2012_PlayeR

Regarding RNG in Games, in general

34 posts in this topic

Now, I am a firm believer in player performance statistics, especially over a large number of games; statistically, the effects of RNG become less and less apparent the more games you play.

However, this isn't really about stats, but rather about what RNG has on gameplay and the fun that you actually get in each game you play, in general.

I don't know about you guys, but randomness in general is a bad thing for any game, and is in my opinion an extremely lazy way of making the game "unpredictable" and "re-playable"; sure, the game is now more unpredictable, but at what cost? Does the frustration that you get for each game you play because you can't know for sure whether or not the randomness factor would suddenly decide to say "fuck you" and screw you over make that factor of randomness worth it?

There are a lot of games out there that do not have much in the way of the randomness factor and yet are still extremely re-playable; my favourite examples are the Halo CE and Halo SPV3 campaigns on Legendary.

So, discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The randomness in WoT means that you can have utterly great games that you will fondly remember for years at the price of having brutally shit games too, that you promptly forget.

In WoT this is true no matter you skill level - even the best of the best can never be really sure they are gonna slay the game. RNG can always deterr thme but can also carry them to 10k, 11 kills games that would otherwise be impossible or at least even rarer.

So I have not much problems with the RNG itselg, but rather with it's presentation.

If that KV-2 hits your T-34-1 then it's game over, if not that you take no damage at all. I am keenly aware of every shot I missed because of RNG but I very often did not notice people missing my tank.

In ships the RNG is also present but it is usually way less ovious as RNG and is also way more balanced. You see the shots flying towards you in an inopportune moment and you think "shit shit shit that will hurt" and then they all miss. And thats creates a better balance between good RNG and bad RNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is a purely subjective topic, I'll feel free to weigh in here.

 

I like the RNG for the following personal reasons (although I don't expect anyone to have to agree with me):

1) It's not a FPS. I don't want WoT to play like the 12 most popular, cookie-cutter, guaranteed accuracy first person shooters. When I'm in the mood for guaranteed accuracy I'll go play Call of BattleQuake FortressShockHalo WarfareStrike. When I play WoT it's because I want something different, not something the same as all the others.

2) It feels more like a WWII era. The 1930-1950's were not the stone age, but they were less precise than the current generation of armaments, and the demands of war time production lead to more flaws in the processes. The manufacturing process for every component of a tank was a bit less precise than it is today and more importantly every factory was cranking things out as fast as they possibly could, with whatever materials they had available. As we've seen from a lot of the data that has been unearthed by people like The Chieftan,  weapons during WWII were less precise than most people think. Even some of the "factory perfect" testing that was done by the various War Departments showed a significantly higher degree of variability than we think there was.

3) Accuracy is a lot harder when people are trying to kill you. I've seen so many threads on the Official forums that talk about how easy it is to hit targets with weapon X,Y or Z, and none of them consider how hard it is to be that accurate when there are enemies trying to make you fail and die. I know guys at my local gun range who can kill a squirrel with a .22 rifle at 100 yards but... they don't have to worry about the other 40 squirrels shooting back at them while they're aiming.

4) War  is chaos. A pretty fair definition of war is "Crazy shit is happening non stop oh god do whatever you have to do so you can get through it. Also explosions." WoT is by no means a simulation, it's practically a cartoon in some ways, but it does capture one essential essence of warfare, and that is the feeling of chaos. WoT is more of an emotional roller coaster than most games, amazing when you do better than you should, rage-inducing when you fail or lose despite doing everything right. Even when it's frustrating it's also more exciting, because WoT captures that fundamental chaotic nature of warfare that so many other games utterly fail to touch.

5) Skill is never a guarantee in war. I don't want to go down a maudlin path here, but ask any combat vet and they'll tell you that some of the best soldiers they ever knew didn't come back. Being good improves your odds, but there's never a guarantee. Why did the guy next to you get shot and you didn't? Because war is highly random. Why did that tank next to you get ammo racked and explode while yours didn't? Because war is highly random. Why did you do everything right and your shot failed? Because war is highly random.

 

And a couple of points that are less subjective:

6) It's good for the game. This is a one-death-per-battle game, which automatically means that it's more brutal than every Respawn game in existence. When people play a respawn game they always have the illusion that they have a chance because they jump back in and keep fighting. Even when there's no chance in hell that they're going to win they always have that illusion to cling to. Respawn games are perfect for people who think they're better than they really are. Respawn games allow every player to cling to the illusion that they're doing well even when they're the worst player on the battlefield. WoT is much more brutal for the ego, when you die you're done. You suck, game over, good bye. Honestly, if WoT didn't let people immediately jump into another tank it never would have been this popular. I don't know if you've ever played the single-death battle mode in first person shooters, but all of them (that I can think of) are less popular than the Respawn modes and Respawn games. If it wasn't for the RNG allowing bad players to survive more than they should, and allowing them to have better battles than they should, this game would never have reached the global levels of popularity that it has, and the NA server might very well have died a long time ago. There's a reason why games like "America's Army" have never been as popular as "Any good FPS with Respawn battles", and that reason is single-death-per-battle.

7) It's good for the game, redux. RNG gives lower skilled players more of a chance. The RNG in WoT is deliberately designed to mitigate skill to some degree. Even the worst player can get a lucky ammo rack sometimes. And no matter how much you want skill to be rewarded, you also need all of those other players to keep playing because their money is just as important to keeping the game alive as your money is. Actually their money is more important, the number of Bad + Average players outnumbers the Good players, so the game absolutely has to give something to the Bad & Average players to keep them playing. There are so many threads by bad players complaining about RNG, but they don't realize that RNG is the only thing that keeps them in the game and prevents them from rage quitting after a month.

This is much more important in WoT than in almost any other game, because WoT keeps track of your stats and actually forces you to look at how good (or bad) you are. Most bads already think they're better than they are, imagine how unhappy they would feel about the game if RNG was significantly reduced and suddenly skill became even more important than it already is. Think about all of the 40%-45% players who would suddenly drop 5%-10% off of their Win Rates, and how much more bitter ranting and vitriol there would be about good players, and how many of them would quit and stop spending money on this game.

 

So there's my list of mostly-subjective and a couple not-so-subjective reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Since this is a purely subjective topic, I'll feel free to weigh in here.

-snip-

So there's my list of mostly-subjective and a couple not-so-subjective reasons.

Thats all well and good, but the closest I generally come to rage quitting is when I am fully aimed in at a stationary target 350m away and my shot pounds into the dirt 20 ft from my barrel.  Thats frustrating as fuck and decidedly NOT good for the game - anytime you do everything right and get punished for it, its money out of WG pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pipinghot : You make sound points, but I will have to disagree with you that excessive amount of RNG is good for the game. and that WoT would be dead without it. I believe a good counter example to it is Dota, a game I played quite excessively before moving on to WoT. Dota is extremely skill based game, and by several orders of magnitude more complex than WoT. And yet it is one of the most popular games in the world with one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) esport scene in the world. In Dota, RNG is not a significant factor. Yes there are some heroes and items that do rely on RNG, but they are mostly used "for fun" and are stayed away from in competitive environment.

 

Yes, you can argue that there is a respawn in Dota, but the death is quite costly both for you and for the entire team, while in FPS respawn games, your death has very small impact, and stats are mostly tracked individually, so in most of the cases, it doesn't even matter for the team. So in this sense i argue that Dota is more similar to WoT than it is to a FPS with respawn. 

Why don't bads leave Dota, and why it is not a dead game, since normal distribution of skill is valid there as well? 

My answer to that is because Dota offers something for everyone. And the biggest difference is in the high end, where WoT completely fails, and Dota shines. And this is EXACTLY because of the RNG. WoT will never be a serious eSport, due to the high RNG bullshit in the game, because no sane player that invests his whole life in gaming, and is making a living out of it will subject his well being in life to RNGesus. So those that do remain in the competitive scene of WoT, i believe are mostly true tank-loving people that are there because of the community, and that majority of them have another source of income. 

 

High end part of the game is where WoT failed utterly, and it is mostly due to the RNG, and I strongly believe that the highest churn is exactly in this group of people (relative to the group size of course). Unfortunately i don't have data to back this up, so it will remain on the level of assumption. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 5:43 PM, Archaic_One said:

Thats all well and good, but the closest I generally come to rage quitting is when I am fully aimed in at a stationary target 350m away and my shot pounds into the dirt 20 ft from my barrel.  Thats frustrating as fuck and decidedly NOT good for the game - anytime you do everything right and get punished for it, its money out of WG pocket.

If you want dead-on accuracy at 350m then maybe you should be playing FPS games instead. I'm not saying that you, or anyone, has to agree with me, and there is certainly a lot of room for discussing how much accuracy should be expected at different ranges, but 350m is a pretty large distance, that's a pretty darned reasonable range for a "perfect" shot to miss. It's important to remember that 350m in WoT isn't really 350m, all of the numbers in this game are significantly scaled down from real ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 3MAJ86 said:

@Pipinghot : You make sound points, but I will have to disagree with you that excessive amount of RNG is good for the game. and that WoT would be dead without it.

That's fair, I did go to the extreme so maybe "dead" was going too far, but when you consider which players benefit most from RNG I feel confident in saying that the game would not have gotten as big as it has if the RNG was too small and shot dispersion was too accurate. A reasonable argument could be made for +/-20 or maybe even +/-15 RNG rather than the +/-25 we've always had, but going as low as +/-5 or even +/-10 would be too brutal for all of the bad/average & casual players, and they wouldn't have anything to compensate for that brutality. At that point WoT would have to use SBMM to placate the masses and it would be a significantly different game.

17 hours ago, 3MAJ86 said:

I believe a good counter example to it is Dota, a game I played quite excessively before moving on to WoT. Dota is extremely skill based game, and by several orders of magnitude more complex than WoT. And yet it is one of the most popular games in the world with one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) esport scene in the world. In Dota, RNG is not a significant factor. Yes there are some heroes and items that do rely on RNG, but they are mostly used "for fun" and are stayed away from in competitive environment.

If the publicly published numbers are to be believed (for example the 2015 & 2017 data in the link below) WoT has consistently made more money that DOTA, which either translates into being more popular globally, or making more money per player globally, and either of those answers translates into WoT beating Dota. It's pretty hard to take seriously the argument that WoT should be more like Dota, even though they've been consistently beating Dota each year.

https://mmos.com/editorials/most-profitable-mmos-mmorpgs

I suggest to you that you're arguing based on your personal preference rather than what the data says. You may prefer games that are "extremely" skill based, but that' doesn't mean the general game playing (and paying) public prefers them. Consider for a moment how many people who play WoT don't understand the battle mechanics, don't understand teamwork, and have no intention of ever being serious competitors. Their money spends just as well as yours, and they significantly outnumber you.

I'm not trying to suggest that you should change your preferences or desires, but I am suggesting that you might be skewing your assessment of the game's success factors based on what you like or dislike.

Also, I'm not suggesting that RNG is the only reason for WoT's success. Since there are many factors involved in a game's success I concede that it's possible you're right, maybe WoT could be more successful if they reduced the RNG, but when we consider which player demographics benefit the most from RNG I don't think it's probable that you're right. It would take some pretty serious evidence before I'd believe any claim that reducing the RNG would make WoT more popular and/or more profitable globally.

Changes might make it more popular in NA, but we've always been a minority server. Consider the fact that the two games tied for #2 on that list linked above pretty much don't care about the West. Dungeon Fighter Online shut down their NA server a while back (two years ago?) without batting an eye, they simply don't need us, and Crossfire has a relatively small Western audience just like WoT.

17 hours ago, 3MAJ86 said:

Yes, you can argue that there is a respawn in Dota, but the death is quite costly both for you and for the entire team, while in FPS respawn games, your death has very small impact, and stats are mostly tracked individually, so in most of the cases, it doesn't even matter for the team. So in this sense i argue that Dota is more similar to WoT than it is to a FPS with respawn.

I've never played Dota, so I'll pretty much take your word on that assessment. Based on everything I've read about it, it seems like your assessment is pretty good, "in this sense ... Dota is more similar to WoT than it is to a FPS with respawn", sounds reasonable.

17 hours ago, 3MAJ86 said:

Why don't bads leave Dota, and why it is not a dead game, since normal distribution of skill is valid there as well? 

Well, bads do leave Dota, just like they leave every other game. All games have player churn, the question is how much player churn, and how much to the retained players spend per player over time when they hang around. Having said that, I don't know the churn data for either game, so instead I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about how Dota presents itself to the player base.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there are other elements that benefit bads in Dota:

1) Dota (like LoL) uses a form of SBMM so that people are almost always in a battle with people who are fairly close to their skill level. From what I've read you don't see the complaints about newbies vs. Unicums in Dota that you see in WoT, so I've always held the assumption that Dota uses skill brackets, much like LoL.

2) As far as I know Dota does not force people to see just how good (or bad) they really are. There are stats, but they're more focused on "how well did you do in this battle", which allows bad players to happily move from battle to battle with their Dunning-Kruger effect solidly wrapped around their egos to keep them happy.

3) How does Dota reward players for skill? WoT rewards player with more credits & XP when they win, and skilled players win more, so they earn more and progress faster than bads. Conversely, bads are subsidized by the pool of Team XP and Team Credits that they get a share of from every battle, which helps cushion the blow for their lower win rates. What compensation structure does Dota use that makes it palatable for both bads and goods?

17 hours ago, 3MAJ86 said:

My answer to that is because Dota offers something for everyone. And the biggest difference is in the high end, where WoT completely fails, and Dota shines. And this is EXACTLY because of the RNG. WoT will never be a serious eSport, due to the high RNG bullshit in the game, because no sane player that invests his whole life in gaming, and is making a living out of it will subject his well being in life to RNGesus. So those that do remain in the competitive scene of WoT, i believe are mostly true tank-loving people that are there because of the community, and that majority of them have another source of income.

High end part of the game is where WoT failed utterly, and it is mostly due to the RNG, and I strongly believe that the highest churn is exactly in this group of people (relative to the group size of course). Unfortunately i don't have data to back this up, so it will remain on the level of assumption.

I tend to agree with what you've said, and am willing to join you in the same assumptions, which leads us mutually to the question... so what?

And I don't mean that sarcastically, I'm not trying to give you a ration of s**t, that's a sincere question. WG presents the appearance of taking E-sports seriously, in spite of their own game's obvious weakness in that area, but do they really? From what I can tell their goal is to use E-sports as a marketing tool because publicity is good, but I don't see any reason to believe that they've ever thought e-sports were actually crucial to their business. Personally I think that WG's participation in E-sports is all smoke and mirrors because in the end it's not tied to their game's success in any truly meaningful way. Some games only successful because they are well suited to E-sport while others (like WoT) are successful in spite of the fact that they're entirely unsuited to E-sports. If WoT made significant modifications to the game to make it more worthy of E-sports would that actually help the game, and help their profitability? I, for one, doubt it and based on all of their actions over the last 7+ years so do they.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pipinghot Well, i stand corrected. Yes i didn't check the data, i based my assumption upon "The International", and the fact that WoT doesn't have the tournament of that size. At least not that I know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2018 at 10:28 AM, Pipinghot said:

If you want dead-on accuracy at 350m then maybe you should be playing FPS games instead. I'm not saying that you, or anyone, has to agree with me, and there is certainly a lot of room for discussing how much accuracy should be expected at different ranges, but 350m is a pretty large distance, that's a pretty darned reasonable range for a "perfect" shot to miss. 

Thats a silly analogy, why can you not have reasonable accuracy in a game like wot?  Why is a KV-2 as effective a sniper as a Panther II?  If a stationary tank locks its cross hairs on a stationary tank and fully aims, it should be a hit, everything should scale down from that but fully aimed shots should not fly into the dirt or into space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some really damn good games are literally all about RNG, managing it and bluffing around it (in competitive games). Examples:

  • Poker
  • Magic: The Gathering
  • Literally almost every board-game ever

Also, I want to point out the mild cognitive dissonance. You state:

Quote

randomness in general is a bad thing for any game, and is in my opinion an extremely lazy way of making the game "unpredictable"

Perhaps you can give an example of something that doesn't involve randomness (or rather pseudo-randomness) to make things unpredictable?

However, I will agree that WoT's randomness is pretty poor because one is not really given enough means to manage that randomess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, OOPMan said:

Perhaps you can give an example of something that doesn't involve randomness (or rather pseudo-randomness) to make things unpredictable?

Like good map design, where there is more than one optimal way to play it. All the maps in current rotation have more or less predefined opening positions for each type of vehicle. You know where the heavies will be, you know where the TDs will camp and so on. 

 

Compare Frontline mode vs. Random battles. Frontline is much more chaotic, unpredictable, and therefore FUN! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 3MAJ86 said:

Like good map design, where there is more than one optimal way to play it. All the maps in current rotation have more or less predefined opening positions for each type of vehicle. You know where the heavies will be, you know where the TDs will camp and so on. 

 

Compare Frontline mode vs. Random battles. Frontline is much more chaotic, unpredictable, and therefore FUN! 

Right....but without randomly generated maps how exactly are maps going to be unpredictable?

A static map will have static positions that can be ranked as either strong or weak with regards to play options.

Sure, a good map be less predictable but it's never going to be unpredictable.

Look at Q3A maps. You can pretty much predict that people will be in certain parts of the map more likely than others simply on the basis of what weapons and power-ups are located near that part of a map.

I think calling Frontline chaotic is rather overstating it. If I start on the left lane it's pretty clear where players will be going (The high road close to the the middle-lane is important, the central village is important to attack but dangerous to move into, the outer edge of the map seems less popular and useful than the high road)...that's not unpredictable at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RNG plays into your neural pathways very much like gambling. Most of the time you ignore your low and average, unrewarding rolls, but in the off chance of rolling high with great rewards you get an instant surge of pleasure from the dopamine release. This pleasure is addictive, once you have experienced this "feel good" response you'll want more of it.

Relating the above to RNG in games, on a macro scale there are team compositions. Games are boring when you know for certain what the outcome may be. Knowing that you will win or lose because everything happened exactly as you expected doesn't give you as much pleasure on winning than having a surprise win. On the micro level there are damage rolls, knowing that you will hit for 390 exactly every single time gives you less pleasure than the occasional high roll.

Then there are lootboxes, which is basically RNG-facilitated gambling with or without actual money involved. The same principles can also be applied here: it's more exciting to win an unexpected reward than it is to know in advance what you'll win.

Skill-based gameplay is a different story, but since underlying mechanics of RNG precludes skillful manipulation we can leave skill out of this for now. Any sort of skill revolving around an RNG environment primarily boils down to minimizing the effects of RNG, outplaying your opponent is secondary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Haswell I think it's possible to balance the role of RNG and skill in a game.

If you consider the awesome LCG DoomTown: Reloaded you'll see a game that has RNG (because it's a card game and thus the cards you draw are random (to some extent, within the limits of the size of the deck (DTR uses 52-card decks), card limits (4 of each unique card) and shuffling limits (without a mechanical shuffling device)) but which is very much not just about RNG. 

If you play DTR badly then you will very much be at the mercy of RNG on your shootout-draws and so forth but playing well and building a strong deck allows you to control the RNG and focus on the important movement and area-control mechanics of the game. That doesn't mean the RNG goes away completely, but a well constructed deck is not nearly so much concerned with that (While at the same time retaining that RNG thrill you mention due to the way the game mechanics involve playing poker hands to resolve situations)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OOPMan RNG can easily be minimized in most card games, yes. This is where the primitive definition of "skill" comes in, where by building a good deck to maximize your chances of getting a good hand is a skill just as much as understanding the game mechanics and outplaying your opponent. In the grand order of things however, the first demonstration of skill would be building the deck, the second demonstration being whatever happens in the game after your hand is dealt.

Marrying RNG and skill together successfully requires RNG to not get in the way of skill, and vice versa. For card games the major random factors are your hand and your opponent's skill. After the cards are dealt (assuming you or your opponent won't draw more cards from the deck later on) and you know who you're playing against, RNG ceases to be involved (in most cases). Card X won't need a probability roll to determine whether its effects will be activated, you can't "almost" kill an enemy card at random unless the game dictates such RNG mechanics.

Using tanks as a counterexample, RNG actively works against player skill at the micro level. You can aim at something you want to hit and your shot can go anywhere within your reticule, making long distance shooting less of a skill and more of an RNG roll. Your target can have 390 hitpoints left and RNG low rolls you with 389 damage, nothing that skill can compensate for other than shooting your target again after a reload. Ditto for penetrations.

If tanks want to balance skill and RNG, they should make it so the consequences of RNG fucking you over isn't as severe, and let skill be able to counter the effects of micro RNG. Loading prem rounds just to make sure RNG can't fuck you over is not the way to go, because then the question becomes why have this sort of RNG fuckery in the first place when you can bypass it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Haswell said:

@OOPMan Card X won't need a probability roll to determine whether its effects will be activated, you can't "almost" kill an enemy card at random unless the game dictates such RNG mechanics.

You should definitely check out DTR. It's interesting in this regard due to the way poker draws are often required to activate certain powerful effects. The game is extremely draw-heavy which is actually nice for a card-game because you are able to cycle through your deck relatively quickly and reshuffle which goes a good way towards mitigating the effects of poor draws and shuffles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 7:39 PM, Archaic_One said:

Thats a silly analogy, why can you not have reasonable accuracy in a game like wot? 

Whats "reasonable"?

I guess the following numbers are true:

Given equal player skill a VK36.01H will lose against an IS-3 in 999 times out of 1000

In a IS-3 vs IS-3 fight a WN 300 player will lose 19 out of 20 times against an WN 2300 player.

So, where is the problem? Shot RNG is sometimes frustrating - but mostly because the game does not communicate the near misses that other players suffered against YOU while you ALWAYS realize when RNG "denied" you your rightful hit. And THAT is the problem, not the RNG itself.

It is also a minor problem given the woes of the MM and the tier differences - VK3601H vs IS-3 is much more bullshittery than RNG can be in 999 out of 1000 cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

...

In a IS-3 vs IS-3 fight a WN 300 player will lose 19 out of 20 times against an WN 2300 player.

...

That's ok. The problem starts to rear it's ugly head in E-sports ... .

 

Furthermore RNG is the most frustrating for those players who are potential E-sports material even outside of it. Among other things it's probably one of the main reasons of the exodus of top players since 2013/14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

Whats "reasonable"?

Well, I actually kind of explained it in the rest of the comment.  Essentially, if you aim long enough that the aim circle stops shrinking, your shot should go where its aimed - i.e. scale RNG down with time spent aiming to some finite level.

Part of this also comes back around to the problems with HE mechanics, Types 4-5, KV-2, etc don't pay any penalty for accuracy, while Panther's, Comets, etc. do.  I understand that RNG is WG method of trying to equalize the game across skill - thats fine, but they have given out so many low skill short-cuts in recent years that the game balance is swing too far towards the lowest end.

In the end, RNG compensation is why middle of the road players like me end up spamming so much gold.  I spent just as much time grinding my 50B as you spent grinding your Type 5, but when half of my fully aimed attempts to hit your weak spots slam into the dirt - I'm switching to APCR and shooting you in the face in exchange for your 420yoloblazeit HE snapshots to my UFP.  If I could be relatively certain that my shots would go where I aimed them, I might not carry 40 APCR rounds that I end up dumping into CDCs and arty.

(OK, actually I'll still load gold for arty, because fuck them :minidoge:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The overall intuitive perception is that tank shots should go where they are aimed is false, and that is the problem for players and WG.

That simple belief is counter-intuitively opposed by the reality of large projectile direct fire ballistics.  Notwithstanding, that the game is a game and that multiple real life "concepts" are modeled, simulated, and fudged to make it work within the game (engagement ranges for one), many more are not and RNG collectively makes up for those.

Firstly, take a simple look at reported dispersion (gun accuracy) for example.  For weapon accuracy the military use this dirty little secret of Circular Error Probable defined as the radius of a circle, centered on the mean, whose boundary is expected to include the landing points of 50% of the rounds.  Full disclosure: I don't know what figure WG puts on dispersion so just making an assumption going by limited real life experience in airborne, bomb, rocket, and missile ballistic calculations.

Secondly, moving on to the study of these principles called ballistics that generally consists of three parts: internal, external, and terminal ballistics.

Interior ballistics is the study of a projectile's behavior from the time its propellant's igniter is initiated until it exits the gun barrel. The study of internal ballistics is important to designers and users of firearms of all types.  External ballistics or exterior ballistics is the part of ballistics that deals with the behavior of a projectile in flight.  Terminal ballistics is the study of how a projectile behaves when it hits its target and transfers its kinetic energy to the target. The bullet's design, as well as its impact velocity, plays a huge role in how the energy is transferred.

It seems fairly obvious that even theory-crafting manufacturing tolerances, propellant weights, round shapes, barrel wear and tear, optical sight issues, weather, gravity drop, temperature, etc (just check out   Ballistics: Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition, Third Edition for more) all contribute negatively to aiming, hitting, penetrating, and damaging tanks. 

Even though we all get the 25m dirt shots and the 500m snap shots on the move, from the many sigma changes over time I suspect that WG already fudges the numbers well in favour of the player via the aiming calculation mechanic while limiting RNG to +/- 25%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 8_Hussars said:

The overall intuitive perception is that tank shots should go where they are aimed is false, and that is the problem for players and WG.

That simple belief is counter-intuitively opposed by the reality of large projectile direct fire ballistics.  Notwithstanding, that the game is a game and that multiple real life "concepts" are modeled, simulated, and fudged to make it work within the game (engagement ranges for one), many more are not and RNG collectively makes up for those.

Firstly, take a simple look at reported dispersion (gun accuracy) for example.  For weapon accuracy the military use this dirty little secret of Circular Error Probable defined as the radius of a circle, centered on the mean, whose boundary is expected to include the landing points of 50% of the rounds.  Full disclosure: I don't know what figure WG puts on dispersion so just making an assumption going by limited real life experience in airborne, bomb, rocket, and missile ballistic calculations.

Secondly, moving on to the study of these principles called ballistics that generally consists of three parts: internal, external, and terminal ballistics.

Interior ballistics is the study of a projectile's behavior from the time its propellant's igniter is initiated until it exits the gun barrel. The study of internal ballistics is important to designers and users of firearms of all types.  External ballistics or exterior ballistics is the part of ballistics that deals with the behavior of a projectile in flight.  Terminal ballistics is the study of how a projectile behaves when it hits its target and transfers its kinetic energy to the target. The bullet's design, as well as its impact velocity, plays a huge role in how the energy is transferred.

It seems fairly obvious that even theory-crafting manufacturing tolerances, propellant weights, round shapes, barrel wear and tear, optical sight issues, weather, gravity drop, temperature, etc (just check out   Ballistics: Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition, Third Edition for more) all contribute negatively to aiming, hitting, penetrating, and damaging tanks. 

Even though we all get the 25m dirt shots and the 500m snap shots on the move, from the many sigma changes over time I suspect that WG already fudges the numbers well in favour of the player via the aiming calculation mechanic while limiting RNG to +/- 25%.

This is a fine explanation for what happens in real life, but last time I checked the game isn't a sim. Realism here is getting in the way of enjoyable gameplay, unless you enjoy being at the mercy of RNG, in which case refer to my explanation about addictive pleasure.

7 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

Whats "reasonable"?

I guess the following numbers are true:

Given equal player skill a VK36.01H will lose against an IS-3 in 999 times out of 1000

In a IS-3 vs IS-3 fight a WN 300 player will lose 19 out of 20 times against an WN 2300 player.

So, where is the problem? Shot RNG is sometimes frustrating - but mostly because the game does not communicate the near misses that other players suffered against YOU while you ALWAYS realize when RNG "denied" you your rightful hit. And THAT is the problem, not the RNG itself. 

It is also a minor problem given the woes of the MM and the tier differences - VK3601H vs IS-3 is much more bullshittery than RNG can be in 999 out of 1000 cases.


A tier 6 losing to a tier 8 given equal player skill has nothing to do with RNG, that's just a difference in power embedded in the game mechanics.

A less skilled IS-3 losing to a more skilled IS-3 has nothing to do with RNG, as that is merely a difference in player skill (unless you count the RNG factor for the MM).

Shot RNG is frustrating because it has absolutely nothing to do with player skill. You can be positioned in the right place, playing the right tank, teamed up with the right players against the right opponents, etc... If RNG decides your perfectly aimed shot will eat dirt and roll low pen there is absolutely nothing player skill can do anything about it except for hoping your next shot will go better. Except in this case you may not get a next shot after a lengthy reload.

This may be a minor problem in pub battles, but it becomes apparent when it comes to professional play. Which is a major reason why WG never managed a solid foothold in esports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Haswell said:

This is a fine explanation for what happens in real life, but last time I checked the game isn't a sim. Realism here is getting in the way of enjoyable gameplay, unless you enjoy being at the mercy of RNG, in which case refer to my explanation about addictive pleasure. 

I understand that and wot is balance between a sim and an arcade game.  I don't agree that WoT needs to be no-scope 360 first person twitch shooter where the round goes to the pixel my computer thinks I'm aiming at (there are many better games for that).  For most, that style of play in WoT would not be enjoyable gameplay either. 

WG went to the trouble of modeling modules and module locations, round penetration mechanics (normalization), blast radius, dispersion's on the move and a host of many  other sim type elements.  Map strategy, macro and micro positioning, reading tank line-ups, exploiting tank strengths and weaknesses is the enjoyable part of the game; so what if aiming, pen, and damage are modeled more realistically than not.

As an aside the ONE change that would improve WoT overnight; is to introduce the proper (real) radio range mechanic.  More fog of war, more use for Light tanks to scout and radio relay, a whole set of useful crew skills, and Arty gets an indirect nerf so they cant see the whole map anymore.  They have to move putting them in harms way, or be blind (well more than usual)...  but then we would be even more back in the camping era...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 8_Hussars said:

Map strategy, macro and micro positioning, reading tank line-ups, exploiting tank strengths and weaknesses is the enjoyable part of the game

These all fall under player skill, in which they are the few things that RNG have little to no effect on.

5 hours ago, 8_Hussars said:

so what if aiming, pen, and damage are modeled more realistically than not.

Imagine playing a game where you need to plan your movements and adjust to your opponent's strategies, but after all that careful strategizing and execution you have no way of hitting, penetrating or damaging your opponent. Alas, the only way to achieve victory in this game is by damaging and destroying your opponent (not going to talk about capping here), but you can't do that because the game won't let you.

These three things are the core mechanics of the game, in that if you can't hit, pen or damage your opponent you'll end up with a very frustrating time no matter what else the game allows you to do.

To put it in more relatable terms, imagine playing paintball with a gun that doesn't shoot straight and rounds that don't burst properly. I applaud you if you'll still have fun playing that, because I sure as hell won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Folterknecht said:

That's ok. The problem starts to rear it's ugly head in E-sports ... .

Yes, indeed. WoT and E-Sport is just stupid, eben though they seem to have found a format that works at least in their core market Russia.

But at the same time WoT is as popular and as successful because it has RNG and not despite. If all the tank daddies would be killed the very second they stick their nose out the game would falter fast.

11 hours ago, Haswell said:

A tier 6 losing to a tier 8 given equal player skill has nothing to do with RNG

I didn't say it has - I said that this is the real problem of WoT and mostly also the real problem of the frustration players feel. That and the gamenot communicating your luck as well as your bad luck.

In WoWS tier differences are MUCH less pronounced and if you turn at the wrong moment you see those shell flying towards your jiucy unprotected broadside and you think "oh shit, shit, shit" and then they miss - phewwww. You know you screwed up and got away with it and next time you do the same you get citadelled and send to the port you remeber that you were lucky before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.