RNG Abuse

[Sunwoo]

Oh, wait, I remember one time when I RNG abused a little. I was on chapter 28, and Jaffar kept on dying in on turn 2 before I could even reach him. He just got hit by everything. My RNs had been arranged so that if I didn't burn any RNs, then Jaffar would die on turn 2 and I couldn't do anything about it. So ... I randomly burned some RNs on my third restart of the chapter, so I could keep him alive and get 28x.

[PKL]

I'm not against it. Can't say i haven't done it myself. I'm a bit shaky on resetting many times for 1% crits, however, I could not understand why PKL and soul went against Quin in an FE10 draft where he got "lucky" thrice. I know, apparently, rules changed for FE10 drafts, but in the draft quin was in there was no rule stating anything against RNG abuse (and to expect others not to go overboard is just ridiculous without a rule) and therefore soul and PKL's scorn towards quin's "luck" was rather undeserved. Of course, my interjection upon that topic was just ignored and Quin just gave in :/

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.

[Lord Raven]

It requires a Crit on the first bandit at 1%, even with Edward crits you can only get 5 turns unless Micaiah crits the first bandit.

[Anouleth]

Oh, wait, I remember one time when I RNG abused a little. I was on chapter 28, and Jaffar kept on dying in on turn 2 before I could even reach him. He just got hit by everything. My RNs had been arranged so that if I didn't burn any RNs, then Jaffar would die on turn 2 and I couldn't do anything about it. So ... I randomly burned some RNs on my third restart of the chapter, so I could keep him alive and get 28x.

I think that everyone would agree that RNG abusing for situations like Jaffar in BBD is acceptable: since otherwise, the game can be impossible. But RN burning just to get that coveted 2 turn completion over the 3 turn (or whatever).

[The Spanish Inquisition]

I propose that instead of allowing (but frowning upon) widespread RNG abuse, we limit it somewhere between 5-10%.What this means is if something has a chance of 5-10% (or greater) of happening, and you can prove it, RNG abuse is ok. If you don't want to do the calculations to prove the %s, you don't get to abuse.

I vote for said limit being held at 10%.

I will restart my playthrough of the FE 8 Promo Draft using this guideline (I don't think it affects any of my other playthroughs).

[Anouleth]

I propose that instead of allowing (but frowning upon) widespread RNG abuse, we limit it somewhere between 5-10%.What this means is if something has a chance of 5-10% (or greater) of happening, and you can prove it, RNG abuse is ok. If you don't want to do the calculations to prove the %s, you don't get to abuse.

I vote for said limit being held at 10%.

I think that's silly, not least because "something" is so poorly defined. Say a player wants a good level up and also Eirika to crit the boss. Both have a chance of 10%. Would he be allowed both? Or only one?

And also it's unfair for those who play on the real game instead of on an emulator since RNG abuse can be so much more time consuming. "Allowing" a certain level of RNG abuse is just a terrible idea.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

I think that's silly, not least because "something" is so poorly defined. Say a player wants a good level up and also Eirika to crit the boss. Both have a chance of 10%. Would he be allowed both? Or only one?

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.

And also it's unfair for those who play on the real game instead of on an emulator since RNG abuse can be so much more time consuming. "Allowing" a certain level of RNG abuse is just a terrible idea.

So, the people who are on the forum have access to the internet, thus access to emulators and roms, thus have an equal right to choose to use an emulator or not. Then the argument of using emulators being "unfair" is silly, especially since emulators only speed the abuse process. As said above in this topic, you can RNG abuse on the real game.

To be honest, most of those who have called abusing for a 1% crit admitted to some degree of RNG abuse themselves. I'm simply trying to establish a limit for the abuse, so this argument has resolution, rather than just "I don't think people should RNG abuse in certain situations, but I guess I have no way of enforcing this idea" or even worse "I don't think people should RNG abuse in certain situations, so I will penalize those that talk about it, rather than those that might do it but don't talk about it". In a random tangent, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a rather silly policy.

The main idea is to remove any uncertainty of the rules regarding RNG abuse (none of which actually exist) by forming one that compromises between those for and against the idea.

[PKL]

The problem with placing a limit to RNG abuse, is that everyone has a different perception of what is acceptable or not. To me, rigging miccy spd levels until she hits at least 14 is acceptable. To others, that is stupid and should be banned. To me, rigging a 1-10% crit is stupid but to others, it might be acceptable depending on the situation...see where I am going with this? Theres just no way to find a medium that pleases everyone.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

The problem with placing a limit to RNG abuse, is that everyone has a different perception of what is acceptable or not. To me, rigging miccy spd levels until she hits at least 14 is acceptable. To others, that is stupid and should be banned. To me, rigging a 1-10% crit is stupid but to others, it might be acceptable depending on the situation...see where I am going with this? Theres just no way to find a medium that pleases everyone.

Actually think about what you're saying here. Micaiah's speed growth is 35%-> so if you only care about her speed increasing, (in other words, ignoring all other stats, hit%, and crit%) it should be fine if Micaiah's speed is maxed. Just don't cry if her other stats are rather subpar. Going for speed AND magic AND defense, on the other hand, is completely unreasonable, since that requires 35%x80%x20%=~5% chance.

Maybe I'm the only one here, but a % is a %, any weight you want to throw on a particular % occurs before it is calculated, not afterwards. Thus, establishing a firm limit % is a very logical solution.

And the opinion "Theres just no way to find a medium that pleases everyone" is true for anything. However, we can establish some deal that doesn't exactly please everyone, but makes sure that no person's opinion is completely ignored. Thus, I welcome any criticism to my idea, so long as it results in an actual solution to the problem.

[Sunwoo]

I think that everyone would agree that RNG abusing for situations like Jaffar in BBD is acceptable: since otherwise, the game can be impossible. But RN burning just to get that coveted 2 turn completion over the 3 turn (or whatever).

Agreed on that part. I think Jaffar just hit a stinky set of RNs or something. I think he literally got hit by everything. Took a hit on turn 1, left with 22 HP or something. Died on EP of turn 2, because he didn't heal the previous turn and wouldn't dodge anything. Stupid Jaffar ... I usually don't have problems like this where just ... won't DODGE.

[ZemZem]

Considering Jaffar's AI is pretty strange, he can even get himself killed in ENM. I recall when I was on an ENM draft, he was killed while standing on a pillar...

[CT075]

@"it has to be more than 10%"

i honestly think that placing rules that specific are stupid

it's not like anything besides honor is at stake here, otherwise you'd get much more egregious cheating

truthfully, as long as it's not like "guy dodges 18 enemies who all have 89 hit on him" ridiculous then it's fine, just putting a rule "please try to limit rng abuse to a minimum" that relies on the honor code i think would be an acceptable solution.

not to mention that your "total %" is kind of bullshit

i mean think about this:

My strategy involves having to get my units to hit (for the sake of discussion) 16 attacks at 85% hit. Watch these numbers:

bam

that's less than 10%

and yet, by your ideology of "a % is a %", this would not be allowed - i'm sure most people reading this will call bullshit

and you can say "okay but what if you take it one at a time, then it's an 85% chance", but then I say that you can take your 10% crit and your 10% growth problem separately.

fuck, even if your strategy requires NOTHING but hitting 45 hits at 95% true hit, that's less than 10%.

despite the fact that it's a perfectly reasonable thing

using basic probability as a rule fails here because your scope is either far too limited (you can abuse for that 85% hit) or too broad (you can't abuse to make sure that your 16 hits at 85% all land).

Edited April 21, 2012 by Camtech

[PKL]

<br />Actually think about what you're saying here.  Micaiah's speed growth is 35%-> so if you only care about her speed increasing, (in other words, ignoring all other stats, hit%, and crit%) it should be fine if Micaiah's speed is maxed.  Just don't cry if her other stats are rather subpar.  Going for speed AND magic AND defense, on the other hand, is completely unreasonable, since that requires 35%x80%x20%=~5% chance.<br /><br />Maybe I'm the only one here, but a % is a %, any weight you want to throw on a particular % occurs before it is calculated, not afterwards.  Thus, establishing a firm limit % is a very logical solution.<br /><br />And the opinion "Theres just no way to find a medium that pleases everyone" is true for <u>anything</u>.  However, we <i>can</i> establish some deal that doesn't exactly <i>please</i> everyone, but makes sure that no person's opinion is completely ignored.  Thus, I welcome any criticism to my idea, so long as it results in an actual solution to the problem.

I dont reset for any stats other than spd on miccy. As a consequence, my miccys are always heavily hp and def screwed. Ppl have complained about my micaiah's spd many times though. :/ Also, on the topic of screwy AIs: Ive had to fiddle with the RNG so pent doesnt die in the desert -_- and probably jaffar too but i dont remember if ive had to rearrange RNs to make him survive.

[Hawk King]

RNG manipulation doesnt always fall under "abuse". There are certain instances where I think it is perfectly acceptable. For example, if your Character misses 4 straight attacks with a 50-60% displayed hit where they 2HKO a boss. Rigging it so they land their next 2 hits would be ok since they should have landed 2 out of 4 hits with those %s anyway.

Abuse is when you rig it so your very 1st 2 attacks hit.

As far as crits go, rigging a 15-20% crit once in a Chapter is one thing. But doing it several times is despicable.

RNG manipulation is fine in moderation but when you rely on it, it becomes RNG abuse.

BTW, I play on carts/disks.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

@"it has to be more than 10%"

i honestly think that placing rules that specific are stupid

it's not like anything besides honor is at stake here, otherwise you'd get much more egregious cheating

truthfully, as long as it's not like "guy dodges 18 enemies who all have 89 hit on him" ridiculous then it's fine, just putting a rule "please try to limit rng abuse to a minimum" that relies on the honor code i think would be an acceptable solution.

not to mention that your "total %" is kind of bullshit

i mean think about this:

My strategy involves having to get my units to hit (for the sake of discussion) 16 attacks at 85% hit. Watch these numbers:

bam

that's less than 10%

and yet, by your ideology of "a % is a %", this would not be allowed - i'm sure most people reading this will call bullshit

and you can say "okay but what if you take it one at a time, then it's an 85% chance", but then I say that you can take your 10% crit and your 10% growth problem separately.

fuck, even if your strategy requires NOTHING but hitting 45 hits at 95% true hit, that's less than 10%.

despite the fact that it's a perfectly reasonable thing

You're missing a key component here. You CAN take different attacks separately, since you can RNG between them. You CAN'T take a crit and a hit, or a hit and stats from the resulting level up, separately, because the game eats all those numbers together, without any time for the player to react to them.

[Quintessence]

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.

Hey! I was on the discovery of new strategies. The Miccy crtkill isn't the only way .

Regarding the RNG thingy, I think it should be allowed. How are you going to control or restrict something that restricts you and your play through in so many ways? Maybe you can know how RNG works in FE8's prologue with the Eirika crt, or Lyn's usual level up in NM prologue, for example, but it is somehow boring to be manipulating RNG for strict results. I prefer to somehow flow according to RNG results, but when I'm involved in risky or dangerous situations where the character's life is in peril then I'll reset until everything is done. Other situations like character's level ups, like getting 4-5 stat gains per combat lv.up, at least when no stat has capped.

We are the Disciples of the RNG Goddesses!

[CT075]

You're missing a key component here. You CAN take different attacks separately, since you can RNG between them. You CAN'T take a crit and a hit, or a hit and stats from the resulting level up, separately, because the game eats all those numbers together, without any time for the player to react to them.

so now i say it has to happen on enemy phase

now what

[The Spanish Inquisition]

so now i say it has to happen on enemy phase

now what

If you get to that situation, you ought to be able to justify why you can RNG. I'm not disallowing freak miracles, like a 3% crit, that might actually randomly occur, I'm simply trying to disallow forcing miracles. If a character dies in the process, at the very least, there's always reset...

[CT075]

the thing is

your rule solves nothing - there is a legitimate chance that someone got insanely lucky, and if one is smart, you can make it look reasonable.

[The Spanish Inquisition]

the thing is

your rule solves nothing - there is a legitimate chance that someone got insanely lucky, and if one is smart, you can make it look reasonable.

Yes and no. Yes, the rule is very difficult to enforce. However, if a person gets "insanely lucky" twice in the same draft, I don't see why the person should not be penalized for it. Right now, they can be "extremely lucky" all day long, yet can legitimately argue that they are not breaking any rules, and should not be penalized for it. If such a rule were to be implemented, it would clarify the community's opinion of RNG abuse to any newcomers, making it much clearer what the newcomer can do in a draft, without being ostracized in the process.

Also, the "if one is smart" assumes that people are in fact dishonest, so the honor code you suggested certainly would solve nothing as well, and would only confuse the newcomer as to what degree RNG abuse is allowed.

[Othin]

Camtech, are you saying your examples are the sorts of things that should be permitted? If you need to hit all 16 of those attacks with no room for error and it's that unlikely that you might do so, then maybe that's an indicator that you really shouldn't be relying on that sort of thing?

[Anouleth]

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.

Google probability, and you will discover that there are multiple interpretations of what probabilities mean; for example, Bayesian probability.

And in this hypothetical, what would the player be forced to do? If he rigs the 10% hit, does that mean he has to make sure that his level up isn't "too good"? If the player knows that if he does his attacks in the right order he can get the results he wants, is he honour-bound to not do so and pick a less optimal attack order?

So, the people who are on the forum have access to the internet, thus access to emulators and roms, thus have an equal right to choose to use an emulator or not.

Many people prefer to play on cartridge; others do not have computers powerful enough to run GC or Wii or DS emulators. And obviously, a person might have ethical objections to stealing games on the internet, which I remind you is illegal.

Then the argument of using emulators being "unfair" is silly, especially since emulators only speed the abuse process. As said above in this topic, you can RNG abuse on the real game.

And it's far more time-consuming, to the point where nobody is going to want to do it. They'd end up at a disadvantage.

To be honest, most of those who have called abusing for a 1% crit admitted to some degree of RNG abuse themselves. I'm simply trying to establish a limit for the abuse, so this argument has resolution, rather than just "I don't think people should RNG abuse in certain situations, but I guess I have no way of enforcing this idea"

We have no way of enforcing anything in drafts aside from demanding that people post full accounts of their strategies, and even then it only works for GBA FE. We cannot know if someone has RNg abused any more than we can somehow know that they actually got 170 turns instead of 160 or if they used or didn't use Seth.

[CT075]

Also, the "if one is smart" assumes that people are in fact dishonest, so the honor code you suggested certainly would solve nothing as well, and would only confuse the newcomer as to what degree RNG abuse is allowed.

while i see your point i personally don't give a shit if someone rng abuses to beat me - i have nothing riding on this, and if they want it that badly they can have it

the whole point of the honor code is that it's kind of impossible to prove anything, i could extend your ridiculous notion to say that the honor code would only confuse a newcomer as to how much lying about one's turncounts/stats is allowed (yes it's an exaggeration but it's still valid)

Camtech, are you saying your examples are the sorts of things that should be permitted? If you need to hit all 16 of those attacks with no room for error and it's that unlikely that you might do so, then maybe that's an indicator that you really shouldn't be relying on that sort of thing?

did you not see the "for the sake of discussion"? yes i realize that it's an unlikely scenario if it were to be as i stated, but is it so improbable that you end up relying on SOME large amount of other-wise reliable %s to proc in the same phase? I'd consider 85% an acceptable number to go for, and I honestly don't think it'd raise any eyebrows if someone had actually had that come to fruition.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I think that everyone would agree that RNG abusing for situations like Jaffar in BBD is acceptable: since otherwise, the game can be impossible. But RN burning just to get that coveted 2 turn completion over the 3 turn (or whatever).

Yeah. Thats one of the only other times/reasons i would like, reset the game. Cuz even on HNM, Jaffar gets way too dumb and dies. D: So i dont really consider that abuse. I consider that as a back up plan for the game goes "lawl" at you.

I dont have a problem with other people manipulating or abusing the RNG. If thats their thing, have at it, bro. I just aint gonna do it. I dont know how to specifically do that for more menial things like crit rates and whathaveyou.

[Colonel M]

I'm kind of with Paperblade on this one, but I think we need to sit here and clearly define "what is exactly RNG manipulation" before anything else.