Originally posted by Tibernicus

Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.

Yep, I've followed DF since beta (favorite video).  MO also.  I don't want pure PVE, just the ability to un-flag.  Something more along the lines of WoW PVP when overland battles were still common back in Vanilla days.  Anyone flagged is looking for a fight.  I think twitch would bring a different feel to the game, many don't like it, but some might.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Apraxis

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Tibernicus

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Apraxis

But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.

 

Play Borderland 2. FPS, RPG elements, real time and online. If it adds crafting and AH, it is practically a MMO.

It is absolutely nothing like an MMO. It is limited to 4 players. How is that massively multiplayer?

Oh wait, I'm talking to narius, who is delusional and doesn't know what an MMO is.

 

Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.

Limited to 4 players.

WOW dungeon is limited to 5 playres. Raid limited to 10 or 25. DCUO mission is limited to 4 players. Almost all instanced dungeons in MMO limit the number of players.

In D3, you can match with millions of players into group of 4. In WOW you can match millions of players into group of 5.

How is this any different?

 

Well.. then i better stay with mount&blade or DayZ.. at least a few more players.

 

What is the obsession with "more players"? I would much rather have a small group game that i find the combat engaging, then one that allows for more players but the combat is meh.

In fact, small group is also better to coordinate. Have you ever played a large FPS batter? There is zero coordination aside from "zerg point A". More != better.

More players allows for a different (for many people fun) set of dynamics to develop that you really can't get with something small like 5 x 5. I'll disagree that larger FPS battles neccesarly turn into "zergs" while that certainly can happen, it doesn't always. Alot depends upon the game and the people playing it. Especialy if you see some of the better FPS clans/guilds... those guys are DEFINATELY alot more nuanced then "zerg".

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Apraxis

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Tibernicus

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Apraxis

But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.

 

Play Borderland 2. FPS, RPG elements, real time and online. If it adds crafting and AH, it is practically a MMO.

It is absolutely nothing like an MMO. It is limited to 4 players. How is that massively multiplayer?

Oh wait, I'm talking to narius, who is delusional and doesn't know what an MMO is.

 

Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.

Limited to 4 players.

WOW dungeon is limited to 5 playres. Raid limited to 10 or 25. DCUO mission is limited to 4 players. Almost all instanced dungeons in MMO limit the number of players.

In D3, you can match with millions of players into group of 4. In WOW you can match millions of players into group of 5.

How is this any different?

 

Well.. then i better stay with mount&blade or DayZ.. at least a few more players.

 

What is the obsession with "more players"? I would much rather have a small group game

Yeah, because you're a fan of MOBAs, not MMOs. More players is kind of what MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games are about. Please, just leave. You always derail every thread youre in.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

 

 I think what he's saying is why buy a car if all you are interested in is the stereo system, why not just buy the stereo system? There is nothing neccesarly wrong with an MMO featuring that sort of combat...but it's not really utilizing the full potential of what an MMO can do. Hopefully such a feature is just one of many that the MMO offers...otherwise it's kinda like buying a car without wheels. Sure it may have a great stereo...but can you drive it anywhere?

This analogy is only correct if you have to play a lot for the car. If the car is free, why shouldn't i get it if the only thing i like is the stereo system?

Because a standalone stereo system will always be better.

Originally posted by Tibernicus

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

 

 I think what he's saying is why buy a car if all you are interested in is the stereo system, why not just buy the stereo system? There is nothing neccesarly wrong with an MMO featuring that sort of combat...but it's not really utilizing the full potential of what an MMO can do. Hopefully such a feature is just one of many that the MMO offers...otherwise it's kinda like buying a car without wheels. Sure it may have a great stereo...but can you drive it anywhere?

This analogy is only correct if you have to play a lot for the car. If the car is free, why shouldn't i get it if the only thing i like is the stereo system?

Because a standalone stereo system will always be better.

The analogy is a very bad one. Just drop it.

Originally posted by Tibernicus

Originally posted by nariusseldon
 

Yeah, because you're a fan of MOBAs, not MMOs. More players is kind of what MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games are about. Please, just leave. You always derail every thread youre in.

Stop mis-using the term MOBA. You and Grumpy both.

I think narius' point is that, depending on map and combat mechanics, after a certain point the numbers matter very little. It doesn't matter if there's 30 or 60 guys focus-firing one guy, because he dies instantly anyway. And with high player numbers you are unlikely to perceive the additional amount say from 100 to 150. So going for higher and higher player numbers gives you diminishing returns at the cost twitch-like combat mechanics, very expensive optimization and poor performance if that optimization is not good enough.

More is not better. You could probably have over 10k players in the same area if the game had simple graphics and a limited draw distance, was turn-based and resolved combat entirely through dicerolls, but that wouldn't go well with the majority of players, now would it?

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

While dodging/parrying etc may be nice at certain times, in certain games many don't want those.

I don't think I've played an MMO that had turn based combat. 

No, but OP means semi turned base systems.

The game mechanics really have a turn based pen and paper system behind it. This is most obvious in DDO where you can see the rolls but most MMOs have it in the background.

Many MMOs have given up to-hit rolls atleast. Can you remember which was the last one to used them?

Hit rolls are another layer to combat and it adds depth. 

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Hit rolls are another layer to combat and it adds depth. 

You might aswell adjust damage and make every swing hit: 30% hit chance with 10 damage is 3 damage with an automatic hit. It does not add depth, it adds a randomness.

Dicerolls are a relic from P&P RPGs and turn-based combat.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Tibernicus

Originally posted by nariusseldon
 

Yeah, because you're a fan of MOBAs, not MMOs. More players is kind of what MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games are about. Please, just leave. You always derail every thread youre in.

Stop mis-using the term MOBA. You and Grumpy both.

I think narius' point is that, depending on map and combat mechanics, after a certain point the numbers matter very little. It doesn't matter if there's 30 or 60 guys focus-firing one guy, because he dies instantly anyway. And with high player numbers you are unlikely to perceive the additional amount say from 100 to 150. So going for higher and higher player numbers gives you diminishing returns at the cost twitch-like combat mechanics, very expensive optimization and poor performance if that optimization is not good enough.

First, I'm not misusing the term MOBA. Narius has said numerous times he wants MMOs to be more like LoL. And you're misunderstanding his point, not me. He prefers small teams of 5v5. I say that's not what MMOs do best.

And you've clearly never played a game like Eve, Darkfall, or Dark Age of Camelot if you think more does not equal better. It brings infitely more tactics into a combat and simulates a true war.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Tibernicus

Originally posted by nariusseldon
 

Yeah, because you're a fan of MOBAs, not MMOs. More players is kind of what MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games are about. Please, just leave. You always derail every thread youre in.

Stop mis-using the term MOBA. You and Grumpy both.

I think narius' point is that, depending on map and combat mechanics, after a certain point the numbers matter very little. It doesn't matter if there's 30 or 60 guys focus-firing one guy, because he dies instantly anyway. And with high player numbers you are unlikely to perceive the additional amount say from 100 to 150. So going for higher and higher player numbers gives you diminishing returns at the cost twitch-like combat mechanics, very expensive optimization and poor performance if that optimization is not good enough.

More is not better. You could probably have over 10k players in the same area if the game had simple graphics and a limited draw distance, was turn-based and resolved combat entirely through dicerolls, but that wouldn't go well with the majority of players, now would it?

That's a point I actualy (shockingly) agreed with Narius on and I'll agree with you on as well. After a certain point you don't get alot more in terms of gameplay dynamics for having more people on the map/same area. I just happen to believe that point is ALOT higher then the small instanced PvP that most of the e-sports crowd tends to prefer. From my perspective 32 vs 32 (pretty standard for most FPS games) is where those dynamics START to develop and get fun... north of that it's more a factor of map size compared with number of players so you get the right density.....  64 vs 64 or 128 vs 128 even better. When you start getting into numbers around that range and higher...you are (IMO) effectively playing a game that player pretty much like "open world" combat even though technicaly it might be instanced. However, that's a radicaly different number of players then I hear the e-sport guys typicaly talking about which seems to max out at maybe 10 vs 10 or 12 vs 12. Which (IMO) is just far too small to allow for the gameplay dynamics I'm talking about to really develop.

Note, I'm more used to PvP in FPS games...so "Focus Fire" doesn't really mean squat to me...usualy in those games more then 2-3 shots (max) and you are done anyway. It's more about who has the OPPORTUNITY to fire at who. Who's defending/attacking what points on the map.....what resources are getting thrown in what direction.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Hit rolls are another layer to combat and it adds depth. 

You might aswell adjust damage and make every swing hit: 30% hit chance with 10 damage is 3 damage with an automatic hit. It does not add depth, it adds a randomness.

Dicerolls are a relic from P&P RPGs and turn-based combat.

Disagree with you there. Having "To Hit" and "Damage" be seperate allow for ALOT more Depth and complexity to combat systems.

For example, it allows for Heavy Armored targets that are easy to hit but take little or no damage on each attack unless special weapons with high penetration values (but maybe other downsides, like short range, limited ammo, etc) are deployed against them.  At the same time you could have targets that are hard to heat, but easy to kill once they get hit.

Lets take it out of the fantasy realm for a second and think about modern or sci-fi. You could have a Tank ( AFV) or Armored Exoskeleten Infantry that is easy to hit but hard to penetrate/kill because of it's armor.

Fire all the highly accurate small arms weapons you want at it all day....it doesn't matter because nothing is penetrating it. Fire an RPG at it, which is far less accurate (over range) but does enough damage to penetrate it...you've got a threat. Yet at the same time, you DON'T want to target a soft target (infantry) with that RPG because even though it does enough damage to kill the infantry several times over....small arms does enough damage to kill infantry too, and is far more likely to hit.

So lets try an example with numbers:  Infantry Target = + 0 to hit,  2 points of damage to penetrate, 4 points to kill

                                                                    AFV Target = +50 to hit, 20 points of damage to penetrate, 40 points to kill.

                                                                   Rifle Weapon=  Base 60 percent chance to hit, base 4 points of damage delivered

                                                                   RPG Weapon= Base 10 percent chance to hit,  base 40 points of damage delivered.

So under a system with seperate to hit and damage rolls

-  A soldier can fire a Rifle at an AFV and hit it on pretty much every shot (110 percent chance to hit)  but  never do enough damage to harm it.  Tacticaly a Rifle is  a crappy weapon to use against and AFV.

- A soldier can fire a Rifle at an Infantry target and hit it more then half the time (60 percent) and on average does enough damage (4 pts)  to kill it with one shot. Tacticaly a Rifle is a decent weapon to use against an infantry target.

- A soldier can fire an RPG at an AFV and hit it more then half the time (60 percent) and on average does enough damage (40 pts) to kill it with one shot. Tacticaly an RPG is a decent weapon to use against an AFV target.

- A soldier can fire an RPG at an Infantry target and hit it only 1 in 10 times (10 percent) and on average does enough damage (40 pts) to kill it with one shot, if he hits. Tacticaly an RPG is a crappy weapon to use against an Infantry target.

By seperating out To Hit and Damage we get a far more nuanced system that allows for greater tactical options. With just Damage we are left with the RPG doing 40 and the Rifle doing 4...making the RPG ALWAYS the better weapon to use....which is far less interesting in terms of tactics.

Originally posted by Tibernicus

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Tibernicus

First, I'm not misusing the term MOBA. Narius has said numerous times he wants MMOs to be more like LoL. And you're misunderstanding his point, not me. He prefers small teams of 5v5. I say that's not what MMOs do best.

And you've clearly never played a game like Eve, Darkfall, or Dark Age of Camelot if you think more does not equal better. It brings infitely more tactics into a combat and simulates a true war.

I've played Eve for 2 years, 3/4 of that in null-sec, 1/2 as a co-ceo of a PvP corporation, 1/4 of my time was in Black Legion, you might have heard of it. You can be damn sure that I didn't spend my time by shooting rocks. I quit because it offered no challenge and the combat was boring.

The more people are involved the less tactics, the less effect you yourself have on the outcome. The battles are often predetermined because of player numbers or group composition. Overwhelming majority of times the side which has more players wins. You cannot simulate true war in a video game, furthermore I think it is laughable to claim so. Politics is childish bickering and warfare is "zerg-management". If you can get your guys to log in, chances are you'll win.

Especially in Eve the small to medium-sized (less than 50 ships involved) are the most interesting engagements. Sadly the combat is optimized to handle the big fights. And there is nothing more mindnumbing than to

1. put yourself in orbit around your anchor
2. lock called targets
3. click primary
4. press f-keys for guns
5. go back to #2 and repeat

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Disagree with you there. Having "To Hit" and "Damage" be seperate allow for ALOT more Depth and complexity to combat systems.

For example, it allows for Heavy Armored targets that are easy to hit but take little or no damage on each attack unless special weapons with high penetration values (but maybe other downsides, like short range, limited ammo, etc) are deployed against them.  At the same time you could have targets that are hard to heat, but easy to kill once they get hit.

Lets take it out of the fantasy realm for a second and think about modern or sci-fi. You could have a Tank ( AFV) or Armored Exoskeleten Infantry that is easy to hit but hard to penetrate/kill because of it's armor.

Fire all the highly accurate small arms weapons you want at it all day....it doesn't matter because nothing is penetrating it. Fire an RPG at it, which is far less accurate (over range) but does enough damage to penetrate it...you've got a threat. Yet at the same time, you DON'T want to target a soft target (infantry) with that RPG because even though it does enough damage to kill the infantry several times over....small arms does enough damage to kill infantry too, and is far more likely to hit.

So lets try an example with numbers:  Infantry Target = + 0 to hit,  2 points of damage to penetrate, 4 points to kill

                                                                    AFV Target = +50 to hit, 20 points of damage to penetrate, 40 points to kill.

                                                                   Rifle Weapon=  Base 60 percent chance to hit, base 4 points of damage delivered

                                                                   RPG Weapon= Base 10 percent chance to hit,  base 40 points of damage delivered.

 

So under a system with seperate to hit and damage rolls

-  A soldier can fire a Rifle at an AFV and hit it on pretty much every shot (110 percent chance to hit)  but  never do enough damage to harm it.  Tacticaly a Rifle is  a crappy weapon to use against and AFV.

- A soldier can fire a Rifle at an Infantry target and hit it more then half the time (60 percent) and on average does enough damage (4 pts)  to kill it with one shot. Tacticaly a Rifle is a decent weapon to use against an infantry target.

- A soldier can fire an RPG at an AFV and hit it more then half the time (60 percent) and on average does enough damage (40 pts) to kill it with one shot. Tacticaly an RPG is a decent weapon to use against an AFV target.

- A soldier can fire an RPG at an Infantry target and hit it only 1 in 10 times (10 percent) and on average does enough damage (40 pts) to kill it with one shot, if he hits. Tacticaly an RPG is a crappy weapon to use against an Infantry target.

By seperating out To Hit and Damage we get a far more nuanced system that allows for greater tactical options. With just Damage we are left with the RPG doing 40 and the Rifle doing 4...making the RPG ALWAYS the better weapon to use....which is far less interesting in terms of tactics.

Even if you had a hard-to-hit, squishy target, you can deduce that certain amount of hits are sure to kill that target, therefore you can reduce the damage so that that many hits are needed to kill said target. There is no difference in the outcome, however, with to-hit rolls you add more variance, hence I said "adds randomness".

If you say there's a difference which character would you rather play?

• One who can take 10 hits
• One who can take just 5 but also has 50% chance to avoid incoming damage.

Competitive players hate random effects. They are a factor which they can't affect with their skill. You wouldn't enjoy playing a chess game where you had to flip a coin after X amount of turns to see who wins whatever the situation was on the board. Even in TF 2's tournaments the critical hits are turned OFF.

Anyway, you don't need to rely on dicerolls anymore because you can add that variance through twitch-like mechanics which put emphasis on player skill but do not add randomness.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Disagree with you there. Having "To Hit" and "Damage" be seperate allow for ALOT more Depth and complexity to combat systems.

For example, it allows for Heavy Armored targets that are easy to hit but take little or no damage on each attack unless special weapons with high penetration values (but maybe other downsides, like short range, limited ammo, etc) are deployed against them.  At the same time you could have targets that are hard to heat, but easy to kill once they get hit.

Lets take it out of the fantasy realm for a second and think about modern or sci-fi. You could have a Tank ( AFV) or Armored Exoskeleten Infantry that is easy to hit but hard to penetrate/kill because of it's armor.

Fire all the highly accurate small arms weapons you want at it all day....it doesn't matter because nothing is penetrating it. Fire an RPG at it, which is far less accurate (over range) but does enough damage to penetrate it...you've got a threat. Yet at the same time, you DON'T want to target a soft target (infantry) with that RPG because even though it does enough damage to kill the infantry several times over....small arms does enough damage to kill infantry too, and is far more likely to hit.

So lets try an example with numbers:  Infantry Target = + 0 to hit,  2 points of damage to penetrate, 4 points to kill

                                                                    AFV Target = +50 to hit, 20 points of damage to penetrate, 40 points to kill.

                                                                   Rifle Weapon=  Base 60 percent chance to hit, base 4 points of damage delivered

                                                                   RPG Weapon= Base 10 percent chance to hit,  base 40 points of damage delivered.

 

So under a system with seperate to hit and damage rolls

-  A soldier can fire a Rifle at an AFV and hit it on pretty much every shot (110 percent chance to hit)  but  never do enough damage to harm it.  Tacticaly a Rifle is  a crappy weapon to use against and AFV.

- A soldier can fire a Rifle at an Infantry target and hit it more then half the time (60 percent) and on average does enough damage (4 pts)  to kill it with one shot. Tacticaly a Rifle is a decent weapon to use against an infantry target.

- A soldier can fire an RPG at an AFV and hit it more then half the time (60 percent) and on average does enough damage (40 pts) to kill it with one shot. Tacticaly an RPG is a decent weapon to use against an AFV target.

- A soldier can fire an RPG at an Infantry target and hit it only 1 in 10 times (10 percent) and on average does enough damage (40 pts) to kill it with one shot, if he hits. Tacticaly an RPG is a crappy weapon to use against an Infantry target.

By seperating out To Hit and Damage we get a far more nuanced system that allows for greater tactical options. With just Damage we are left with the RPG doing 40 and the Rifle doing 4...making the RPG ALWAYS the better weapon to use....which is far less interesting in terms of tactics.

Even if you had a hard-to-hit, squishy target, you can deduce that certain amount of hits are sure to kill that target, therefore you can reduce the damage so that that many hits are needed to kill said target. There is no difference in the outcome, however, with to-hit rolls you add more variance, hence I said "adds randomness".

If you say there's a difference which character would you rather play?

• One who can take 10 hits
• One who can take just 5 but also has 50% chance to avoid incoming damage.

 

 

Competitive players hate random effects. They are a factor which they can't affect with their skill. You wouldn't enjoy playing a chess game where you had to flip a coin after X amount of turns to see who wins whatever the situation was on the board. Even in TF 2's tournaments the critical hits are turned OFF.

Anyway, you don't need to rely on dicerolls anymore because you can add that variance through twitch-like mechanics which put emphasis on player skill but do not add randomness.

No..... there is a HUGE difference in outcome as I directly illustrated with my examples above... the Rifle (which does less damage) is a better weapon against Infantry because it has higher accuracy and does enough damage to get the job done. The RPG (which does much greater damage) is a worse weapon against infantry because it has poor accuracy but is a better weapon against AFV's because they are easy to hit and they require alot of damage to hurt. With your system you just can't do that...you are left with the RPG is a better weapon then the Rifle, period. It's entirely beside the point....but you could fire a rifle at an AFV all day...you aren't going to hurt it, because you can't do enough damage to penetrate it's armor. If you dislike my use of modern terms....you could could substitute the terms "Halberd" and "Foil" for the weapons and "Plate" and "Cloth" for the targets.

Secondly just because there is a random factor involved does not mean that a game is completely divorced from strategy, tactics and skill.  If you believe that, lets you and I sit down and play Advanced Squad Leader or World in Flames (both of which are certainly played competitively) and see if the distribution of wins/losses is different then 50/50 which is what it would be if it were random.

News flash....even FPS games introduce a random factor with weapons into the game. The bullet doesn't always go exactly where you are pointing the cursor (at least in half-way decent ones). The bullet is RANDOMLY displaced a certain degree from the aim-point (or an equivalent mechanism) depending upon the ACCURACY of the weapon you are firing. That's why you can't plug someone with a pistol from 50 yds as easly as you can with a battle-rifle.

This even holds true in Real Life shooting. Skill will get you alot, but at a certain point skill meets up with the practical limitations of the weapons accuracy. Firing the weapon, even screwed in to a bench rest won't get you completely consistant results from shot to shot past a certain distance. Firing a pistol or shotgun (with a slug) ...no matter how skilled you are...won't get you as accurate results as a 7mm Weatherby. 

Such results in real life aren't actualy completely random...but their as random as rolling a die or using the RNG in a game. In other words, the factors which determine the actual result are so far beyond the actors ability to predict/control that they are effectively random.

@Quirhid

In answer to your direct question...

"If you say there's a difference which character would you rather play?

    One who can take 10 hits
    One who can take just 5 but also has 50% chance to avoid incoming damage."

It all depends upon what I'm being TARGETED by....

               - If I'm being targeted by something that does 20 points of damage, I'd much rather take the guy that has 50% chance to avoid incoming damage.

              - If I'm being targeted by something that has only one shot and does 6 points of damage, I'd much rather be the guy with 10 hit points.

I can't believe this isn't apparent to you, if you are actualy into combat tactics.....

Originally posted by MrReality
Nevermind the combat, people need to stop making mmos because they can't even make a good mmo first. 

Not since WOW came out. Only a handful of decent ones since then, Vanguard, Darkfall, Fallen Earth, and GW2.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by Quirhid

 

Even if you had a hard-to-hit, squishy target, you can deduce that certain amount of hits are sure to kill that target, therefore you can reduce the damage so that that many hits are needed to kill said target. There is no difference in the outcome, however, with to-hit rolls you add more variance, hence I said "adds randomness".

If you say there's a difference which character would you rather play?

• One who can take 10 hits
• One who can take just 5 but also has 50% chance to avoid incoming damage.

 

 

Competitive players hate random effects. They are a factor which they can't affect with their skill. You wouldn't enjoy playing a chess game where you had to flip a coin after X amount of turns to see who wins whatever the situation was on the board. Even in TF 2's tournaments the critical hits are turned OFF.

Anyway, you don't need to rely on dicerolls anymore because you can add that variance through twitch-like mechanics which put emphasis on player skill but do not add randomness.

No..... there is a HUGE difference in outcome as I directly illustrated with my examples above... the Rifle (which does less damage) is a better weapon against Infantry because it has higher accuracy and does enough damage to get the job done. The RPG (which does much greater damage) is a worse weapon against infantry because it has poor accuracy but is a better weapon against AFV's because they are easy to hit and they require alot of damage to hurt. With your system you just can't do that...you are left with the RPG is a better weapon then the Rifle, period. It's entirely beside the point....but you could fire a rifle at an AFV all day...you aren't going to hurt it, because you can't do enough damage to penetrate it's armor. If you dislike my use of modern terms....you could could substitute the terms "Halberd" and "Foil" for the weapons and "Plate" and "Cloth" for the targets.

Secondly just because there is a random factor involved does not mean that a game is completely divorced from strategy, tactics and skill.  If you believe that, lets you and I sit down and play Advanced Squad Leader or World in Flames (both of which are certainly played competitively) and see if the distribution of wins/losses is different then 50/50 which is what it would be if it were random.

News flash....even FPS games introduce a random factor with weapons into the game. The bullet doesn't always go exactly where you are pointing the cursor (at least in half-way decent ones). The bullet is RANDOMLY displaced a certain degree from the aim-point (or an equivalent mechanism) depending upon the ACCURACY of the weapon you are firing. That's why you can't plug someone with a pistol from 50 yds as easly as you can with a battle-rifle.

This even holds true in Real Life shooting. Skill will get you alot, but at a certain point skill meets up with the practical limitations of the weapons accuracy. Firing the weapon, even screwed in to a bench rest won't get you completely consistant results from shot to shot past a certain distance. Firing a pistol or shotgun (with a slug) ...no matter how skilled you are...won't get you as accurate results as a 7mm Weatherby. 

Such results in real life aren't actualy completely random...but their as random as rolling a die or using the RNG in a game. In other words, the factors which determine the actual result are so far beyond the actors ability to predict/control that they are effectively random.

You forget, the same effect can be had with dmg bonuses. For example, "RPG does bonus damage against armor". Essentially to-hit rolls modify the damage being done and you can always play with modifiers to achieve the same outcome.

To me it doesn't costitute as depth because to add depth, each option should have offer a different outcome. For example, if you have 3 doors which all lead to the same room, there is no depth. It adds complexity - and complexity is not the same as depth. Both choices...

• One who can take 10 hits
• One who can take just 5 but also has 50% chance to avoid incoming damage

You'd be surprised how little randomness was involved in FPS in the past. To my understanding (and I'm discussing with a CS vet while writing this) every first shot hit exactly what you were aiming, but the recoil was different for every gun. For example, AK-47 had a strong recoil straigh up, with first shot hitting exactly where you aimed and the following two in a close group above that, M4 didn't have as strong recoil up etc.

Its been only the more recent games like BF3 where some guns haven't "shot straight" so to speak.