Chess has no lottery. It’s all strategy – you must calculate to win. Sure, they’ve made AIs that can compete with and even beat today’s grandmasters, but saying chess is no more complicated than ‘tic tac toe’ certainly doesn’t hold up. Check out the IQ level of some of the world’s greatest – I definitely can’t claim to hold a candle to that, and I’d venture the same is true for most D:OS players.
Aka – D:OS is casual. And the more lottery you bring into it, the more casual it becomes. You say a player in chess can ‘predict every action to victory’, which is false. You can never predict what your opponent is going to do. There are ‘openings’ and standard move sets, but none of these are sure ways to victory. If it was that easy, we’d all be chess grandmasters.
The point I’m trying to make is that if you’re clever about your calculations/strategy, it’s more rewarding to achieve victory this way than it is through dice rolls.
Randomness does add an element of tension, yeah. % chance to miss is cool with me. But when it becomes the deciding factor for what constitutes complexity, count me out. This is just my opinion – let’s agree to differ. I don’t enjoy having to depend on ‘cool gear’ that gives me ‘X %’ of a chance to win the lotto. I’d rather have cool gear, but still have to carefully plan out each move to succeed. I’d rather have to calculate and have my opponent calculate against me. Neither of us has a predictable path to victory, but neither of us is hoping on dice to get that upper hand either.
Again, it’s a case of preference. I’m not saying this is how it should be – I’m just saying calculation is what entertains me, and lottery simply doesn’t.
You do realize that Chess has a finite number of moves at any one state and that it's possible to account for every variation based on opponents reaction to a move?
I'm trying to explain to you that, just as in tic tac toe, in chess, it's more than possible to account for every possible action an opponent can take and then plan optimal route to victory. It's it even hard. Just write a well done algorithm and let it run for a bit on your PC.
Human players have the simple failing of not bein smart enough to do this because of how many states they'd have to calculate and keep in mind at any one time. It's more intuitive. You took my explanation way too literal.
And I'm not even talking out of my ass. I literally made an algorithm to do that in class. It's well known that it can and is routinely done. The only problems was that it took too long to be considered playable in a routine full game. That problem was solved by using better algorithms to traverse the tree and possible states to victory better.
The problem with causal games like tic tac tow and divinity is that they're not as complicated as chess and thus players *can* account for everything they need to when you remove RNG completely.
Thus my issue with chess like gameplay in casual games like this.....it's too easy. There's no pressure each turn that you might fail. There's no enough variables to account for that really matter for any one match to give you much trouble after the first/second pass through and you have a rough understanding of the enemy units.
This is mitigated by slanting terrain and numbers in the advantage of the AI usually though. Unfortunately, there are too many ways to get around that aspect as well
I do like RNG mechanics from d20, but I have legitimate reasons for those feelings.
If they want no RNG, then that's fine, but that's more work on them honestly. It's much harder to account for all the tactical flexibility of a creative and intelligent player to keep everything feeling like strategic decision making and allow for difficulty to remain feeling consistent
