afaik, units can only be killed by criticals, not by damage. damage simply subtracts from the health of an entity, it only dies when it told by a critical to do so. likewise a unit with 0% will get a kill crit from almost any source then. At least in coh1 that was the case.
So I am still wondering about the explosive crits.
RNG has too much of an impact on games
- This thread is locked
17 Aug 2013, 18:47 PM
#41
Posts: 102
17 Aug 2013, 18:52 PM
#42
Posts: 1164
maybe to make indirect fire units (mortars, artillery) less viable?
idk...
idk...
17 Aug 2013, 21:27 PM
#43
Posts: 480
The RNG is really the thing that stops this game becoming a mechanical starcrafty game all about timings and builds and keeps it very flexible, adaptive and tactical. Yeah, there's a matter of luck in it but it's more about rolling with what you get generally than planning everything exactly in advance. Which I really like.
Edit:
The RNG difference from COH 1 doesn't seem that big to me. The increased vehicle crits probably add a little and the more similar infantry DPS places a greater emphasis on getting a few crits. Other than that, doesn't feel hugely more random. I agree AT gun accuracy is pretty flimsy but a lot of that is the size modifiers applied by light vehicles.
Edit:
The RNG difference from COH 1 doesn't seem that big to me. The increased vehicle crits probably add a little and the more similar infantry DPS places a greater emphasis on getting a few crits. Other than that, doesn't feel hugely more random. I agree AT gun accuracy is pretty flimsy but a lot of that is the size modifiers applied by light vehicles.
17 Aug 2013, 22:51 PM
#44
Posts: 29
I don't mind the RNG. Sure I'd love for my tanks not to slow to a crawl EVERY SINGLE TIME some inf coughs near them. But the bit of randomness stops the game being stale. It's like a real-life medal-winning moment.
What were the chances of Robert Cain surviving at Arnhem? Slim, but he did. The RNG is occasional enough to be that. As long as you can say in general that x will work against y, then that's good enough for me. After all, war is hell, strange things happen.
Given the choice between some variance that allows for the unexpected to occur, or COH just being a graphical representation of a spreadsheet, I'll take the former.
What were the chances of Robert Cain surviving at Arnhem? Slim, but he did. The RNG is occasional enough to be that. As long as you can say in general that x will work against y, then that's good enough for me. After all, war is hell, strange things happen.
Given the choice between some variance that allows for the unexpected to occur, or COH just being a graphical representation of a spreadsheet, I'll take the former.
17 Aug 2013, 23:08 PM
#45
Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2
There should be RNG but it should be tweaked. One time a single Brumbar shell to a SU85 did critical engine damage on the first shot to front armor, which is just hilarious. So then 2 panzer 4s that both had hit mines and were dead meat were able to easily circle behind the SU85 that rotated at like 3 degrees per second. I've also had games where AT nade or faust would cause critical eng damage in one shot.
Noobs won't luck their way to the top of the leaderboard because it will balance out in the long run, but to say that luck can't decide individual games is just laughable, especially if its late round tournament play for a thousand dollars..
Noobs won't luck their way to the top of the leaderboard because it will balance out in the long run, but to say that luck can't decide individual games is just laughable, especially if its late round tournament play for a thousand dollars..
17 Aug 2013, 23:16 PM
#46
Posts: 1164
I'm referring to CoH1, where it was extremely uncommon for you to miss multiple sniper shots in a row. Yes, it could happen, but it might be once a game - if that.
Unfortunately this is not the case. As in the Twitch thing, scatter only works when the model is big (it helps), and if the scatter is rolled so that it actually hits there. Unfortunately, because of this, scatter doesn't work against moving vehicles. It also doesn't (really) work if the target is small. That's why they made the box for the STUG smaller.
just as a reminder of how far off your math is:
you said missing two countersnipes in a row was extremely uncommon to happen...
i said that i once had 6 countersnipes in a row miss... the chance for that to happen is a whopping 1.5625%.
Now, you complain that the at gun misses with 75% accuracy might be crucial if it misses 5 times in a row... now, in your example, the at gun missing 5 times in a row would have a probability of 0,09765625% (which would be the equivalent of missing 10 (!) countersnipes in a row; remember, YOU said missing 2 in a row was "extremely uncommon").
Please tell me again how missing countersnipes is uncommon, yet the RNG in coh2 is so bad because stuff with a 1 in 1000 chance are happening "all the time".
17 Aug 2013, 23:25 PM
#47
Posts: 3293
until someone finds a reliable/accurate source for numbers and how it works no one is winning its just 2 little girls throwing mud at each-other. (entertaining and all but, also stupid/silly.)
Failure is always an option. 
It's a happy massacre?! (yes, yes it is!)
Caffeine illegal for WiFi's to ingest in 48 states, 2 colonies, and 1 providences. 
To make most awesome thing in universe combine Bears and Nicholas Cage! 
and remember kids, we didn't start the flame-war!
18 Aug 2013, 00:16 AM
#48
Posts: 598
i hate the grenade crits but other things seem to be fine, relic really decreased the accuracy of the panzer IV and that's why you couldn't hit the su85 which i found it to be pretty stupid.
What really sucks is that during a fight between infantry sometimes the infantry squads would just jump around the ground instead of shooting. this REALLY effects the outcome of the fight which sucks, and you can't determine which unit is better because a pretty good unit will lose if they hop around like mad. also units stumbling on each other makes them reach their destination a lot slower, and it makes dodging grenades a pain in the ass. especially when a moltov hits and one guy got caught in the fire so another guy from his squad jumps into the fire like a complete maniac. relic needs to get this fixed!
What really sucks is that during a fight between infantry sometimes the infantry squads would just jump around the ground instead of shooting. this REALLY effects the outcome of the fight which sucks, and you can't determine which unit is better because a pretty good unit will lose if they hop around like mad. also units stumbling on each other makes them reach their destination a lot slower, and it makes dodging grenades a pain in the ass. especially when a moltov hits and one guy got caught in the fire so another guy from his squad jumps into the fire like a complete maniac. relic needs to get this fixed!
18 Aug 2013, 08:39 AM
#49
Posts: 1164
until someone finds a reliable/accurate source for numbers and how it works no one is winning its just 2 little girls throwing mud at each-other. (entertaining and all but, also stupid/silly.)
we have an accurate source for numbers: the game files.
18 Aug 2013, 12:17 PM
#50
Posts: 644
This is a very valid topic. I too feel that the RNG has a bigger impact on the game. Whether that is due to actual different numbers or related to the more chaotic nature of the game compared to CoH1 is open to debate.
5 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
18 Aug 2013, 14:35 PM
#51
Posts: 419
Whatever the case, the obvious point is the gameplay feels drastically different and less satisfying. Units feel like they rely more on luck than being a capable, trained and equipped fighting entity.In coh if you had an at gun, YOU HAD ANTI TANK. In coh 2 an at gun can be effective with luck or it will be a cannon-fodder manpower sink most likely. Blehh.
By design alot of the least satisfying elements of coh were made more prominent and what you get is a game that had across the board accolades in the first version, to the second version having the hardcore community tearing itself apart. Even on the official review sites, it's getting bad critic scores, and the good scores almost always come with a but. Coh 2 sold well because Coh was a epic game. But with all this flak I dont see expansions or Coh 3 doing well unless the "feel" of the original returns.
By design alot of the least satisfying elements of coh were made more prominent and what you get is a game that had across the board accolades in the first version, to the second version having the hardcore community tearing itself apart. Even on the official review sites, it's getting bad critic scores, and the good scores almost always come with a but. Coh 2 sold well because Coh was a epic game. But with all this flak I dont see expansions or Coh 3 doing well unless the "feel" of the original returns.
19 Aug 2013, 08:43 AM
#52
Posts: 960
just as a reminder of how far off your math is:
you said missing two countersnipes in a row was extremely uncommon to happen...
i said that i once had 6 countersnipes in a row miss... the chance for that to happen is a whopping 1.5625%.
Now, you complain that the at gun misses with 75% accuracy might be crucial if it misses 5 times in a row... now, in your example, the at gun missing 5 times in a row would have a probability of 0,09765625% (which would be the equivalent of missing 10 (!) countersnipes in a row; remember, YOU said missing 2 in a row was "extremely uncommon").
Please tell me again how missing countersnipes is uncommon, yet the RNG in coh2 is so bad because stuff with a 1 in 1000 chance are happening "all the time".
I'm basing it on experience, not pure math. The pure math in-game is obviously not accurate, considering how often I get AT guns that are completely worthless. Meanwhile, in CoH1, I can't think of a single game (I think I hit around 1,000 before the steam version) where a sniper missed more than 2 times in a row. Possibly ONCE it missed 3 times.
At 6 times, you were getting screwed by outside factors (cover mods, suppression, etc.).
Opinions reflect all team modes (not 1v1)
I often edit my posts several times after posting
I often edit my posts several times after posting
19 Aug 2013, 11:01 AM
#53
Posts: 644
Whatever the case, the obvious point is the gameplay feels drastically different and less satisfying. Units feel like they rely more on luck than being a capable, trained and equipped fighting entity.In coh if you had an at gun, YOU HAD ANTI TANK. In coh 2 an at gun can be effective with luck or it will be a cannon-fodder manpower sink most likely. Blehh.
I just had a game where a Faust missed my Scout Car two times in a row. He got lucky on some grenades in turn, instagibbing two Conscript Squads. It is a form of balance!
5 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
blow one up, slap it around
7 OP OH tanks in front of your base
19 Aug 2013, 11:07 AM
#54
Posts: 229
I like the RNG and have had nothing like the "bad luck" described by many posters in this thread. I'll admit I don't play nearly as often as many of you (parent with a wife, full time job and a long commute, as well as occasional side work) but I often find that, if I over-extend a tank and my enemy is paying even a little attention, it'll die to enemy AV fire.
I've seen my fair share of flame weapon and grenade crits, and have certainly seen tanks and AV miss, but for me that's a part of the attraction of the game. Combat can be a little messy. Misses happen, "luck" can be a factor. But (personally) I've never had a game decided by random dice rolls. I've had setbacks and have had enemies have issues based on RNG, but I have never had a game where player or team skill wasn't the determining factor.
Again, I'm not one of the top players in this game by anyone's imagination, and perhaps my opinion isn't valid because of that. But I like seeing RNG. Wouldn't mind if it were toned down, but I certianly wouldn't want it removed.
I've seen my fair share of flame weapon and grenade crits, and have certainly seen tanks and AV miss, but for me that's a part of the attraction of the game. Combat can be a little messy. Misses happen, "luck" can be a factor. But (personally) I've never had a game decided by random dice rolls. I've had setbacks and have had enemies have issues based on RNG, but I have never had a game where player or team skill wasn't the determining factor.
Again, I'm not one of the top players in this game by anyone's imagination, and perhaps my opinion isn't valid because of that. But I like seeing RNG. Wouldn't mind if it were toned down, but I certianly wouldn't want it removed.
19 Aug 2013, 13:02 PM
#55
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedWhats the chance of being critted on infantry, by small arms?
19 Aug 2013, 13:42 PM
#56
Posts: 102
0%
at 0 health 100% combined
regards
ace
at 0 health 100% combined
regards
ace
19 Aug 2013, 14:53 PM
#57
Posts: 1164
I'm basing it on experience, not pure math. The pure math in-game is obviously not accurate, considering how often I get AT guns that are completely worthless. Meanwhile, in CoH1, I can't think of a single game (I think I hit around 1,000 before the steam version) where a sniper missed more than 2 times in a row. Possibly ONCE it missed 3 times.
At 6 times, you were getting screwed by outside factors (cover mods, suppression, etc.).
so, what you're telling me is, in coh, you never encountered something (or maybe ONCE) that has a 25%/12.5% chance, but in coh2 you are encountering something that has sub 0.01% chance in EVERY game?
i mean, i've seen weird stuff happen in coh, like full health rifles losing out against injured volks in CC with equal or better cover, or once even a faust that hit a tank trap instead of the jeep behind it... but it literally is a thing that you encounter maybe once in 100 games (pretty much equivalent to the percentages).
what i'm saying is: you're not making any sense, mathematically (or in your words: outside factors are screwing your paks over). you can always argue the numbers, but argueing about the RNG itself is not helping the point that i think you are trying to make.
19 Aug 2013, 15:23 PM
#58
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedThanks Ace!
Thats what I thought, wanted to confirm.
Yet there are unfortunately many players going around (including several top players) talking about crits being the deciding factor in Grens vs Cons.
Small arms DO NOT CRIT, except, wierdly and counter-intuitively, as an additional effect on the final hit that rolls successfully against armor, and subsequentky kills the model (by doing its normal dmg).
Basta, settled, thats that. No more false talk of Grens/Con/Penals etc crits, please.
Thats what I thought, wanted to confirm.
Yet there are unfortunately many players going around (including several top players) talking about crits being the deciding factor in Grens vs Cons.
Small arms DO NOT CRIT, except, wierdly and counter-intuitively, as an additional effect on the final hit that rolls successfully against armor, and subsequentky kills the model (by doing its normal dmg).
Basta, settled, thats that. No more false talk of Grens/Con/Penals etc crits, please.
19 Aug 2013, 19:55 PM
#59
Posts: 960
so, what you're telling me is, in coh, you never encountered something (or maybe ONCE) that has a 25%/12.5% chance, but in coh2 you are encountering something that has sub 0.01% chance in EVERY game?
i mean, i've seen weird stuff happen in coh, like full health rifles losing out against injured volks in CC with equal or better cover, or once even a faust that hit a tank trap instead of the jeep behind it... but it literally is a thing that you encounter maybe once in 100 games (pretty much equivalent to the percentages).
what i'm saying is: you're not making any sense, mathematically (or in your words: outside factors are screwing your paks over). you can always argue the numbers, but argueing about the RNG itself is not helping the point that i think you are trying to make.
I know; it sounds crazy. When using math - it seems like an insane claim. However, I know what I see. Out of maybe 10 games, at least 5 of them will have full-retard AT-guns or tanks that can't hit ANYTHING.
It's a game, so it's all based in math - or it should be; and since the game isn't supposed to "pick sides", I can only assume it's the RNG system screwing me (as well as a friend) endlessly.
Obviously, getting a video isn't that easy. I haven't played in a few days, and the role of the AT gun is pretty small in 1v1. I'll try my best to get a video up of this in a few days.
Opinions reflect all team modes (not 1v1)
I often edit my posts several times after posting
I often edit my posts several times after posting
19 Aug 2013, 22:46 PM
#60
Posts: 337
Thanks Ace!
Thats what I thought, wanted to confirm.
Yet there are unfortunately many players going around (including several top players) talking about crits being the deciding factor in Grens vs Cons.
Small arms DO NOT CRIT, except, wierdly and counter-intuitively, as an additional effect on the final hit that rolls successfully against armor, and subsequentky kills the model (by doing its normal dmg).
Basta, settled, thats that. No more false talk of Grens/Con/Penals etc crits, please.
No, you misinterpreted him. Small arms don't crit when the target model is at > 50% hp. They DO crit at <= 50% hp.
SC2 Team: It's Gosu Esports - http://www.itsgosu.com/
COH2: http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561197999392868
COH2: http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561197999392868
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
26 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.940410.696+6
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1265