fire, simply due to crits. The same problem applies to grenades and fire, and is in fact the reason the flamer HT was so incredibly OP in beta - it crit ALL the time (or very, very often).

The same thing occurs with vehicle accuracy. Firing accuracy for certain tanks, AT-guns, and so on is incredibly inconsistent. I've had games were an Elephant missed ELEVEN shots in a row against a stationary target. On the other side of this, I've had games were a single tank would escape a horde of enemies, simply due to misses. This can also apply to AT guns, which at the most inconvenient time will refuse to hit anything, or will simply snipe infantry to no end.

These massive variations in unit effectiveness makes the game incredibly unpredictable in a very, very bad way. A friend of mine lost a 1v1 game, because three gren squads in green cover lost to two conscripts in yellow, despite landing BOTH rifle grenades. In other situations, a flanked SU85 will win an engagement, simply because your Panzer IV's refuse to hit it, while the SU85 lands several shots in a row.

The problem isn't necessarily that these RNG-rolled events happen - it's their frequency. In COH1, there were few moments more intense than a Sniper vs. Sniper fight, where they both missed, or where that one Vet 3 rifleman dodged two mortar shells. These created incredibly interesting situations; however, they weren't common. Snipers almost always hit, 1-man rifle squads usually died to the first mortar shell, and AT guns almost ALWAYS hit. However, in CoH2, it appears that Relic thought that the easiest way to increase the "drama" in the game, was to increase the amount of RNG-based systems.

However, it doesn't work like that. An AT gun that misses 6 shots in a row against a stationary tank is incredibly infuriating - as it voids the purpose of the AT gun. Outnumbered squads in worse cover winning against the odds, reduces the importance of cover and flanking. Molotovs ranging from doing absolutely zero damage to a garrisoned MG, to killing the ENTIRE squad in a second simply punishes both players.


Essentially, RNG is simply TOO common and TOO influential on the course of battle. For a game to be competitive, it must present a fair and unbiased playing field. However, more often than not, RNG leans towards one player or another throughout a game, making the 'unlucky' player far less effective than he or she could be. As a result, winning players may only win due to luck, and not skill, while skilled players who lose may become demotivated, simply due to said luck.

It would be incredibly easy for relic to fix this. The problem ISN'T that RNG exists, it's that its so common. Simply dial back the chance to crit, to miss, and so on. It's always amazing when an AT gun misses that ONE shot that could have killed the tanks - it's not when the AT gun misses SIX shots, and then dies to said tank.

If there's anything that's stopping CoH2 from being competitive, it's how BIG of a role RNG has in the game. Currently, the role of RNG is so large that it in fact mitigates skill to a drastic level, meaning that a good player with bad luck can lose to someone of far lower skill - something that should not be possible in a competitive game.

Firstly, let's look at COH1's RNG system. In CoH1, most stats were fixed. Guns did a fair amount of damage, there was a fairly low kill-crit chance on infantry, and vehicles didn't crit at all. In addition to this, the accuracy on vehicles was very high - AT guns were (estimating here) about 80% accurate, if not more. This meant that positioning, flanking and the use of cover was EXTREMELY important in order to be effective at high level play.

Now lets compare that to CoH2's RNG system. In CoH2, kill-crits on infantry can be rolled at any HP level - essentially it's possible for a full-health squad member to die in 1 shot, if a crit is rolled. In addition to this, kill-crits are INCREDIBLY common. It's not unlikely to lose half of a squad (full health) to a single volley of fire, simply due to crits. The same problem applies to grenades and fire, and is in fact the reason the flamer HT was so incredibly OP in beta - it crit ALL the time (or very, very often).

The same thing occurs with vehicle accuracy. Firing accuracy for certain tanks, AT-guns, and so on is incredibly inconsistent. I've had games were an Elephant missed ELEVEN shots in a row against a stationary target. On the other side of this, I've had games were a single tank would escape a horde of enemies, simply due to misses. This can also apply to AT guns, which at the most inconvenient time will refuse to hit anything, or will simply snipe infantry to no end.

These massive variations in unit effectiveness makes the game incredibly unpredictable in a very, very bad way. A friend of mine lost a 1v1 game, because three gren squads in green cover lost to two conscripts in yellow, despite landing BOTH rifle grenades. In other situations, a flanked SU85 will win an engagement, simply because your Panzer IV's refuse to hit it, while the SU85 lands several shots in a row.

The problem isn't necessarily that these RNG-rolled events happen - it's their frequency. In COH1, there were few moments more intense than a Sniper vs. Sniper fight, where they both missed, or where that one Vet 3 rifleman dodged two mortar shells. These created incredibly interesting situations; however, they weren't common. Snipers almost always hit, 1-man rifle squads usually died to the first mortar shell, and AT guns almost ALWAYS hit. However, in CoH2, it appears that Relic thought that the easiest way to increase the "drama" in the game, was to increase the amount of RNG-based systems.

However, it doesn't work like that. An AT gun that misses 6 shots in a row against a stationary tank is incredibly infuriating - as it voids the purpose of the AT gun. Outnumbered squads in worse cover winning against the odds, reduces the importance of cover and flanking. Molotovs ranging from doing absolutely zero damage to a garrisoned MG, to killing the ENTIRE squad in a second simply punishes both players.


Essentially, RNG is simply TOO common and TOO influential on the course of battle. For a game to be competitive, it must present a fair and unbiased playing field. However, more often than not, RNG leans towards one player or another throughout a game, making the 'unlucky' player far less effective than he or she could be. As a result, winning players may only win due to luck, and not skill, while skilled players who lose may become demotivated, simply due to said luck.

It would be incredibly easy for relic to fix this. The problem ISN'T that RNG exists, it's that its so common. Simply dial back the chance to crit, to miss, and so on. It's always amazing when an AT gun misses that ONE shot that could have killed the tanks - it's not when the AT gun misses SIX shots, and then dies to said tank.

never thought about it on that level. nice read +1

It always confused me how people complained (and still complain) about the RNG in the CoH series as it relates to competitive play, and yet CoH has had one of the most stable upper tier of competitive players of any RTS I've experienced. The list of top tournament players in vCoH was extremely static, and I have no doubt the same thing will happen in CoH2 once people "figure out" the game.

It was the same in CoH1, RNG could sometimes be a game changer, it just happened less often yes. If it was me I would remove all RNG, it brings a lot of frustration for only a little more variety.

The list of top tournament players in vCoH was extremely static

The game didn't have a lot competitive players in the first place and the pool of players wasn't high. No Esport either to draw new talents.

It always confused me how people complained (and still complain) about the RNG in the CoH series as it relates to competitive play, and yet CoH has had one of the most stable upper tier of competitive players of any RTS I've experienced. The list of top tournament players in vCoH was extremely static, and I have no doubt the same thing will happen in CoH2 once people "figure out" the game.

I played a LOT of CoH1, and I have to say, the RNG was far less crazy than it is in CoH2 - that's why the leaderboard was so static. Good player stayed at the top, bad ones didn't get there through insane RNG.

Whats RNG? lol

Random number generation

Basically randomness and luck.

The RNG factor does seem higher than in vCoH or in DoW2. I don't think it will result in players occupying the top ladder spots that shouldn't be there though. It will average out over time. But for tournament play where luck/RNG can decide games, it's a much bigger factor. It does probably limit the eSports potential and the competitive player pool somewhat. It's a little hard to take the game too seriously when luck can decide a lot of skirmishes but it does make it more fun and exciting to watch - even if sometimes you're on the receiving end. In terms of unit combat, CoH2 is about as opposite as you can get to a game like SC2, where there are very few variables involved at all.

The 15% chance of fire weapons to instantly kill a unit is really annoying and makes it much harder to decide the outcome of a battle.
ive had instances where a molotv would instantly fry 4 2vet mg42 members. Thats too much luck

It was the same in CoH1, RNG could sometimes be a game changer, it just happened less often yes. If it was me I would remove all RNG, it brings a lot of frustration for only a little more variety.


The game didn't have a lot competitive players in the first place and the pool of players wasn't high. No Esport either to draw new talents.

tbh if we get rid of rng ti will ruin coh and what made it unique.

I wouldn't play COH or COH2 if it weren't for the random factor. It's what keeps the game interesting. It's silly to say that games are decided by random factors - this is extremely rare, and thanks to the law of large numbers the meta always evens out to have the better players winning.

If I wanted to play a spreadsheet I would play Starcraft or one of the other yawnful RTS games that I have no interest in.

tbh if we get rid of rng ti will ruin coh and what made it unique.

No I don't think so, it's not what made COH a success in the first place, it's all about the tactical use (positioning, flanking etc) of a few and specialised units. If you remove RNG the only difference is the game would more predictable which has more good points than bad points in competition. But Relic won't modify a thing it anyway.

Remember this?
Take the nostalgia goggles off, CoH1 had some horrible RNG involved as well.

As much as I hate RNG and think it should either be removed or replaced with pseudo-RNG(less frustrating when the gods of RNG decides that they don't like you), claiming that it's a problem for the competitive part of the game is just wrong. The way to judge how competitive a game is if whether or not the same players consistently do well in a tournament setting, and as Inverse pointed out, that was definitely the case with CoH1.

I'm not a fan of it either. But it's a very deliberate design choice, and they will definitely not be changing it.

[
Remember this?
Take the nostalgia goggles off, CoH1 had some horrible RNG involved as well.

Missing two snipes in a row was insanely uncommon.

Missing two snipes in a row was insanely uncommon.

Not against American snipers, it's not. There was a 50% accuracy penalty against American snipers that are moving.

The RNG is really too damn high. I'm sick of my vet 3 squads being one shot by the first mortar shell to land in the area. Like seriously, what the fuck is that?

I'm sick of my flamer tanks exploding in the middle of a blizzard because a Pio model died from the cold. And for that matter, I'm sick to fucking death of Blizzards as well.

I'm sick of my squads being shit on by critical hits, and I'm sick of my AT guns being one-hit by tanks.

I like elements of randomness to CoH. It adds characters and it's a trait of Relic games to have some random factors.

But Jesus tap-dancing Christ, there is simply too much bullshit in this game. I should not be losing ANYTHING to a single hit without a shit tonne of warning first(With little exception, like for eg. if you build a sniper you should expect a counter snipe without warning). The reason why the Satchel Charge isn't overpowered as fuck is because you can see a Penal Batt. run up to you and you know he'll throw it, and when he does you have 2.5 seconds to gtfo. The reason a Stuka bomb isn't OP is because you can hear the engine a mile off. The reason artillery isn't OP is because you get audio and flares.

Yet why is it that all this other crap stays in the game? My squad all bunching up into a blob that should only fit one model and being one-shot by an SU-85. My vet 3 PzGrens being instantly killed by a mortar while idly capping a point. My pioneers walking towards the cap point and suddenly they burst into flames because a Conscript got a lucky shot.

These are all really shitty elements of RNG.

Good elements are the vehicles recrewing, the weapon drops, the vehicle dynamics, that kind of shit.

The RNG is really too damn high. I'm sick of my vet 3 squads being one shot by the first mortar shell to land in the area. Like seriously, what the fuck is that?

I'm sick of my flamer tanks exploding in the middle of a blizzard because a Pio model died from the cold. And for that matter, I'm sick to fucking death of Blizzards as well.

I'm sick of my squads being shit on by critical hits, and I'm sick of my AT guns being one-hit by tanks.

I like elements of randomness to CoH. It adds characters and it's a trait of Relic games to have some random factors.

But Jesus tap-dancing Christ, there is simply too much bullshit in this game. I should not be losing ANYTHING to a single hit without a shit tonne of warning first(With little exception, like for eg. if you build a sniper you should expect a counter snipe without warning). The reason why the Satchel Charge isn't overpowered as fuck is because you can see a Penal Batt. run up to you and you know he'll throw it, and when he does you have 2.5 seconds to gtfo. The reason a Stuka bomb isn't OP is because you can hear the engine a mile off. The reason artillery isn't OP is because you get audio and flares.

Yet why is it that all this other crap stays in the game? My squad all bunching up into a blob that should only fit one model and being one-shot by an SU-85. My vet 3 PzGrens being instantly killed by a mortar while idly capping a point. My pioneers walking towards the cap point and suddenly they burst into flames because a Conscript got a lucky shot.

These are all really shitty elements of RNG.

Good elements are the vehicles recrewing, the weapon drops, the vehicle dynamics, that kind of shit.

Exactly this. Nothing more to say.

Not against American snipers, it's not. There was a 50% accuracy penalty against American snipers that are moving.

Yep. I remember a tourney game(I believe it was with sepha, but not sure) where a players sniper missed 2 counter snipes due to this and was countersniped himself

The RNG in the game is what attracted me (and still attracts) me to the series. If I wanted intensely calculated mathematics I'd just play a different rts