What is your opinion on RNG in competitive video games? - Games

For those of you who are unfamiliar with this term, in a broad sense, RNG is short for "Random Number Generator" and basically entails any randomness in a video game, from weapon inaccuracy to damage, based on a range that the game can select from, putting the outcome at the mercy of the game. Personally I despise when games use RNG as a mechanic of any potentially gamechanging nature. I hate how it's basically down to pulling a slot machine every time you do a specific mechanic-- if the computer gods smile upon you, you win. If not, you lose. I've seen professionals get taken down because of RNG by novice players just because of RNG, and while that may be a purpose-- to balance it out between ranks, that in itself is an issue. Pro players are pro for a reason and should be taken down because they were outplayed, not because someone was, for example, sprinting at them and got an inaccuracy headshot by chance. It's just a personal preference, I do not wish to belittle anyone for liking RNG, it does in many ways add a lot of variety to a game, however in a competitive sense, I PERSONALLY do not see RNG in competitive games as a really fair way of dealing with a skill based mechanic in the same way I do not see slot machines as a competitive sport-- if that is in fact a thing then I again do not wish to bring hate to your spectator sport of choice and apologize. What do you guys think? I do understand making a mechanic non-RNG is extremely difficult in comparison while retaining the apparant depth but if you're going to have people play the game and bet money why should it be left to chance? Yes I do understand that games like Poker are almost entirely reliant on RNG in a sense and I do not agree with their nature as a full on competitive event but I'm not going to make you stop playing poker or anything. I would like to see the other side of this view.

it's pretty fuckin gay

Pseudo-random distribution used in Dota 2 seems pretty good solution to me. Consistent over long time and allows to "prime" procs but still gives uncertainty you have to account for.

[QUOTE=Clovis;52399580]Honestly if you lose a game to 'rng' I say go cry a river. It's a legit game mechanic. If say x hero has x amount of chance to critical strike, and they get lucky crits, so be it. thats the hero. Theoretically their attacks have the same increase over x amount of hits than someone with a static increase does, it just varies the game up a bit. rng is also a better way to offer procs of such things like damage chance that other cases (such as crit on demands) would be even more broken then leaving them to random chance. for example in dota, phantom assassin has a low chance to crit, but crits for very high damage. this means that she has the chance of eliminating a weak hero in a single swipe provided she crits, but she has an ability that lets her jump to a target and boosts her attack speed for approximately enough hits to usually get at least one critical strike on the target within the 5 hits. and for every hero in that game that has a bash chance, its better off balancing it to a rng/prd than to a determined proc chance because its more likely to be abused. saying a hero were to stun someone they hit once every 5 hits means instead of giving them a 20% rng bash means that they will just put their attack speed to whatever they need to fit those 5 hits within that bash duration to cause a chain bash, which is terrible. if you put it to RNG on a 20% chance, it means some of your bashes will stack ontop of each other, and then it will become less often for the other hits, making it difficult to chain stun someone deliberately by attacking them. i dont know, this is an opinion coming from someone who plays a game where RNG is a balanced thing in my opinion. you play the game assuming that anyone with an rng crit/bash will get lucky before you attempt to calculate anything, and theres never an issue. its only when people expect you to never get bash or crits, then they get crit three times in the face and die, then cry about rng bullshit, well thats just your fault for assuming there was no possibility of them getting lucky.[/QUOTE] Right, but then when it comes to super low chances, or games like CSGO where RNG is built into it, I think that's extremely unfair. I'm not bashing games that chose to have different ways of implementing RNG-- a lot of the time, in the grand scheme, in it's system, the RNG is fair. But that's in the system, and because it's RNG something can always go wrong, and the way the game decides what is "even" ends up being completely unfair or seem cheap. Like if you are playing a game competitively where there is a .01 chance for a critical hit-- and no one has gotten that chance, but then your enemy gets that chance and destroys your character, I don't think that's fair. You lost because of a slot machine imo. Even if you get on later on, you are snowballed because you lost that game and you have all the disadvantages losing the duel brought (less XP, less money in the event of CSGO and getting a lucky headshot, etc). And in the event of CSGO speaking of-- I kind of came to this realization that RNG is extremely stupid because it artificially creates a skill gap. I would be playing like a complete idiot and running and gunning and just because I was lucky, I was killing the enemy team. They were getting good strats set up, and I was just rushing in with some well place sneaks-- all of that is strategy and skill, but then when I just rush in with the drop, they all turn around and start firing. I SHOULD be dead. But then because I'm lucky I kill them all extremely quickly. I then switch to the awp, and keep the system unbalanced, giving me an edge in the match, and THEN I get a couple lucky shots in awp duels because the movement inaccuracy just nudges my aim so slightly to the side that a shot I should have missed or had no way to account for hits and I seem better than what I am and get called a hacker. On the opposite side when they get lucky and I'm like "dude wtf" they just say "git gud" or some other autistic screeching. Because you get running headshots does not make you good. And then when my crosshair is aimed right on a guy's head, and I shoot-- it might miss. Because the game decided the standing inaccuracy moves my gun's bullet .0000001 inches to the side, enough to miss. Then in terms of a game like Darkest Dungeon, there have been times where I thought I was super good because I was getting a ton of criticals. But then there are other times where the enemy gets nothing but criticals and I get 1's and 2's for damage (or whatever the lowest damage is) and I lose. In the system, it's fair. But when you're sitting there watching your enemy tear you down, and you win because of dumb luck, it doesn't seem fair. It just seems cheap. Again, I really hate when it feels like what I am doing does not matter in the game-- human reflexes and thought is already enough randomness. We miss our shots. We misjudge. We lack omnipresent gamesense. We make bold dumb strategies that could pay off. We misjudge something but are correct. Humans are basically RNG machines themselves, and having pre-determined operations for a human to fuck up on will always be more fair than a computer deciding when you fuck up imo.

[QUOTE=Clovis;52399580]Honestly if you lose a game to 'rng' I say go cry a river. It's a legit game mechanic. If say x hero has x amount of chance to critical strike, and they get lucky crits, so be it. thats the hero. Theoretically their attacks have the same increase over x amount of hits than someone with a static increase does, it just varies the game up a bit. rng is also a better way to offer procs of such things like damage chance that other cases (such as crit on demands) would be even more broken then leaving them to random chance. for example in dota, phantom assassin has a low chance to crit, but crits for very high damage. this means that she has the chance of eliminating a weak hero in a single swipe provided she crits, but she has an ability that lets her jump to a target and boosts her attack speed for approximately enough hits to usually get at least one critical strike on the target within the 5 hits. and for every hero in that game that has a bash chance, its better off balancing it to a rng/prd than to a determined proc chance because its more likely to be abused. saying a hero were to stun someone they hit once every 5 hits means instead of giving them a 20% rng bash means that they will just put their attack speed to whatever they need to fit those 5 hits within that bash duration to cause a chain bash, which is terrible. if you put it to RNG on a 20% chance, it means some of your bashes will stack ontop of each other, and then it will become less often for the other hits, making it difficult to chain stun someone deliberately by attacking them. i dont know, this is an opinion coming from someone who plays a game where RNG is a balanced thing in my opinion. you play the game assuming that anyone with an rng crit/bash will get lucky before you attempt to calculate anything, and theres never an issue. its only when people expect you to never get bash or crits, then they get crit three times in the face and die, then cry about rng bullshit, well thats just your fault for assuming there was no possibility of them getting lucky.[/QUOTE] RNG in Competitive play though is shit. Should a competitive skill based game come down to what is essentially a Dungeons and Dragons 20 sided dice roll? The fate of this match comes down to this roll of the dice! That's lame

[QUOTE=TheTalon;52401174]RNG in Competitive play though is shit. Should a competitive skill based game come down to what is essentially a Dungeons and Dragons 20 sided dice roll? The fate of this match comes down to this roll of the dice! That's lame[/QUOTE] Exactly, slot machine! Cha ching!

It's fine depending on how the game and tournaments work. If it's implemented well in the game and the tournaments are run properly (e.g. round robin) it won't impede the game being a great competition. Poker is a great example of this, RNG is huge in poker but with the amount of games that get played in a tourney the RNG factor will even out and the best players will still shine well above all. You also don't tend to just fucking suddenly die because RNG decided it was the end of you. Hearthstone would be a really bad example of RNG in competitive games. The tournaments iirc are run best of 5 style, and in hearthstone it's very easy to basically just die, hell, many times on round 1 even you'll hit a point of no return.

But what if the numbers DON'T even out? In theory it should but what if it DOESNT?

the less RNG [I]any[/I] games has the better

[QUOTE=SirJon;52402196]the less RNG [I]any[/I] games has the better[/QUOTE] there are several benefits to RNG, especially in a single player setting. there is a lot of fun to be found in quickly adapting to a situation that occurred because you were really lucky or unlucky, and that couldn't happen without RNG. i think most rpgs would suffer a lot if outcomes were always guaranteed. that being said it has no place in some genres, like fighting games

RNG is often used as a tiebreaker. It's gonna cause frustration, sure but if it's well implemented, then cry me a river god damn

I don't like on the fly RNG, I'm fine with seeded RNG where it's based on something deterministic such as an initial seed or a variable that's predictable. [editline]3[/editline] unseeded rng would be this frame 1: no seed, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 3 frame 2: no seed, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 1 frame 3: no seed, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 5 seeded rng would be this frame 1: seed of 542, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 2 frame 2: seed of 542, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 2 frame 3: seed of 542, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 2 frame 4: seed of 543, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 4

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52402681]I don't like on the fly RNG, I'm fine with seeded RNG where it's based on something deterministic such as an initial seed or a variable that's predictable. [editline]3[/editline] unseeded rng would be this frame 1: no seed, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 3 frame 2: no seed, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 1 frame 3: no seed, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 5 seeded rng would be this frame 1: seed of 542, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 2 frame 2: seed of 542, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 2 frame 3: seed of 542, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 2 frame 4: seed of 543, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 4[/QUOTE] Yeah but knowing the seed makes the outcome just a deterministic sequence. What's the point of having rng then

[QUOTE=JasonChang55;52402116]But what if the numbers DON'T even out? In theory it should but what if it DOESNT?[/QUOTE] assuming you're proposing this as a hypothetical, then people work around it or the game stops working for competitive play, with the latter being more likely, and so companies will then avoid implementing that specific form of RNG (not all RNG, [b]that specific form[/b]), because healthy competitive scenes make money. but, this is an irrelevant question as anything [i]but[/i] a hypothetical, as it relies on a series of results that is by nature so improbable that it can be reliably ignored as a possibility. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=aurum481;52402715]Yeah but knowing the seed makes the outcome just a deterministic sequence. What's the point of having rng then[/QUOTE] for single-player games, this can be a way to strike a compromise somewhere between having maps and having procedurally-generated levels, where a seed is set when you launch the game that generates that specific set of levels and you can attempt to beat that set of levels until you exit that session. minecraft uses seeds so that people can share specific procedural worlds with each other. essentially, you use seeded rng for procedural generation and similarly-functioning systems.

I'm fine with RNG provided there's some way to influence it, XCom is a good example of this.

[QUOTE=Bynine;52402652]there are several benefits to RNG, especially in a single player setting. there is a lot of fun to be found in quickly adapting to a situation that occurred because you were really lucky or unlucky, and that couldn't happen without RNG. i think most rpgs would suffer a lot if outcomes were always guaranteed. that being said it has no place in some genres, like fighting games[/QUOTE] And that's fine. RPGs and singleplayer is fine because you're playing the game as an experience, not as a competitive game with ranks or money on the line where winning needs to be based on skill and not dumb luck! [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Limed00d;52402657]RNG is often used as a tiebreaker. It's gonna cause frustration, sure but if it's well implemented, then cry me a river god damn[/QUOTE] If it causes frustration I don't think it's well implemented. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52402681]I don't like on the fly RNG, I'm fine with seeded RNG where it's based on something deterministic such as an initial seed or a variable that's predictable. [editline]3[/editline] unseeded rng would be this frame 1: no seed, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 3 frame 2: no seed, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 1 frame 3: no seed, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 5 seeded rng would be this frame 1: seed of 542, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 2 frame 2: seed of 542, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 2 frame 3: seed of 542, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 2 frame 4: seed of 543, ask for a value between 1-5: gives 4[/QUOTE] Right, and that could be pretty okay for like survival games or games with custom weapons that you yourself create. But when it comes to the actual logistics of the game itself and one small random chance can completely screw you up, then it just gets upsetting-- something that if we devote enough research to, can be fixed. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Naelstrom;52403758]I'm fine with RNG provided there's some way to influence it, XCom is a good example of this.[/QUOTE] I do agree, that is BETTER, but it still has a BS factor because if you have 50% to aim (assuming you're using long war and have these options), and then steady your aim for a total of 65%, you're fairly close and everything, and you MISS, it is still extremely infuriating.

[QUOTE=shotgun334;52403692]assuming you're proposing this as a hypothetical, then people work around it or the game stops working for competitive play, with the latter being more likely, and so companies will then avoid implementing that specific form of RNG (not all RNG, [b]that specific form[/b]), because healthy competitive scenes make money. but, this is an irrelevant question as anything [i]but[/i] a hypothetical, as it relies on a series of results that is by nature so improbable that it can be reliably ignored as a possibility. [/QUOTE] Okay, so let me emphasize this. Let's say, you're flipping a coin 100 times, but you only count the first 50. Heads you win, tails you lose. You get a large majority of heads during the first 50. But then the remaining 100 it evens out. But guess what. It doesn't matter if it evens out, because the actual match is over. You went into another match and got "evened out" but the game where it mattered the most is already over. You can transpose this to a 3 round game, where it lands heads 3 times in a row, but then you get tails the other 3 times. The only way you could negate this is if you take the largest odd in the game that fits into the lowest odds proportionally, and multiply that by the number of possibilities there are-- but because RNG is not proportional and RNG does what it wants-- in order to make it even you would have to do the same thing 100 times for it to in the grand scheme be evened out. This is a very extreme calculation and not in the sense of CSGO or any practical sense accurate, but it is a starting number. So, in a game where the weapons have an aim cone, like CSGO and standing accuracy, that's 360 degrees. For the sake of simplicity, although not including it will make the number infinitely smaller, we won't acknowledge pi-- just these numbers will show what I mean-- you have to do 720 matches just to account if everyone used the AK standing. because 360x2 is 720, and assuming that everyone fires a proportional amount of bullets in a perfect 360 arc. But then there's 5 people on each team, 10 people. So 7200 matches. But then there's also the M4a4, so now you have to account 14400, and then halftime. 2880. There is the M4a1-s that about 50% of users use, but we won't even acknowledge this. But then you have running inaccuracy, which is, for the sake of round numbers although probably not correct, 20x the size of the standing accuracy, for 2 guns, but we will assume only 10% of the time they will do their first shot from moving down to standing (because professionals know to stop moving, although you will sometimes see that before they come to a complete standstill they already start shooting), which makes this number 3168. 3168 rounds to in a PERFECT WORLD THAT HAS EVERYTHING PROPORTIONAL, make the game fair. This is a completely hypothetical and theoretical number, my formulas for the actual game is not by any degree accurate, there are higher numbers of variables and a lot more things to account for. But just based on the simple math alone, anything past 30 rounds is probably obsurd to even be competively viable for a day of matches. But look at what you would have to play in order for a team to be in THOERY completely balacned. In a professional's career, this might be an achievable number, but like I said-- RNG is RANDOM. The game will not consciously factor in "so this angle was fired at 200 shots ago, but in order for it to be fair, it needs to be shot every 2000 times, so I will pick a different number". It will just re-use the number. So no matter what you do, the game will be entirely RNG based and while for an experience like single player, this randomness could be acceptable, when you are having your money completely swayed in the completely opposite direction because someone jumped with a 1 in 100 chance of hitting, then got that hit when the odds were, in my opinion "a series of results that is by nature so improbable that it can be reliably ignored as a possibility," but STILL happen, it's just like. Come on bro. For lack of better words.

[QUOTE=aurum481;52402715]Yeah but knowing the seed makes the outcome just a deterministic sequence. What's the point of having rng then[/QUOTE] having random numbers seeded rng is still random, and depending on what the seed is based on it still can be nondeterministic but later deterministic with the player's skill take for example using seeded rng for a weapon's spread and recoil: when you first use the weapon, you don't know what it's like, but when you master the weapon you can accurately predict the weapons spread and recoil, effectively simulating what it's like to master a gun in reality.

[QUOTE=JasonChang55;52404896]wordswordswordswords[/QUOTE] coming from a dota player: 1. competitive games aren't fair, they're as fair as they can be regarding a number of factors both external and internal, but they'll never be "fair", and someone will always be at a disadvantage 2. if a match is being determined entirely on RNG, that's badly implemented RNG [i]or[/i] one or more players/teams are shit at the game 3. regarding an example like carry crits in dota: if it's gotten to the point where whether or not the enemy carry crits at x moment is determining the game for you, you fail strategy forever.

rng is fine as long as you can play around it to a decent enough extent its a fun mechanic when done well but in comp games it becomes an annoyance

Any >2 players game is competitive and if RNG is in it you play by its rules, so you know what you are up to.

[QUOTE=shotgun334;52405307]coming from a dota player: 1. competitive games aren't fair, they're as fair as they can be regarding a number of factors both external and internal, but they'll never be "fair", and someone will always be at a disadvantage 2. if a match is being determined entirely on RNG, that's badly implemented RNG [i]or[/i] one or more players/teams are shit at the game 3. regarding an example like carry crits in dota: if it's gotten to the point where whether or not the enemy carry crits at x moment is determining the game for you, you fail strategy forever.[/QUOTE] 1.But shouldn't the disadvantage come from the player's themselves? The positioning, the timing, and their overall combat / game capabilities, not what I keep referring to a slot machine type of gameplay? 2. And that is EXACTLY my point. I'm not the best at any game I own. But yet, in the games where RNG is present, I can get an edge over the enemy just because I am lucky-- or I can lose to someone just because of RNG determining I'm SOL. It goes in either direction, and why deal with the uncertainty and not just use the players skill? FFS, even if a gun has PERFECT accuracy (sniper rifles, for example) people STILL miss. We are walking RNG machines! Why add more in a large scale competitive game? 3. That is completely untrue-- if you are in a stalemate with the enemy-- you are equally matched, that should be the end of it. You're equally matched and it's all revolved around ONE single fuck up from one of you to end it. BUT THEN a random crit comes in and completely destroys the balance. You WERE equally matched and it could sway in anyones court but because the game rolled a die and decided your enemy gets extra damage, you lose. That doesn't seem fair, it doesn't play consistently, it isn't a good indication of skill-- just blind luck. Where does a competitive game that people bet money on and multi-million dollar prized tournaments have space for a computer randomly saying "hm, let's just.. Fuck it these guys get a critical hit". That would be like the referee in a football/soccer match seeing a goal and saying "Oh, it hit the rail and ricochet'd into the net. It wasn't a direct hit and therefore should not count" 50% of the time, based on how they were feeling, and if someone brought them black coffee when they asked for a cuppachino then you're shit out of luck. That does not seem fair in any way shape or form.

Things like random spread in CS:GO makes no sense and has no place in such a game. See Quake and take notes when making your FPS games.

[QUOTE=Petachepas;52405999]Any >2 players game is competitive and if RNG is in it you play by its rules, so you know what you are up to.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I know every time that I start up DOTA or CSGO or TF2 or something that there is some element of RNG. But where I get blurry is why and how it makes sense to have that randomness in games that are supposed to show off skill, and not luck? [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DeEz;52406044]Things like random spread in CS:GO makes no sense and has no place in such a game. See Quake and take notes when making your FPS games.[/QUOTE] I've seen and played enough mods and half-baked ideas to have a general idea for a competitive FPS that I intend on making after our team finishes our current game to have NO RNG and be completely reliant on skill, but in the meantime I want to hear the sides of the discussion.

heavily against almost any RNG if its a competitive game hearthstone is basically a complete joke because of how hilariously terrible the game is w.r.t RNG.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52406059]heavily against almost any RNG if its a competitive game hearthstone is basically a complete joke because of how hilariously terrible the game is w.r.t RNG.[/QUOTE] What is W.r.t. ? I am unfamiliar with that term. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] Nevermind a quick google search found it-- with regards to.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52406059]heavily against almost any RNG if its a competitive game hearthstone is basically a complete joke because of how hilariously terrible the game is w.r.t RNG.[/QUOTE] card games have an inherent luck of the draw, I don't understand why you can't stack your cards in that game, it would add more depth.

Obviously RNG shouldn't be in games that are taken seriously but it's there and those games are still who is the best. I mean card games will always have luck especially. [QUOTE=DeEz;52406044]Things like random spread in CS:GO makes no sense and has no place in such a game. See Quake and take notes when making your FPS games.[/QUOTE] It exists to give weapons an effective range. Don't cry about RNG if you're trying to headshot someone down Long in dust2 with a Deagle and it misses from goose to pit. Because you know that it won't be accurate yet you took the dice roll anyway. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=JasonChang55;52400608]Right, but then when it comes to super low chances, or games like CSGO where RNG is built into it, I think that's extremely unfair. I'm not bashing games that chose to have different ways of implementing RNG-- a lot of the time, in the grand scheme, in it's system, the RNG is fair. But that's in the system, and because it's RNG something can always go wrong, and the way the game decides what is "even" ends up being completely unfair or seem cheap. Like if you are playing a game competitively where there is a .01 chance for a critical hit-- and no one has gotten that chance, but then your enemy gets that chance and destroys your character, I don't think that's fair. You lost because of a slot machine imo. Even if you get on later on, you are snowballed because you lost that game and you have all the disadvantages losing the duel brought (less XP, less money in the event of CSGO and getting a lucky headshot, etc). And in the event of CSGO speaking of-- I kind of came to this realization that RNG is extremely stupid because it artificially creates a skill gap. I would be playing like a complete idiot and running and gunning and just because I was lucky, I was killing the enemy team. They were getting good strats set up, and I was just rushing in with some well place sneaks-- all of that is strategy and skill, but then when I just rush in with the drop, they all turn around and start firing. I SHOULD be dead. But then because I'm lucky I kill them all extremely quickly. I then switch to the awp, and keep the system unbalanced, giving me an edge in the match, and THEN I get a couple lucky shots in awp duels because the movement inaccuracy just nudges my aim so slightly to the side that a shot I should have missed or had no way to account for hits and I seem better than what I am and get called a hacker. On the opposite side when they get lucky and I'm like "dude wtf" they just say "git gud" or some other autistic screeching. Because you get running headshots does not make you good. And then when my crosshair is aimed right on a guy's head, and I shoot-- it might miss. Because the game decided the standing inaccuracy moves my gun's bullet .0000001 inches to the side, enough to miss. Then in terms of a game like Darkest Dungeon, there have been times where I thought I was super good because I was getting a ton of criticals. But then there are other times where the enemy gets nothing but criticals and I get 1's and 2's for damage (or whatever the lowest damage is) and I lose. In the system, it's fair. But when you're sitting there watching your enemy tear you down, and you win because of dumb luck, it doesn't seem fair. It just seems cheap. Again, I really hate when it feels like what I am doing does not matter in the game-- human reflexes and thought is already enough randomness. We miss our shots. We misjudge. We lack omnipresent gamesense. We make bold dumb strategies that could pay off. We misjudge something but are correct. Humans are basically RNG machines themselves, and having pre-determined operations for a human to fuck up on will always be more fair than a computer deciding when you fuck up imo.[/QUOTE] No one is that lucky, RNG in popular competitive games is very minimal or not enough to make a bad player beat a good one. You cannot rely on luck in those games so your point is invalid. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] Also CS:GO games are FT15 so if you can somehow hipfire down mid and win the entire set then you should go try the lottery because you would probably get like 1 or 2 kills at best by just relying on luck.

[QUOTE=JasonChang55;52406027]3. That is completely untrue-- if you are in a stalemate with the enemy-- you are equally matched, that should be the end of it. You're equally matched and it's all revolved around ONE single fuck up from one of you to end it. BUT THEN a random crit comes in and completely destroys the balance. You WERE equally matched and it could sway in anyones court but because the game rolled a die and decided your enemy gets extra damage, you lose. That doesn't seem fair, it doesn't play consistently, it isn't a good indication of skill-- just blind luck. Where does a competitive game that people bet money on and multi-million dollar prized tournaments have space for a computer randomly saying "hm, let's just.. Fuck it these guys get a critical hit". That would be like the referee in a football/soccer match seeing a goal and saying "Oh, it hit the rail and ricochet'd into the net. It wasn't a direct hit and therefore should not count" 50% of the time, based on how they were feeling, and if someone brought them black coffee when they asked for a cuppachino then you're shit out of luck. That does not seem fair in any way shape or form.[/QUOTE] Dota's RNG is pseudo-RNG (still random but more regular than it would otherwise be) and exists more to balance out things that would otherwise be overpowered, to avoid this problem you're talking about right now.

if you're in a fair fight, you fail at strategy forever. if you're in a competitive game and you're engaging your opponent on fair grounds in an even matchup, then you are bad at tactics and bad at planning. now, I'll concede that the standing inaccuracy/spread randomness in CS:GO is dumb, because it's adding RNG to a fundamental mechanic that doesn't make things more interesting. but RNG in a competitive game doesn't have to be stupid shit like that [i]or[/i] the kind of thing that instantly swings rounds. you may be thinking, "well, what about DOTA"-- and the fact of the matter is, the RNG doesn't inherently swing a game, the RNG has the capacity to swing a game because a DOTA match is a very fragile ecosystem where one wrong or right move can instantly determine the game in the long-term. this is the case for all MOBAs, by the way, except maybe Heroes of the Storm, but that's not even really a MOBA in the traditional sense because of how far it deviates from the manner in which MOBAs function. but, again, you shouldn't be [b]at[/b] the point where RNG swings a game in someone's favor. [i]if you are at that point, you are bad at the game.[/i] even furthermore, randomness in competitive games is rarely of the type where it's just "LUCK OF THE NUMBER GODS". usually, randomness decides between a small set of outcomes with relatively similar overall results, and the exceptions to this occur either because: 1. you're in a bad strategic position where you weren't able to successfully respond to the possible set of outcomes 2. the game is intentionally designed to be a fragile ecosystem and you most likely already fucked up earlier on