RNG Abuse

[Toothache]

Given the example Lumi put out, why should it be any less acceptable to rig a 45% hit over a 95% hit, for example? Just because it is expected that the 95% will hit on almost every attack, the odds should be in favour that 1 in 20 attacks should miss, on average. Ensuring that 1 missed attack hits should be no less acceptable than rigging a low percentage hit.

[Espinosa]

By 95% do we mean 84% displayed?

[Paperblade]

Given the example Lumi put out, why should it be any less acceptable to rig a 45% hit over a 95% hit, for example? Just because it is expected that the 95% will hit on almost every attack, the odds should be in favour that 1 in 20 attacks should miss, on average. Ensuring that 1 missed attack hits should be no less acceptable than rigging a low percentage hit.

Personally I wouldn't allow either but I could see someone arguing that they're different due to the number of events required in each

[Zanarkin]

That was because the 4 turn of 1-P is just stupid. It requires eddie to get some crits or miccy to get a crit on the first bandit.

Whether is stupid or not there was nothing against it, and as far as i know nobody had complained about RNG abuse in FE10 threads before that occurrence (atleast not after the RNG abuse rule disappeared; and as far as i'm aware of) to allow anyone to see that there are limits to RNG abuse. Sure such a case where a person gets "lucky" a bunch of times in a few chapters had never presented itself, but the possibility was there for everyone to do it. Plus we are overlooking the fact that yeah Quin might have gotten lucky in one chapter and abused in the other. IIRC the RNG is dependent on when you press start in the screen. May be he got it at nice number or something (I don't know very well how rng works so excuse my ignorance here).

That's an easy calculation. 10%x10%=1%=not allowed. So, you have to pick one, assuming the good level up really has a 10% chance of occurring. Also, you only get to abuse if you can do the calculation. What if the person doesn't know how? Googling "probability" can probably (pun originally unintended) find a good enough source to make such a calculation.

Thats giving people that are not lazy enough to look up probability or know it already an unfair advantage. Rules are not supposed to that. If you are to implement such a rule, you should teach it too regardless of how easy it is to look it up.

I know late reply is late

Edited April 22, 2012 by SlayerX

[Quintessence]

That TC was possible because some events occurred and I'm used to battle save every turn to avoid restarting the whole chapter, but it wasn't something I aimed at, specifically.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

Okay, maybe my idea is too difficult to use. How about this one: 1 turn penalty per forced RNG.

Solves every problem. Any takers?

I actually like this idea.

[PKL]

That's a terrible idea and you should feel bad for it. Ppl can just not say they forced an RN and never take the penalty. Reminds me of the no resets or you take 8 turns penalty draft...*shrug*. Oh God, that draft was truly horrible.

[Othin]

That's a terrible idea and you should feel bad for it. Ppl can just not say they forced an RN and never take the penalty. Reminds me of the no resets or you take 8 turns penalty draft...*shrug*. Oh God, that draft was truly horrible.

So no one's good enough for an honor system, that's what you're saying?

It makes sense to give penalties for resets, and if the participants have the slightest bit of integrity, they'll own up to it and take those penalties.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

That's a terrible idea and you should feel bad for it. Ppl can just not say they forced an RN and never take the penalty.

Why? If they truly never took the penalty, their TC would show it, and their run ought to be thrown out as a result.

EDIT: LOL sniped

Edited April 22, 2012 by The Spanish Inquisition

[Sunwoo]

So, if I run across a crappy situation like my RN being set up so that Jaffar dies on turn 2 and I can't do anything to stop it, I should take a penalty for something I literally can't control?

[eclipse]

I can do things like reliably three-turn Chapter 21 of Shadow Dragon. No RNG abuse or anything. Should I take a penalty because I know how to bait the AI?

[Othin]

So, if I run across a crappy situation like my RN being set up so that Jaffar dies on turn 2 and I can't do anything to stop it, I should take a penalty for something I literally can't control?

Or let Jaffar die.

Shit happens. Play the game, roll with it, and figure out how to work around emerging issues rather than trying to bend the game to your unrealistic script.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

So, if I run across a crappy situation like my RN being set up so that Jaffar dies on turn 2 and I can't do anything to stop it, I should take a penalty for something I literally can't control?

Presumably, there would be the understanding that resetting the chapter if a character dies is fine.

After all, resetting the chapter might be RN abuse, but it is equal RN abuse for the cartridge and ROM

@eclipse: not if you can explain why you were able to take only 3 turns, and let others judge your explanation

Edited April 22, 2012 by The Spanish Inquisition

[CT075]

but my specific script is fun

and until i stick my toe past the line you cannot honestly tell whether i've done so or not

not to mention

does this mean that if i find that a different attack order has better results then i should take a penalty simply for making an observation?

[PKL]

No resets is just stupid. I repeat: Intelligent systems themselves acknowledge RESETTING IS A PART OF FE. And shit happens that you cant control at all. It also leaves too little room for error, is frustrating and you cant even freaking reset to make up a new strat (which i tend to do and have come up with decent strats that i can keep using in other drafts). I play drafts for fun and to find strats, play with new chars, etc and i do not enjoy being penalized because eirika decided not to dodge 2 axes in an EP at 20 display hit or stuff like that.

[Quintessence]

Lol then I'll have to take a penalty because Radmin dodged Sothe's 95% hit.

I'm totally against it. That's like trying to add order and strictness to RN chaos.

EDIT: Besides, RNG is almost (if not all) the essence of FE. That's leaving FE soulless

Edited April 22, 2012 by Quintessence

[MacLovin]

I'm assuming stuff like

-BEXP capping a units stats in fe10 counts as abuse, even though it's common knowledge

Also, the LRC draft was horrible.

And, most drafters don't go nuts RNG abusing, unless it's for shit for fe12.

I remember people swapping MU growths and all sort of shit for fe12 drafts awhile back.

And, the honor code thing SOUNDS nice, but it'd probobly be a horrid idea.

[eclipse]

MU's growths can be easily calculated; check the My Unit section on this site.

I think the problem is intent - are you willing to play a draft solely for the lowest turn count, or to improvise based off of what you have? If it's the former, then don't draft with people who believe the latter.

[Othin]

Presumably, there would be the understanding that resetting the chapter if a character dies is fine.

After all, resetting the chapter might be RN abuse, but it is equal RN abuse for the cartridge and ROM

Uh, no. That would mean any strategy that will get a unit killed if it goes wrong is permitted. And getting a unit killed is always an option for a free reset.

but my specific script is fun

and until i stick my toe past the line you cannot honestly tell whether i've done so or not

not to mention

does this mean that if i find that a different attack order has better results then i should take a penalty simply for making an observation?

So you're saying your word isn't a good enough way to know. Thanks for letting me know that if I ever wind up running a draft, I should preemptively ban you from it due to not being possible to trust to participate legitimately.

And yeah. Better get it right the first time.

No resets is just stupid. I repeat: Intelligent systems themselves acknowledge RESETTING IS A PART OF FE. And shit happens that you cant control at all. It also leaves too little room for error, is frustrating and you cant even freaking reset to make up a new strat (which i tend to do and have come up with decent strats that i can keep using in other drafts). I play drafts for fun and to find strats, play with new chars, etc and i do not enjoy being penalized because eirika decided not to dodge 2 axes in an EP at 20 display hit or stuff like that.

Is this about that FE10 interview? They said the exact opposite of that.

http://serenesforest.net/fe10/interview10_2.html

Scroll down to "Even if a character dies, we hope that you will keep going".

Edited April 22, 2012 by Othin

[The Spanish Inquisition]

No resets is just stupid. I repeat: Intelligent systems themselves acknowledge RESETTING IS A PART OF FE. And shit happens that you cant control at all. It also leaves too little room for error, is frustrating and you cant even freaking reset to make up a new strat (which i tend to do and have come up with decent strats that i can keep using in other drafts). I play drafts for fun and to find strats, play with new chars, etc and i do not enjoy being penalized because eirika decided not to dodge 2 axes in an EP at 20 display hit or stuff like that.

You're blowing things out of context. Read my lips: resets are perfectly fine, assuming that you're resetting the whole chapter.

And no, an observation has no penalty, but how are you making that observation? If you're determining the best order based on a save state, you're abusing the RN->1 turn penalty.

[Darros]

Why? If they truly never took the penalty, their TC would show it, and their run ought to be thrown out as a result.

OK, so say someone actually gets lucky. Therefore their run looks fake. So they need to reset so it looks like they didn't reset, making them costs turns.

[CT075]

if you really think it's such an issue, start a draft and implement the rule

see how well it works

edits:

please tell me what it is about resetting that is so different than loading a state aside from time

the RN string is unchanged in gbafe. the only difference is in reloading the entire kitchen sink you're more likely to fuck up some part or other (you move an arrow in a slightly different way in getting your unit to the same spot) and that fucks things up. that, and time.

@othin: don't worry bro i'm not sure what i'd be smoking to even consider signing up for a draft run by you

Edited April 22, 2012 by Camtech

[PKL]

I tested a new mage MU build in the no staves draft. But i mostly go with past - Noble's child, present - orphan and future - enlightened. I find it is the most reliable, it gives MU these growths: HP 80% Str 25% Mag 55% Skl 55% Spd 50% Lck 60% Def 5% Res 20%

[Sunwoo]

Or let Jaffar die.

Shit happens. Play the game, roll with it, and figure out how to work around emerging issues rather than trying to bend the game to your unrealistic script.

So if I drafted the dude or if 28x is required, I should take a penalty because my RNG thought that it would be funny to screw me over? Or lose a drafted character? What a great idea! -_-

[The Spanish Inquisition]

OK, so say someone actually gets lucky. Therefore their run looks fake. So they need to reset so it looks like they didn't reset, making them costs turns.

They won't be lucky for 20+ chapters in a row, those are complete bullshit odds.