Profile of WhiteFlash

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 11:53 AMA_E

Why are the pro RNG guys getting counfused between what's been talked about here we have:

A) functional RNG, affecting the regular mechanics of the game in an evenly distributed and understandable way.

Most people are fine with this, it highlights the strategy and tactis of CoH, and devalues the mechanical elements, which is the style of CoH that we all like.

B) cinematic RNG, affecting one player in a huge and unpredictable way with little to no counter play or player input involved.

With B you consider RNG that makes the game less fun to play/watch for the competitive scene, so if there's an option to remove it for competitive games only that should be our approach.

Can we ensure we're on point/message here, no one is against A, and if they are I haven't seen them speak here.

Show Spoiler

To be clear Angelus main gun crits and other "bad" RNG (main gun crit in this example) should definitly be an option in casual matches or campaign, but it has no business in ladder.

Anyone who doesnt understand the real problem with some of the "bad" RNG (main gun crits, planes randomly wiping squads, etc.) in COH ladder specifically need to read and understand this portion of the article (below) in its entirety. I quoted direct from it in this thread to make it easier for everyone.

Sourced by my article: https://www.coh2.org/news/87123/company-of-heroes-3-with-whiteflash-addendum

The RNG Dilemma

I have to now talk about something in detail so everyone can fully appreciate where I'm trying to take you because, in a lot of ways, it is a part of the soul of COH and this has to be thought about carefully. I'm talking about the chance interactions that are built into every single match. I will refer to this as RNG. It is a massive part of COH, and should remain so. As far as artillery strikes, mortars, and infantry firing at each other, etc., it makes a ton of realistic and gameplay sense to maintain the RNG in many cases.

In other cases, this RNG normality starts to break down. The examples I'm about to give aren't intended to be the norm, but they happen often enough that every single person who has played Company of Heroes has had something like this happen to them. The example below is double snipers in perfect positioning to ambush an enemy sniper. The player has been patiently awaiting the enemy to come into a well prepared kill zone. And then... this happens...



The sniper gets away and what should be a tactical victory turns into a fail and potentially you will lose a sniper or worse. Now you could say, "well it happens to both sides occasionally so its OK" but that doesn't make a difference in a single game. In a single game where advancing in a ladder, or keeping a winning streak going, or competing when there is huge amounts of money on the line, or just trying to enjoy the game... it's flawed. You can't have situations where players do every single thing right in tactical situations and lose. You're removing a key element, fun, from the game. It doesn't work. It breaks the spirit of many players to come back and enjoy the game. It's objectively wrong design when we look at this specific example.

Another specific example, is an antitank gun vs a tank at close range. We have a very impactful tank, the T-34/85, and a Pak designed to counter tanks. The player with the pak sees the weakened tank, the tank player isn't microing after a battle and leaves his tank exposed, the pak player correctly moves his AT gun into position and at a very close range...



But the Pak misses and the tank escapes. The Pak player did everything tactically correct and the satisfaction, payoff, reward, whatever you want to call it has been stripped from that player. This inherently doesn't make sense.

RNG Solutions

Now, I can hear everyone saying, "you better not talk about removing RNG from COH!" and I'm 100% in agreement. What I'm driving at is the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness has to be curbed to everyone's benefit. I want to say that again, the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness is the problem here. It's not the RNG in general that is the problem. The problem is that in these highly impactful moments there aren't clear lines. There are very likely many solutions to this, two of which I will illustrate. To be clear all this discussion on this one area of the game (close range AT RNG) is to illuminate the rougher edges of COH so that it can drive towards a flourishing ladder and be one step closer to the "made by jesus" asymptote. Relic will indeed have to analyze and thoroughly test every aspect of the game much deeper than this to arrive at what makes the most sense. And, in general, I will again point to the original COH1 factions design and what made them so compelling and reciprocal.

To highlight my point here, imagine if you were one of the North America’s most successful and well-known Esports players like Huk (who got frustrated with COH and left for SCII) and you miss an AT gun shot at close range on a last shot on a vehicle that wins or loses the game. And, it's for tens of thousands of dollars... that is the breaking point for a lot of people who consider themselves pros and would want to get into a game like this in a serious competitive way. The thing is... the COH mechanics are compelling and amazing so they would be interested. But if the difference is a dice roll, like a close range AT gun shooting a tank, and it misses, that just won't work in a competitive environment. The high impact units is where this matters. However, if it takes 30 shots to kill a unit it's OK and actually desirable to have random chance mixed in there because the impact of missing a single shot is much lower, but if an AT gun takes 3 shots to kill a tank and it misses the last shot at point blank range, it can be a deal breaker. I got a chance to have Huk look at this specific paragraph and he commented.

"For argument sake I think chance in games is good, but obviously to the degree they have it is bad, your example being good."
Huk


Image credit to Dustin Steiner

I would even suggest Relic and/or SEGA temporarily employ some of these RTS pros and take advantage of their deep RTS knowledge, experience, passion and perspectives. They could be called upon during certain stages of the development cycle and may be a valuable asset which would potentially benefit everyone.

As it stands, units that get closer to other units have an increased chance to hit, which means the edge case of missing at close range is all the more frustrating when it does happen. In this specific case, I will be talking about AT guns only, but this can apply to snipers, tank vs tank battles and any high impact unit. Artillery among other things doesn't apply here as stated before, each unit has to be looked at and individually calibrated. One solution to AT guns could be to layer a system that basically says, if an enemy tank is within (I'm using 50% here but pick any close range number) 50% of the max range of the gun then the AT gun will hit 100% of the time. This will remove edge cases. And players, knowing that they will have 100% chance to hit at certain ranges, will play differently in specific tactical situations because they will benefit from this 100% zone on the AT guns.



Another important improvement from this is that when an AT gun misses a kill shot at long range, they will know that they COULD have changed their tactics and positioned their AT gun close enough to have a 100% chance to hit, and thus, there is rational to the miss. The ability for players to rationalize these kinds of impactful moments are critical, especially to new players. In other words, I could have increased the risk for reward but it essentially is, on some level, my fault that it missed because I wasn't willing to take the risk to get closer. This is a far cry psychologically from an AT gun missing a kill on a tank at point blank after having done everything right then the player says "well it didn't matter WHAT I did I was never going to get that kill". That kind of helpless disillusionment is dangerous for the health of the game, the competitive spirit, and the community. Many of the hardcore fan base simply accept that this is part of the game, with AT guns in this example, but it is unnecessary and is one of the needless rough edges of the game.

Another potential solution is to change AT guns so as shots miss, the next shot chance increases. The target would have a timer attached to it that increases the chance to be hit by any other AT gun in a cumulative manner until the timer expires. This would reduce some of the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness but in a different way. You could have a modifier specific to both the target and the shooter or maybe just a modifier on the target if you dodged a tank shot in the last x seconds, the next one has a higher chance to land, something along these lines. Or perhaps some combination of both solutions would be best, or something totally novel! This is where thorough testing and a keen sense of game mechanics will reveal what is best.

A good example of a gameplay element that is impactful and has well defined lines built into the mechanic is the way that you fire a panzerfaust or AT grenade at a vehicle. The vehicle goes inside the range circle, the player takes the risk of getting close to the vehicle to obtain the reward of killing or snaring the vehicle, the player clicks the vehicle to faust and regardless of how far away the targeted vehicle gets after the action is taken the faust lands 100%. There is a tactical satisfaction that comes with knowing you did the right thing and you get the payoff, conversely the player with the tank knows he messed up because he got into range of the faust and the vehicle getting hit is his fault. There are clear lines for the players and that's important. Other elements that follow this trend where a player knows a game element will act a certain way is when a teller mines hits a vehicle or a smoke grenade conceals an area or when a flame grenade damages infantry in a building.



Please keep in mind I'm giving specific examples and solutions, but they are only examples, and the solutions presented have no testing or data to back up whether or not they would work. I'm trying to illustrate the rough edges that COH presents and providing a possible concept to address them. Much more work than this will have to be done for a new game. The meat of COH, the fundamental mechanics, are so strong that with thorough design, testing and analysis Relic can knock COH3 out of the park. All of this "edge case" discussion is, to get back on topic, part of refining fundamental game subtleties to propel the competitive scene, get players interested in the franchise, and satisfy players to the point where they want to stay. Especially new players.

The RNG Dilemma

I have to now talk about something in detail so everyone can fully appreciate where I'm trying to take you because, in a lot of ways, it is a part of the soul of COH and this has to be thought about carefully. I'm talking about the chance interactions that are built into every single match. I will refer to this as RNG. It is a massive part of COH, and should remain so. As far as artillery strikes, mortars, and infantry firing at each other, etc., it makes a ton of realistic and gameplay sense to maintain the RNG in many cases.

In other cases, this RNG normality starts to break down. The examples I'm about to give aren't intended to be the norm, but they happen often enough that every single person who has played Company of Heroes has had something like this happen to them. The example below is double snipers in perfect positioning to ambush an enemy sniper. The player has been patiently awaiting the enemy to come into a well prepared kill zone. And then... this happens...



The sniper gets away and what should be a tactical victory turns into a fail and potentially you will lose a sniper or worse. Now you could say, "well it happens to both sides occasionally so its OK" but that doesn't make a difference in a single game. In a single game where advancing in a ladder, or keeping a winning streak going, or competing when there is huge amounts of money on the line, or just trying to enjoy the game... it's flawed. You can't have situations where players do every single thing right in tactical situations and lose. You're removing a key element, fun, from the game. It doesn't work. It breaks the spirit of many players to come back and enjoy the game. It's objectively wrong design when we look at this specific example.

Another specific example, is an antitank gun vs a tank at close range. We have a very impactful tank, the T-34/85, and a Pak designed to counter tanks. The player with the pak sees the weakened tank, the tank player isn't microing after a battle and leaves his tank exposed, the pak player correctly moves his AT gun into position and at a very close range...



But the Pak misses and the tank escapes. The Pak player did everything tactically correct and the satisfaction, payoff, reward, whatever you want to call it has been stripped from that player. This inherently doesn't make sense.

RNG Solutions

Now, I can hear everyone saying, "you better not talk about removing RNG from COH!" and I'm 100% in agreement. What I'm driving at is the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness has to be curbed to everyone's benefit. I want to say that again, the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness is the problem here. It's not the RNG in general that is the problem. The problem is that in these highly impactful moments there aren't clear lines. There are very likely many solutions to this, two of which I will illustrate. To be clear all this discussion on this one area of the game (close range AT RNG) is to illuminate the rougher edges of COH so that it can drive towards a flourishing ladder and be one step closer to the "made by jesus" asymptote. Relic will indeed have to analyze and thoroughly test every aspect of the game much deeper than this to arrive at what makes the most sense. And, in general, I will again point to the original COH1 factions design and what made them so compelling and reciprocal.

To highlight my point here, imagine if you were one of the North America’s most successful and well-known Esports players like Huk (who got frustrated with COH and left for SCII) and you miss an AT gun shot at close range on a last shot on a vehicle that wins or loses the game. And, it's for tens of thousands of dollars... that is the breaking point for a lot of people who consider themselves pros and would want to get into a game like this in a serious competitive way. The thing is... the COH mechanics are compelling and amazing so they would be interested. But if the difference is a dice roll, like a close range AT gun shooting a tank, and it misses, that just won't work in a competitive environment. The high impact units is where this matters. However, if it takes 30 shots to kill a unit it's OK and actually desirable to have random chance mixed in there because the impact of missing a single shot is much lower, but if an AT gun takes 3 shots to kill a tank and it misses the last shot at point blank range, it can be a deal breaker. I got a chance to have Huk look at this specific paragraph and he commented.

"For argument sake I think chance in games is good, but obviously to the degree they have it is bad, your example being good."
Huk


Image credit to Dustin Steiner

I would even suggest Relic and/or SEGA temporarily employ some of these RTS pros and take advantage of their deep RTS knowledge, experience, passion and perspectives. They could be called upon during certain stages of the development cycle and may be a valuable asset which would potentially benefit everyone.

As it stands, units that get closer to other units have an increased chance to hit, which means the edge case of missing at close range is all the more frustrating when it does happen. In this specific case, I will be talking about AT guns only, but this can apply to snipers, tank vs tank battles and any high impact unit. Artillery among other things doesn't apply here as stated before, each unit has to be looked at and individually calibrated. One solution to AT guns could be to layer a system that basically says, if an enemy tank is within (I'm using 50% here but pick any close range number) 50% of the max range of the gun then the AT gun will hit 100% of the time. This will remove edge cases. And players, knowing that they will have 100% chance to hit at certain ranges, will play differently in specific tactical situations because they will benefit from this 100% zone on the AT guns.



Another important improvement from this is that when an AT gun misses a kill shot at long range, they will know that they COULD have changed their tactics and positioned their AT gun close enough to have a 100% chance to hit, and thus, there is rational to the miss. The ability for players to rationalize these kinds of impactful moments are critical, especially to new players. In other words, I could have increased the risk for reward but it essentially is, on some level, my fault that it missed because I wasn't willing to take the risk to get closer. This is a far cry psychologically from an AT gun missing a kill on a tank at point blank after having done everything right then the player says "well it didn't matter WHAT I did I was never going to get that kill". That kind of helpless disillusionment is dangerous for the health of the game, the competitive spirit, and the community. Many of the hardcore fan base simply accept that this is part of the game, with AT guns in this example, but it is unnecessary and is one of the needless rough edges of the game.

Another potential solution is to change AT guns so as shots miss, the next shot chance increases. The target would have a timer attached to it that increases the chance to be hit by any other AT gun in a cumulative manner until the timer expires. This would reduce some of the unreasonable over-impactful low chance randomness but in a different way. You could have a modifier specific to both the target and the shooter or maybe just a modifier on the target if you dodged a tank shot in the last x seconds, the next one has a higher chance to land, something along these lines. Or perhaps some combination of both solutions would be best, or something totally novel! This is where thorough testing and a keen sense of game mechanics will reveal what is best.

A good example of a gameplay element that is impactful and has well defined lines built into the mechanic is the way that you fire a panzerfaust or AT grenade at a vehicle. The vehicle goes inside the range circle, the player takes the risk of getting close to the vehicle to obtain the reward of killing or snaring the vehicle, the player clicks the vehicle to faust and regardless of how far away the targeted vehicle gets after the action is taken the faust lands 100%. There is a tactical satisfaction that comes with knowing you did the right thing and you get the payoff, conversely the player with the tank knows he messed up because he got into range of the faust and the vehicle getting hit is his fault. There are clear lines for the players and that's important. Other elements that follow this trend where a player knows a game element will act a certain way is when a teller mines hits a vehicle or a smoke grenade conceals an area or when a flame grenade damages infantry in a building.



Please keep in mind I'm giving specific examples and solutions, but they are only examples, and the solutions presented have no testing or data to back up whether or not they would work. I'm trying to illustrate the rough edges that COH presents and providing a possible concept to address them. Much more work than this will have to be done for a new game. The meat of COH, the fundamental mechanics, are so strong that with thorough design, testing and analysis Relic can knock COH3 out of the park. All of this "edge case" discussion is, to get back on topic, part of refining fundamental game subtleties to propel the competitive scene, get players interested in the franchise, and satisfy players to the point where they want to stay. Especially new players.