Why does /v/ hate RNG elements in competitive games? Having a random mechanic gives the game an infinitely high skill ceiling, and it also makes luck another skill to be mastered.
>and it also makes luck another skill to be mastered
okay well done I laffed
>>319572363
>luck
>a skill
what the fuck
>>319572363
>rng
>skill
pick fucking one
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dice_Man
Free yourself, /v/. Follow the dice.
>>319572363
Player A and B have an encounter. A gets good RNG (lets say a crit), B gets bad RNG. Player A wins. This is a dice roll, and not a legit competition.
>>319572617
Dotards and other ASSFAGGOTS degenerates seem to think so.
In order for competitions to matter, all elements of the competition must be identical except for the individuals participating. Just because you cannot control the RNG doesn't make the RNG somehow suitable for competition. It's possible to do everything perfectly and still lose in the worst way possible. It's possible for an outcome to happen like that every time the competition is attempted. This is not good design.
>>319572363
I love RNG and luck components it makes for fun and frustrating experiences which is why i barely play competitive things because they eliminate everything that i personally consider fun.
While OP is retarded in how he phrased his topic and I don't disagree with other posters - if one wants all RNG out of his game, why not play chess? Pure skill, no RNG.
>>319572503
>>319572617
>>319572691
Being able to adapt to unplanned situations is most definitely a skill. Pro MTG players consistently win despite shuffling their decks before every game.
>>319572912
Nice reduction there familia. A game having an RNG element doesn't turn the entire thing into a die roll.
>>319572958
Luck is a skill though. I'm considering levelling up a little and putting some points into it.
>>319573378
>Being able to adapt to unplanned situations is most definitely a skill
is not the same as saying
>Luck is a skill
>>319573314
Except of course for the coin flip which determines who makes the first move which coincidentally increases your chances of winning.
>>319572617
>>319572958
"Luck is a skill" is poorly worded.
Risk management in RNG IS a skill, however. It's not a "pure" skill in terms that there are some factors outside the player's control, but the skill itself comes in managing these factors and their likeliness to your benefit.
This is exactly why FTL, for example, is nearly entirely RNG-based, and yet expert players can clear hard mode consistently. People seem to be turned off by the concept and reject it on the basis that, to them, it seems to be entirely based around luck, but there's certainly more to it. That's what "luck is a skill" is trying to say.
>>319572363
0/10
>>319573464
>coin flip
Forgot about it. Does it really increase that much? I bet someone made a study about this. Also, people have preferences and I'm sure some prefer playing black.
>>319572912
>>319573245
What you're describing there is a game where the outcome was decided by a single coin toss which none of the players seemingly prepared for. That's admittedly a rather shitty game. You can't just blanket all games with RNG factors under the same definition, though.
>>319573723
>Does it really increase that much?
Certainly can. Depends on the positioning of the coin in its starting postition, the size of the coin, the design of the coin, and air density.
Same with dice rolls and just about every other "random" event.
>>319573723
White statistically wins lllike 51% of all competitive chess matches.
>>319573749
What I'm describing is an element that renders any competition pointless. If at any point the outcome of the contest was not determined by the individuals and only the individuals then the results are spoiled.
Think of it scientifically. If there's a variable you want to test (to see who is better), you need to control all other variables to be sure your results are accurate. The entire point of a competition is to see who is better. Introducing uncontrolled variables is straight up bad science.
>>319573486
>roll a die
>evens I shoot myself with a pistol
>odds, I don't
risk management guys
>>319573939
I meant, does starting first really increase (substantially) your chances of winning.
>>319574176
It's enough of an advantage that legitimate chess competitions are not one-off now, they're more like tennis where it's whoever can win more games at a faster rate. Once you pull ahead in wins it means you were able to win as both white and black.
>>319574102
Then you would reach a stalemate, A competition where literally every factor is definite can be solved with a spreadsheet.
>>319572363
I for one dislike the RNG in HS. Card games already have a rng mechanic, it is called shuffiling your deck.
>>319574395
You don't understand the basics of the scientific method. The only factor you can change at will is what you're trying to test; i.e. the people. They are the unknown. Everything else needs to be known.
>>319574102
That is your own personal belief of what a competition is, what defeats it, and how competitive everything should be.
If you look at vidya game competitions you'll come to find that not everyone shares that opinion, and yet competitiveness continues to thrive. There are tons of extremely popular RNG-based competitive videogames.
Heck, you're applying your definition extremely rigorously, as well.
>If at any point the outcome of the contest was not determined by the individuals and only the individuals then the results are spoiled
If you take this literally, you'd have to ensure that every competitor is perfectly and exactly the same. You'd have to force all of them to use the same hardware, for example.
What I'm trying to say here is that it's a videogame, not a fucking government-regulated universal showdown, nerd.
>>319574356
Good to know anon!
>>319574652
Then you're not actually competing with people; you're just playing electronic calvinball.
>>319574785
>Then you're not actually competing with people
Says who?
You?
Plenty of people would disagree.
>>319574892
Luckily the dictionary isn't written by the mob; it's written by experts. Bean experts.
>>319574102
>Think of it scientifically. If there's a variable you want to test (to see who is better)
But how well one does when faced with a very slight disadvantage and/or "RNG" elements is also a merit of skill, and in consequence - who is better.
That's why if you wanted to do it "scientifically" you would make the players play a dozen games and in multiple setups.
A bigger uncontrollable variable is whether your test subject slept well and is happy/grumpy/sad that particular day.
>>319574529
...And you would reach a stalemate.
>>319574984
>Luckily the dictionary isn't written by the mob
That's just wrong, the dictionary is meant to document the vocabulary that real human being people use. Which is why "literally" was accepted as meaning "with emphasis but not actually literally", despite the kicking and screaming of the experts.
>>319575068
What are you talking about? People are different. What they do is different. The outcomes are different. In perfect competitions there are no stalemates. Even if everything is perfectly and mathematically identical in every way, shape, and form except for the participants of the competition, people would invariably do things differently each attempt. Ever heard of time trials? All starting variables are exactly the same except for the people doing them. That's just one small example of what a competition actually is; devoid of RNG.
>>319574984
You know, thinking of it, there's nothing about your scientific method in the dictionary, either.
Looks like you CAN have competition with factors beyond the player's control. I mean shit, real life sports have been getting by just fine for thousands of years, even when as much as the wind blowing could be construed as RNG.
>>319575434
Let it go anon. Not worth your time.
Weaklings can't surpass a 20!
>>319575048
Which is why many people compete over the same things again and again; because they believe they can improve or do better. That's the key though- it's all their mindset, their bodies, their abilities. Everything inherent and personal to them. They're allowed to change and try again; just as long as the competition itself doesn't change.
>>319575571
Piss-poor damage control tbqfwymf
>>319575434
>even when as much as the wind blowing could be construed as RNG.
Which is why competitions are constructed to alleviate as much of that RNG as possible by limiting it, restricting it, or mitigating it to not adversely affect the results of the competition.
If 40MPH winds are blowing during a 1v1 archery competition during one person's attempt and then lower to 1MPH during the next person's attempt, obviously RNG affected the outcome of the competition. According to you this sort of coincidence should be allowed and the results should be valid.
Think critically.
>>319575648
Nah, I just disagree with you and think you're wrong. But if you wish, please continue the discussion with that other anon. Easy on the memes there.
If you have a game with a lot of RNG, you can't really gauge player skill accurately from a single game. You need a huge sample size. Tournaments for these sorts of games will be generally be Swiss (or round-robin for smaller groups) with a smaller playoff series of single-elimination games.
In a game with no or very minimal randomness, you really only need a few games, so they'll often use double or even single elimination tournament structures.
>>319575864
You picked a rather poor example. Learning how to compensate for wind completely eliminates the "random" factor of it.
>>319572363
People tend to hate random chance not only in video games but traditional games as well. Because there is absolutely no skill involved. I don't mind if games have small amounts of it but too much is a bad thing. This is what is turning me off from Warhammer 40k honestly.
>>319576898
Only up to a point. You're intentionally avoiding the central concept. Any randomness inherent in the competition invalidates the results of a competition as a true test to determine who is a victor.
>>319577113
It's why I hate playing Mario Party. It literally always boils down to chance.
