Do you think RNG elements have a place in competitive video games?

RNG doesn't, but comeback mechanics do.

>>379608786
>but comeback mechanics do.

Wrong

Well, it depends on the game and the designs obviously have to make sense, but they may add a new layer of depth in risk-analysis, they allow the games to leave mapped out territory earlier (greater importance on creativity or true understanding of the game as opposed to rote memorization of figured out openings or very specific small-scale scenarios) which also allows matches to branch into greater variety of directions, it enables some new mechanics the players have to understand and interact with (such as more involved combat resolution in strategy/tactics games) etc.

Not all randomness is good (for example, Chess as a game would be ruined if, instead of capturing pieces outright, you flipped a coin and the winning side was left on the board) but randomness properly applied can make most games more in-depth and engaging. Chess is often used as an example in these kinds of threads with outrageous suggestions like the one I just presented, but there are Chess variants that do involve a degree of randomness. One notorious example is Chess960 invented by Bobby Fischer in effort to solve the problem of increasing prevalence of Chess theory (a problem he complained about while still being the world champion so he clearly wasn't being salty, although the rules came a bit later).

>>379608431
>glasses under shutter shades
now this is comedy

>>379608431

From a "competitive" aspect, no. In an objective, measurable sense RNG makes a game less competitive in that, after a single match, we are less sure that the winning side was actually more skilled than the losing side. Conversely, you have to play more matches (best of 3, 5, 7, etc.) to prove which side is better but that obviously leads to logistics problems when you only have so much time to run a tourny.

But competitive video games are also video games. Chance is entertaining to a lot of people, both the players and the people who watch them. Someone concerned with the previous point might dislike it, but you can't say "chance is objectively bad" when we're asking "how fun is this game".

>>379608431
I don't think I enjoy a single competitive game with rng so I guess not.

>>379608431
This is cute.

File: 1427662222140.jpg (257KB, 814x789px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 814x789px

>>379612261
Bro Club is the best

>>379611226
It's not quite as straightforward. Let's consider StarCraft: Brood War. It's commonly accepted that the type of game in which you truly have to prove your mettle is in macro games and BW does have an element of randomness in high ground miss chance (as well as map spawn positions, although by far the greatest element of unpredictability comes from fog of war). The most noticeable effect is players being very reluctant to attack against high ground unless they have an overwhelming advantage. And I would argue that has a stabilizing effect on the game: pros would be able to practise a specific build order against another a hundred times and figure out the scenarios in which build order choices made while still blind can be converted to a win if you just go for the throat. But because of high ground miss chance, they don't dare to push a trivial advantage, and games have a higher chance of transitioning into mechanics-intensive macro games.

Obviously, this is a gross oversimplification. For starters, games played on maps without high ground don't end in build order wins every time (although the map features obviously influence the build order choices and on maps without high ground you see safer builds, which in itself is a level of depth introduced by the presence of an RNG mechanic). But I think it's an uncontroversial example of randomness having the opposite effect to making matches a coin toss and I believe this same principle applies to games like Dota in which the same claim would be much more controversial.

And that's ignoring some of the more obvious influences randomness can have in enabling skilful play. Consider Poker: it's a very high-skill game but imagine what it would be like without randomness.

>>379612795

In what way does that contradict anything I said. I said nothing about the effect of chance on depth.