- BakedPotatoLive
- |
- Exalted Member
Posted by: Ttone5722
Just because an injury is not mathematically random doesn't mean it isn't random. Once again, if a football player makes a thousand tackles during his career but sustains a career-ending injury on his last one I would call it random. It could have happened on his first tackle or on #500, any of which are events that "could " cause injury. And by the way, there are multiple events in any sport that could happen at random.
Yes, they "could" have caused injury, but they couldn't have caused a career ending injury. The only tackle that could have caused a career ending injury is the one that gave him a career ending injury. Therefore the "career ending injury" itself is not random, but when compared to the copious amount of similar (yet not exactly similar) tackle, you perceive it to be random. That element of randomness is fine in gaming. An example of that element of randomness would be StrongSide having 1001 Sniper battles, and winning the first 1000 before losing the last. Therefore the "Sniper battle loss" itself is not random, but when compared to the copious amount of Sniper battles that StrongSide won beforehand, you perceieve it to be random. Now of course that element of randomness in present, but it is in no way akin to the randomness in the Battle Rifle. One is random when compared to other outcomes, whilst the other is mathematically generated. I cannot think of a single, professional competition that employs mathematical randomness as seen in the BR spread. There is simply no professional, real-world equivalent.
Perceived randomness is present everywhere in life - it is when an outcome goes against what you think is the logical (or popular) outcome. It isn't just present in Sport, it is present in real life aswell, for eg. over the last 12 weeks you have been given a paycheck of $100. But on the 13th week you got given a paycheck of $200. You would say that this is random, but actually you have been given the extra $100 for working the hardest as measured by the supervisor. There is a cause, but it appears random when compared to the popular outcome. If, however the Boss put 25 names into a computer and got it to select a name by random to give the extra $100 to, then that is similar to the randomness seen in the BR.
I hope you understood that, I found it hard to understand upon reading over it, but hopefully you get the idea.
Posted by: Ttone5722
The BR was intended to have a random element that apparently most pros are able to deal with-- some choose to voice a negative opinion. I'm sure there are some that hate the BR spread that don't say anything, but out of 200,000 people playing MM everyday, you don't see 101,000 complaints. I'm not going to guess how many I have seen, but I am going to guess that the complainers are in a minority. Now BakedPotato, tell me why randomness should be removed from competitive gaming.
Minority opinion - don't try and undermine it. Just because our population is not as dense as the majority, does not make our opinion any less valid or any less accurate. Trying to belittle our argument based on popularity is a cop-out.
Why should mathematical randomness be removed from competitive gaming? Simple. Skill does not equal mathematical randomness. Competitive gaming should determine who the best team is during the tournament, not the luckiest team who had the most luck with the BR spread. Is that not what competition aims to do, determine the best team? In Halo, to some extent it determines the luckiest, and luck is a poor substitute for skill. I can not think of a single professional competition that employs mathematical randomness - if you can, I'd like to hear it.
[Edited on 07.06.2008 10:56 PM PDT]