Ressing this more or less dead thread in the hopes that Qioux and other people show up so I can have the pleasure of denigrating their existences while offering legitimate solutions all the while failing to get any work done because I enjoy being a forum warrior more than I do coding at times.
And we have unfinished business here.
First, there is no such thing as live combat not having elements of chance.
Depends on how abstract you want to get, but I think it's more agreeable that we focus on the more immediately relevant examples or just clarify what 'elements of chance' actually means. There's a difference between external entropy and internal/system entropy. For example, a game like Starcraft has no internal entropy but fuckloads of external ones, same goes for Street Fighter V, but not Chess. That lame ass game is mapped the fuck out.
So you basically need to qualify it and not just say 'chance' because you may be conflating it with something else.
Secondly, my entire point has and will continue to be: the lack of elements of chance create less pressure and take away from the fact that this is "combat" and thus detracts from the feelings of enjoyment of playing a tactical turn based combat game would/should evoke
Elements of chance can also reduce tactical combat to the point where it becomes unenjoyable because your actions are largely meaningless. Thus, my entire point is that neither system is necessarily/inherently favorable to the outcome of 'rich blah blah depth'.
Thirdly, the entire point wasn't that there's an objective measure of improvement for the game between the two games but that my opinion, and those of others, don't find this as enjoyable as it could be. Thus my and others *opinions,* as part of the player base, do in fact matter in an EA all about feedback in order to make a game more fun for all.
Not all feed back is racially superior. Some are born with genetic gifts that must be harvested. My feedback is such. Mainly, there are diminishing returns in the quantity and quality of feedback in relation to actionables. The game is also deliberately selecting against certain audiences (noobz who want this to be all real time).
Fifth, the assumptions are made to simplify the problem....obviously. It should also be pointed out that we're all making assumptions since known can really test case all of this at the moment unless they can magically get ahold of both future versions of this system and other systems.
The reason you explore the system is to ensure that your suggestions are in line with the intended design goals while being able to accurately extrapolate and understand the relationship between effort vs change vs whatever. Tweaking an axiom, as a general rule of the thumb, is much harder to predict than working with the context.
