>>55216848That's a fair compromise.
>>55216802There already is significant viariance with damage rolls, player agency, and team composition. RNG that skips a player's turn, and may even do so multiple times, isn't really fun for anyone involved. As the previous anon I replied to pointed out, it really should be restricted somehow so that you can more easily play around it. RNG is not inherently exciting.
>>55216823I would agree if RNG had a predictable ceiling, but it doesn't. You can say "there's only a 30% chance you flinch," but if that chance decides a game more than once, a match might as well be forfeit. It doesn't happen that often, but here's the rub: there are more than 2 players in a tournament, so bad RNG doesn't get to even out via a large sample size between any two players. Egregious hax is essentially a one-sided affair.
>>55216842Because chess doesn't have a typing system, simultaneous turns, cool monsters, items, abilities, stat investment, field conditions, ROMhacks, a multimedia franchise, or a series of generational metagames that I can play. It has multiple game modes, but none of them are as cool as Pokémon is, even with all the gripes I have towards it. I respect that it's a game of perfect information and skill, but I don't care enough to memorize patterns. I will never be the best at chess and probably could not even approach decent gameplay in a year, whereas I have already put years into Pokémon and the franchise isn't going to die anytime soon. I'll take the more fun game.
>>55216901Except that sometimes you just can't deal with it. What people always ignore is that an opponent of equal skill will exploit RNG in their favor, just as you should. Sure, you can play out of it, but you're heavily disadvantaged either way. I've played a ton of random battles, so some of the most exciting games ever involved playing out of hax. Those wins don't feel as good in the long term as more average games and the losses are worse than either.
