This game hates me

[Anouleth]

Please, show me some proof that isn't anecdotal. Because I've never had a problem with the RNG in this game, it seems pretty fair.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I've had more RNG problems with FE7 than FE6 when it comes to the RNG and that game's RNG is supposedly "easier than FE7's" It's just bad luck and the lower accuracy of weapons in general.

[Rewjeo]

Show me some proof that isn't anecdotal that proves that all GBA games have, without a doubt, the same RNG. Most people have problems with it, which means that it's probably unfair. Although I've also heard something about the game not showing you the real HIT values, so that could play into it.

It's not just lower weapon hit, though. Lance shouldn't miss half the time with 80 displayed, and those brigands with 40 displayed shouldn't hit 3/4 the time.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Slize

[Parrhesia]

It's not just lower weapon hit, though. Lance shouldn't miss half the time with 80 displayed, and those brigands with 40 displayed shouldn't hit 3/4 the time.

Then we are in agreement that this has nothing to do with the RNG?

[Rewjeo]

What? How does that make sense at all?

[Anouleth]

Show me some proof that isn't anecdotal that proves that all GBA games have, without a doubt, the same RNG. Most people have problems with it, which means that it's probably unfair. Although I've also heard something about the game not showing you the real HIT values, so that could play into it.

Please, prove that 'most people' have problems with it.

It's not just lower weapon hit, though. Lance shouldn't miss half the time with 80 displayed, and those brigands with 40 displayed shouldn't hit 3/4 the time.

In the absence of proof, we should assume they all use a fair RNG.

In any case, it's possible to find objective proof by hacking the game and finding out exactly what string of RNs the game uses and whether allied and enemy units get a different string. I don't have experience with hacking, but somebody around here presumably does.

[Balcerzak]

In any case, it's possible to find objective proof by hacking the game and finding out exactly what string of RNs the game uses and whether allied and enemy units get a different string. I don't have experience with hacking, but somebody around here presumably does.

676037[/snapback]

Edit: I guess I should make sure I don't violate the one-liner requirement. Nitrodon found that there is a small difference in the RN generation between FE6 and 7 and 8, but there is no evidence of two separate RN strings or anything of that nature. In fact, I would seriously side on the fact that the bug likely leads to no noticeable effect in standard play.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Balcerzak

[Parrhesia]

What? How does that make sense at all?

Vague flippansarcasm. But no matter what the RNG 40%/27 or whatever% is a lower chance than 80%/92ish%. Unless you're assuming some kind of enemy luck (not the stat) boost, but that's ridiculous.

[Rewjeo]

I've heard plenty of people (myself included) say that the game consistently seems to help the enemies more. This is the first time I've heard many people say otherwise. This means either a bunch of people have been horribly unlucky or that other people have been lucky. Assuming either way is illogical. Now that I've heard more people saying it's been fair for them, I'm not convinced that it's unfair anymore. But I'm not convinced it's fair, either.

[Scarlet]

I've never had much of a problem with FE6's RNG, actually. Sure, most people will likely remember a lot of absurd outcomes from the RNG in this game - just like they remember a few cases of extreme RNG screwage/blessing in other FEs. It's just that the hit rates in FE6 generally are a lot lower for both the player and the enemy - even the player rarely ever sees 100 displayed Hit, which, unlike the later games where having 100 Hit is a lot more common, obviously leaves much more room for RNG screwage to occur. Similar things happen with the low enemy hit rates, really - they really are absurdly low most of the time, but even that 2% true hit is going to hit 1 out of 50 times - and you obviously aren't going to clear a chapter in just a mere 10 attacks or something, so even extremely unlikely outcomes are bound to happen at some point.

[dondon151]

I've heard plenty of people (myself included) say that the game consistently seems to help the enemies more.

First, I'd like to point out how laughable it is that you'd cite yourself as a source of hearsay.

Second, How is this even possible? The RN string is already generated when you start the game. Unless you're implying that the game has foresight WRT player moves (in which case, any arbitrary amount of cursor redraws, be they on purpose or accidental, and any arbitrary amount of luck determining doubling and critical hits will screw up this hypothesis), or you're implying that the game adapts the RN string as the player progresses to favor the enemy, which is simply not true if you just abuse the RNG with savestates or suspend saves.

Anyway, Raymond is on the right track. Our perception is greatly influenced by the lower weapon hit stats in this game - player hit, which is generally high, is low enough such that to the player, the hit rate seems reliable, but given many occurrences it will fail rather frequently. Enemy hit, which is generally low, is even lower such that to the player, the hit rate seems reliable (at missing), but that assumption will fail rather frequently as well.

Edited July 22, 2010 by dondon151

[Narga_Rocks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAoKIotQHnk

and again

The first example you showed has a pretty high chance of happening, though. It's around the chance of Aran dying in 1-4. These things happen. That's why we look badly at units that allow this type of thing when there are alternates that don't. It's why I heal units about to attack bosses if I can guarantee survival rather than attacking when a unit is KOd if they miss and get hit.

I'm betting you do this type of thing rather frequently. For every time it failed, there are probably 10 or more times it succeeded for you. But you are more likely to remember the times it failed since you appear to "expect" this type of thing to succeed. Whenever it succeeds, that's just expected behaviour and is thus not remembered. But when it fails, well, those are the times you remember because "it wasn't supposed to happen that way".

[Junkhead]

Thanks Slize.

Oh hey, haven't you seen in general how much more likely are players likely to get RNG screwed in FE6 than the other two GBA FEs? There's tons of Youtube videos to prove it. And, along with that, we are currently seeing a few replies on how different the RNG is, even if FE6 does have the 2 RN system.

Missing on 70~% Hit chances is pretty common in FE6. But in FE7 and afterwards it's actually uncommon for that to happen.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Missing on 70~% Hit chances is pretty common in FE6. But in FE7 and afterwards it's actually uncommon for that to happen.

Because you don't see it in FE7 as often as you do in FE6 due to lower hit on weapons for FE6 and enemies having shit for avoid in FE7 which generally comes from poor AS and 0 LCK while enemies in FE6 actually have LCK and manage to get some decent AS (lol Sacae).

Edited July 22, 2010 by Sirius

[Junkhead]

The issues is not on the lower weapon Hit rates itself. Or else you haven't noticed...missing with around 70% Hit chances is pretty uncommon from FE7 and afterwards, but not in FE6.

[Colonel M]

The issues is not on the lower weapon Hit rates itself. Or else you haven't noticed...missing with around 70% Hit chances is pretty uncommon from FE7 and afterwards, but not in FE6.

That's because you see ~70% Hit Rates all the time in FE6. Of course you're going to notice it more. FE7 and FE8 has rare occurances where you ever see those hit rates, and you still can miss just as often (I've missed with 70%s myself). Think of it as 5/7 people (for FE7) are tall instead of 500/700 (for FE6).

[Hero]

The issues is not on the lower weapon Hit rates itself. Or else you haven't noticed...missing with around 70% Hit chances is pretty uncommon from FE7 and afterwards, but not in FE6.

You´re just repeating yourself.

If you can't offer proof for your assertion it´s not going to change anybody´s mind. Everybody has a different impression of the game because everybody´s experience is different--I never thought my team was missing particularly more than was to be expected.

[Junkhead]

Now that I reconsider it, the times I got most RNG screwed would have to be in the Arena, were the matches are longer and that may probably affect the outcomes.

[Narga_Rocks]

Now that I reconsider it, the times I got most RNG screwed would have to be in the Arena, were the matches are longer and that may probably affect the outcomes.

Tell me you didn't expect to make 5 consecutive attacks with 70 listed hit. Please?

[Parrhesia]

This is just superstition. It's like, my Lowens are always screwed in either Strength or Speed. Doesn't mean 30% growths are actually 15%.

[Junkhead]

Getting screwed with a character with low growths isn't hard. We're talking about missing at high hit rates here.

I thought the FE6 Arena had a similiar issues to the FE4 one, except not on the stat gains, but on the Hit rates.

[Rewjeo]

First, I'd like to point out how laughable it is that you'd cite yourself as a source of hearsay.

Second, How is this even possible? The RN string is already generated when you start the game.

I did that to point out that I am somewhat biased against the FE6 RNG.

Okay, then it is just bad luck. Although the different RNG could explain either you missing more or the enemy hitting more, but not both.

[Anouleth]

Thanks Slize.

Oh hey, haven't you seen in general how much more likely are players likely to get RNG screwed in FE6 than the other two GBA FEs? There's tons of Youtube videos to prove it. And, along with that, we are currently seeing a few replies on how different the RNG is, even if FE6 does have the 2 RN system.

Missing on 70~% Hit chances is pretty common in FE6. But in FE7 and afterwards it's actually uncommon for that to happen.

It is common in FE6 because you have 70~% chances throughout most of the game. Most of the time in later FEs, you will have 80s and 90s and 100. So it's understandable that you'd miss on 70~% risks more often since 70~% risks are more common.

dondon and Narga hit the nail on the head, really. Not only would it be impossible to fix the RNG in the favour of the computer without having two seperate strings, which is provably false, but the common belief that the game cheats is easily explained.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Slowking

[Junkhead]

Those were just examples you know. I would like to get back to my hacked FE6 and see what's up. (I gave weapons the same stats their FE7 counterpart have)