Jump to content
bjshnog

I made an RNG suggestion.

Recommended Posts

As RNG is basically the entire game, I doubt WG will want to change it, but I made a suggestion thread anyway.

 

Find it here.

 


To which I'm sure many other players can agree, it really sucks when you've fully aimed 3 shots with a decently accurate gun on a weak spot (with, say, a 90% chance of penetrating), only to have all 3 shots hit the upper plate and bounce. If I aim for 5 seconds, my shot should not act as if I've just fired a snap shot while rotating my hull. This has happened many times to me today already, and that is why I'm going to ask a question:

 

How can this be altered so that careful aiming actually makes a significant difference?

 

This is my suggestion:

  • Current system: Minimum average dispersion. Linear dispersion reduction with respect to time. Shots, movement and hits from shells cause dispersion to increase by a constant amount. Subject to crew skills and equipment.
    • For example, you have a gun with 0.4 accuracy and when you fire it, the dispersion increases to 1.0. It takes 4 seconds for the dispersion to return to normal. This means that after T seconds of firing, dispersion will equal D:
      • T=1, D=0.85.
      • T=2, D=0.7.
      • T=3, D=0.55.
      • T>=4, D=0.4. Note: After 4 seconds have passed, dispersion has decreased by 0.6, and dispersion does not decrease past 0.4.
  • Suggestion: No minimum average dispersion. Inverse exponential dispersion reduction with respect to time. "Accuracy" is defined by an arbitrary number. Aim Time is replaced by Aim Rate or Aim Speed, the ratio by which the dispersion decreases each second. Shots, movement and hits from shells cause dispersion to increase by a constant amount. Subject to crew skills and equipment in the most equivalent way possible to the current system.
    • For example, you have the same gun with an arbitrary accuracy value (which could indeed be equal to the current ) of 0.4 and an Aim Rate of 1/1.25. At the time of firing the gun, dispersion increases from 0.4 to 1.0 (+0.6). After T seconds of firing, the dispersion will equal D:
      • T=1, D=0.8.
      • T=2, D=0.64.
      • T=3, D=0.512.
      • T=4, D=0.4096. Note: After 4 seconds have passed, dispersion has decreased by 0.5904.
      • T=5, D=0.32758. Note: Dispersion continues to decrease after 4 seconds, rewarding patience. This doesn't mean you will pen every shot, because if the enemy moves, you will have much less chance of hitting a weak spot and more of hitting the tracks, etc. RNG, when you've aimed for 10 seconds, won't give you pens if you aren't aiming at exactly where the weak spot will be.

 

In my opinion, my suggestion is both more fair to players AND more realistic. Instead of RNG deciding how some battles end, skill and strategy does.

 

Discuss.

 

Do you find it intredasting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Suggestion" is the shortbus of the forum, equivalent of the paper shredder feedback box. Don't bother. 

 

My last suggestion went through. See High Caliber.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My last suggestion went through. See High Caliber.

 

I didn't put in a suggestion, but they are going to implement this as well ... whether they read my post or came up with it independently is unimportant so long as it gets used.  ie Camo reduction when firing adjusted by gun caliber

Link to post
Share on other sites

My last suggestion went through. See High Caliber.

 

Are you sure it was actually your suggestion that made it through, though? "medal for dealing damage" seems like something that may have been planned already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure it was actually your suggestion that made it through, though? "medal for dealing damage" seems like something that may have been planned already.

 

It was defined basically exactly how I described it on the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure it was actually your suggestion that made it through, though? "medal for dealing damage" seems like something that may have been planned already.

 

Of course not, WG dont give a fuck about forums other then RU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that brings huge problems with guns that are balanced through accuracy, whenever you have those stalemates between tanks, arty can now zero in on that handful of pixels of a turret corner and hit it reliably, they do after all have 30+ seconds to aim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that brings huge problems with guns that are balanced through accuracy, whenever you have those stalemates between tanks, arty can now zero in on that handful of pixels of a turret corner and hit it reliably, they do after all have 30+ seconds to aim.

 

With arty, the aim rate would be closer to 1/1.1 or less, so it would take them a hell of a lot longer to aim if they wanted it to be accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, the aim time is not linear, it decreases by a multiple of 3 for every "aim time" stat. It's in the wiki:

http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/Battle_Mechanics#Aiming_Time

 

Second, having an infinite aiming would be problematic just by the errors in the pixels your gun is pointing at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many arties are already borderline useless atm, when it comes to aimtime. With many of them I dont even bother to change my aim if enemy arti is lit up. It just takes to long to change target.

 

 

That aside - why not introduce "dynamic sigma"?  rushed shot have a distribution like pre 0.8.6 and well aimed shots like now. Atm KV-2 with troll gun turn hull+turret and still hit when fired clutch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the system as we have it today.  My favorite part is a critical hit with AP ammo to the turret which manages to damage the tanks tracks.  I tracked a hull down tank yesterday where I could only see the top half of the turret. 

He bitched me out on chat for tracking him.  I said, not my fault, talk to WG about that one (I would have much rather got the ammo rack or crew damage that should have occurred.

 

Working as intended. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That aside - why not introduce "dynamic sigma"?  rushed shot have a distribution like pre 0.8.6 and well aimed shots like now. Atm KV-2 with troll gun turn hull+turret and still hit when fired clutch.

 

Too hard for thickies to understand.

 

 

You have to remember when you're suggesting fiddly systems that the average World of Tanks player has just about figured out that they shouldn't lick their computer just because it says Windows, and by the time they hit about tier 5 have maybe realised that if you click the mouse button it goes bang.

 

 

In reality, RNG decides very little in World of Tanks, it's there, but you account for it in your plans.  In fact, the ability to account for possible random outcomes in forward planning is a skill in itself, and wanting the random element removed would actually remove a skillset from the game.  People need to stop crying about something that has a deciding influence maybe one out of a hundred games, sometimes you bounce or roll low but oh well you shoot again and the job's still done.

 

First, the aim time is not linear, it decreases by a multiple of 3 for every "aim time" stat. It's in the wiki:

http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/Battle_Mechanics#Aiming_Time

 

Second, having an infinite aiming would be problematic just by the errors in the pixels your gun is pointing at.

 

Aimtime is linear.  Your dispersion reduces by a factor of 3 in the listed aimtime.  So if your dispersion started out at 4 the time to come to full aim would be 4/3 of your listed aimtime.  If your dispersion started at 10 it would be 10/3 of your listed aimtime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, the aim time is not linear, it decreases by a multiple of 3 for every "aim time" stat. It's in the wiki:

http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/Battle_Mechanics#Aiming_Time

 

I meant to quote, not +rep, but oh well. Basically what GloatingSwine said about it. If you look at the way the aiming circle shrinks in-game, you can see that it is linear.

 

In reality, RNG decides very little in World of Tanks, it's there, but you account for it in your plans.  In fact, the ability to account for possible random outcomes in forward planning is a skill in itself, and wanting the random element removed would actually remove a skillset from the game.  People need to stop crying about something that has a deciding influence maybe one out of a hundred games, sometimes you bounce or roll low but oh well you shoot again and the job's still done.

 

But it doesn't feel like that at all... There are so many close battles that RNG seemed to decide just because my shots absolutely refused to hit a penetrable surface. Particularly E75s from ~200m. Their weak spots seem easy enough to hit from that range, but the shells just don't agree. Also, removing the skill element of planning for RNG is hardly an issue, as it brings in the required skill set of not sitting in the same spot for 3 minutes while being visible, moving so that tanks can't hit your weak spots due to chance, and aiming where the enemy will be as opposed to where you have the greatest RNG chance to penetrate. If a target is spotted out in the open, 600m away, and just sits there for ages, it should be easy to kill him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but you're ignoring all the times you rolled high, ammo racked someone from near full health hit that 600m snap shot you fired because why not, etc.

 

RNG exists but its effects even out over time.  Sometimes you bounce or tracks eat a shot, but if you're in a position where that's the difference between winning and losing a match, the problem wasn't the RNG on that shot it was the sequence of events which put you in a position where you had to make that shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but you're ignoring all the times you rolled high, ammo racked someone from near full health hit that 600m snap shot you fired because why not, etc.

 

RNG exists but its effects even out over time.  Sometimes you bounce or tracks eat a shot, but if you're in a position where that's the difference between winning and losing a match, the problem wasn't the RNG on that shot it was the sequence of events which put you in a position where you had to make that shot.

 

I wasn't talking about penetration or damage. Just accuracy. I can deal with low pen or low damage rolls, but when my gun has been pointing in a particular direction for 10 seconds, the shell should go that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And by and large it does.  Especially since the sigma changes, even with theoretically "inaccurate" guns like on the KV-1S I was achieving near 80% hitrates.

 

RNG is not a frequent problem when it comes to hitting targets, you remember the troll misses because they stand out, but if you miss fully aimed shots on a regular basis you're too far away and you should have had a more realistic expectation of where the shell was likely to go.  If you take a long range low margin shot then you need to expect it to miss as often as it hits, that needs to have been part of the plan when you took the shot, and if you really need that particular target dead then your plan needs to have some way of making the next shot higher margin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Too hard for thickies to understand.

 

That's a pretty good point.

 

Besides I would like to stress the point that a certain degree of insecurity on the micro-level and in the short run keeps the game interesting. As pointed out above, accounting for RNG while playing is a skill in itself and while the human mind is not ideally suited to deal with probabilities, it is fun not being able to predict everything.

 

The system proposed above with infinite aim times would also make camping a more valid strategy. And a system of dynamic sigma doesn't sound like it would add anything on the level of gameplay to the current system with additive dispersion values.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought about this a number of times, and this time-bonus system is what I'd actually prefer for camo/spotting mechanics.

 

I think you could keep it simpler, how about the sigma is the old one until the person is aimed down very close to full. I'd have some type of exclusion for this rule such as medium/light tanks as they tend to be more reliant of shooting on the move.

 

And by and large it does.  Especially since the sigma changes, even with theoretically "inaccurate" guns like on the KV-1S I was achieving near 80% hitrates.

 

If you can achieve the same hit rates with what would be considered an "inaccurate" gun vs an accurate gun then you know something probably isn't right.

 

 

 

The system proposed above with infinite aim times would also make camping a more valid strategy. And a system of dynamic sigma doesn't sound like it would add anything on the level of gameplay to the current system with additive dispersion values.

Infinite aim-times are meaningless since matches are limited to 15 minutes, why bring it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more you reward people for not momving and staying still (stopping and aiming, not moving and keeping that accurate aim) the more campy it makes the gameplay. It also creates balance problems. Not that wg gives a shit about balance but when and if e100 can snipe from 600 metres just as well as e50m or leo can then what is the point of accuracy of the gun? After that change the accuracy becomes meaningless and only aim time matters.

I had similar thought about this as you when I thought about it it would slow down the game. Only way to counter that would be to increase the aim times which would then just add rng instead of reducing it (on average you'd be shooting with bigger reticle unless you aim longer).

As for shooting while moving I kind of like it how it is now. There is a skill to it and a good player will hit a lot more of those shots than a bad player even if rng plays a big role.

As far as rng goes I'd just remove all rng from penetration calculations and damage. It just makes the game stupider when rng can rob you from win even when you outplay the enemy to get the first shot in situation where both are oneshottable. Just because you roll for 350 and enemy gets 410 and kills you is stupid. Why couldn't 490 aloha gun always hit for 490? What does it add to the game when it hits for 398?

The aiming accuracy is a different thing. Without it this becomes cod with tanks. How to make it more skill based and less rng while still keeping it simple? I think we could make the guns little more accurate with really simple change. Remove the automatic elevation correction and add a system like in war thunder when you need to manually aim higher than the target to get the shot go where you want. Result is more skill based but still simple mechanic that also looks more like how you aim in real tank. Not to mention cooler looking reticles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i just want accuracy to have a proper trumpet shape. its really hard to aim poorly at short range, while its easier over distance for things like wind and shell drop to come into effect. 

 

then again, i also want kinetic damage, but i doubt we will ever see that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had another idea for RNG too, which keeps the random element, but doesn't rely on the law of large numbers to average out results, especially in relatively small samples.

 

For every shot, there's an RNG coefficient variable set, and if your accuracy, penetration or damage RNG is above average for one particular shot, the corresponding RNG coefficient increases, which slightly pushes the next shot toward average RNG, but only by a factor of maybe 20%, taking into account the last 2 shots. For example, let's say RNG for damage is linear (uniform) from 300 to 500. If you get two shots which are 300, then the RNG coefficient is set to -1. The next shot would have 20 damage added to it, so if you would normally do 400 damage in the next shot, you would do 420, or if you would normally do 490, you would do 500.

 

However, for tanks with higher rates of fire, I would expect it to take into account more shots. For example, if you're playing a tank which can reload 3 shots in a minute, it would take into account ceil(sqrt(3)) = 2 shots, and for a tank that could fire 20 shots in a minute, it would take into account ceil(sqrt(20)) = 5 shots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i prefer the randomness stay random. 

they already weigh some of them using sigma instead of linear scaling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...