|
Post by alsadius on May 29, 2019 13:29:56 GMT -6
Random numbers include streaks of bad luck. Sometimes you're the Dreadnought who rams a submarine to death, sometimes you're the Hood getting wtfpwned by a single lucky shell. Them's the breaks. Proper design and tactics improve your odds, but they're no guarantee in any individual battle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:33:34 GMT -6
Blowing some debris into the rotation mechanism, which needs to be removed and patched up? That doesn't sound unlikely at all. Everyday stuff in naval battles, actually. There are multitude of instances on how glancing blows got turrets stuck in place, sometimes for hours, before damage control could unjam them. And then we have PoW's jamming A and Y turrets out of their own volition . But I guess that's covered by the reliability issues inherent to those turrets in the appropiate tech in game. You missed the point. Im perfectly aware that the turret may be even completely put out of action by non-penetrating hit, just by the armor splinters. The point is that enemy got penetrated and is back in action after 8 minutes, my turret was not penetrated and is not back in action after half of an freakin hour. If the game is so realistic to put my turret out of action by non penetrating hit, it SHOULD be realistic enough to put enemy penetrated turret out of action for the rest of the battle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:34:54 GMT -6
I've played a lot of games that use a fairly straightforward damage model where each ship operates at full effectiveness until its "hitpoints" are depleted, at which point it blows up. That certainly reduces the effect of chance, but it's not very interesting. RtW is not one of them. If you see the modifiers used in the % to hit calculations (through the ship information screen, right click on the ship's shape on the map), you'll see that sustained damage severely affects the fighting ability. The OP just got an unlucky encounter and has just gone ballistic over it. I could keep on making creative dialogues out of historical events to at least keep the joke going, but by this point why bother . I love how some people just tend to judge other people they never met...
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 29, 2019 13:34:58 GMT -6
Well if we want to compare damage control, there is always Taiho vs. Enterprise. Lets not forget also that a Japanese Heavy Cruiser's torpedo rack being set off by what is potentially a deck gun from one of the escort carriers at Samar. Graf Spee pounded Exeter in river Plate but it was Spee that received the blows that condemned her to her fate. You speak of things that by all means would've happened in RTW as they did in RTW2, there is nothing that changed in rtw 2 that would indicate good old gun battles would've worked out any differently minus some potential mess up with the new armor calculations. In case you haven't noticed, real life naval warfare is random and indeed often full of events that can be attributed to "row of the dice". If you do not like the way that's is, thats unfortunate but that is how things are. I'd even argue this factor of randomness actually makes the game more fun for me, RTW AI is adequate but the greatest, so having to deal with misfortune from time to time is part of the challenge. Also randomness only get you so far, 99 out of 100 times you will see a poor pre-dread being smashed by a dreadnought, and whos to say that there will never be a case where some lucky pre-dread was able to take out a much newer ship? The difference in damage control is negligible, both sides have +- the same technology in my case. And by the way, in RTW 2 it is not misfortune, it is disadvantage. I just like to use correct words. Misfortune is something that happens sometimes, disadvantage is something that happens constantly. Well my experience over 2 and half playthrough have not pointed me to that conclusion. I had games where 2-3 enemy penetrating hit slowed my BC to half speed where as theirs remained mobile throughout the combat, receiving over 15 hits. I also had games where my BB ltaking on 20+ Penetrating hits at almost point blank range, but was able to walk away and even sink the enemy BB in return. Most of the times things end up being somewhere in between. Rtw2 have it’s problems but I don’t think “bad odds” is one of them. Unless one of us can point towards any solid modifier applied to the AI’s dice roll, it is not disadvantage, it is just fortune one way or the other. Speaking of turret pen, your turret maybe jammed by splinter, his turret maybe disabled because everyone inside died. Having everyone inside dying can potentially mean it just take time to run people back in there if nothing else is severely damage. Lion’s turret was penetrated by a capital caliber shot in Jutland and there were still survivors inside to warn the crew about flooding the magazine. A lot can happen in abstraction of the game. If this had been a first person game where the shell penetrated the turrrt, explode in a guy’s head and then you see him dusting the dirt off his hair, it is fair to call it out. As is, not every shot that pen necessarily have the impact you imagine. There are simply a lot of things that could happen
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 29, 2019 13:37:26 GMT -6
I love how some people just tend to judge other people they never met... Good lord and now for stating the obvious (That you got a streak of unlucky events and are tremendously salty about it).... I'm judging *YOU*? Well I should always remember, that in internet everyday someone surprises you with something new .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:38:10 GMT -6
The difference in damage control is negligible, both sides have +- the same technology in my case. And by the way, in RTW 2 it is not misfortune, it is disadvantage. I just like to use correct words. Misfortune is something that happens sometimes, disadvantage is something that happens constantly. Well my experience over 2 and half playthrough have not pointed me to that conclusion. I had games where 2-3 enemy penetrating hit slowed my BC to half speed where as theirs remained mobile throughout the combat, receiving over 15 hits. I also had games where my BB ltaking on 20+ Penetrating hits at almost point blank range, but was able to walk away and even sink the enemy BB in return. Most of the times things end up being somewhere in between. Rtw2 have it’s problems but I don’t think “bad odds” is one of them. Unless one of us can point towards any solid modifier applied to the AI’s dice roll, it is not disadvantage, it is just fortune one way or the other. If you know that 1 + 1 = 2, you dont really need to know how is that possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:41:53 GMT -6
I love how some people just tend to judge other people they never met... Good lord and now for stating the obvious (That you got a streak of unlucky events and are tremendously salty about it).... I'm judging *YOU*? Well I should always remember, that in internet everyday someone surprises you with something new . I´ve got 1 playthrough (more than 50 in game years) and a few years of another full of so called *unlucky* events. Salty? Ballistic over it? No, to be honest, Im just sad that I bought an expensive game just because I was overhyped because of the previous one...
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 29, 2019 13:42:55 GMT -6
Well my experience over 2 and half playthrough have not pointed me to that conclusion. I had games where 2-3 enemy penetrating hit slowed my BC to half speed where as theirs remained mobile throughout the combat, receiving over 15 hits. I also had games where my BB ltaking on 20+ Penetrating hits at almost point blank range, but was able to walk away and even sink the enemy BB in return. Most of the times things end up being somewhere in between. Rtw2 have it’s problems but I don’t think “bad odds” is one of them. Unless one of us can point towards any solid modifier applied to the AI’s dice roll, it is not disadvantage, it is just fortune one way or the other. If you know that 1 + 1 = 2, you dont really need to know how is that possible. Well I am here pointing out there are people that experience different than you. If your experience don’t match mine and we play the same game, it is clear that there is some discrepancy going on. 1+1=2 is objective fact. What we are discussing here clear is far from it.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 29, 2019 13:47:55 GMT -6
I´ve got 1 playthrough (more than 50 in game years) and a few years of another full of so called *unlucky* events. Salty? Ballistic over it? No, to be honest, Im just sad that I bought an expensive game just because I was overhyped because of the previous one... Noo, no, oh, Good Lord, how could I even go as far as saying that you're salty about it. A mere brief reading of your posts here just show up to which point such a statement is outwordly and outrageous!!!!... And yes, you've got 1 playthrough where you got a streak of unlucky events and are complaining about it in a forum where there's people who have played several 55 year full complete playthroughs of the game (your humble being one of them) and they're telling you that in game, as in real life wars, luck plays a huge part and you've just got unlucky. Make whatever you will out of it, but when everyone is telling you that you're blowing things out of proportion and that they aren't as you describe, usually there's a very good reasoning behind it. (Obviously that we're all deluded and you're the one who's correct ).
|
|
|
Post by entropyavatar on May 29, 2019 13:50:28 GMT -6
Confirmation bias can be extremely strong, either way. If you have developed a theory in your head that the dice are weighted against you, you will notice events that confirm that model. If you have the model that all is fair, you will notice evidence of that. We would probably need some real log analysis and controlled tests (as much as possible) to confirm one way or the other.
A priori though, I find it hard to believe the developers would spend time deliberately introducing a "screw the player" element to the game if it wasn't in RtW1. Breaking something by accident is a possibility but we would need a fair bit of evidence to confirm that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:53:19 GMT -6
If you know that 1 + 1 = 2, you dont really need to know how is that possible. Well I am here pointing out there are people that experience different than you. If your experience don’t match mine and we play the same game, it is clear that there is some discrepancy going on. 1+1=2 is objective fact. What we are discussing here clear is far from it. And what if you were just lucky? Im not sure at this point, but I played RTW 2 for about 60 in-game years, and the battles were like: 1. battle - unbalanced damage for my/enemy ships, 2. battle - no ships which I need and have plenty of, 3. battle - same as 2nd. 3,4,... 10 battle - all same as 2nd. 11th battle - ships are finaly here but also the ship I had for all the previous battles, and this one´s engine breaks before the fleets meet. 12th battle - critical into my flagships CT that is so heavily armoured that none of enemy ships should be able to penetrate it on almost any range. 13th battle - I have 3 ships against enemy´s 1. And I even have better ships. But my ships cant hit theirs from 3 nm in clear weather for 1 and half hour until enemy ship made it back to the port. 14th battle - so called "battleship" battle, but I have no battleships at all, but enemy does have. Maybe there were battles where my ships were at least balanced with enemy´s, but these were super-rare and I cant remember any of these...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:56:24 GMT -6
Confirmation bias can be extremely strong, either way. If you have developed a theory in your head that the dice are weighted against you, you will notice events that confirm that model. If you have the model that all is fair, you will notice evidence of that. We would probably need some real log analysis and controlled tests (as much as possible) to confirm one way or the other. A priori though, I find it hard to believe the developers would spend time deliberately introducing a "screw the player" element to the game if it wasn't in RtW1. Breaking something by accident is a possibility but we would need a fair bit of evidence to confirm that. Well, there is even an additional thing called "AI advantage", so your sarcastic theory may not be as much sarcastic as you wanted
|
|
|
Post by elenian on May 29, 2019 13:57:02 GMT -6
If the claim is that, between RTW1 and RTW2, the developers spent time and money implementing a new mechanism to systematically bias the game's RNG against the player, that seems... let's say 'unlikely'.
What might or might not be the case is that changes to other parts of the game system (eg, VP rewards for different things, AI design practices, new armor system, additional budget pressure from maintenance, etc) have changed the relative importance of certain RNG tokens, in a way that is making play experience more sensitive to single 'rolls' than was RTW1. I myself haven't really noticed this (only about 1.5 playthroughs so far though), but I'd be curious if anyone more experienced than I has thoughts about this.
EDIT: ninjaed slightly by entropyavatar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:59:48 GMT -6
If the claim is that, between RTW1 and RTW2, the developers spent time and money implementing a new mechanism to systematically bias the game's RNG against the player, that seems... let's say 'unlikely'. What might or might not be the case is that changes to other parts of the game system (eg, VP rewards for different things, AI design practices, new armor system, additional budget pressure from maintenance, etc) have changed the relative importance of certain RNG tokens, in a way that is making play experience more sensitive to single 'rolls' than was RTW1. I myself haven't really noticed this (only about 1.5 playthroughs so far though), but I'd be curious if anyone more experienced than I has thoughts about this. Well, Im anything but sure that it was intentional. You know, maybe its just another *screw the player * bug as AI having DP guns from the year 1899.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 29, 2019 14:01:02 GMT -6
Well I am here pointing out there are people that experience different than you. If your experience don’t match mine and we play the same game, it is clear that there is some discrepancy going on. 1+1=2 is objective fact. What we are discussing here clear is far from it. And what if you were just lucky? Im not sure at this point, but I played RTW 2 for about 60 in-game years, and the battles were like: 1. battle - unbalanced damage for my/enemy ships, 2. battle - no ships which I need and have plenty of, 3. battle - same as 2nd. 3,4,... 10 battle - all same as 2nd. 11th battle - ships are finaly here but also the ship I had for all the previous battles, and this one´s engine breaks before the fleets meet. 12th battle - critical into my flagships CT that is so heavily armoured that none of enemy ships should be able to penetrate it on almost any range. 13th battle - I have 3 ships against enemy´s 1. And I even have better ships. But my ships cant hit theirs from 3 nm in clear weather for 1 and half hour until enemy ship made it back to the port. 14th battle - so called "battleship" battle, but I have no battleships at all, but enemy does have. Maybe there were battles where my ships were at least balanced with enemy´s, but these were super-rare and I cant remember any of these... Maybe I am, I’ve played. Two 55 year games and. Is 20 year in a third. I consider my luck pretty balanced, and I’ve ran into some pretty unlucky scenarios but it was never constant enough to bother me. There are also set backs with clear cause, like BC walking away after 50 hits, but they had good deck armour and I had poor 12in guns etc.... Bottom line, I feel for you being frustrated that the luck(if it is luck) seems unfair. You are also right that it could just totally be I’m lucky, and it could just be you aren’t. Bottom line is I think without either more stats or some insight into actual numbers I’d refrain from blaming it on the game. If you aren’t enjoying the game because of the issues here, I’m sorry about that. I’d still encourage you to give it more tries( maybe after the upcoming 1.02 patch) and see how things are, because it has been working out fine for me.
|
|