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.
I dont get that statement. I think it contradicts your argument.
If i think about it i would say, that the more often a random event occurs, the less it influences the outcome of a game.
Example: Imagine 2 players competing in a dice game. player 1 wins if the once rolled dice shows a 6. player 2 wins if any other number comes up.
In this scenario player 1 has a 1/6 chance to win although the odds are against him.
Now if you alter the game to make it a "best of 10" player 1 cant expect to win at all.
With coh and rng that means: if there are only a few moments over the course of a game it may well be that most of them favour 1 player and he gets the win although he might be the worse player.
if random moments occure more frequently it becomes highly unlikely that one player benefits more than the other.
Now your statement was that in coh2 random events occure more frequently than in the original game. if that is true, this should make the game it less luck based over all.
one question:
you mentioned the chance of rolling criticals on full health infantry.
do you or anyone know how high this chance would be and if its still more likely to instantly kill a already wounded soldier?
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
