Jump to content


Official Statement About +/- %25 RNG


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

sr_4vc1 #1 Posted 07 June 2017 - 10:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33962 battles
  • 592
  • Member since:
    01-27-2013

Hey guys,

One of my friends ask about +/- %25 RNG between noob players and pro ones. There should be an official statement come from Wargaming as I remember. But I cant find this post. Could you please help me and find out the web page link which is explaining noob-pro player RNG factors officially?

 

Thanks in advance



dennez #2 Posted 07 June 2017 - 10:54 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16834 battles
  • 4,755
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2013

View Postsr_4vc1, on 07 June 2017 - 10:49 PM, said:

Hey guys,

One of my friends ask about +/- %25 RNG between noob players and pro ones. There should be an official statement come from Wargaming as I remember. But I cant find this post. Could you please help me and find out the web page link which is explaining noob-pro player RNG factors officially?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Sure np:

www.lalaland.com



PowJay #3 Posted 07 June 2017 - 10:57 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34976 battles
  • 4,095
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012
What the hell are you on about?

sr_4vc1 #4 Posted 07 June 2017 - 11:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33962 battles
  • 592
  • Member since:
    01-27-2013

Well,

 

I assume you all know that the game has an RNG system. This system offers + / - %25 both for your penetration and damage value. 

 

At some point in history, Wargaming declares that " bad players most likely to get + rng against good players and vice versa; a good player has - rng when facing a bad player." 

 

For example;

a player has 100 pen and 100 alpha dmg on his tank and facing a much more better player than himself. Then his shots gets + Rng. It means, his shells has between 100 -125 pen and alpha.

 

and same player facing a worse one, then his shells has - Rng which means his shells get 75-100 pen and alpha this time.

 

One of you must see this post like me. 

 

And I'm asking you to find the post link.


Edited by sr_4vc1, 07 June 2017 - 11:13 PM.


Folau #5 Posted 07 June 2017 - 11:10 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 15254 battles
  • 2,560
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013
Well RNG is there to create "excitement" and lower the impact of skill, but I'm not sure WG have openly said that bad players get "better" RNG...

PowJay #6 Posted 07 June 2017 - 11:16 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34976 battles
  • 4,095
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012
Right. At least I understand where you are coming from. Are you sure that it was a WG statement and not something posted by someone wearing a shiny hat and smoking something suspect?

captainpigg #7 Posted 07 June 2017 - 11:25 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 31001 battles
  • 803
  • [F-DIV] F-DIV
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

View PostPowJay, on 07 June 2017 - 10:16 PM, said:

Right. At least I understand where you are coming from. Are you sure that it was a WG statement and not something posted by someone wearing a shiny hat and smoking something suspect?

 

Even with the recent pr [edited]-up with Sirfoch , I DON'T believe anyone at Wargaming would that stupid to post that. Other than maybe on April 1'st.

Strappster #8 Posted 07 June 2017 - 11:44 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23695 battles
  • 8,926
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015
It reads like something dismissive, much like the old "sure, everybody hates artillery" which some players have since taken on as a mantra and believe it's a definite statement of understanding and completely ignore the dismissive yeah, right context which wouldn't fit their prejudices quite as well.

Homer_J #9 Posted 07 June 2017 - 11:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postsr_4vc1, on 07 June 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

Well,

 

I assume you all know that the game has an RNG system. This system offers + / - %25 both for your penetration and damage value. 

 

At some point in history, Wargaming declares that " bad players most likely to get + rng against good players and vice versa; a good player has - rng when facing a bad player." 

 

For example;

a player has 100 pen and 100 alpha dmg on his tank and facing a much more better player than himself. Then his shots gets + Rng. It means, his shells has between 100 -125 pen and alpha.

 

and same player facing a worse one, then his shells has - Rng which means his shells get 75-100 pen and alpha this time.

 

One of you must see this post like me. 

 

And I'm asking you to find the post link.

 

Well you won't find it because they never said any such thing.

 

They may have said something along the lines of it evens out skill, meaning that because a bad player can get lucky then it will make him feel good.  Which it does, when you win it's all your skill, when you lose it's bad luck.  That's human nature.

 

But RNG does not deliberately give bad players higher rolls, or good ones low rolls.  That is completely down to perception bias.



Alabamatick #10 Posted 07 June 2017 - 11:53 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31849 battles
  • 2,965
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 07 June 2017 - 10:49 PM, said:

 

Well you won't find it because they never said any such thing.

 

They may have said something along the lines of it evens out skill, meaning that because a bad player can get lucky then it will make him feel good.  Which it does, when you win it's all your skill, when you lose it's bad luck.  That's human nature.

 

But RNG does not deliberately give bad players higher rolls, or good ones low rolls.  That is completely down to perception bias.

 

This ^ and OP, just lel

Al_Xander #11 Posted 08 June 2017 - 12:21 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20145 battles
  • 54
  • [RORD] RORD
  • Member since:
    02-23-2015

View Postsr_4vc1, on 07 June 2017 - 10:49 PM, said:

Hey guys,

+/- %25 RNG 

 

WG officialy tells "no -25% for good players and +25% for bad players". But:

1. ​Tell your friend forget about game for 5-14 days and try to play after that vacancions. He will be surprised.

2. I tried make my winrate lower then 48% (battle->rush with shooting at target direction(no aim or using auto aim)->hangar->battle)*. During 2 or 3 days of this... "experiment" I had no problems with penetration or damage dealing (ricochets were also rare). Yes :) after the end of "experiment" and series of good games I heard again - "we cannot penetrate their armor!/Ricochet!/..."

__________________________________

​*Its impossible. 48.8% ->down to 48.2% -> up to 48.8% (ya, I did not shoot my teammates and played w/o self drowning or other "suicides").


Edited by Al_Xander, 08 June 2017 - 12:23 AM.


Jigabachi #12 Posted 08 June 2017 - 03:21 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17858 battles
  • 18,542
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View Postsr_4vc1, on 07 June 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

At some point in history, Wargaming declares that " bad players most likely to get + rng against good players and vice versa; a good player has - rng when facing a bad player." 

That's what mostly bad players claim all the time. WG never stated something like that.



Jigabachi #13 Posted 08 June 2017 - 03:26 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17858 battles
  • 18,542
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostAl_Xander, on 08 June 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

Yes after the end of "experiment" and series of good games I heard again - "we cannot penetrate their armor!/Ricochet!/...

And I bet that you saved all of those replays and the data you collected in order to prove that what you found out there is true and not made up or based on delusion.



Rod_75 #14 Posted 08 June 2017 - 05:41 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 24815 battles
  • 162
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    02-03-2012

The meaning of that WG was saying is different.

As a bad (new player) playing with non 100%crew, with no fully researched/upgraded tank you will face more miss and feeling bad RNG.

You know, bigger aim circle, longer aim time, no clues about where to shot.

As good player (experienced player) playing with 100% crew and with 2 or 3 skills, with fully upgraded tank, with equip... you will feel better RNG.

You know, smaller aim circle, faster reload, and knowledge about the mechanics.

 

Its also possible that a bad player can pen and dmg a good player, and not viceversa, due to RNG. But yes, that has some sense.

 

My opinion?

In real life, there is not a 25% RNG. In mechanics there are not so many differences. This is a game.

And higher RNG means more possibilitties for bads to do well.

 

Are u not satisfied with this RNG? (like me and lot of players?)

Try another game, with very low RNG. Modern tanks and weapons.

AW.

And you will discover lot of differences. I dont want to ruin the surprise to discover them.

 

WoT is RNG, period.


Rod



Cannes76 #15 Posted 08 June 2017 - 06:26 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 64575 battles
  • 1,616
  • [3V] 3V
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

View PostAl_Xander, on 08 June 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

 

WG officialy tells "no -25% for good players and +25% for bad players". But:

1. ​Tell your friend forget about game for 5-14 days and try to play after that vacancions. He will be surprised.

2. I tried make my winrate lower then 48% (battle->rush with shooting at target direction(no aim or using auto aim)->hangar->battle)*. During 2 or 3 days of this... "experiment" I had no problems with penetration or damage dealing (ricochets were also rare). Yes :) after the end of "experiment" and series of good games I heard again - "we cannot penetrate their armor!/Ricochet!/..."

__________________________________

​*Its impossible. 48.8% ->down to 48.2% -> up to 48.8% (ya, I did not shoot my teammates and played w/o self drowning or other "suicides";).

The perception bias is strong in this one.



jack_timber #16 Posted 08 June 2017 - 07:05 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32454 battles
  • 1,893
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014
Well try the BL10 4 sure that thing has -100% RNG at times, you know fully aimed shot at 50 paces and misses. Oh wait that's why it's called the troll cannon:)

Bora_BOOM #17 Posted 08 June 2017 - 07:25 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 21498 battles
  • 2,704
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

"Official" in the thread title is a click-bait and that will have interesting consequences...

 

OP, do something to fix this.



Tidal_Force #18 Posted 08 June 2017 - 07:36 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16192 battles
  • 6,826
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    08-29-2012

View PostFolau, on 07 June 2017 - 10:10 PM, said:

Well RNG is there to create "excitement" and lower the impact of skill, but I'm not sure WG have openly said that bad players get "better" RNG...

 

If you need RNG to provide "excitement", you have failed on game design phase.

PowJay #19 Posted 08 June 2017 - 07:45 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34976 battles
  • 4,095
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012

The thing about RNG is that I guess we all notice the low pens and the low damage rolls, but with reference to accuracy in particular, there are times when the most impossible shots win you the game as well as the times when it is (almost) fully aimed in on an enemy tank and it goes about 0.2mm over the gun barrel and you lose.

 

What RNG does (for those who are not experts) is level the playing field a little. Otherwise a knowledgeable player is going to hit your weakspot with every shot while the newbie (or noob) is going to bounce of the thickest armour because he is too inexperienced (or dumb) to know where to shoot.


As for the bias for good/bad players. :teethhappy::teethhappy::teethhappy:


 

Bad players are bad because they are bad. RNG is actually beneficial. As for real life. Accuracy is a basic factor of guns and ammunition. A sniper rifle may hit spot on at 1000m, but an AK47 will be lucky to hit a barn at 500m. Poor quality control in ammunition manufacture would lead to shells (or bullets) flying that little bit further or falling short because the amount of propellant could vary just enough. I believe that snipers use the first bullets made from a mould because over time the mould becomes worn and small defects appear in the bullets. I dare say that there are many other factors including wind, and air temperature, for example.

 

So, RNG may be annoying- and I wouldn't mind seeing it lowered just a little- but it can stay as far as I am concerned.



Schemezoid #20 Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:21 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 20230 battles
  • 2,710
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013
They said RNG fixes the skill gap between good and bad players, how far that goes, i dno




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users