Did you read anything I said? Do you comprehend words and concepts? This has nothing to do with my personal experience with abandon. It happens for me, it happens against me. It's fundamentally poorly designed is my point because it doesn't fit with other concepts of RNG the game is based around. The point of RNG mechanics is to provide a working system for conceptual play for strategic purposes while not having every result be purely binary in minor way with a win if I "x" or lose if I "y" way. Abandon and MGC deny strategic play, and if they happen will result in a much more severe I win the game if I "x" (Get the abandoned vehicle) or lose the game if I "y" (Opponent gets the abandoned vehicle).
Yes you can sometimes destroy the vehicle, sometimes you can't. When you can't the game is lost for whoever is on the unfortunate side of the abandon. The defending player is almost always going to result with the abandoned tank because players generally will be fighting over the defending players side of the map and the attacking player will likely have a lot more losses due to being the attacker. Like I literally don't know how to explain this to you any better.
Final try, Accuracy and Pen RNG mechanics good because strategy fun, Abandon and MGC mechanics bad because no strategy not fun.
i watched dozens of tightrope and ae casts. i played dozens of 2v2 rank 1000. i dont remember an abandon tank becomes an i win thing. it is still a p4, a tiger, a t34, a sherman, a cromwell, a whatever, it stills need to be recrew, it can still be countered even in enemy hands, just like any tank...
again, i feel like you are just arguing against the concept from an elitist pov discussion for sake of discussion, rather than something that has badly affected the game.
now to be fair, the OP may have just lost a rare abandon game, and felt the need to rant and started this topic.
So your comparison in football to a 5% chance of a killed vehicle being handed to your enemy is... you subbing in the "wrong" player and the enemy then getting a goal because your entire team then somehow failed to then stop them?
Your team letting a goal through in football isnt random chance, that's being outplayed by your opponent. Are you even aware of what argument you're making?
lol
in my example, you are the better team, dominating, leading 1-0, you decide to sub in an attacker to go for the kill. unluckily the ball hit the posts twice since your attacking change. and even worse luck, a long punt out by the opponent, your last defender, you captain slips, and since the rest of your team is in attack, and the opponent score, its 1-1.
what is the chance that happened to your reliable captain? poor guy.
Have you read this thread? Because your questions are answered.
Yes its very rare, lose a match because abandon. But this extended unnecessary matches and are very frustrating. And when it´s so rare, why not remove?
No, it´s exist enough situations in this game, where you can´t do this. And you can´t play around, because good player must make dives.
good players can make dives even with abandon on. /shrug.
i would say it is rare to lose game just because abandon happen
abandon meanwhile, is much less rarer than the above. aka. abandon is much more common than it is losing a game to abandon.
as such, why remove the possibility of using enemy tanks, a core mechanics created for coh2.
A grenade has the ability to outright kill an infantry squad in one shot when used intelligently, and a snare when used correctly can guarantee a kill on a vehicle that would otherwise have easily escaped a situation. Both of these are comparable to MGC and abandon. Imagine if grenades were simply something infantry squads threw at random, and if they were thrown quickly and exploded immediately, and imagine if tank cannons or AT guns randomly snared opposing vehicles when firing. Both of these things would be exactly as impactful as random MGC and Abandons.
Nobody's suggested there be no opportunity cost to an ability-based abandon, nor to being able to knock out a tank's gun.
Honestly MGC should just be removed entirely, though, and an ability that might have caused an MGC instead cause the temporary "gunner injured" critical that stops a vehicle firing temporarily. Outright preventing a vehicle from fighting back until it's fully repaired is far too strong to be in the game at all. Abandon can be balanced through becoming an ability, but MGC really cannot be balanced.
mgc can be balanced by ensuring its rng values are fairly applied and can come into effect for either sides.
Uh-huh, and as I've already explained to you: "Don't dive" is not a good player's response to a 1-5% chance of an abandon, because in 95% of cases the dive would have helped you, rather than put you massively behind. Only a bad player is dissuaded from diving because of Abandon and MGC, everyone else is simply fucked by RNG in 1-5% of cases, and there is nothing they could do about it.
Give an example of a similarly impactful "Random" thing that might happen in Football, do you sometimes join the opposing team if you get tackled without any teammates nearby?
no the example in football is, you are leading 1-0, do you sub in an attacker for a defensive mid and go for the kill by losing your holding midfielder?
can you trust your defenders to make up the space left behind while your front men try to score more goals.
risk and rewards, and extra skills to overcome chance.
or you can sit back and defend the lead. choices and different outcomes are good.
how many games you lost to abandon and mgc, and how many you won with? btw
Okay. In that case let me try to explain the point of RNG mechanics in a way that helps you differentiate good and bad rng.
So lets take a Gren vs Conscript match up. In every case that occurs (not just arbitrary ones), accuracy dictates that the Grens will win at long range because their long range accuracy chance is higher than the conscripts. The random roll of accuracy says that when given the odds, Grens will hit more shots at distance killing and forcing away the cons. So as the Soviet player, your goal is to maximize your accuracy by getting as close as possible since your numerical superiority and higher relative accuracy at close range will out muscle the Grens and force them away. This is how to use RNG mechanics to provide a dynamic and interesting fight because there is always the odds that the Conscripts at long range will plink a Gren model early, or the Grens will bully the Cons but in likely odds the winner will be whoever takes the engagement correctly and at worst you will have a 40 to 60 Manpower penalty for not being in the gods favor. Hardly a punishment but enough to keep things interesting. This is a core tenant of the game in many facets.
Now, when you take abandon or MGC mechanics. Things turn a lot harder in a negative way. The high rarity of these instances means that you cannot actively frontline consider them when making decisions as they often run counter-productive to winning an engagement. Not to mention if you were to consider them as your primary concern, games would quickly become defensive slogs with no interesting attacks and mere poking at each other from distance. Some people might like that but lord are they boring to play and to watch. But anyway, when looking at the other instance of RNG in the above paragraph, the main selling point is that it provides a constantly applying dynamic way to maneuver and take engagements to provide yourself the highest chance of success. You cannot fundamentally do this with abandon or MGC because they are arbitrarily divvied out by raw rng with no pre-emptive counter play. They happen on a whim and when they do happen in such an uncontrollable fashion you often lose the game as you've taken a roughly 400-800 Manpower disadvantage, and a 100 - 200 Fuel Disadvantage. This is harsh and destructive unlike a small engagement that results in a minor manpower loss. Those resources going directly to your enemy or being taken away from you in these instances is unpreventable in any logical scenario.
I just want you to see how it's not the act of RNG that people are upset with seeing as the game is based around the concept, but the implementation of it that goes against core game philosophy and only causes frustration when it occurs. It's a mechanic that actively hurts the game.
how many games have you lost to abandon btw? do you just critise this mechanical because it does not conform to predicable expectations?
the counterplay is to destroy or recrew your abandon tanks. i mean if you allowed the opponents to crew and repair and reused against you, why cant you do it faster than them?
Because he knows that the flight curve of the football is deterministic and that it was not decided by random chance, but by his own incapability. If it were to be decided by random chance, he'd not train at all. Nothing of this has to do with CoH and abandon.
Your example is an own goal (badum ts)
The abandon mechanic is more akin to Russian roulette. It either does not happen or you get critical failure/success. And there is nothing you can do about it, it is pure kuck and the game screws you over.
i disagree, you can do everything about abandon. it is your choice to risk a dive or not.
some of you speak as if abandon is a game breaker. since when and which is a good example?
messi can train and have strong spatial awareness, but random factors during match may happens, the flight of the curve can be trained as much but still not perfect outcome like chess.
Randomness is factually a low-skill, low-effort mechanic. That isnt elitism, it's simply a fact that there is no skill involved in a random roll you cannot affect.
it is in fact a higher skills mechanic, you need to prep and react for the unexpected, you need to consider the risk and rewards
something that mess up your trained and memorised order, no wonder hulk is sulky
Look, you need to stop whining and repeating yourself. You said what you had to say, for the love of god stop multiposting the same thing 100 times over. Just because you say it more than anyone else doesn't make you right.
Holy shit man.
Also top players are top players because they are good at the game and understand it to a degree that provides them a unique benefit to providing accurate information and (hopefully) reasonable input into changes. People are allowed to disagree or question their input based on whatever information that individual player has but if all of your input is mindless "I don't like strategy in my strategy game keep bad mechanics" that is asinine. If you want a WWII game without strategy, you shouldn't be playing a Real-Time-Strategy game. There are plenty of others to choose from where you can have mindless fun.
Obviously you're not in the crowd of people who play the game for any strategic purpose, but changing abandon (not removing) affects more than just the top upper echelon of players. It affects basically everyone in the top 1500 for every faction who even if they aren't very good at the game, still want to win and outplay their opponent which the abandon mechanics undermine. Your sheer and utter disregard for anyone who dares even consider playing the game above your level for a change that you won't even fundamentally notice baffles me. The only non-degrading thought I have is that you are either uninformed of how many people abandon affects, or you're simply being a contrarian for contrarian's sake.
what? im open with tweaking abandon and randomness but against completely dropping it unlike pip
i don't see how you think im contrarian for the sake of it. do you even read what you wrote and think it may applies to pip and perhaps yourself?
im definitely against the elitist view that randomness is a low skill low effort mechanic
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
