Posted by jeffdrayer on 3/4/2016 8:48:00 PM (view original):
My two cents:
The more things that are determined by "luck," the fewer things that are determined by "being good." In all things in life, all any person strives for is control. Every advance in the world -- be it sports, technology, culture, everything -- is created to decrease the role of luck in our daily lives.
We don't think about it, but we abhor the concept of luck. Yes, we enjoy when we get lucky. But we hate being unlucky. The magnitude of crushing disappointment associated with being unlucky far outweighs the magnitude of joy at being lucky. Therefore, adding luck to a game where it's not necessary will only continue to create over time a greater amount of negative feeling than positive feeling.
Life is hard enough. People play a game because they would like one place in their life where their hard work and intelligence nets a proportionally large reward. Not because they want yet something else besides their job, marriage, kids, other people's kids, world events, politics, the weather, the economy, etc that's left to the winds of chance.
There's a reason we're basketball fans, and not fans of the National Coin Flip League.
Any time you add luck where it's not necessary is a bad idea.
"Luck" is the only way for a simulation to implement variance...at least without implementing some crazy cellular automata-type system.
As basketball fans, if we knew the better team was going to win 100% of the time, we wouldn't watch. There is variance involved. How else could you explain why player's don't 'always make' or 'always miss' free throws?
Managing luck involves MORE skill than managing certainties.
Without some level of luck, most of us would never have even a chance at winning a national title in HD. No suspense. No excitement.
I'm not necessarily arguing that more luck is always better. I'm saying it, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Like a dressing on your salad. Boring without it, a soup with too much.