2012_PlayeR

Regarding RNG in Games, in general

34 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Jaegaer said:

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.

I agree, the power difference across tier gaps is a major problem of the game, but I thought we're talking about RNG vs skill...?

That being said, the MM is basically an RNG of its own. With 3/5/7 and soloqueueing (assuming sufficient players at each tier) you basically have 47% chance of being bottom tier, 33% mid and 20% top. Tiers 1-3, 9, 10 and stuff with pref MM have different probabilities, but the RNG in MM still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this topic is about how RNG "waters down" the display of skill. In WoT this means that even the best solo player will not go much over 65% winrate while even the worst tomato will usually still manage 38%+

Ofc this is also bc 15 vs 15 limits the maximum and minimum influence.

However the RNG servers two additional functions:

First of all it makes the game less static. If you play WT you know what I mean. Without aim/pen RNG every well placed shot is deadly and that means the stationary tank thats ready to shoot has a HUGE advantage and that makes the game static and stale and not at all casual.

And second it gives you brutally great games sometimes where you perform well ahead of your average skill at the cost of perform below your average skill sometimes - just because of RNG. And this too is why WoT is so successful. WG knows that in order for some players to have great games their opponents need to have bad games - it's unavoidable. But humans usually remember the fond and great things longer/more than the bad ones and RNG helps capitalizing on that.

SO discuss all you want about how WoT is too much RNG that hampers good players more than it helps them (which it does) but the game would be much less successful without it because 95% of all players benefit from the RNG.

Share this post


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

Essentially, if you aim long enough that the aim circle stops shrinking, your shot should go where its aimed

Which would mean that the kemp bush @ base guys would always hit the pushing tanks where they want to hit them... That does not strike me as a good idea. Imagine that Type 5 full penning your cupola EVERY SINGLE TIME from 400m away because he sat still and was fully aimed when you poked around the corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For that you can wiggle your tank, which is a skill right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats doesn't change the fact that the stationary tank has a huge advantage. Just play WT and see for yourself and also notice how it is not even 1/50th as profitable as WoT.

Share this post


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

First of all it makes the game less static. If you play WT you know what I mean. Without aim/pen RNG every well placed shot is deadly and that means the stationary tank thats ready to shoot has a HUGE advantage and that makes the game static and stale and not at all casual. 

By saying lack of RNG will make the gameplay static you imply the presence of RNG is in opposition of static gameplay. And yet even with existing RNG gameplay is still observably static. For example, staring contest on (old) Campinovka, old Province, Lakeville valley camp. And of course there's constant cover hugging to avoid arty, where arty is already affected by RNG much more than any other vehicle class.

If RNG makes the game less static, why do people camp all the way back and be useless? Why do frontally impenetrable tanks choose to sit BEHIND squishier allies instead of taking point? Why offer premium ammo that tends to defeat the entire purpose of RNG pen? Why doesn't arty presence make gameplay more dynamic?

Static gameplay primarily results from poor map design and poorly balanced gameplay mechanics, where the fear of getting punished makes people sit still in the most useless positions. RNG may have a role in promoting dynamic gameplay, but it's effects are relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

13 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

And second it gives you brutally great games sometimes where you perform well ahead of your average skill at the cost of perform below your average skill sometimes - just because of RNG. And this too is why WoT is so successful. WG knows that in order for some players to have great games their opponents need to have bad games - it's unavoidable. But humans usually remember the fond and great things longer/more than the bad ones and RNG helps capitalizing on that.

See gambling and pleasure addiction.

13 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

SO discuss all you want about how WoT is too much RNG that hampers good players more than it helps them (which it does) but the game would be much less successful without it because 95% of all players benefit from the RNG.

I wonder where you got that 95% number from. Yes, RNG will theoretically allow a bad performing player to achieve results more rewarding than their low skill level would receive otherwise, but you failed to consider at what threshold does RNG start hampering the results of good performing players. For simplicity's sake I'll assume 50% win rate to be the threshold here, and that there is an equal distribution of players below and above the threshold. In this case the amount of players benefiting from RNG will be roughly equal to those who are hampered by it. I realize this is a gross simplification, but my point still stands.

9 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

Thats doesn't change the fact that the stationary tank has a huge advantage. Just play WT and see for yourself and also notice how it is not even 1/50th as profitable as WoT.

WT's lack of success is not entirely due to their lesser RNG mechanics. For one, consider that WT has predominantly been focused on planes, and that by the time they decided to put tanks in the game they already face stiff competition from WoT, just like how AW failed to compete. For an opposite example, see WoWP vs WT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 7:24 AM, Jaegaer said:

Thats doesn't change the fact that the stationary tank has a huge advantage. 

That only works if your opponent is also stationary.  Trying to pre-aim for where you hope a weak spot will appear is probably not going to work very often.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that was an extreme example thats nevertheless is quite valid, opponent needs to stop to aim and that gives the stationary tank a huge advanateg - even more if you load the gold and roflpen everywhere.

Share this post


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

Well, that was an extreme example thats nevertheless is quite valid, opponent needs to stop to aim and that gives the stationary tank a huge advanateg - even more if you load the gold and roflpen everywhere.

Your point is valid, though not relevant to RNG. Bush wookies and defender's advantage will exist regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.