Jump to content


Dear WarGaming why don't you reduce RNG?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

MyArmorIsGolden #1 Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:33 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7669 battles
  • 253
  • Member since:
    09-06-2015
I agree RNG is necessary but %25? It's too much. Why won't you make it %10 or %15?

Grand_Moff_Tano #2 Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:34 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1765 battles
  • 10,734
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
To be honest I think they should remove RNG (or keep it to +/-5% at the very least) from Penetration and keep it to +/-15% on damage.

Edited by Chipmunk_of_Vengeance, 14 February 2018 - 01:35 AM.


MyArmorIsGolden #3 Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:42 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7669 battles
  • 253
  • Member since:
    09-06-2015

View PostChipmunk_of_Vengeance, on 14 February 2018 - 01:34 AM, said:

To be honest I think they should remove RNG (or keep it to +/-5% at the very least) from Penetration and keep it to +/-15% on damage.
If they remove it completely game would be morotone and boring. %10 is fine. Also im pretty sure most of players hates RNG.

Edited by MyArmorIsGolden, 14 February 2018 - 01:43 AM.


Slyspy #4 Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:49 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14205 battles
  • 16,760
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostMyArmorIsGolden, on 14 February 2018 - 01:42 AM, said:

If they remove it completely game would be morotone and boring. %10 is fine. Also im pretty sure most of players hates RNG.

 

Maybe they do, but I'm OK with it. 

Laatikkomafia #5 Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:53 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 22371 battles
  • 4,493
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010
The more RNG the game has, the more rubbish players can feel the sense of accomplishment.

Grand_Moff_Tano #6 Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:54 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1765 battles
  • 10,734
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostMyArmorIsGolden, on 14 February 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

If they remove it completely game would be morotone and boring. %10 is fine. Also im pretty sure most of players hates RNG.

 

Never said anything about removing it completely.

mantazzo #7 Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:11 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6497 battles
  • 165
  • [LTUKP] LTUKP
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
Honestly, I feel like 25% RNG is a bit too much (although from reading the forum some time ago, when someone did calculations on actual RNG, big part of it is on +-15%) - it just adds that "non-trustworthy" element of the game, like for example, you can't be 100% sure you will destroy a tank on ~320 HP with a 400 DMG avg gun, just to see how you do ~310 dmg because low roll. I think it should be slightly reduced (like max +-15%), so people could rely on guns more, while still keeping that sort of RNG element. But, of course, that's just my opinion.
(I probably even explained that wrong...)

Spurtung #8 Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:51 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 65991 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Postmantazzo, on 14 February 2018 - 03:11 AM, said:

Honestly, I feel like 25% RNG is a bit too much (although from reading the forum some time ago, when someone did calculations on actual RNG, big part of it is on +-15%) - it just adds that "non-trustworthy" element of the game, like for example, you can't be 100% sure you will destroy a tank on ~320 HP with a 400 DMG avg gun, just to see how you do ~310 dmg because low roll. I think it should be slightly reduced (like max +-15%), so people could rely on guns more, while still keeping that sort of RNG element. But, of course, that's just my opinion.
(I probably even explained that wrong...)

 

You explained yourself well, but you're ultimately wrong in the analysis.

Being 100% sure of anything would make players avoid fighting against certain targets, making those even more OP.



Balc0ra #9 Posted 14 February 2018 - 03:37 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 67397 battles
  • 17,126
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostChipmunk_of_Vengeance, on 14 February 2018 - 01:34 AM, said:

To be honest I think they should remove RNG (or keep it to +/-5% at the very least) from Penetration and keep it to +/-15% on damage.

 

It made AW worse. As they 100% removed it in closed beta, and left it at 10% for a bit after open beta. It broke more then it did fix for a simple reason. If you lacked pen, you ran. So you had more red line campers, and more that left vs helping late game in a 2 vs 1 even. As there was no risk = reward to gamble on a high RNG pen. So if your listed pen was not enough, you ran. And most tanks in a +2 game had no chance vs most MBT's head on. So legging it was a too common tactic.

 

The direction WOT is going atm with super heavies etc on higher tiers, and the new Russian armor this patch. +25% is needed for a high roll still with tier 8 guns in mind vs Maus etc. But.. -25% is not needed for a low roll on pen that is. That can be reduced to 10/15% at least. As a high pen roll won't affect much for top tiers vs lower tier targets. But will make the difference for low tier targets on +2 tanks. Notice I'm talking about pen, not damage rolls.


Edited by Balc0ra, 14 February 2018 - 03:39 AM.


NUKLEAR_SLUG #10 Posted 14 February 2018 - 03:39 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 30558 battles
  • 2,564
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostMyArmorIsGolden, on 14 February 2018 - 01:33 AM, said:

I agree RNG is necessary but %25? It's too much. Why won't you make it %10 or %15?

 

 Changing the RNG% isn't going to help you win any more games.

yun9 #11 Posted 14 February 2018 - 04:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 5191 battles
  • 504
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

RNG is annoying, but after a large enough amount of battles it'll have benefitted you as much as it'd criple. The issue that stands with it is when put into an E-sports context when the amount of battles are far too few, so RNG will simply imbalance certain matches and that's what so many people dislike. Confirmation bias is also pretty big, I tend to notice whenever I play russian mediums that I roll for sub 300, which happens all the time at T10 but I also notice when I hit for 400. It's uncommon, but not that uncommon. The difference here is that the rolls I consider bad enough to notice and the rolls that are good enough to notice are not based off of 0% RNG numbers and hence I get biased. 

 

In the longer run RNG isn't an issue. For single games then yes absolutely, it's a huge issue for some people. The other type of people are the casuals, in which RNG is a great addition. This game is designed as a "casual dad strategy shooter" where not being the best but being able to have luck on your side to pull off some really good games makes their experience all the more enjoyable. The competitive end loathes this and thinks it's one of the stupidest thing the game ever implemented. 

 

Competitive players want the game to mimic chess in the sense that two players battling on even ground but with different skill levels should be a predictable outcome and the further you spread them apart the more certain the outcome should be. This is true for a lot of other games: Rocket League, CS:GO, MOBAs in general and so on. 

Casual players want the game to be like a card game (Regular card games, Yu-Gi-Oh, M:tG, you name it). There's always a "chance". Knowing what's happening next is hard to see until you pull the next card. This is where the casual can occasionally shine with very little effort required which is why it's much easier to enjoy this structure. A better player should win, but he could have a really poor hand, and yours could be good; even though his deck is by far superior to yours it results in you taking the win because of RNG once in a while. This is overly simplifying card games but it should be a decent analogy. 

 

Here's the biggest difference that I personally experienced while learning the games that I mentioned above (I've played all of them): The games that rely on skill alone are really frustrating for new players. You won't enjoy the games until you sit down and practice and try to learn, and the playerbase falloff should be huge as a result. I'm really surprised the MOBA scene grew so big considering the steep learning curve. 

CS is another example as it's an overly simple premise that won't develop a metagame until the higher ends of the playerbase spectrum but instead relies heavily on mechanical skill and clutch gameplay. Also terrible for the casual player who just wants to blow off steam as learning something quickly becomes a chore when it's done on someones free time. 

 

This is where WoT actually fares well. RNG is training wheels for the casuals, and even though given enough games they'll eventually have a good game in anything WoT does it often enough to make them stick around. It's a slow paced game, and most of it is played in your head anyway if you take the game seriously. The strategy core of the game is something that matters more and more as you get more seasoned, but as a casual player it's non-existent and truly doesn't matter in the first place. Controls are easy and thanks to the slow-paced nature there's no such thing as clutch potential, you aim faster than your turret can keep up, and already finished adjusting before the reticle shrinks down enough so keeping up with shots is nowhere near as big of an issue as it is in other games. 

 

Ever since the competitive scene started with Go4WoT and the gold through bronze leagues people have been whining about RNG as there a good game of RNG mattered much more than just a random soloqueue pub game. If it was an actual issue for the common playerbase, it'd have been fixed by now. I personally don't hate keeping 25% RNG on alpha, but 25% RNG on pen is a much bigger issue for reliable gameplay. 25% on alpha and 10% on pen is something I could live with, preferably I'd have 5% on both as finite HP in slow games without respawns don't mesh well with exact alpha numbers. 



anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #12 Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:54 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018

RNG would be the best way to hide rigging (if WG was rigging)...

 

See what I did here?

 



Lohend #13 Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:21 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 44806 battles
  • 378
  • Member since:
    12-10-2011
RNG is good, RNG is friend...RNG giveth RNG taketh

Grand_Moff_Tano #14 Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:02 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1765 battles
  • 10,734
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostBalc0ra, on 14 February 2018 - 02:37 AM, said:

 

It made AW worse. As they 100% removed it in closed beta, and left it at 10% for a bit after open beta. It broke more then it did fix for a simple reason. If you lacked pen, you ran. So you had more red line campers, and more that left vs helping late game in a 2 vs 1 even. As there was no risk = reward to gamble on a high RNG pen. So if your listed pen was not enough, you ran. And most tanks in a +2 game had no chance vs most MBT's head on. So legging it was a too common tactic.

 

The direction WOT is going atm with super heavies etc on higher tiers, and the new Russian armor this patch. +25% is needed for a high roll still with tier 8 guns in mind vs Maus etc. But.. -25% is not needed for a low roll on pen that is. That can be reduced to 10/15% at least. As a high pen roll won't affect much for top tiers vs lower tier targets. But will make the difference for low tier targets on +2 tanks. Notice I'm talking about pen, not damage rolls.

It wasn't the RNG that killed Armoured Warfare, but the improper balance between tanks. People in this game complain of being useless against higher tier vehicles, that was literally true for Armoured Warfare once you hit tier 7, at least in this game a tier 7 can still harm a tier 9 if they are intelligent 



Slyspy #15 Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:11 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14205 battles
  • 16,760
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postyun9, on 14 February 2018 - 04:33 AM, said:

This is where WoT actually fares well. RNG is training wheels for the casuals, and even though given enough games they'll eventually have a good game in anything WoT does it often enough to make them stick around. It's a slow paced game, and most of it is played in your head anyway if you take the game seriously. The strategy core of the game is something that matters more and more as you get more seasoned, but as a casual player it's non-existent and truly doesn't matter in the first place. Controls are easy and thanks to the slow-paced nature there's no such thing as clutch potential, you aim faster than your turret can keep up, and already finished adjusting before the reticle shrinks down enough so keeping up with shots is nowhere near as big of an issue as it is in other games. 

 

 

Many people say similar, but IMO the RNG is not a benefit for the new or the casual. It is a barrier to learning.



Homer_J #16 Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:19 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29705 battles
  • 31,448
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostMyArmorIsGolden, on 14 February 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

 Also im pretty sure most of players hates RNG.

 

Most players love RNG when it goes in their favour.

Slyspy #17 Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:21 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14205 battles
  • 16,760
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 14 February 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

 

Most players love RNG when it goes in their favour.

 

Which is the point. It is part of the hook.

HaZardeur #18 Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:22 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 34595 battles
  • 1,282
  • Member since:
    08-14-2010
RNG is one of WG`s most reliable income sources... why would they ever remove or reduce it ?

basin79 #19 Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:31 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 15351 battles
  • 8,764
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
Pen should be 5% max. It makes absolutely no sense for it to be so massively affected. Armour thickness should decide whether a shell pens. NOT a roll of a dice.

Accuracy should be 10% max. Shells would naturally deviate from the target a little.

Damage should be around 15-20%. Again a shell would do different amounts of damage so feel that's fair.

25% RNG on everything is absolutely ridiculous.

_T_1_T_4_N_0_ #20 Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:58 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 33333 battles
  • 1,114
  • [SQCI] SQCI
  • Member since:
    02-17-2015
In a linear progression game then the big league of higher tiers tanks should have less RNG.
-+25% with the values of T9 & T10 tanks is just ridiculous.
-+15% and give choice to the playerbase you want to play -+25% then battle tiers 1 - 8 are for you.
BT 9 & 10 make this a linear progression game not just the same regurgitated dictate to all.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users