Jump to content


RNG Rant


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

Augustus_Sohn #1 Posted May 24 2019 - 02:10

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3144 battles
  • 944
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014

You know how when you get a new tank, all is good? You can't miss, your armor actually works and then suddenly, 5-10 games later, you cannot do anything right at all?

 

That is what kills this game for me, honestly. The numbers mean absolutely nothing when in the end it's all a crap shoot, a roll of the dice. Armor values, pen values, dispersion; it is all meaningless. I heard one very good player and streamer say that they shot mostly gold/special ammo in order to negate some of the RNG. I get it.

 

I recently bought the T29. The first few games were amazing, even with a simply 100% crew, no other skills or perks. Now the last 10-15 games, I can't hit a thing even fully aimed, and when I do it bounces. (And of course, just to rub salt in the wound, I snap shot in a red tank's direction and I hit him, setting him on fire) I know it's not the gun, I know it's not because I am not aiming, I know it's not because I don't know where to aim; it's the mother-loving RNG. 

 

I can already see the argument "WG is trying to make you spend more money." Well, more money is not going to affect the RNG. Once a tank is fully kitted out, there's no more you can do. 

 

So am I the only one who seriously just thinks "F this game" when I hit an RNG streak? Because conversely, you know what keeps me coming back to play? When RNG shines and actually takes a nap so the numbers mean something. Just like everyone else, I don't come on here a gripe about having good games or good RNG. When the game actually works like it says it should, and shots hit, pen and do damage regularly, the game is unbelievably fun. But when you have a streak of games where you do one shot of damage - again, not that you weren't trying hard to play your best- this game sucks butt juice.

 

Over in Blitz they are going to have an RNG-Free mode. I'm not sure how that will play out, but the RNG seriously needs to be tweaked more than anything. IMHO, over all the problems in this game (MM, Arty) the RNG is the killer.

 

Thanks for hearing me out. 



dont_ping_me #2 Posted May 24 2019 - 02:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 82077 battles
  • 3,540
  • Member since:
    02-11-2012
I like the concept of RNG as it adds realism. The problem is that you can have two days in a row where you get terrible RNG, then the switch flips and you cant miss anything. Either its being intentionally manipulated or there is poor programming.

tod914 #3 Posted May 24 2019 - 02:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 63589 battles
  • 5,911
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

Was watching a few of the purple streamers the past few days.  They had their share of curve balls and under handed tosses that bounced.  More so than I have seen in a while.  If MM don't want you to win, you'll get a monkey wrench in the gears.

 

 



F1O1 #4 Posted May 24 2019 - 02:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 60 battles
  • 1,583
  • [SAMUS] SAMUS
  • Member since:
    01-11-2012

View Postdont_ping_me, on May 24 2019 - 01:28, said:

I like the concept of RNG as it adds realism. The problem is that you can have two days in a row where you get terrible RNG, then the switch flips and you cant miss anything. Either its being intentionally manipulated or there is poor programming.

 

Random number generation is fine. But 4-6% tops. This mimics industry standards. 25% is way too much, and that is not a concept of realism.

lmagine WWll factory and material scientists, were producing shells, explosives, penetrators, barrels  -  with capacity to be 25% up or down from lab tests. That is stupid, not realistic

 



cavalry11 #5 Posted May 24 2019 - 03:28

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 48221 battles
  • 402
  • [11BAT] 11BAT
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013
RNG is not realistic at all they need to start with minimum of 90% of rounds actualy hitting in aiming circle. when you have a reticle that is just larger than tank aimed at then the round hits way outside of circle that is stupid and WGs fault. Would  be frustrating enough missing but at least if it hit in circle maybe would feel better.

Bolted_On #6 Posted May 24 2019 - 03:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 64023 battles
  • 830
  • Member since:
    09-03-2012
Just goes to show that your skill level, equipment, etc, mean absolutely nothing if WG has decided that your tank won't perform or that you will not win.   When you really think about it, you kinda go "why the heck do I even play this anymore, and subject myself to the aggravation ?"  Thusly, I hardly play WoT anymore, I've moved on to "another" game that has no RNG, and no arty in PVP mode, and I'm enjoying it immensely.

MiddleAgedNoob #7 Posted May 24 2019 - 15:47

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 16460 battles
  • 520
  • [MARV] MARV
  • Member since:
    10-29-2016

The plus/minus 25% is for penetration and damage, not for accuracy.  Accuracy is done differently:  https://wiki.wargami..._and_Dispersion

 

According to the wiki, your aiming circle is 2 standard deviations of a normal distribution based on your final calculated dispersion.  Just over 68% of your shots are supposed to land within an inner ring of half the radius of the aiming circle, and the rest within the outer ring.  You can dispute whether this is true or not, but this is supposed to be how it works.

 

In my personal experience, it generally works as intended.  I also don't mind it, I think RNG is a relatively simple mechanic for addressing a range of things that would otherwise be difficult to model - strength of weld, quality of material, warm vesus cold gun, gunner hang overs, fluke shots etc.  It is a game mechanic, like every other, that you need to take into account when you play.  I might take them out, I might not.

 

GLHF

 

 



dunniteowl #8 Posted May 24 2019 - 23:38

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29347 battles
  • 7,282
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

View PostF1O1, on May 23 2019 - 19:43, said:

 

Random number generation is fine. But 4-6% tops. This mimics industry standards. 25% is way too much, and that is not a concept of realism.

lmagine WWll factory and material scientists, were producing shells, explosives, penetrators, barrels  -  with capacity to be 25% up or down from lab tests. That is stupid, not realistic

 

 

I disagree.  +/-25% RNG in damage and with regard to dispersion (which is not RNG guided) mimics real world things pretty well.   I used to read police reports back in the day in cases where shots were fired.  Regularly trained people who are familiar with their weapon and trained to shoot during high stress moments literally PISSED AWAY THEIR AMMO with something like 15 shots fired to 1 or 2 shots striking their target.

 

RNG simulates:

Windage

Dud Rounds

Oscillations in the gun aiming mechanism.

Vibration from the Engine running.

Imperfections in the Ground creating rolls, dips and bounces of the chassis while moving.

Gearing not always working at its best.

Fear and Excitement making shots fired be shot too soon, too late, or aimed improperly even though the reticle SAID it was fully aimed.

 

And other things.  Real Life throws all manner of things at you and there's no way of knowing if something is going to be 'successful' until it happens.

 

 

OvO



Goat_Rodeo #9 Posted May 25 2019 - 00:15

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 15266 battles
  • 1,537
  • [DHO4] DHO4
  • Member since:
    06-26-2014
I had a load of games over the past 2 days with some of the most horrific RNG I’ve seen lately. When I’m in a tier 7 in a tier 7-9 game, and I miss 2 out of every 3 fully aimed shots, there’s nothing else that can be done except hope your team doesn’t potato. With the x5 weekend here, it’s a wash for me....see you all on Monday. I don’t need WGs dumpster fire of a game getting me worked up on a nice weekend. 

F1O1 #10 Posted May 27 2019 - 18:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 60 battles
  • 1,583
  • [SAMUS] SAMUS
  • Member since:
    01-11-2012

View Postdunniteowl, on May 24 2019 - 22:38, said:

 

I disagree.  +/-25% RNG in damage and with regard to dispersion (which is not RNG guided) mimics real world things pretty well.   I used to read police reports back in the day in cases where shots were fired.  Regularly trained people who are familiar with their weapon and trained to shoot during high stress moments literally PISSED AWAY THEIR AMMO with something like 15 shots fired to 1 or 2 shots striking their target.

 

RNG simulates:

Windage

Dud Rounds

Oscillations in the gun aiming mechanism.

Vibration from the Engine running.

Imperfections in the Ground creating rolls, dips and bounces of the chassis while moving.

Gearing not always working at its best.

Fear and Excitement making shots fired be shot too soon, too late, or aimed improperly even though the reticle SAID it was fully aimed.

 

And other things.  Real Life throws all manner of things at you and there's no way of knowing if something is going to be 'successful' until it happens.

 

 

This isn't a gunnery simulator.

'

this is WG giving bad players a carrot, and good players frustration.  No game l have ever played, has had 25%. lt is extremely high

 



dunniteowl #11 Posted May 27 2019 - 19:26

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29347 battles
  • 7,282
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

View PostF1O1, on May 27 2019 - 11:20, said:

 

This isn't a gunnery simulator.

'

this is WG giving bad players a carrot, and good players frustration.  No game l have ever played, has had 25%. lt is extremely high

 

 

The point is that the RNG is a good version of having all that sort of stuff play into the 'potential' to change the course of a match.  It HELPS as often as it HAMPERS and it does so equally to everyone.  Sometimes the super unicum just can't get no love and other times that tomato supreme can do no wrong.  And that also goes in the opposite direction where on some instances the poor player feels crushed so repeatedly that they begin to think a SBMM will solve it for them while at the same time that unicum is working on Three Marking a Tank a Week.

 

It provides an active, real people playing population a wide array of luck, both good and bad and on both sides of any equation/division you could care to name.

 

It's never been different since the game started.

 

Do you mean to tell me that you have been thinking, since day one that you started playing that the RNG was too wide?  As far as that goes, are you going to maintain that you've never argued against something in the game because it wasn't 'realistic' or conversely argued to have something in the game that would make it 'more realistic?'

 

I'm not saying I have or have not made any such arguments myself, however, there are places where concessions to some form of 'realism' over 'individual skill' might actually be relevant to add in a factor of uncertainty for the possibility of a David to beat a Goliath, even here in WoT.  I like the RNG as it is, because it means a much wider variety of 'anything can happen,' which creates -- at least for me -- a more 'realistic' feel for the uncertainty factors in the games I am playing.  I find that to make the games much more fun and exciting for me to always think of it as a possible loss as easily as it is a possible win and that doing my best is to expect that I am up against better players unless shown otherwise.

 

I think the RNG, like MM and all the other things I found when I got to WoT, I simply accepted as "part and parcel" of the game designers' intent with it and played within that framework.  I haven't had a single moment in all the time I've played where I thought any of those things were designed to 'keep me down' or provide someone else an greater advantage over me, because "reasons."  I have never, by the same token, complained that I thought the mechanics were broken, or that the designers didn't know what they were doing when it came to most things once "Battle!" was clicked.

 

I guess, from where I sit, these sorts of complaints about game mechanics that have been part of the game since day one puzzle me.  Why can't people accept that those mechanics are actually working the way the designers wanted them to and the frustration most folks feel when things aren't going as well as they'd like gets directed at anything they can point a finger at and say, "If it weren't for THAT, I'd be having more fun, doing better, winning more, etc, and that is also an all-too-easy-to-do response to most anything any of us will have to a situation we do not like for whatever 'reason' that we might have.

 

I know the game is not a simulator.  That said, does this game 'simulate' gun's firing at targets?  Do those targets also get to fire their virtual or 'simulated' guns at the targets shooting at them?  When the tanks move, are they not moving in a simulated environment with defined physics, collision elements and pathing blockages that 'simulate' a Battle Field?

 

The whole, "this is a tank arcade game is not lost on me."  I know that.  However, it is just as true, that while this game is NOT a Real Tank Battle Simulator, it DOES SIMULATE a Tank Battle Environment Based on Realistic Physics Simulated while playing with concessions made for game play purposes such that realistic, realism and Real are all very different things, terms and concepts that can also be applied, depending on context, multiple ways in the same overall discussion.

 

Even so, I get what you mean.  I'm not going there in this regard.  I was talking about how RNG is given its value to 'simulate' conditions that you cannot accurately calculate or depict in terms of game play actions directly, though can influence in terms of randomly calculated values for several functions that are subject to a small variance from 'a to j' in an otherwise constant value calculation.

 

Thus it simulates, in that fashion, the idea of things like I posted above.  It doesn't really matter if it's a De Facto or Actual "Simulator" as in intended to train people or show them what its REALLY like or if it is an Simulated Arcade Reality that promotes 'realism' and 'realistic' as defined by the responsiveness, ease of immersion into the 'environment' and willingness to suspend disbelief and become fully engaged.

 

I believe the RNG as it was placed into the game and used since then, simulates the randomness of things that can happen in a real time, 'realistic' arcade style tank combat game when playing against people in a simulated environment that includes those random fluctuations as a method to mimic the vagaries of warfare's confusion, luck and chance.  I'm sure we see it differently, based on other posts I've read.  

 

I'm just left to wonder, though, what converts someone to the "We need to reduce or remove RNG" perspective.  Was there a 'moment' where you had an epiphany of clarity and realized how 'wrong' or 'misguided' RNG was even though you'd played with it from the first battle to the last one?

 

I am not being facetious, I promise.  I am truly curious as to how RNG becomes something 'wrong' with the game and at what point does it occur, because RNG has been the same since I got here and I haven't found occasion to think ill of it as a thing to blame for my situation while playing.  Perhaps a few anecdotal moments would help prepare me for my 'ascension' to Anti-RNG acolyte?  I would at least know what signs to look for to know if I'm on my way.

 

 

GL, HF & HSYBF!
OvO


Edited by dunniteowl, May 27 2019 - 19:29.


el_01 #12 Posted May 27 2019 - 23:44

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2308 battles
  • 84
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    10-27-2018

Not sure if this counts, but the matchmaker seems to favor you if you don't play a tank for a few days.

 

For example, if I play my Ikv 65 II regularly like I used to, I would get craptastic battles. Now that I play it only once every few weeks, it seems to be better.

 

Perhaps it's correlation and not causation, and that I just need to refresh my mind across a long period of time before playing a tank, but there does seems to be a distinction.

 

Also, I used to play the Ikv regularly when I was still a dark red tomato, so don't take my word for it.



GeorgePreddy #13 Posted May 28 2019 - 01:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 14680 battles
  • 12,535
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View Postdont_ping_me, on May 23 2019 - 22:28, said:

I like the concept of RNG as it adds realism. The problem is that you can have two days in a row where you get terrible RNG, then the switch flips and you cant miss anything. Either its being intentionally manipulated or there is poor programming.

 

Actually... that's pretty much how randomness works, streaks are quite normal.

 

 

 

 

 

 



SquishySupreme #14 Posted May 28 2019 - 01:09

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2881 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    10-29-2018
Since the last major patch where they changed it, though, it has become extremely random.  Never before have I had fully aimed (server cross-hair) shots where I had 2-3 seconds of fully aimed at a static target go *outside* of the entire target area.  I think they wanted to implement "fliers" like you'd have with cheap small arms ammunition as the number of dud rounds seems to be extremely high.  Unless you are playing Russian derp...

3nr0n #15 Posted May 28 2019 - 01:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21649 battles
  • 1,184
  • [1VETS] 1VETS
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012
Had a few "ghost" rounds lately fully aimed shot close range, no bounce, hitting dirt etc...  The round juts didn't register as being fired except on my ammo count of course.

Roggg2 #16 Posted May 28 2019 - 18:18

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 21400 battles
  • 1,961
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    05-27-2015
I think you have too much of your happiness tied up in whether individual shots work out or not.  RNG is just a thing.  You will hit snap shots, and you will miss fully aimed shots.  You will low-roll, and you will ammo rack opponents. It just is.  




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users