RNG Abuse

[Othin]

This kind of rule will make FE and drafts soulless, everybody will do the same/post the same/get the same TCs, that's boring.

RNG is basically the essence of FE.

Stop draining people's quintessence

What kind of rule are you talking about?

[Paperblade]

Can we stop screaming at each other, please? Drafting isn't about who can bypass the rules to their best advantage.

THAT'S JUST LIKE YOUR OPINION MAN

[Quintessence]

@ Refa - I think Boron was referring to luck as RNG, not the stat :S

[CT075]

Well, Cam, for one, Hector's base Luck is higher than 0.

okay

i will admit that i did memory hack to get that screenshot; i don't have unlimited time on my hands to actually find a unit of mine that is screwed enough for my point (in my defense this is something i learned how to do recently and i don't intend to make a habit of it)

the point being this - you say that you can tell that someone abused by virtue of its unlikeliness. yet when an equally unlikely event happens that's bad, you say "he got unlucky". of course nobody likes shooting themselves in the foot.

but setting a concrete limit of +1 to each RN burned is awful for two reasons.

A) you're forgetting that a large number of people fall into the category of "people who aren't me" "people who can't be arsed to figure out the order in which RNs are resolved" and therefore will not know exactly how many RNs they burned

hell, do YOU know the exact order in which they are used up? consider this situation:

at the beginning of a chapter in FE8, I decide to warp a unit into place BEFORE person A attacks. I do this because I know from my previous run that the RNs are slightly less favorable without burning the one RN with the staff user, but it makes zero bearing on my strategy otherwise. you would never notice, but does this count as "one RN burned"?

B) if you're willing to except extreme screwage as exceptionally bad luck there's literally no logical reason to assume that extreme blessage was manipulated beyond a simple "it's too unlikely to happen legitimately"

Darros, let's make the reasonable assumption that a very good chapter occurs maybe 5% of the time (By my experience it happens far less than this, but I'll run with it for now).

Then getting a very good chapter 20 times in a row has a likelihood of 9.23x10^23. Really? No the odds are not impossible, but it is so implausible that any engineer can tell you it will never happen in your life time.

probability doesn't work that way

Edited April 22, 2012 by Camtech

[Sunwoo]

@ all that say "I have to reset because I was randomly blessed?"

Look at the odds. Are they reasonable? Jihyun, you yourself said your Rath was slightly Str-screwed. You failed to mention any of your other units, let alone the possible usage of Afa's Drops.

I was using Afa's Drops, yes, but look at that defense alone. 8 base defense without Lyn's mode. 10% growth. He didn't get Afa's Drops until at least level 15 or so. 21 defense, even with 15% growth? Is ridiculous. My Lyn was just as blessed that run. I'm sure I've documented my unit's stats in that draft so I could pull them up to show you just HOW blessed I was. And yet, I didn't RNG abuse.

[PKL]

By TSI's logic, even horace is an RNG abuser. After all, he always has good chapters and gets the minimum turns! dat aboose. Im out of this thread. The amount of stupid is irritating.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

First off, PEMN, however we'll go with 5% because it sounds reasonable enough.

Second, the odds aren't impossible. However, say it does happen. Once. Ever. Because it can. Should the player have to go through the BS of "you were too lucky try again"? Of course not, that's ridiculous!

Think about it this way. If the player did re-do the game, how likely are they going to be that bullshit lucky again? (It's the same probability squared) If the player's unwilling to do it, then let them know, "Hey, if you're unwilling to re-do it, we'll assume you lied to us. If you are willing to re-do it, or let someone else re-do it, we'll trust you." Surely that's not so ridiculous as you claim it is.

[Darros]

Think about it this way. If the player did re-do the game, how likely are they going to be that bullshit lucky again? (It's the same probability squared) If the player's unwilling to do it, then let them know, "Hey, if you're unwilling to re-do it, we'll assume you lied to us. If you are willing to re-do it, or let someone else re-do it, we'll trust you." Surely that's not so ridiculous as you claim it is.

Why the fuck would I redo something and go for the shittier score when I was legitimate the first time? That's stupid.

[Quintessence]

What kind of rule are you talking about?

The "+1 turn penalty rule if you abuse RNG" rule.

[CT075]

assume i'm an rng abuser

"sure i'm willing to redo it"

and then... now what? are you going to make me actually redo a draft that i rightfully finished just for the sake of your "RNG purity" or whatever the fuck it is?

not to mention that the kind of person who RNG abuses to the extent that it makes a significant difference certainly has time to do it again

edit:

Camtech, has anyone even suggested screening results to try to determine if anyone was RNG abusing if they don't admit to it?

i figured that a screenshot would carry more weight than a hypothetical scenario with a stupidly large screwage

it appears that nothing can be inferred from anything

Edited April 22, 2012 by Camtech

[Sunwoo]

Think about it this way. If the player did re-do the game, how likely are they going to be that bullshit lucky again? (It's the same probability squared) If the player's unwilling to do it, then let them know, "Hey, if you're unwilling to re-do it, we'll assume you lied to us. If you are willing to re-do it, or let someone else re-do it, we'll trust you." Surely that's not so ridiculous as you claim it is.

That's unfair. So now we're supposed to be suspicious of our competition? Just assume that every lucky thing is RNG abuse and that if you're getting a good run, you have to restart because you're afraid your competition will accuse you of cheating? Lame.

Tell you what. Why don't you start your own draft thread experimenting on this? See how many people think it's a good idea. I'm not one of them.

[Othin]

The "+1 turn penalty rule if you abuse RNG" rule.

So you're saying RNG abuse is necessary. My, how would we ever play the game and not all get the same results without having RNG abuse to make sure we always get the same results?

[Thor Odinson]

RNG happens, deal with it. Making people reset because they got lucky and hit a 1% crit is bullshit. Shit happens both ways.

And fuck I doubt a RNG abuser can beat, say, Horace anyway

Hell I can't even touch dondon's 0% growth pt turncounts and my units have growths so if a person's really fucking skilled they'll win regardless unless the RNG abuse is incredibly obvious

TSI you're taking shit too seriously and you don't know enough math to do this so kindly go away

Edited April 22, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[MacLovin]

So.

TSI, stop fucking whining about why other people get lucky

TSI, did it ever occur to you that NO ONE CARES about wether one gets lucky or screwed.

If I had units that were not on their EXACT averages as shown in SFs averages chart.

I'd take a penelty for each ****ing one?

I call massive BS on that rule.

Part of FE itself is getting lucky with the RNG.

Hell, getting good lvl ups every chapter is something to expect, and Drafting is drawn from personal experience

From the second you click the reply box and type "in" in a draft thread for the first time. You'd have to go through a few drafts to get a solid grasp on the priority list

Personally, I just savestate at every turn, in case of a frail unit dying(Lucius in ch23 of fe7, Lilina in fe6 Sacaen etc)

And furthermore, you have little experience with drafts and the like. IMO, when you get to having done 10+ drafts, your mindset for drafting becomes solid for whatever game it is.

Also, I've had fe6 Lotts with +5 to all stats on average at 20/1 in auction drafts.

I've also had Roys at near base stats at lvl 20 unpromoted.

Also, I think its apparent that you are overrating RNG abuse, since who wants to waste their lives with it?

Also, why not just merely do a personal PMU LTC run if that's what you want? Since, you are obviously like a whining little child who lost a Monopoly game to another child who knew the loopholes.

[Anouleth]

Camtech, has anyone even suggested screening results to try to determine if anyone was RNG abusing if they don't admit to it?

No, because it's time-consuming and ridiculous.

I'm just giving suggestions, here. As for my suggestion of kicking someone out, that was not a matter of mere assumptions. If someone says to you, "Hey, I really like your watch, I would totally steal it if I was sure I could get away with it", and they sound serious in saying that, are you going to let that person into your house and into situations where they might steal things? I think not.

Except that is this about a group of people agreeing to play a computer game over the internet. Even if camtech RNG abused in a draft you set up, you would not lose anything. In fact, as Camtech correctly pointed out you would not even be able to tell if he or anyone else RNG abused unless you demanded they posted full videos of them playing through the entire game.

So your analogy is terrible.

And I shouldn't bitch about who resetting when because of what? Resetting in 28? You're right, I shouldn't complain, and if I made any complaints about it earlier, I withdraw those complaints. Resetting in any other chapter in any game? That's a different matter.

That would be rather boring. I think that using resets in order to develop a strategy better than one made on the fly is perfectly acceptable. Obviously, that's not the only way to play the game; but your way of playing is not "better", although you seem to believe so.

[Othin]

RNG happens, deal with it. Making people reset because they got lucky and hit a 1% crit is bullshit. Shit happens both ways.

Who is suggesting this, seriously.

No, because it's time-consuming and ridiculous.

Except that is this about a group of people agreeing to play a computer game over the internet. Even if camtech RNG abused in a draft you set up, you would not lose anything. In fact, as Camtech correctly pointed out you would not even be able to tell if he or anyone else RNG abused unless you demanded they posted full videos of them playing through the entire game.

So your analogy is terrible.

That would be rather boring. I think that using resets in order to develop a strategy better than one made on the fly is perfectly acceptable. Obviously, that's not the only way to play the game; but your way of playing is not "better", although you seem to believe so.

False. Anyone playing the draft would lose their chance to fairly compete with someone under rules containing penalties for resetting, and my draft would suffer a decrease in its ability to be taken seriously as a place where people could get that fair competition under those rules.

As I said, I'm just making suggestions. My intent here is to clear up some facts and to hopefully work towards some resolution. I may have gotten a little carried away; if so, I withdraw anything I've said here that is not in line with one of those two objectives.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

but setting a concrete limit of +1 to each RN burned is awful for two reasons.

Stop here. I didn't say each number burned, I said each number that is actually used.

B) if you're willing to except extreme screwage as exceptionally bad luck there's literally no logical reason to assume that extreme blessage was manipulated beyond a simple "it's too unlikely to happen legitimately"

Except for the fact that the person in question has incentive only to manipulate in their favor.

PKL, I am making no claims on what happened in past drafts, just for potential future drafts that would be taking this rule into account.

And good god, is there no person who is willing to maybe admit that I might have a good idea? No, obviously TSI's just a retarded fuckface with no life outside of a stupid internet forum.

Lastly, suppose each run of fire emblem took one hour (a very conservatively small estimate of time needed). Then multiply that by 1/(9.23x10^23). Then we have a run that could happen maybe once every 12*10^21 years (yes, you can check my math). Surely you understand that it won't happen (where, to be perfectly honest, won't happen means it is less likely to happen than, say, the universe imploding in the next second).

[CT075]

the facts as you have stated are as such:

1. rng abuse is a problem with fair competition - I don't think anyone disagrees with this, aside from people like myself who largely spend roughly thirty seconds attempting to not get Sigurd killed against a boss that you are required to fight

2. any kind of resetting can be considered rng abuse - this is true but i don't believe that anyone has a problem with reloading a chapter to attempt to find a new strategy

3. you intend to bar me from any draft you host should you do so - not that i doubt you bro but i don't really think that you even need spend the time typing that out i wouldn't want to

---

if there is more that you're trying to clear up, please say so. I'm deliberately ignoring the points about "you should live with bad results and dead units" because that kind of defeats the purpose of strategy and "the occurrence of any fairly unlikely event is abuse" because that is (as i have demonstrated repeatedly) is not necessarily the case

---

EDIT:

a) thank you rimu for reminding me that i'm still waiting to see someone rng abuse their way to the top of the drafting game for any FE - and you can bet i'd have heard about it if it had happened before, lest you forget that i run the freaking records

b) you seem hooked on the fact that just because something is unlikely and favorable at the same time then it is necessarily manipulated, even though it has been shown MORE THAN ONCE that you are just as likely (oftentimes more) to have a run of bad luck. i'll say it again -

probability does not work that way

---

people aren't bashing on your idea because we have something against you. you're not that important to us to bother yet. people are bashing on your idea because it's a horrible idea.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Camtech

[Thor Odinson]

Who is suggesting this, seriously.

If you're worried about being called out for an amazing amount of luck, JUST RESET, DAMNIT.

^ this person

Unless the person is going overboard with low percentage criticals (every bosskill 5% crit, really? ) there's really no way to tell and I'd rather not penalise someone for getting lucky because they got that lucky 1% unintentionally on that boss and shaved /one/ turn and has to either eat a penalty or reset

Do you ever watch LPs

Do you realise that "low percentage mercenary critical" is a thing because it happens every so often at <=5%

If shit happens it fucking happens, like I said unless you rig way too much shit against all odds you're NOT beating a more skilled person in TC

if they abused shame on them but if you just have your unit attack something and he/she happens to crit you're being unfair to the player by imposing that limit

it's RNG for a reason, lucky shit sometimes happens. Unlucky shit also happens. I'm for if you unit misses a few hits deal with it unless they die or something, shit fucking happens.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[The Spanish Inquisition]

I've bled through multiple classes of calculus, diff eqs, linear algebra, number theory, abstract algebra, prob/stat, and analysis, so, Lumi and anyone else, NEVER say I don't know enough math to talk on a fucking web forum. Check my math yourself. You'll see it's right. If it's wrong, point it out to me, don't tell me fuck off.

Edited April 22, 2012 by The Spanish Inquisition

[Anouleth]

False. Anyone playing the draft would lose their chance to fairly compete with someone under rules containing penalties for resetting, and my draft would suffer a decrease in its ability to be taken seriously as a place where people could get that fair competition under those rules.

Fire Emblem drafts: srs business.

Really, I don't know anyone who actually keeps track of who wins and loses drafts. Often, who wins and loses is just as much a function of random chance than of the actual skill of the competitors; which goes double for your favourite drafts, the "no resets" or "limited resets" drafts. If, as happened to you, Seth was critted by Gheb, any player would be set back massively, and might lose to players of lesser skill by no fault of their own.

[Sunwoo]

Shin and Horace have their little rivalry, but aside from little rivalries like that no one else really cares who wins or loses a draft. It's all for fun.

[Thor Odinson]

Well if you actually know your math then you should know that the player faces a fuckton of RNs through his/her time in playing through an FE game

a 1% may not look like much, but 1% over the course of hundreds of battles and likely thousands of RNs is likely to happen at some point

and there's really no way to tell unless it's incredibly obvious so why put a limit on it

Your proposition is going to do absolutely NOTHING except make drafts not fun

Edited April 22, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[Parrhesia]

I've bled through multiple classes of calculus, diff eqs, linear algebra, number theory, abstract algebra, prob/stat, and analysis,

You sure sound like you're on your period.

so, Lumi and anyone else, NEVER say I don't know enough math to talk on a fucking web forum.

You don't think occasional 5%s are plausible. You don't know enough math to talk on a fucking web forum.

If you aim to RNG abuse your way to the top of the chain as a drafter, I pity you because nobody fucking cares and the person in question would have no life. I'm not accusing you, by the way, I know you'd prefer to be a legend through memory hacking and claiming it wasn't expressly forbidden.

[CT075]

hey hey tsi

did it ever occur to you that you're wrong for a different reason?

you are taking things way too much like an engineer. just because there is an incredibly low chance of something happening does not mean that it can't. there could be more of a chance that i will explode from a nuclear bomb landing on my house than me getting my 4 turns on the prologue more than once, and yet multiple people can do it legitly.

oh yeah

something you also conveniently forgot

if there is a stupidly low chance that something will happen without rng abuse then there is a stupidly low chance that it will happen with it. you act as if rng abuse is some kind of instant "I WIN" button.

Get your facts straight before you pull out your fancy calculator

to use a modified version of the very the example you gave -

To land 100 hits at a 5% chance is about 8%*10¹³¹. Actually a bit less than that.

In order for me to pull it off WITH abuse, I'd need to wait until an RN string that is valid occurs. THE CHANCE OF THIS EVENT IS UNCHANGED.

so your statement that the universe will implode before i get my perfect runthrough is complete bullshit, as it will still end up imploding before i can find the goddamn string of numbers that works out perfectly