The Average Approach
An example for this is Diablo, DnD, really almost every Action RPG out there, often strategy games too; as they all randomize weapon damage. Why is this acceptable? Simply because you use your weapon so often that it averages because of the sheer number of rolls.
It also makes the player think, do I want to do 2-7 damage per hit, or rather 1-8?
What you're basically saying is that it's okay because it's not really luck based. It's only an illusion. I might say this variable damage makes sense from a physical standpoint. additionaly if you're gonna show dmg numbers (which I dislike), you don't want to show the same number over and over again.
This, and critical hits makes the total damage unpredictable i the next few strikes. If only a few blows are required to take down a foe, then the chance of a sudden dmg spike will have a great advantage in killing foes in a holy trinity system. Healers will have a much harder time dealing with such unpredictable encounters, making the job require more skill. You might wanna sacrifice some average dmg in return for better random temporary spike dmg, making the optimal build more complex (isn't that what you want?).
The possibility of chance is not equivalent to less skill.
[indent=3]
Imagine finally getting the atom bomb in an RTS, after being almost overrun since you had to invest all your ressources into this, and then *Poof* nothing happens. Why? The superweapon does 200-9999 damage, and you just happened to roll low. Because of luck, you lost the game.
There's a difference between random dmg in something that takes lots of investment in a long game. In a rpg pvp match you usually respawn quite quickly so these are very different scenarios. There's also a massive difference between 200-9999 dmg and 5000-9999 dmg. The first has a very extreme dmg difference, while in the latter scenario it might be a devastating hit, or it might be a very devastating hit. A 10k hit might give you a win, while a 6k hit might prolong the fight.
Tohe alternative route
This is something that I have hardly seen in games. It basically says that luck depends on the outcome of the mission, but you don't FAIL. It means that the story goes in a different direction, or that you get different missions. This could be used for interesting effect, but it can frustrate the player, since he might not be able to see the story go in a different way when he replays the game.
A possibility to avoid this would be to program the game to automatically have it work out the other way when you replay the game. Say the game notes if you finished with version A, so the next time you will always get B.
So you dislike luck in combat, but you'd like it in story progression, instead of being dependent on dialouge choices?
To repeat my questions from the beginning: What purpose does luck serve in your games? Is it a part of your game at all? Should it be?
Specifically in a rts, luck makes everything more complicated. You don't know the exact outcomes of a given action. In other words it might require more skill, because you have to make strategic decisions based on uncertainties. If the utcome of a long match depends on one single event which is essentially a dice roll (200-9999dmg), then it's the bad form of luck. However a very similar scenario is where building of a titan means instawin, and so it becomes and arms race to build one first. The latter is not based on chance, yet it's similar and not much better.
Although "Mrrathew's Maxim" does kinda' roll off the tongue! Lol!
