Login

russian armor

Death to all the RNG gods

5 Jan 2014, 20:51 PM
#61
avatar of link0

Posts: 337

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Jan 2014, 10:09 AMJaigen

Want play SC2 simply memorize your build order and that's. SC2 requires no strategy beyond that and micro.


That's so wrong in so many ways. As someone who has played SC2 professionally, it is an incredibly complex game strategically (in that respect superior to vCOH), but an inferior game tactically compared to vCOH.

There is much deep thinking involved in SC2 to makeg strategic decisions that the casual viewer will never see or understand. I actually think COH is a better spectator sport than SC2 because of this, because tactical decisions are much easier to see as a viewer.
5 Jan 2014, 21:08 PM
#62
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130




What are you talking about?

All you need to do is cover your tanks with Gren squads and your heavies should never get rammed, ever.

Also, teller mines are your friend


I only need to use one katusha to remove the grens. Do not lecture me about combined arms when you fail to realize another form of combined arms can easily counter it.
5 Jan 2014, 21:14 PM
#63
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Jan 2014, 20:51 PMlink0


That's so wrong in so many ways. As someone who has played SC2 professionally, it is an incredibly complex game strategically (in that respect superior to vCOH), but an inferior game tactically compared to vCOH.

There is much deep thinking involved in SC2 to makeg strategic decisions that the casual viewer will never see or understand. I actually think COH is a better spectator sport than SC2 because of this, because tactical decisions are much easier to see as a viewer.


Yes i played to diamond level myself. And i was like a machine as i learned to multitask. did i need complex strategies? not really. the problem with that game was their certain builds you could do with the varied races. once you knew all the builds you and its counters you knew all the strats. The most strategic element of the game was scouting
6 Jan 2014, 01:11 AM
#64
avatar of link0

Posts: 337

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Jan 2014, 21:14 PMJaigen


Yes i played to diamond level myself. And i was like a machine as i learned to multitask. did i need complex strategies? not really. the problem with that game was their certain builds you could do with the varied races. once you knew all the builds you and its counters you knew all the strats. The most strategic element of the game was scouting


Haha, yes, at the Diamond level, all you need is a build order. I'm talking about High Grandmaster to Professional level.
6 Jan 2014, 01:13 AM
#65
avatar of herr anfsim

Posts: 247




What are you talking about?

All you need to do is cover your tanks with Gren squads and your heavies should never get rammed, ever.

Also, teller mines are your friend


Am I the only one who find it awkward that "the fearsome Tiger" needs grenadiers and mines to protect it from a T-34?
6 Jan 2014, 03:00 AM
#66
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2779



Am I the only one who find it awkward that "the fearsome Tiger" needs grenadiers and mines to protect it from a T-34?


If T-34 ram act like this, it should require munition
That crap is more annoying than PE thread breaker.
6 Jan 2014, 03:13 AM
#67
avatar of ferrozoica

Posts: 208



Am I the only one who find it awkward that "the fearsome Tiger" needs grenadiers and mines to protect it from a T-34?


An un-supported Tiger is a dead Tiger (in reality aswell as ingame -_-)
6 Jan 2014, 08:53 AM
#68
avatar of GustavGans

Posts: 747



An un-supported Tiger is a dead Tiger (in reality aswell as ingame -_-)


I have more of an Issue with the skilllevel difference between landing a successful ram and avoiding it. The first is point click profit while the latter requires quite some micro and preparation.
6 Jan 2014, 08:55 AM
#69
avatar of VonIvan

Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21

6 Jan 2014, 09:25 AM
#70
avatar of Le Wish
Patrion 14

Posts: 813 | Subs: 1

Now, I do like RNG in the game. But the changes suggested by Ginnungagap in the first post are really good. Supported!
6 Jan 2014, 09:47 AM
#71
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130



I have more of an Issue with the skilllevel difference between landing a successful ram and avoiding it. The first is point click profit while the latter requires quite some micro and preparation.


Bingo. you need Combined arms , you need strategic insight , good micro and scouting just to make your attack succeed. what do the soviets need to counter your attack? T-34 spam.
You don't find that a problem ferrozoica that you can simply use a one tank to win every single tank battle. That the soviets do not need combined arms planning or scouting?

Return of this i win button would destroy this game.
6 Jan 2014, 09:53 AM
#72
avatar of Cyridius

Posts: 627

I find it amusing that people keep discussing this in context of fostering a competitive scene. No, excessive RNG just fosters completely shitty gameplay. Out of all the things holding CoH2 back from a competitive gaming scene, believe me, RNG is not one of them.
6 Jan 2014, 13:01 PM
#73
avatar of herr anfsim

Posts: 247



An un-supported Tiger is a dead Tiger (in reality aswell as ingame -_-)


Not necesarily. Requiering a screen of grenadiers in order to protect a Tiger from being disabled by frontal attacks by single T-34s is nothing short of daft. Likewise seeing a Tiger rush away like a little girl at the sight of a T-34.

I think the ram should fail if the tank received damage equal to a well placed shot from the Tiger, because it would requier a certain amount of skill and tactics to pull it off, yet make it that much more rewarding when you did.

6 Jan 2014, 13:10 PM
#74
avatar of SgtBulldog

Posts: 688

Agree with OP on the general concern, but



Soviet TM35 Mine

-remove the chance of destroyed engine critical on undamaged engine

No. It makes perfect sense. But maybe reduce it?


As rofltehcat explained in the One-shot-wipe-potential thread, mines deal as much damage in the center of the blast as they do on its edge, resulting quite often in squadwipes depending on a dice roll.

Unfortunately that thread vastly exaggerated the one-shot problem. It is not a good reference.



The stun would give time for the rest of your army, a flanking second squad for the engine critical for example. But if you manage to do that, you will be rewarded 100% of the time. Not because the game decided so, but because of your unit control and positioning alone.

Think about that for a second.



I did. And I don't see any reason why a stun should succeeed 100% of the time. That - if any - is something that should really happen in random.



T34 ram

-100% chance on destroyed engine and gun on rear armour hit

-on front armour hit only engine damage OR destroyed gun possible

Against heavy tanks like the tiger, positioning currently plays almost no role. (300 front armour, 250 rear armour - ram from the front yeah whatever)
Similar to AT grenades and Panzerfaust, i want to see flanking being rewarded heavily, while diminishing the potential on frontal rams.


Giving something a 100% chance Means killing the risk/gain aspect. It's bad for the tension and will make COH2 feel more like SC or RA.

I'll have to say no.


Flamethrower for CE/Pionees

-chance of exploding only on squadwipe


No. I really like this and I don't think it is that bad.



Skillplanes

-remove the ~0,1% chance of pintle mounted machine guns to destroy airplanes
-increase the chance of ostwind and quad halftrack to destroy airplanes
-reduce the damage of shot down planes drastically



You are complaining about randomness getting decisive influence on the outcome of the game, yet here you want to remove a random effect so small that it hardly ever triggers.

And there's no need to remove the AA capability of the M5. It's the Ostwind that needs more.

Finally, yes it should hurt to be hit by a planecrash. The point is, it will be the risk you run when investing in AA. AA should not become a no-brainer.


To sum up, I understand your concern, but I think you are taking your suggested changes too far. So far that you will take a big chunk out of the risk, which I find to be a big part of what makes this game interesting.
6 Jan 2014, 15:27 PM
#75
avatar of Ginnungagap

Posts: 324 | Subs: 2

Didn't expect that much response, thank you all for reading it.


@SgtBulldog:

-Soviet TM35 Mine & destroyed engine critical

The chance for a destroyed (not damaged) engine critical is already very small (5%?). But when it happens, it leads to a dead tank most of the time. And that is huuuuge.

Even if the chance was 1%, every 100th tank would be as good as dead just because.


-Soviet TM35 Mine & squadwipes

It happens. You never had a game where you lost 2 full health squads to the first 2 mines?
You will have it - and you will hate it.


-AT grenades & 100% stun chance

Sometimes you need a 100% chance to formulate a strategy. Your other units depend on the stun. The AT gun. The second squad and their AT grenade.

Besides that, a 100% stun chance without guaranteed engine critical is already a big nerf. With a lower percentage the ability would not be worthwhile in my opinion.


-T34 ram changes

Yes, the game will feel more arcady. You can't have best of both worlds i guess.

Personally i will say after countless hours in vCoH and CoH2, the tension from randomized events lose their effect. It is the out-thinking and out-microing which matters the most to me.
I'm not excited when my ram to the back of the enemy tank fails - or succeeds. I'm only excited because i managed to ram the back.


-Flamethrower & chance of exploding only on squadwipe

It is in comparison to the AT grenade or ram change not a big deal, sure.


-Skillplanes

You are complaining about randomness getting decisive influence on the outcome of the game, yet here you want to remove a random effect so small that it hardly ever triggers.

The very small chance is per bullet. With multiple P4s for example the overall chance becomes much higher to the point where it has noticeable influence.

And there's no need to remove the AA capability of the M5. It's the Ostwind that needs more.

Ostwind and M5 have the exact AA capabilities if i'm not mistaken.

Finally, yes it should hurt to be hit by a planecrash. The point is, it will be the risk you run when investing in AA. AA should not become a no-brainer.

So... better not to get any AA because crashing airplanes can be much worse than unharmed, attacking airplanes?

If you invest in AA - and in a 1v1 scenario it is an investment - should you not be rewarded in that sense, no matter what?



6 Jan 2014, 16:20 PM
#76
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1


Ostwind and M5 have the exact AA capabilities if i'm not mistaken.




their chance to shoot down planes are actually quite close. per shot, the chances are:

ostwind : 17%
222 : 7%
pintle mounted mg42 : 1.04%
quad m5 : 1.01%

but then you have to factor in how many shots it will fire. i think units usually only get a few seconds to shoot at planes, so ill just use 2 seconds as an estimate. all of these guns (excluding ostwind) shoot faster/slower depending on distance, so the chances will be a range instead of a single number.

ostwind (2 shots) : 31.11%
222 (3-5 shots) : 19.56-30.43%
mg42 (14-21 shots) : 13.62-19.71%
quad m5 (33-37 shots) : 28.47-31.31%

based on this, i would start using 222s for AA instead of ostwinds. the m5 is probably the best AA in the game currently considering its price, durability and the fact you can reinforce off of it while you keep it safe in the back. id say the ostwind probably needs a buff. right now its really only useful for AI, but even then, i find it useful for a very small window.

its also worth noting these numbers are for when the vehicles are stationary. planes have a target size of 50, meaning the mgs will never miss, even while moving, so the mg42 and m5 can actually follow the planes path to give it more time to shoot with no penalty. but the ostwind and 222 only have .025 accuracy at long range, so their chance to hit at long range goes down to 62.5% while they are moving.
6 Jan 2014, 16:56 PM
#77
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2

If your plan fails because of the RNG gods then maybe it wasn't such a good plan.
6 Jan 2014, 17:31 PM
#78
avatar of Madok

Posts: 101

If your plan fails because of the RNG gods then maybe it wasn't such a good plan.

Things like that obviously only happen if the opponent is more devout then you are.
After all the RNG god(s) would never allocate events at random, now would they?


Does it help to by indulgencies like faceplates, skins or possibly DLC commanders?
Just like the medieval proverb:
“As soon as money in the coffer rings, the <insert unit name here> from purgatory's fire springs."
6 Jan 2014, 18:14 PM
#79
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

If your plan fails because of the RNG gods then maybe it wasn't such a good plan.


This does not make sense.

So if I shoot down a plane and it randomly crashes into my tank and kills it I should not have tried to shoot it down? Or if a hoorahing conscript at nades my Tiger from the front and gets heavy engine damage I should not use the Tiger? Or if a flame thrower randomly crits 4 members of an MG team as it tries to retreat, even when the squad is suppressed I was outplayed? So forth and so on.

RNG plays too large a role in this game.
6 Jan 2014, 18:25 PM
#80
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

Posts: 951

No plan survives first contact with the enemy.

I am a heretic casual and like RNG.

The Rainman / ex-SC pro tendency will kill it for the rest of us with their pursuit of reducing this game to APS / mathematics.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

460 users are online: 460 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
39 posts in the last week
146 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44937
Welcome our newest member, Fradcfgrgir
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM