You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 2 - Application to CoD)

[xIAmJumpMan23x_PSN]

Let’s look at first person shooters and use Call of Duty as an example (because that’s the one I’m most familiar with lol). Call of Duty can be extremely competitive online and often comes down to a shooter vs shooter “battle”, in that one user (and their input) is against another user (and their input). This is much like The Show, where a pitcher vs hitter “battle” is one user (and their input) against another user (and their input). Now Call of Duty, last I checked, had implemented a system where, if you shoot your opponent in the head, it does more damage. So if I’m shooting a guy and hitting him in the leg, but he shoots back and hits me in the head, he will “win” because head shots do more damage. This is a way to implement skill into what would otherwise be a matter of who has the quicker reaction or better internet connection. However, in real life, there are times when you can shoot someone in the leg, hit their femoral artery, and do massive damage that kills them in seconds. And there are times when you can hit someone in the head (who is wearing a helmet) and do far less damage than hitting them in their femoral artery. So by the “that’s baseball” logic, it would be perfectly acceptable for Call of Duty to implement a system where sometimes the user shooting his opponent in the leg beats the user who is shooting him in the head. However, that doesn’t happen. First off, those Call of Duty nerds would go CRAZY if that started happening, and secondly, Call of Duty has decided that they want to reward skill 100% of the time. And personally, I like it because I know EXACTLY what I have to do to get better and, if I get killed because my opponent head-shot me, I know exactly WHY I got beat and what I have to improve on to get better. If we just transferred that same thinking to The Show, I think we could improve the game quite a bit.