Detailed explanation of the random number generator?

I can't seem to find a good explanation of how Relic generates and uses random numbers. Personally I like the idea of RNG and perfectly understand that the more you roll the dice the more the outcome conforms to the base stats.

However I get the feeling that Relic is using uniform random number generation which is a tad unrealistic - which is why I would like confirmation. If they are using uniform generation that means there is no time dependence on when events can happen. I'll use mortars as an example. If they have a 10% (idk what it is, just an example) of landing a critical hit, every single round fired has an equal probability of criting.

To make the game more realistic I think a different distribution should be used. The chance of landing a crit strike should increase as the engagement continues. Continuing with my example, a soviet mortar begins firing at at a stationary target. The chance of landing a crit hit should not be the same for the first two shots and should be fairly increased by the third shot.

Thoughts from anybody else or does anyone know if Relic has made this type of information public?

Why should crit chance go up as time goes on? Because this would be more uniform, or for some other reason? You mention realism, but mortar rounds did not realistically increase in penetrative power as they were fired in sequence, and even if they did this wouldn't necessarily have to go in the game.

In real life if you shoot at a target for the first time at an unknown distance you will more than likely miss. However you'll adjust your shot and get it closer on the next shot. After you fire a few times the likelihood of landing the shot should increase.

Edit: Maybe I used the term crit ambiguously but the general thought behind what I'm trying to say should stand out.

Having a consistent random generator without dynamic modifiers makes it easier to accurately calculate damage values etc. and makes them easier to balance.

Having a consistent random generator without dynamic modifiers makes it easier to accurately calculate damage values etc. and makes them easier to balance.

There's always the easy way and a better way lol. Dynamic would certainly be more difficult to implement but not by too much I don't think. It would make the game more realistic and make it more difficult for people to complain about random number generators deciding the outcome of a game.

yea i think crit is the incorrect term for what youre trying to say. i understand it now from your next post about mortars, but mortars really seem to be the only weapon that would function like you describe (i.e. adjusting shots to be more accurate). snipers would be another example, but they already hit 100%. even with mortars, they are typically barraging out of their sight radius. they use other units to spot for them. so a mortar squad would have no way to adjust their shots to be more accurate, they wouldnt know if they hit or miss.

i guess your situation would apply to close range mortar barrages, but at close range mortars are already extremely accurate.

yea i think crit is the incorrect term for what youre trying to say. i understand it now from your next post about mortars, but mortars really seem to be the only weapon that would function like you describe (i.e. adjusting shots to be more accurate). snipers would be another example, but they already hit 100%. even with mortars, they are typically barraging out of their sight radius. they use other units to spot for them. so a mortar squad would have no way to adjust their shots to be more accurate, they wouldnt know if they hit or miss.

i guess your situation would apply to close range mortar barrages, but at close range mortars are already extremely accurate.

It would work for more than just mortars. Any time anything shooting anything in this game could probably benefit from dynamic RNG. I just used mortars because they would be the easiest to understand example.

To make the game more realistic I think a different distribution should be used. The chance of landing a crit strike should increase as the engagement continues. Continuing with my example, a soviet mortar begins firing at at a stationary target. The chance of landing a crit hit should not be the same for the first two shots and should be fairly increased by the third shot.

I would agree with that system, at least it's better than what we have now. Anything is better than what we have now.

It would work for more than just mortars. Any time anything shooting anything in this game could probably benefit from dynamic RNG. I just used mortars because they would be the easiest to understand example.

of course it would work for any weapon. but does it make sense for all weapons is a better way to think about it. just because you shoot a rifle at a target 10 times doesnt make you any more accurate on the 10th shot than the 1st. im not sure how this would "benefit" the weapons besides everything getting better accuracy after shooting long enough

long range tank shots could is an example of another weapon that might make sense to improve over time. basically very difficult shots (long range) that require the shooter to adjust and their shots based on previous misses. these types of shots are affected by environmental factors which cant be accounted for all the time. thats why they adjust the next shot. in real life this is true for mortars, snipers, and tanks. its not true for infantry firing rifles or smgs though. these arent really affected by environmental factors.

of course it would work for any weapon. but does it make sense for all weapons is a better way to think about it. just because you shoot a rifle at a target 10 times doesnt make you any more accurate on the 10th shot than the 1st. im not sure how this would "benefit" the weapons besides everything getting better accuracy after shooting long enough

long range tank shots could is an example of another weapon that might make sense to improve over time. basically very difficult shots (long range) that require the shooter to adjust and their shots based on previous misses. these types of shots are affected by environmental factors which cant be accounted for all the time. thats why they adjust the next shot. in real life this is true for mortars, snipers, and tanks. its not true for infantry firing rifles or smgs though. these arent really affected by environmental factors.

smg's would probably be one place where it wouldn't make much of a difference. Have you ever shot an assault rifle before though? You take a shot at a target and adjust your aim based off of that. There would be a very small chance you land the first shot. However after adjusting your shot based on where you saw the dirt kick up your next shot would be more likely.

The only places where it wouldn't really be valid is very close range weapons like smg as you pointed out or flamethrowers. Hell even machine guns would have to adjust their aim based on where the bursts are landing.

Stop trying to pretend this game is realistic. Go play Men of War Assault Squad. In that game, mortars and other artillery pieces get more accurate as they fire repeated shells at the same target.

Stop trying to pretend this game is realistic. Go play Men of War Assault Squad. In that game, mortars and other artillery pieces get more accurate as they fire repeated shells at the same target.

Lol. Nothing wrong with trying to make a good thing better.

Making CoH 2 more realistic would not make it better. It would make it worse. Mortars don't need to get better.

smg's would probably be one place where it wouldn't make much of a difference. Have you ever shot an assault rifle before though? You take a shot at a target and adjust your aim based off of that. There would be a very small chance you land the first shot. However after adjusting your shot based on where you saw the dirt kick up your next shot would be more likely.

The only places where it wouldn't really be valid is very close range weapons like smg as you pointed out or flamethrowers. Hell even machine guns would have to adjust their aim based on where the bursts are landing.

this is all true and yes i have shot an AR. the difference is weapons have very short ranges in this game. rifles dont shoot past 35m in game. even snipers only shoot 50m and most tanks shoot from 40m. at these kinds of ranges there is very little adjusting your aim. things like bullet drop and wind will have an insignificant effect.

tycho makes a good point though. if we were to make the game "realistic", weapons shouldnt be missing 50% of the time at these kinds of ranges.

Making CoH 2 more realistic would not make it better. It would make it worse. Mortars don't need to get better.

And the current total RNG ultrazone in which mortar performance varies between "useless this game" to "ended this game in minute 5" is better?

I can't see how it benefits gameplay having non vet mortar, set up somewhere randomly fire its first shell and drop it on moving sniper at the edge of firing range, then drop second shell right smack in the middle of moving squad wiping it out, and with 3rd shell almost wipe out entire mg team. Lets say mortar is just sitting there and the owner doesn't even know he just wiped out half of the enemies.

While having second occasion where player is setting up vet2 mortar and ordering it to fire on specific target (mg) only to see it land 5 shells without killing single squad member and eventually have that squad retreated in tact by player that was unaware of mortar having fired 5 rounds prior.

Or deciding to risk half health Panther to finish of vet3 su85 that only needs a scratch to die. Chase after barely moving target, miss it 3-4 times only to have another Su85, At gun hit panther and mortar shell finishing it off, while Su85 manages not to die from point blank range.....
I agree there should be some RNG hit and misses, but it just seems to random and often just silly atm...

(ok these are things that don't happen every game but they do happen

I'll use mortars as an example. If they have a 10% (idk what it is, just an example) of landing a critical hit, every single round fired has an equal probability of criting.

Every independently fired round has an equal probability, yet the probability of a lot of consecutive misses is quite small. If the probability of landing a critical hit is in fact normally distributed, you should not worry about your mortar being ineffective over a fair amount of time.

A positively skewed distribution would enhance mortar prefire, thereby making it very risky to micro away from a mortar zone, since only the owner of the mortar knows its implied probability of landing a critical hit.

To be honest I'd think dynamic would be a good idea indeed, but not because of realism (the game isn't realistic, and shouldn't be). It's a good idea because it happens too often that in game 1 your SU misses the first 3 shots on a P4, which may have crucial consequences for the rest of the game, and then in game 2 it hits everything. That's not something you have any control over, it's just decided by the RNG, and it doesn't exactly promote skill.

To be honest though, I don't think the problem of the current RNG is big enough to justify implementing a completely new RNG, since it could very well mean that it completely screws balance up, or is a lot of of work to implement. But I do think it would've been a good thing if we had it from the start.

I'll use mortars as an example. If they have a 10% (idk what it is, just an example) of landing a critical hit, every single round fired has an equal probability of criting.

Every independently fired round has an equal probability, yet the probability of a lot of consecutive misses is quite small. If the probability of landing a critical hit is in fact normally distributed, you should not worry about your mortar being ineffective over a fair amount of time.

A positively skewed distribution would enhance mortar prefire, thereby making it very risky to micro away from a mortar zone, since only the owner of the mortar knows its implied probability of landing a critical hit.