Depends on the game. But in professional poker competitions there is no place for "pure game of luck where skill means nothing". The winner is the best player.
If I play poker and if I win the first game I will walk away.. hehe!
|
Does the lack of randomness make the game any better? Or does it simply make it more boring to watch? The opinions will probably vary.
For me randomness makes it too annoying. It takes all the fun away. I don't want to win because of good luck and also don't want to lose because of bad luck. Winning because of good luck does not make me feel good. The RTS game I played most is Rise of Nations. It didn't have a random factor in it but it was never boring for me.
Since the opinions vary, there could be a option to turn RNG off. By default it could be turned on but I think most people would turn it off if it was possible. Then of course we would have two separate group of players, but I don't see a problem it it. It should be about making everyone happy. I think the overwhelming majority would turn RNG off if there was a option.
But as I said there are some sport games, for example card based, where randomness is the clue and main factor. And these games are still played competitively, including very high skill and high cash prizes, like poker for example.
I played quite a lot card games as well. When you play cards, you know it sometimes can be a pure game of luck where skill means nothing. Nothing can be done about that. However, for RTS games something can be done.
|
Randomness makes a huge difference in most sports. For example, in sports like ski jumping, sailing or golf, a lot can depend on wind. Even in football you have a coin toss. Not to mention bridge or poker where randomness is the key feature.
You could say the game is unfair because of this only if you could actually hack the pseudorandom number generator that coh2 uses.
This does not necessarily have to be true for PC games. In golf/soccer there can be a random factor like you said, even in chess the white piece moves first which is an advantage or inequality at least. However, it is possible to make a PC game 100% accurate and fair, even RTS and Shooter games. I think AoE and RoN don't have randomness in it. I played them a lot and it seemed the damage was very consistent. I have Men of War but I have not played it because I don't like the graphics (units too small). |
|
In the game RNG plays a big part. Which means the game is not fair. So is COH2 played competitively in any eSport? |
Then play something else. Sorry if that's rude, but saying company of heroes needs to be more like AOE means you're kind of missing the point of this game. Other than the camera angles, it should not be hard to see that this game is trying to be something completely different. Unit micro matters more, because you have fewer units....
I'm not saying that none of the randomness in this game needs looking at (abandon criticals still being around is laughable), but you went from making a miscalculated point about t34 vs P4, to saying the game needs to change entirely.
If cost is calculated exactly then Panzer IV should not destroy the T34/76 so easily. Panzer IV sometimes destroys T34/85 easily which costs more. Without a commander Soviets only have a T-34/76.
I did not bring up the point of randomness. However, I think this is just a pc game not real life. To be fair, the game should always be 100% exact. If two units of same faction face each other directly, the stronger unit should always win with exact damage on every occasion. Has nobody ever lost a game because of bad luck with randomness? Of course good players come on top most times, but still they lose a few games which they should not have lost. |
The point I was making is you can't reply on random damage. But you must consider it, or it will catch you out. To do this you make engagements in your favour by out numbering opponent.
This is why I'm saying don't just 1V1 a tank. You may lose even because of bad luck.
So very much true. But I don't want the game to be like this. It should be just a straight 1v1 fight with no luck factor in it. Like Age of Empires, where you mostly win if you manage your economy better. |
The game is not decided by one tank vs one tank. Or you should not let that decide it anyway, as random damage could sway it one way or the other, even with better positioning.
You should not be depending on random damage, luck should not be considered as a factor. Recently it seems to me that the random damage is in favor of the player who is losing, but I have no idea if Relic has engineered it that way.
T34/76 is 300 manpower, 10 pop, 90 fu (-30 fu w Supply drop)
Panzer IV is 120 fuel, 12 pop
Why is 120 fuel tank stronger than 90(60) fuel tank, you mean?
And then, why is T34/85 (130 fuel, 14 pop) stronger than Pz4 (120 fuel, 12 pop) ?
While Panzer IV has a little more fuel cost, it is available at tier 2. Soviet T-70 and SU-76 at tier 2 is no match for the Panzer IV. So basically Germans can bring a stronger tank earlier in the game. |
wow this new , well the tier cost is what u need count when looking as the tier it self, one can make 100 tier all cost 1 fu and one can have only 1 tier that cost 1000 f, u get hte idea
and then there is the fact that it is a tier 3 structure (dont look at the battle phases) same as thr t 34 while costing more
Does that mean Wehrmacht battle phase 2 is stronger than Soviet tier 3? Then Wehrmacht battle phase 3 should be even more stronger, if we don't consider commanders that is. Sometimes, specially in small 1v1 maps the game is decided in level 2. Which makes the game unbalanced.
|
|
Panzer IV is a tier 2 tank while T34/76 is a tier 3. Why Panzer IV beats the T34/76 most times easily? |
|
When playing automatch as Soviets, about 70% times opponents are OKW. People wouldn't pick OKW if it was not easy to play.
It should just be allowed to choose faction to play against in automatch. Then all problems should be solved. People can just choose which opponent to play against. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
