EPTStill back in the day when we did LAN partys we favored Red Alert 2 (plus Yuri's Revenge) over Starcraft for 4on4s even though we agreed that SC is the better game. Why?
When you do a party, you want everybody to have fun: The RTS-freak, the FPS-freak who plays an RTS, the student/business guy who doesn't play that much anymore and everybody else. When you choose SC there's a big chance that some RTS-freaks will have a good time while everybody else is getting owned and has no clue why.
On the other hand RA2 games with eight players who are in a relaxed and not overly competitive mood tend to get hilarious! Somehow the game is destined to produce chaotic/insane but ingenious matches including lot's of "imba" special and superunits, massive damage spells and really awkward abilitys. ([Ex-]RA2 pros like
Ret will probably disagree but they play on a different level 
) Even beginners can pull off some funny stuff and when you're roflstomped in a hilarious way on a LAN it's half that bad.There's still a line when a game becomes frustrating or bland even for beginners. And when you're getting better and more competitive, you probably draw this line more towards the "less chaos" end of the spectrum. After all a bad designed game stays bad even it has the best balance in the world and vice versa.
With this blog I want to emphasize, that there's a place for games, which would give professional players nightmares. In the right circumstances "anti-balance balance" or unhealthy amounts of luck-based factors are just the right ingredients for a fun multiplayer experience if done right.
Other examples:
Chaos
