Jump to content


Why does this game have RNG?

RNG

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

kaneAAA #1 Posted 20 December 2014 - 01:31 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37726 battles
  • 1,609
  • [SKRAP] SKRAP
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012
Why is RNG used in wot? What function does it serve? Why aren't there fixed values for shooting which are purely dictated by gun vs armour and angle etc.? Would this game work without RNG? Would no RNG be better or worse?

KyndaT58 #2 Posted 20 December 2014 - 01:59 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 20641 battles
  • 117
  • [YATTA] YATTA
  • Member since:
    04-22-2014

Would anyone move their butts if they knew that as long as they're fully aimed, their shots would hit the target?

Would gameplay as much dynamic?

Would you be able to turn the tide when that camper didn't miss cause he's been aiming at your general direction for the past 13:46 minutes?

Would you have the satisfaction that, because RNG trolled that camper, you managed to win that engagement?

Would you laugh your arse off because you just killed a speeding Chaffee without aiming with your KV-2?

What would determine the direction of your missing shots whilst not fully aimed?

Would you stop thinking and play? :P



_kink_ #3 Posted 20 December 2014 - 02:55 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 119 battles
  • 3,179
  • Member since:
    02-26-2014
Use your brain, it's not that hard to think.

soolerman #4 Posted 22 December 2014 - 01:30 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24366 battles
  • 1,218
  • Member since:
    12-10-2012
This game, like so many others, needs RNG. Without it the game would become to predictable and would be less frustrating and rewarding. And as funny as it my sound the frustration or more correctly the overcoming of that frustration is a big part of what makes the game fun. Not knowing if you can one shot the guy before he reloads and kills you is part of the game. Will you hit him on a snap shot? Failing to do both of these thing is frustrating. But when you get that shot in, well that's why we play. Remove RNG and almost no one would still be playing this game in six months time.

kaneAAA #5 Posted 14 January 2015 - 02:46 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37726 battles
  • 1,609
  • [SKRAP] SKRAP
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012
For me best games take out random elements. I find those more fun, but I get some of your points but those apply to a certain type of mindset which i don't naturally share! Also nobody has addressed the negative impact that RNG has on gameplay and on fun, calling it a total positive is a very biased views of its impact on gameplay.

Edited by kaneAAA, 14 January 2015 - 02:49 AM.


kaneAAA #6 Posted 14 January 2015 - 02:48 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37726 battles
  • 1,609
  • [SKRAP] SKRAP
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012

View Post_kink_, on 20 December 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

Use your brain, it's not that hard to think.

 

Sorry was that you thinking?

1ncompetenc3 #7 Posted 14 January 2015 - 03:21 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36867 battles
  • 11,489
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
Simply put, it keeps the game from being too predictable. Not having absolute fixed values for damage and penetration keeps things interesting.

kaneAAA #8 Posted 14 January 2015 - 03:53 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37726 battles
  • 1,609
  • [SKRAP] SKRAP
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012

View PostVonnis, on 14 January 2015 - 02:21 AM, said:

Simply put, it keeps the game from being too predictable. Not having absolute fixed values for damage and penetration keeps things interesting.

 

That's one possiblity, true. But is that the only reason why it's there? I mean, there are many fun games such as First Person Shooters which have fixed damage values...and they are played regularly and are very popular. So why would it be undesirable to have fixed values in wot?

TsundereWaffle #9 Posted 14 January 2015 - 07:28 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 26273 battles
  • 10,863
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013
Because this isn't a fps game like call of duty

olukej #10 Posted 16 January 2015 - 02:17 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 100 battles
  • 4,186
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013
The reason is to make baddies less bad. When you're already doing everything you can to lose, RNG can only improve things for you. 

Edited by olukej, 16 January 2015 - 02:18 PM.


lord_chipmonk #11 Posted 16 January 2015 - 02:23 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32575 battles
  • 10,166
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012
It tries to simulate those factors that in real life you would not be able to predict. 

sruz25cz #12 Posted 17 January 2015 - 12:02 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 12305 battles
  • 139
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

View Postlord_chipmonk, on 16 January 2015 - 02:23 PM, said:

It tries to simulate those factors that in real life you would not be able to predict. 

No, that's what WT does. RNG in WoT does a lot more that is necessary. For example all shells are fairly accurate at short distances, it's mostly just longer distances where RNG matters (irl), in WoT it just randomly changes the "point where your gun aims". Also there's the fact that you don't have to compensate for shell drop, which would make aiming w/o RNG really easy. It's just two different approaches, WoT chose the easier way that is easier to maintain and balance by fiddling with stats, WT chose the more realistic way.


Edited by sruz25cz, 17 January 2015 - 12:03 AM.


Mark999 #13 Posted 17 January 2015 - 12:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8716 battles
  • 671
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011
Tier Name Ammo Damage Penetration Rate of Fire Accuracy Aim Time Price Weight Compatibility
01I
 
3,7 cm KwK 36 L/46.5
000064-15664-156 0036 36/36/42 HP 0040 40/74/18 mm 02609026.09 r/m 0004600000000.46 m 1.7--1.7s 0000000 Credits.png 00100100 kg

Guns already have a accuracy rating over distance, they also have a penetration rating over distance and a damage rating over distance.

Why do these ratings require a RNG of between +25% and -25% added to these values?

Crew % will have an effect on accuracy and rate of fire, it is the RNG itself that causes all the WTF moments in WoT.


 

The fully aimed in shot that goes orbital

The noob sat in an open field bouncing every shell your team fires at them

The scout tank bouncing a rear on shot from a heavy tank

Ect ect ect.


 

WoT is a game about a players skill. Take out the RNG and allow a players skill and knowledge of their gun to decide their accuracy. Not some random number that can allow you to snap shot a bulls eye at maximum range whilst driving at full speed Or send that fully aimed in shot go orbital. After all, isn't the aiming circle supposed to represent shell dispersion? If not, then it should.


 

The same goes for penetration, the game already calculates armour angle and gun penetration over distance and comes to a result. A result that can be overturned by the RNG making what should of been a sure thing into a frustrating WTF moment.


 

Damage again has a value over distance, what is wrong with using it? How many times have you shot that enemy tank on 1hp, penetrated and done absolutely no damage what so ever?


 

So why have the RNG at all?


 



kaneAAA #14 Posted 17 January 2015 - 01:28 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37726 battles
  • 1,609
  • [SKRAP] SKRAP
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012

View PostMark999, on 16 January 2015 - 11:45 PM, said:

Tier Name Ammo Damage Penetration Rate of Fire Accuracy Aim Time Price Weight Compatibility
01I
 
3,7 cm KwK 36 L/46.5
000064-15664-156 0036 36/36/42 HP 0040 40/74/18 mm 02609026.09 r/m 0004600000000.46 m 1.7--1.7s 0000000 Credits.png 00100100 kg

Guns already have a accuracy rating over distance, they also have a penetration rating over distance and a damage rating over distance.

Why do these ratings require a RNG of between +25% and -25% added to these values?

Crew % will have an effect on accuracy and rate of fire, it is the RNG itself that causes all the WTF moments in WoT.


 

The fully aimed in shot that goes orbital

The noob sat in an open field bouncing every shell your team fires at them

The scout tank bouncing a rear on shot from a heavy tank

Ect ect ect.


 

WoT is a game about a players skill. Take out the RNG and allow a players skill and knowledge of their gun to decide their accuracy. Not some random number that can allow you to snap shot a bulls eye at maximum range whilst driving at full speed Or send that fully aimed in shot go orbital. After all, isn't the aiming circle supposed to represent shell dispersion? If not, then it should.


 

The same goes for penetration, the game already calculates armour angle and gun penetration over distance and comes to a result. A result that can be overturned by the RNG making what should of been a sure thing into a frustrating WTF moment.


 

Damage again has a value over distance, what is wrong with using it? How many times have you shot that enemy tank on 1hp, penetrated and done absolutely no damage what so ever?


 

So why have the RNG at all?


 

 

 

And is it true that there's a game called Armoured Warfare with tanks that won't have RNG etc. so it seems like they are moving in on a gap in the market that World of Tanks has left out. That is quite interesting.



Bogey_Man #15 Posted 17 January 2015 - 08:12 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10314 battles
  • 278
  • Member since:
    07-31-2014

View PostkaneAAA, on 20 December 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Why is RNG used in wot? What function does it serve? Why aren't there fixed values for shooting which are purely dictated by gun vs armour and angle etc.? Would this game work without RNG? Would no RNG be better or worse?

 

the game would be ten times better if it was not rigged by RNG you tend to get fed up a bit when your 9 hits do no damahge or miss from point blank or just plain dissapear, of course you get those games where you shoot the IS7 and destroy it in one shot but the its his tturn to be fed up, there is far too much rigging in this game for anyone to take it seriously, but of course it is all done for profit, when your gun bounces shot after shot you buy gold war gaming likes this when you lose you buy a bigger tank war gaming like this also and if you win too much wae gaming will make shure you lose a truckm load to bring you down again.

ask youself this one question, is it realty true that everyone who plays world of tanks are within 6% of each other or is it the case that just like arty the eye of war gaming gods is keeping an eye on you to make shure that you stay one of the crowd.

 



olukej #16 Posted 17 January 2015 - 08:42 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 100 battles
  • 4,186
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View PostBogey_Man, on 17 January 2015 - 08:12 PM, said:

 

ask youself this one question, is it realty true that everyone who plays world of tanks are within 6% of each other or is it the case that just like arty the eye of war gaming gods is keeping an eye on you to make shure that you stay one of the crowd.

 

 

First, there is no 6%. Winrates range from 35% to 65%.

Now, the reason why a majority of players gravitate around 50% WR, is simply that this is a 15v15 games. You are one player out of 30. Even if you were the best player of world of tanks, there is only so much you as a lone player can do, when the result of the game also relies on the performance of 29 other players. No need for wide conspiracy theories, when the basic format of the game does what you describe already. And the influence of one player shrinks as you add more players to a game. In a 30vs30 format, nobody would probably be able to reach even 55%, let alone 60. 

If the game was 1v1 and yet nobody ever reached extreme winrates,  you would be right to question how fair the game was. But as it stands, there is no need for any of that.


Edited by olukej, 17 January 2015 - 08:46 PM.


kaneAAA #17 Posted 17 January 2015 - 10:48 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37726 battles
  • 1,609
  • [SKRAP] SKRAP
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012

View Postolukej, on 17 January 2015 - 07:42 PM, said:

 

First, there is no 6%. Winrates range from 35% to 65%.

Now, the reason why a majority of players gravitate around 50% WR, is simply that this is a 15v15 games. You are one player out of 30. Even if you were the best player of world of tanks, there is only so much you as a lone player can do, when the result of the game also relies on the performance of 29 other players. No need for wide conspiracy theories, when the basic format of the game does what you describe already. And the influence of one player shrinks as you add more players to a game. In a 30vs30 format, nobody would probably be able to reach even 55%, let alone 60. 

If the game was 1v1 and yet nobody ever reached extreme winrates,  you would be right to question how fair the game was. But as it stands, there is no need for any of that.

 

according to wotlabs under 46% WR is  0 % of all people playing  (meanging that under 46% is a negligible number). 1% of people are at 56% and over so saying 35% to 65% is very misleading as to the meaningful spread of WR ranges. 46% to 55% is a more truthful actual spread (that includes 99% of all players) with anomalous and very rare extremes.  

 

82% of people are between 46% and 53% (a 7% spread) WR so Bogey_Man's figure is very close to reality. 35% to 65% is not really reflective of the situation.


Edited by kaneAAA, 17 January 2015 - 10:54 PM.


kaneAAA #18 Posted 17 January 2015 - 10:54 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37726 battles
  • 1,609
  • [SKRAP] SKRAP
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012

It is true that in principle, I think i am right in saying that it would be impossible to rig shot values without people knowing it without a Random generator to cover the changes in values. If there was no RNG any claim of rigging in shot damage would be able to be immediately disproved or proved from a replay. However with the  RNG it is impossible to say whether shots are being manipulated or if it is indeed luck. 

 

Therefore it is a possibility that RNG allows for manipulation in the same way that a MM which is presented as "random" could cloud the observation of manipulated rigging. Without these things, it would be immediately obvious if there was any tampering. 


Edited by kaneAAA, 17 January 2015 - 10:56 PM.


kaneAAA #19 Posted 17 January 2015 - 10:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37726 battles
  • 1,609
  • [SKRAP] SKRAP
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012

View PostBogey_Man, on 17 January 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

 

the game would be ten times better if it was not rigged by RNG you tend to get fed up a bit when your 9 hits do no damahge or miss from point blank or just plain dissapear, of course you get those games where you shoot the IS7 and destroy it in one shot but the its his tturn to be fed up, there is far too much rigging in this game for anyone to take it seriously, but of course it is all done for profit, when your gun bounces shot after shot you buy gold war gaming likes this when you lose you buy a bigger tank war gaming like this also and if you win too much wae gaming will make shure you lose a truckm load to bring you down again.

ask youself this one question, is it realty true that everyone who plays world of tanks are within 6% of each other or is it the case that just like arty the eye of war gaming gods is keeping an eye on you to make shure that you stay one of the crowd.

 

 

So would you say that the RNG is diminishing the effect of a tanker's skill on the outcome of the game?

olukej #20 Posted 17 January 2015 - 11:09 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 100 battles
  • 4,186
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View PostkaneAAA, on 17 January 2015 - 10:48 PM, said:

 

according to wotlabs under 46% WR is  0 % of all people playing  (meanging that under 46% is a negligible number). 1% of people are at 56% and over so saying 35% to 65% is very misleading as to the meaningful spread of WR ranges. 46% to 55% is a more truthful actual spread (that includes 99% of all players) with anomalous and very rare extremes.  

 

82% of people are between 46% and 53% (a 7% spread) WR so Bogey_Man's figure is very close to reality. 35% to 65% is not really reflective of the situation.

 

You are absolutely right, but my post is to be read in context, aka in response to Bogey_man's claim of some rigging. I guess I should have made my point clearer: a rigged game would hardly allow for the wide range of WR we get. Yes, the vast majority of players WR sit in a narrow range around 50%, which as I said is no vidence of rigging, but on top of that the mere existence of WRs outside of this range is indication that if rigging there is, it's not doing a very good job of it. 

 

View PostkaneAAA, on 17 January 2015 - 10:57 PM, said:

 

So would you say that the RNG is diminishing the effect of a tanker's skill on the outcome of the game?

 

RNG is indeed diminishing the influence of player skill. Whether that influence is positive or negative. It's a way to flatten out skill to reduce the domination of players with extremely good reflexes/eye hand coordination and knowledge of weakspots and the game in general, while giving very bad players a chance through the help of randomness: many bad players already do everything wrong, RNG can't make things worse, but can make things better. 


Edited by olukej, 17 January 2015 - 11:10 PM.






Also tagged with RNG

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users