Profile of Doomlord52

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.

you say in first post that missing two countersnipes was extremely uncommon... the chance was 25% for two consecutive snipes to miss against a moving sniper.

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.

on the other hand you are claiming that 15% chance crits for flamers (btw, 15% is not true, grenadiers for example only have a 5% chance to get instagibbed and i'd bet money that it is never more than 5% for any entity) happen far too often.

As others have stated, it's believed that pqumsieh stated it as 15%. However, it was in a forum post, which makes it very hard to track down.

as for the pak with 75% accuracy... even if 10 out of 40 shots are calculated misses, with paks/at guns probably at least 4 out of those 10 misses will hit anyway because of scatter.

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.

as you can see your argumentation is full of inaccuracies, which is why you are drawing wrong conclusions.

If you really feel this way, I could make a video showing how incredibly dumb the RNG system is.

[
Remember this?
Take the nostalgia goggles off, CoH1 had some horrible RNG involved as well.

Missing two snipes in a row was insanely uncommon.

Blizzards too hurt performance. That's not really a secret, mystery, or really anything. When a blizzard starts, there's simply so many particle effects on screen that it just slows down everyone's system by a fair bit.

The problem is NOT the blizzard concept itself; it's how it's implemented. All relic has to do is add an option to the video settings for "blizzard quality". High should be as it is now, medium should reduce particle count, and LOW needs to replace ALL the particles with a simple screen effect.

Since the screen effect would just be a UI element (probably scaleform), the performance impact would be essentially zero. The only other thing that happens in blizzards is reduced move speed, sight range and cold damage... none of which effect performance.


However, the performance hit really isn't THAT big. Since CoH2 is bad and doesn't support SLI, I can only run on a single GTX570 - a mid range card from late 2010. It's almost three years old at this point. That single GPU can push about 80fps on max settings with no AA, at 1080p.

Drop your settings a fair bit. This is CoH - it's demanding, just like COH1 was on release.

My frame rate doesnt drop below 18 in a blizzard,

18 still causes lag - you should be at a stable 30. Drop your settings lower.

If there's anything that's stopping CoH2 from being competitive, it's how BIG of a role RNG has in the game. Currently, the role of RNG is so large that it in fact mitigates skill to a drastic level, meaning that a good player with bad luck can lose to someone of far lower skill - something that should not be possible in a competitive game.

Firstly, let's look at COH1's RNG system. In CoH1, most stats were fixed. Guns did a fair amount of damage, there was a fairly low kill-crit chance on infantry, and vehicles didn't crit at all. In addition to this, the accuracy on vehicles was very high - AT guns were (estimating here) about 80% accurate, if not more. This meant that positioning, flanking and the use of cover was EXTREMELY important in order to be effective at high level play.

Now lets compare that to CoH2's RNG system. In CoH2, kill-crits on infantry can be rolled at any HP level - essentially it's possible for a full-health squad member to die in 1 shot, if a crit is rolled. In addition to this, kill-crits are INCREDIBLY common. It's not unlikely to lose half of a squad (full health) to a single volley of fire, simply due to crits. The same problem applies to grenades and fire, and is in fact the reason the flamer HT was so incredibly OP in beta - it crit ALL the time (or very, very often).

The same thing occurs with vehicle accuracy. Firing accuracy for certain tanks, AT-guns, and so on is incredibly inconsistent. I've had games were an Elephant missed ELEVEN shots in a row against a stationary target. On the other side of this, I've had games were a single tank would escape a horde of enemies, simply due to misses. This can also apply to AT guns, which at the most inconvenient time will refuse to hit anything, or will simply snipe infantry to no end.

These massive variations in unit effectiveness makes the game incredibly unpredictable in a very, very bad way. A friend of mine lost a 1v1 game, because three gren squads in green cover lost to two conscripts in yellow, despite landing BOTH rifle grenades. In other situations, a flanked SU85 will win an engagement, simply because your Panzer IV's refuse to hit it, while the SU85 lands several shots in a row.

The problem isn't necessarily that these RNG-rolled events happen - it's their frequency. In COH1, there were few moments more intense than a Sniper vs. Sniper fight, where they both missed, or where that one Vet 3 rifleman dodged two mortar shells. These created incredibly interesting situations; however, they weren't common. Snipers almost always hit, 1-man rifle squads usually died to the first mortar shell, and AT guns almost ALWAYS hit. However, in CoH2, it appears that Relic thought that the easiest way to increase the "drama" in the game, was to increase the amount of RNG-based systems.

However, it doesn't work like that. An AT gun that misses 6 shots in a row against a stationary tank is incredibly infuriating - as it voids the purpose of the AT gun. Outnumbered squads in worse cover winning against the odds, reduces the importance of cover and flanking. Molotovs ranging from doing absolutely zero damage to a garrisoned MG, to killing the ENTIRE squad in a second simply punishes both players.


Essentially, RNG is simply TOO common and TOO influential on the course of battle. For a game to be competitive, it must present a fair and unbiased playing field. However, more often than not, RNG leans towards one player or another throughout a game, making the 'unlucky' player far less effective than he or she could be. As a result, winning players may only win due to luck, and not skill, while skilled players who lose may become demotivated, simply due to said luck.

It would be incredibly easy for relic to fix this. The problem ISN'T that RNG exists, it's that its so common. Simply dial back the chance to crit, to miss, and so on. It's always amazing when an AT gun misses that ONE shot that could have killed the tanks - it's not when the AT gun misses SIX shots, and then dies to said tank.