Random Damage and Competitive play: Why they don't mix

[Theshooter7]

..or we can stay on topic and stop trying to say "OH HE THINKS RANDOM DAMAGE IS NOT THE BEST SO HE MUST MEAN ANYTHING RANDOM!!!!11"

Seriously. Stop it.

[Llewellyn]

..or we can stay on topic and stop trying to say "OH HE THINKS RANDOM DAMAGE IS NOT THE BEST SO HE MUST MEAN ANYTHING RANDOM!!!!11"

Seriously. Stop it.

Well honestly the main argument is "Random isn't fair" so either all random artifacts in gameplay is unfair or none are. You can't really choose one or the other.

[Theshooter7]

..or we can stay on topic and stop trying to say "OH HE THINKS RANDOM DAMAGE IS NOT THE BEST SO HE MUST MEAN ANYTHING RANDOM!!!!11"

Seriously. Stop it.

Well honestly the main argument is "Random isn't fair" so either all random artifacts in gameplay is unfair or none are. You can't really choose one or the other.

Uh, no. Let's do the random spawn point one for an example. If a map is designed (in any team game) with any sensibility in mind at all, it will have all the same-team spawn points grouped in similar locations (their base, a basic spawn location, whatever). This is perfectly fine. You randomly spawn on a spot that is still located in an area that is conceivably owned by "you". Now, what if one of your spawn points was randomly placed in the enemy base? It doesn't matter if the spawn locations for each player are fixed or not, at that point, someone can spawn in the enemy base (whether this is a good thing or not is irrelevant). There is a difference between randomness that makes sense, and randomness that can unbalance or change things entirely.

Also, providing these counter-examples of "Oh well we might as well make x not random as well" is simply dodging the actual point and simply makes you look like an ass.

[Llewellyn]

Uh, no. Let's do the random spawn point one for an example. If a map is designed (in any team game) with any sensibility in mind at all, it will have all the same-team spawn points grouped in similar locations (their base, a basic spawn location, whatever). This is perfectly fine. You randomly spawn on a spot that is still located in an area that is conceivably owned by "you". Now, what if one of your spawn points was randomly placed in the enemy base? It doesn't matter if the spawn locations for each player are fixed or not, at that point, someone can spawn in the enemy base (whether this is a good thing or not is irrelevant). There is a difference between randomness that makes sense, and randomness that can unbalance or change things entirely.

Also, providing these counter-examples of "Oh well we might as well make x not random as well" is simply dodging the actual point and simply makes you look like an ass.

Lets Re-do the random spawn point as an example. I'm playing CTF. I spawn, die, spawn, die, spawn, die, with absolutely no ability to do jack. You know why? I was randomly spawned three times in a row infront of the guy spawncamping. On the opposite side of this token, if you make it "Spawn Farthest" on certain maps you can literally fire at one spawn point in a duel with a rocket launcher and the player will continue to spawn and die.
You can't begin to tell me that randomly spawning infront of the guy over and over and being spawncamped isn't unbalanced.

And no one is dodging the point when saying "making x not random as well" because the main argument that you're making literally is that even though both players could get the shit-end of the stick in randomness one player getting it and the other not is unfair. Randomness applies to everyone evenly. You are implying that weapons not making the same amount of damage all the time doesn't make sense, but it does to me and a lot of other players.

[Theshooter7]

Lets Re-do the random spawn point as an example. I'm playing CTF. I spawn, die, spawn, die, spawn, die, with absolutely no ability to do jack. You know why? I was randomly spawned three times in a row infront of the guy spawncamping. On the opposite side of this token, if you make it "Spawn Farthest" on certain maps you can literally fire at one spawn point in a duel with a rocket launcher and the player will continue to spawn and die.
You can't begin to tell me that randomly spawning infront of the guy over and over and being spawncamped isn't unbalanced.

Ok and what point did you just make? You just reinforced my point in that both random and fixed spawns have their ups and downs. Granted, I hate Spawn Furthest myself, but if a map is designed to the point it gives someone that perfect, clear view between spawn points like that then the map wasn't well designed now was it? (Assuming a Duel game mode like you mentioned)

And no one is dodging the point when saying "making x not random as well" because the main argument that you're making literally is that even though both players could get the shit-end of the stick in randomness one player getting it and the other not is unfair. Randomness applies to everyone evenly. You are implying that weapons not making the same amount of damage all the time doesn't make sense, but it does to me and a lot of other players.

Please tell that to the people in any other competitive gaming community ever. I would love to see the reaction. On top of that, you ignored the fact that I said there is a difference in types of randomness, and therefore yes, stating that "x should also not be random in that case" is, indeed, trying to just use a facade to put up an argument. Are both players subject to the same randomness? Yes, they are. Does it mean that it is perfectly balanced? No, it may not. Its like saying that every 30 seconds in a game, one player is randomly killed, unavoidably, for no reason at all, and cannot respawn for a 25 seconds, thus when respawning being subject to the random kill again. Is every player subject to it? Yes. Is it fair? Absolutely not.

[Harbringer]

I realize that I'm not really giving a specific opinion of why or why not "X should be done about random damage" but this is a really good video of Richard Garfield (Creator of MTG) talking about "Luck vs Skill", why they aren't necessarily opposites, and how it affects various competitive aspects. Just a note, Garfield is not a very good public speaker, nor is the video short(it's about 50 minutes or so), but if you have time to watch it is well worth doing so.
[spoiler]

phpBB [video]

The [video] tag is deprecated, please use the [media] tag

[/spoiler]

[Mobius]

TCGs top strategies are to build decks specifically to manipulate the odds and luck of top decking. I don't know if such an example would help in Doom, where the only means in luck manipulation is your connection vs theirs, blockmap, or other Doom related shenanigans.

The strategies I can think of for dueling is map knowledge + player knowledge + predictability.

[Llewellyn]

Are both players subject to the same randomness? Yes, they are. Does it mean that it is perfectly balanced? No, it may not.

If both players are subjected to the same laws, that's the definition of balanced. It is only unbalanced when one party has some advantage. Neither player has the advantage, they both are required to keep in mind that their attack will do a variable amount of damage.

That would be like saying the lottery is unfair because you lost the lottery.
Everyone joins the lottery (hopefully) in full understanding of the odds and that there is VERY little probability they will win. If you threw a fit because you didn't win a billion dollars that's just childish.

Inversely, there's VERY LITTLE chance (same as winning said lottery) that your shots will affect your skill to the point where you will, on average, lose because of it.

[Harbringer]

TCGs top strategies are to build decks specifically to manipulate the odds and luck of top decking. I don't know if such an example would help in Doom, where the only means in luck manipulation is your connection vs theirs, blockmap, or other Doom related shenanigans.

The strategies I can think of for dueling is map knowledge + player knowledge + predictability.

That's pretty well the only three strategies in almost all FPSs. But remember that point about ego protection and his example of Team Fortress 2 critical hits (and, where bullet damage my fluctuate between 5-15, a 15 hit may as well be a critical hit). It allows those who are new, and wish to become competitive the ability to not feel as bad about their loss, and by allowing them to get better, see that the result of their losses was less due to luck, and more due to mistake that they made while playing.

In a perfect bubble where two plays have exactly equal skill, yes, luck will eventually bring one to the top of the other with a very close score gap. But by and large, no one will have exactly equal skill in everything, instead its where one player may be really good that one may be weak in, and if one takes advantage, the other loses. Not only that, but much like 2 players of equal skill in a bubble would have almost w/l rate of 50% as they play more games, the damage spread of a weapon will even out over time between each player as the match goes on, and is highly unlikely to influence every match in a significant manner.

[TerminusEst13]

I just want to point out that while random spawns are indeed random, they aren't quite as gameplay-affecting because the player can adjust to and react according to them. If you spawn in, say, the west side of Deck16 as compared to the east side, the player can recognize it, remember what weapons/items are nearby, and formulate paths to get back into the fray as quickly as possible.
While it's just as much luck, it's a type of luck that requires skill in order to make the most of, and (if the player is playing well) they will not have to deal with often.

The player doesn't quite have as much control over the result of an SSG giving him the finger and deciding to roll all 1s.
Well, aside from post a YouTube video about someone surviving a point-blank shot.