While the underlying mechanics of chess are deterministic, the actual game isn't, since you're playing against a non-deterministic enemy (Many chess algorithms employ monte-carlo simulations, which is basically taking RNG to the fullest). A more fitting example would be Solitaire (not the Windows card game; this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solitaire_01.jpg ), which is boring pretty fast, at least for me. Or a rubik's cube.
We're all blinded. We all want XYZ and think everybody else is that way or should be. Or maybe we feel alone, so we argue accidentally in the attempt to find like-minded people. Maturity is when you accept others are different and your first impulse isn't to retaliate angrily any longer, as a general rule. Don't go into Dairy Queen and complain they have ice cream (or don't have pizza) if you got other options! If ice cream eaters annoy you, don't go into Dairy Queen. Or get over it. Just don't expect them to change. The world doesn't work that way. You have to have some resilience.
No, if you have enough redundancy in player force that you can win despite "dice loss" it means the level isn't balanced.
It doesn't matter. We can invent lots of tests of skill.
You don't need randomness for that. You make contingencies because you don't know what your enemy will do. If the game is so limited that it's always obvious what the enemy will do then that's a bad game and no amount of randomness is going to fix it.
Are you drunk?
Let me suggest that the enjoyment didn't come from the randomness of it.
On the contrary - if you have a battle where victory is only possible by perfectly executing a strategy without a single miss, than your game is an unbalance mess that leaves no room for player input. Gameplay shifts from "try to beat this" to "you'll only win if you figure out what the devs want".
Don't be stupid. Missing in a game like XCOM presents you a new challenge, as you likely failed to kill an alien and now exposed your troops - so rethink your strategy and deal with it.
If two warriors are at each other you as a commander aren't going to do shit from far away.
Games don't model real life and you don't need luck/randomness for interesting gameplay.
That's what games are all about - figuring out the puzzle or beating the reflex challenge. And your strategy doesn't need to be perfect obviously. It just needs to be better than the other player's.
Not at all. Both of them are equivalent to chance-to-hit. Mouse movement can be mitigated obviously, and % chance to die means you're now speedrunning. Sure the RNG could fuck you anyway, but the same is true in XCOM.
And having variables like RNG means that the puzzle changes every time - even mid-combat.
So games should be about either solving puzzles or a reflex challenge? Ok... are you sure you're on the right forum?
If the RNG keeps changing the challenge then how can the game designer design it? So the "puzzle" then is always the same because the developer can't say which way the RNG will take it. That's garbage. You've just replaying the same thing over and over again.
I guess the argument's over and I've won then.
Lack of RNG does not necessarily mean lack of variability though. There's A.I. behaviour, there's the way various game mechanics can interact with each other, there's line-of-sight mechanics obscuring visibility and plenty of other things that can lead to unpredictable combat flow.
As expected, we have someone who does not understand probability and thinks that it's magic that makes him lose.
Yeah, but I wouldn't say that because I don't know who that is and it isn't as funny.Nah, it's potatojohn pushing his "I'm a contrarian asshat" agenda.Looks like Craig Stern made a new account to push his "randomness is bad" agenda.
