As we've seen from a lot of the data that has been unearthed by people like The Chieftan, weapons during WWII were less precise than most people think. The manufacturing process for every component of a tank was a bit less precise than it is today and more importantly every factory was cranking things out as fast as they possibly could, with whatever materials they had available. The 1930-1950's were not the stone age, but they were less precise than the current generation of armaments, and the demands of war time production lead to more flaws in the processes. When I play WoT it's because I want something different, not something the same as all the others.Ģ) It feels more like a WWII era. When I'm in the mood for guaranteed accuracy I'll go play Call of BattleQuake FortressShockHalo WarfareStrike. I don't want WoT to play like the 12 most popular, cookie-cutter, guaranteed accuracy first person shooters. I like the RNG for the following personal reasons (although I don't expect anyone to have to agree with me):ġ) It's not a FPS.
Since this is a purely subjective topic, I'll feel free to weigh in here. And thats creates a better balance between good RNG and bad RNG. You see the shots flying towards you in an inopportune moment and you think "shit shit shit that will hurt" and then they all miss.
In ships the RNG is also present but it is usually way less ovious as RNG and is also way more balanced. I am keenly aware of every shot I missed because of RNG but I very often did not notice people missing my tank. If that KV-2 hits your T-34-1 then it's game over, if not that you take no damage at all. So I have not much problems with the RNG itselg, but rather with it's presentation. RNG can always deterr thme but can also carry them to 10k, 11 kills games that would otherwise be impossible or at least even rarer. In WoT this is true no matter you skill level - even the best of the best can never be really sure they are gonna slay the game. The randomness in WoT means that you can have utterly great games that you will fondly remember for years at the price of having brutally shit games too, that you promptly forget. There are a lot of games out there that do not have much in the way of the randomness factor and yet are still extremely re-playable my favourite examples are the Halo CE and Halo SPV3 campaigns on Legendary. I don't know about you guys, but randomness in general is a bad thing for any game, and is in my opinion an extremely lazy way of making the game "unpredictable" and "re-playable" sure, the game is now more unpredictable, but at what cost? Does the frustration that you get for each game you play because you can't know for sure whether or not the randomness factor would suddenly decide to say "fuck you" and screw you over make that factor of randomness worth it? However, this isn't really about stats, but rather about what RNG has on gameplay and the fun that you actually get in each game you play, in general. Now, I am a firm believer in player performance statistics, especially over a large number of games statistically, the effects of RNG become less and less apparent the more games you play.