Jump to content


RNG needs to be fixed before anything else. It makes the game near unplayable sometimes


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

zarg12 #21 Posted Sep 10 2017 - 21:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20583 battles
  • 924
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011

View Postpepe_trueno, on Sep 10 2017 - 15:44, said:

 

no need of marijuana to see that the acuracy stat dosent mean much, there are plenty of examples of inacurate guns sniping like the video claus made some time ago

 

Let's learn.

This diagram shows most of your shots, 68.2% in fact, will go towards the middle.


The middle circle represents the 68.2%.

There is no pixies involved in aiming.

Mikosah #22 Posted Sep 10 2017 - 23:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 17520 battles
  • 3,163
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

The question is what this level of RNG forces you to do. The biggest takeaway is that it forces you to focus on positioning. If your position is good and the enemy's position is bad, then over the long run you'll benefit more from the randomness than he will. Imagine a hypothetical where there's two tanks, one in a perfect hull-down and the other completely in the open with his hull sideways. In that situation, if both had perfectly accurate guns then the guy in the open could just snipe the other's cupola and both would be damaging eachother just as often. The more random things are, the safer a small weakspot is compared to the guy who has no cover at all. 

 

But here's the problem with this system. For one, we're already heavily position-dependent as it is. And all these shots missing or bouncing just slows the whole process down in an already slow-paced game. The longer it takes to eliminate any one enemy, the more you depend on the team. And at least in the randoms, having to depend on others is pure misery. And that's not even mentioning how obnoxious it is to get into a close fight that's ultimately decided not by skill, but by an arbitrary dice-roll. 

 

As of the train of thought that RNG levels the playing field for the underdog, consider all the situations in which it does just the opposite. And as for the apparent 'need' for RNG just for the sake of variety, not only is that a superficial concern, it also discounts the variety we experience from many other facets of the game (that aren't pure cancer). 



Patriot63USA #23 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 17:34

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10376 battles
  • 57
  • [RYZIN] RYZIN
  • Member since:
    07-21-2015

View PostCanadianGuitar, on Sep 09 2017 - 12:49, said:

 

If you spent thousands of dollars in 7000 battles you have serious issues. In all my time here, with premium and premium tanks, I think it would be closer to 300 or 400 at the absolute most.

 

300-400 no way, I spend about 80 a month, and have around 8k battles, I have a premium account, and I buy tanks that I think are cool, or specials on personal reserves, maybe some gold or credits once in a while. RNG is a total fail which it the purpose of his post, he can spend what he likes, the fact that you dont want to freely admit what you spend is not his problem.

diego999 #24 Posted Sep 11 2017 - 20:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 29593 battles
  • 4,421
  • [ACA] ACA
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostPatriot63USA, on Sep 11 2017 - 13:34, said:

 

300-400 no way, I spend about 80 a month, and have around 8k battles, I have a premium account, and I buy tanks that I think are cool, or specials on personal reserves, maybe some gold or credits once in a while. RNG is a total fail which it the purpose of his post, he can spend what he likes, the fact that you dont want to freely admit what you spend is not his problem.

 

You should spend in a new rig, so you don't get 15fps and ask wargaming for compensation because your computer sucks.

Cozzinator2 #25 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 06:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 22473 battles
  • 66
  • [SS7] SS7
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
I'm guessing that Zarg12 is a fanboyz and an ahole with those replies. He sounds like a typical no account pos who cant let other shave an opinion. 

OlTanker #26 Posted Sep 12 2017 - 15:18

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 11765 battles
  • 201
  • [3_61] 3_61
  • Member since:
    01-17-2016

Yup and that is why the ignore option in the forum is SO nice. Just like muting chat in the game you can remove those folks from your view. Worked great for the purple anime spammer and it works fine for zarg.

 



GHR1227 #27 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 18:53

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 43690 battles
  • 805
  • [TIGR] TIGR
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013

View PostTahllol, on Sep 10 2017 - 11:57, said:

 

Actually against heavy and highly angled armor HE should be nearly useless. It was designed to take out light armor, troops positions, spgs, and buildings, not shoot at heavily armored tanks.

 

 

I totally agree, maybe +/- 10 or 15% but when as a TD with nearly 300 pen and you bounce 2 shots off a lights [edited]and the next to don't even land in the aim circle crap is jacked up.

 

HE is most definitely not useless against heavy armor in WoT and if AP fails a lot of people resort to HE. 

HE on weak spots such as commander's cupola, but that still dispersion can make that fail.

 

In the real world it's true that HE was only for light armor and against troops, but in WoT they call it "splash" or "shock" HE damage vs heavy armor.

 

You have only to look at the Type 4 and Type 5 Heavy tanks for proof of that.  Their primary tier X gun pen 75mm and have 1100 damage alpha.

And they can shave 1/4 to 1/3 of the HP off a 2000HP tier 10 tank in a heartbeat.

 

Not to mention all the other Russian tanks which fire HE as a high damage low pen gun.  KV2 comes to mind.

 



GHR1227 #28 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 18:57

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 43690 battles
  • 805
  • [TIGR] TIGR
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013

View Postpepe_trueno, on Sep 10 2017 - 14:44, said:

 

no need of marijuana to see that the acuracy stat dosent mean much, there are plenty of examples of inacurate guns sniping like the video claus made some time ago

 

Keyword "some time ago".  This video was from May of 2016.  We are in 9.20 that was what 9.0 or something?

Lot's of "re-balance" has gone into RNG and WoT in 16 months.


Edited by GHR1227, Sep 14 2017 - 18:58.


zarg12 #29 Posted Sep 14 2017 - 18:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20583 battles
  • 924
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011

View PostCozzinator2, on Sep 12 2017 - 00:01, said:

I'm guessing that Zarg12 is a fanboyz and an ahole with those replies. He sounds like a typical no account pos who cant let other shave an opinion. 

 

If you get upset at factual numbers and logic, that is on you. Because...

View PostOlTanker, on Sep 12 2017 - 09:18, said:

Yup and that is why the ignore option in the forum is SO nice. Just like muting chat in the game you can remove those folks from your view. Worked great for the purple anime spammer and it works fine for zarg.

 

 

^ Only baddies get triggered by me.

cthulhu_hunter #30 Posted Sep 15 2017 - 22:07

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 28411 battles
  • 237
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

I hear you. I was playing my tier 10 Object 140 and was destroyed in 1 shot by an tier 10 E100. 1 shot. I now only play tiers 3, 5, and 6. Sold my 140 after that battle BTW. (I now got gobs of credits for buying gold!) Back at you WOT's!






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users