Firstly, I meant 'consistently lucky' within a single game; obviously no one can be 'consistently lucky' across multiple games. However, the possibility for a 'consistent luck' streak within a single game to massively influence the match just isn't acceptable in a competitive game.
For example, maybe early on you get that lucky mortar-RNG 'miss' that actually hits (per my description earlier). Maybe in mid-game, you get lucky and the faust misses your AEC/T70/etc. and hits the ground instead (I had this happen 3 times in a row in ONE game). Then maybe in late-game, you get lucky and the enemy AT misses 3-4 times in a row against your critically low tank.
Those 3 events in a single game would result in a MASSIVE advantage for the 'lucky' player, which the 'unlucky' player could do nothing to counter. For a competitive game, luck just can't hold that much power, even if it is an unlikely possibility. If in a game like 'Dota 2', the final match of a massive tournament was decided by a consistent string of "5% likely" events, people would be outraged. You can't give a team a $9m+ crowed-funded prize for being lucky - the donators demand that the game be dictated and decided entirely by skill; that's the point of the game.
In a team game (2v2), 'random' wipes probably happen a few times per game (even when I was a sub-200 player). And I'm aware they can happen in my favor; I just don't like it. It feels cheap to get an advantage by doing literally nothing.
It can absolutely happen, green cover is directional. IF the mortar lands on your side of cover, you'll take full damage. In addition, being in combat implies damage taken. That means you'll have less HP to 'tank' the damage from the mortar.
By your own definition, standing there would be "
stupidity"; but let's look at it anyway.
Firstly, a mortar can insta-wipe; the shell damage is enough to do that on a direct hit, and as I said before, green cover is directional. Secondly, hit probability increases as you get closer to the true target (the exact target point): being very far off is unlikely, being very close is quite likely.
Knowing that, we can do go through some simple logical steps to take:
1. A mortar is firing at my unit; hence the 'true' target is exactly where my squad is standing.
2. Hit probability is greatest at the 'true' target location, and decreases as I get further away.
3. I still want to project map presence in the current area.
4. I do not want to lose the squad.
Hence, the optimal choice is to move away. The sub-optimal choice is to retreat (keeps the squad). The least optimal choice is to stay (most likely mortar hit location).
In the case of the mortar-scatter-wipe, the most optimal and least optimal choice are literally inverted (with the bonus of the 'least optimal' choice reducing damage taken from the attack squad, due to green cover). This is bad. At a fundamental level, playing and winning games is based upon making the 'most' optimal choice.
Am I saying CoH2 needs to become a 'solved' game? No. But the most optimal and least optimal choices should never invert entirely due to RNG.
Scatter is a function of RNG, and that scatter dictates where the shell would land. If that landing point is both where my squad currently is, and is NOT exactly where the mortar was aiming at, it is LITERALLY a hit dictated by random chance.
With that said, I want to know: what would you classify as a 'random wipe', provided they even exist?