Anti- Hax Clause- Happy April Fools Day!

c3gill · Mar 31, 2009

So Smogon is implementing a new clause, in which fainting your opponents 6 pokemon doesnt mean you win!

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52050

read up on it, and know that it is currently being tested.

I am all for it, because this kills Serene Grace Air Slash on Togekiss (hooray!) and other haxed out flinch sets. Throw some opinions out, what do yall think about this?

HAPPY APRIL FOOLS DAY!

zrky · Mar 31, 2009

It's an interesting clause, but it should be optional like many of the others, luck is part of everything, so really if you lose to hax ask for a rematch, it's not that hard.

Although I would like to see this in action

kirbyraeg · Mar 31, 2009

Honestly, is there a point to having this clause?

While I do appreciate the effort the people at Smogon have put in to formulate the clause, I think that going a step further and making it the default setting on all ladder levels is the wrong idea. It should be an option for those who want to play that way...

and from what I understand, it doesn't nullify traditional hax teams, it just tries to evaluate if one side was 'too lucky', so to speak. The odds of serene grace, flinch, paralysis, and all those things are still much higher than normal, but I'd just say that people need to suck it up. Not very many people cheese with hax teams anyway... Trying to drain all luck from a game like pokémon through such an arbitrary system seems kind of unnecessary, though I understand that the measures before this (Evasion clause in particular) have improved the competitiveness of the game.

Circa · Mar 31, 2009

I agree that it's a rather interesting clause, but I actually mainly agree with the arguments stating what needs to be added to consider the difference between actual hax and expected hax. You say that this makes such things as a hax Togekiss more fair, but in reality it doesn't. The set was designed not as an actual hax, but as something that is manipulated to create a hax that is less luck-based and more forced. It's really just an initial part of the metagame, which in a sense means it is not a real hax, and thus shouldn't be effected by the no-hax clause.

I'm pretty sure the type of hax he's trying to prevent are those that are mainly luck-based, such as how I occasionally win battles because my Porygon2 uses tri-attack and freezes my opponent's Pokemon twice in the same battle, despite the fact that it has a 10% chance of such an affliction (although really 3% when you consider the randomness variable of inflicting burn, paralysis, or freeze within the same move) and I only used the move 4 times.

And from looking at his original variable, I do believe that this is what he is really trying to do. With that said, however, I think his p variable is a little misdirected/overpowering for its position. I know that at least when I battle, I like to switch in and out quite often, and so chances are I'll use all my Pokemon whether I win by 1 Pokemon or if I win by 6. I do think that it needs to be included as part of the variable, but I question how strong of a position it should be given as compared to the other two variables, because although the chances are that someone who still has all their Pokemon left will win no matter what, a match where you have two Pokemon left at the end may be set in the wrong direction just because your odds turned out to not be good enough to be above a 50/50 chance.

I haven't tried out his equation, however, but I just have this feeling as though there are some instances where such a thing may happen, despite the few amount of hax that ended up being used and the true validity of your win.

EDIT: Dang it...someone beat me to one of my main points.

c3gill · Mar 31, 2009

timssu said:
I'm pretty sure the type of hax he's trying to prevent are those that are mainly luck-based, such as how I occasionally win battles because my Porygon2 uses tri-attack and freezes my opponent's Pokemon twice in the same battle, despite the fact that it has a 10% chance of such an affliction (although really 3% when you consider the randomness variable of inflicting burn, paralysis, or freeze within the same move) and I only used the move 4 times.

actually, the status rate on Tri Attack is 20%, so each has a 6.66% chance. If your porygon2 somehow traced Serene Grace, that boosts it up a significant about- 40% of the time your opponent gets effected by a status. 40% isnt a bad rate at all.

Circa · Mar 31, 2009

c3gill said:
actually, the status rate on Tri Attack is 20%, so each has a 6.66% chance. If your porygon2 somehow traced Serene Grace, that boosts it up a significant about- 40% of the time your opponent gets effected by a status. 40% isnt a bad rate at all.

It is? Well that explains my innate luck with the thing...

I gave my Porygon2 download instead of trace because I figured there would instances where tracing my opponent's ability may hinder me instead of help me; especially considering the team that it's on, whereas download will either help me or not really do anything at all, and I figure no true negative makes it a bit more positive.

With that being said, I always seem to have some sort of innate luck whenever the number '666' appears in any way. If I have 666 anywhere within an instance involving time during a racing game, I just so happen to also get first place; no matter how bad the time actually is. Same thing applies to odds (such as the one that you pointed out) during something luck-based games. Heck, I even had to pay $6.66 for a veggie delight combo meal at Subway one time. It was the best veggie delight I ever had, swear on everything that matters to me that it's the truth. XD

Chill · Mar 31, 2009

Timssu, would you be ok with those battles being recorded as losses in that case?

I'm trying to keep a open mind about this but so far I'm against it. Fainting your opponents pokemon to win is one of the most basic aspects of the game. A system that could change that is somewhat worrying. If more experienced players are already more likely to win a match this is only going to make it harder for "lesser" players to make progress. The system would be in favor of those who already have a better chance of winning a match.

At this point it seems like a terrible idea.

zrky · Mar 31, 2009

Chill said:
Timssu, would you be ok with those battles being recorded as losses in that case?

I'm trying to keep a open mind about this but so far I'm against it. Fainting your opponents pokemon to win is one of the most basic aspects of the game. A system that could change that is somewhat worrying. If more experienced players are already more likely to win a match this is only going to make it harder for "lesser" players to make progress. The system would be in favor of those who already have a better chance of winning a match.

At this point it seems like a terrible idea.

This .

Circa · Mar 31, 2009

Chill said:
Timssu, would you be ok with those battles being recorded as losses in that case?

Honestly, it really depends on whether or not the wins were truly luck-based or not. In one instance that this happened, the guy I was facing and I then did a rematch afterward because he felt as though my win was entirely luck-based, and he absolutely slaughtered me by using the exact same strategy the second time as he did the first time. The only real difference that occurred was the fact that I didn't carry the same luck in the second as compared to the first. Because my win was not truly based on skill, I gladly accepted the loss.

In most instances, however, a rematch is not played and thus one cannot truly justify if the match was won out of skill or luck most of the time, and from that aspect, I also agree that this new clause won't truly be of help and may even be a complete waste of time with its current set of variables, but at the same time I feel as though it does have a chance of passing better judgement, and shouldn't be entirely thrown out. It really just needs some tweaking and rigorous testing until they find a formula that truly helps the cause more than it hinders it.

So basically, the clause shouldn't be too major in judging a win or a loss between players, because by being too major it may end up causing what you stated as basically a tip in the odds of the winner; which I agree would be a terrible idea.

Pink Reaper · Mar 31, 2009

Chill said:
Timssu, would you be ok with those battles being recorded as losses in that case?

I'm trying to keep a open mind about this but so far I'm against it. Fainting your opponents pokemon to win is one of the most basic aspects of the game. A system that could change that is somewhat worrying. If more experienced players are already more likely to win a match this is only going to make it harder for "lesser" players to make progress. The system would be in favor of those who already have a better chance of winning a match.

At this point it seems like a terrible idea.

Im kind of half worried about this. I occasionally stall my opponents pokemon, like hippowdon, with a grass knot that does on average 50% damage until I get a Crit. It's a strategy I like using simply because it either a)beats Hippowdon or b) forces him to switch leaving him with half health or c) wastes all of his slack off PP. I don't want to think that I may end up losing a battle simply because I rely on a crit that should happen.

Granted the other half of me is happy that I no longer have to worry(as much) about losing because a ****ing Swampert flinched my Forretress to death with waterfall 9 times in a row

zrky · Mar 31, 2009

Pink Reaper said:
Granted the other half of me is happy that I no longer have to worry(as much) about losing because a ****ing Swampert flinched my Forretress to death with waterfall 9 times in a row

Own3d...

anyway, crits are part of the game, i mean if you get 10 crits in a row your lucky, but that's on shoddy right? Try getting 10 crits on the actual game, there is only like a 2% chance of that happening, so really i don't like this clause....

M.K · Mar 31, 2009

Wait, what? I don't understand....why would you LOSE if you WON?
This idea FAILS! If you kill all the opponent's Pokemon in the game, it says "You defeated Black Gurl Shaniqua Ba'Tiffany.". It doesn't say "You beat Shaniqua Ba'Tiffany, but you were lucky, so you WHITED OUT!"

ColinJF · Mar 31, 2009

zrky said:
anyway, crits are part of the game, i mean if you get 10 crits in a row your lucky, but that's on shoddy right? Try getting 10 crits on the actual game, there is only like a 2% chance of that happening, so really i don't like this clause....

Your copy of Pokemon is defective if you get 10 critical hits in a row with 2% chance. The actual chance of this happening is 0.000000000091% and that's the chance it is on Shoddy Battle as well.

zrky · Mar 31, 2009

ColinJF said:
Your copy of Pokemon is defective if you get 10 critical hits in a row with 2% chance. The actual chance of this happening is 0.000000000091% and that's the chance it is on Shoddy Battle as well.

oh, oops over estimated

no offense to you collin, but it's just that I ad heard from others that the randomness wasn't as good on shoddy

c3gill · Mar 31, 2009

ColinJF said:
Your copy of Pokemon is defective if you get 10 critical hits in a row with 2% chance. The actual chance of this happening is 0.000000000091% and that's the chance it is on Shoddy Battle as well.

thats assuming a 1/16 critical hit chance, and a lack of a prng assisting in probability. in the game, your chances are higher than that. on shoddy, your chances are MUCH higher than that.

any move with a "high critical hit chance" or any abnormal crit chance doesnt follow those numbers.

zrky · Apr 1, 2009

c3gill said:
thats assuming a 1/16 critical hit chance, and a lack of a prng assisting in probability. in the game, your chances are higher than that. on shoddy, your chances are MUCH higher than that.

any move with a "high critical hit chance" or any abnormal crit chance doesnt follow those numbers.

You do realize your talking to the same Collin that runs shoddy right?

ColinJF · Apr 1, 2009

any move with a "high critical hit chance" or any abnormal crit chance doesnt follow those numbers.

No ****. I like to think I know a thing or two about pokemon mechanics considering I implemented a pokemon simulator.

and a lack of a prng assisting in probability. in the game, your chances are higher than that. on shoddy, your chances are MUCH higher than that.

...what? You seriously need to learn something about pseudorandom generators before you make such laughable posts.

Here is the algorithm from the REAL DS GAME that generates random numbers. := denotes assignment. >>> is logical right shift.

Code:

// seed is a global variable
char nextRandomNumber {
    seed := (seed * 1103515245) + 24691;
    return (char)(seed >>> 16);
}

Here is a Java program that uses the algorithm from the REAL DS GAME to simulate critical hit attempts:

Code:

/**
 * Test the chance of getting critical hits using the algorithm from
 * the REAL DS GAME.
 *
 * @author Colin
 */
public class RandomTest {

    /**
     * Use a random seed of 31415 just to make the results of the program
     * consistent. Any constant would work though. This one was chosen from
     * the first few digits of the number pi.
     */
    private static long m_rand = 31415;

    /**
     * Get the next random number given by the IN GAME RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR.
     */
    public static char next() {
        m_rand = (m_rand * 1103515245) + 24691;
        return (char)(m_rand >>> 16);
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        /**
         * Number of critical hits obtained.
         */
        int criticalHits = 0;

        /**
         * Simulate 100,000 attempted moves at 1/16 critical hit level.
         *
         * The in game PRNG generates a number in the range [0, 2^16-1], so the
         * first 4096 values indicate a critical hit, namely
         *
         * next() < 4096 <=> critical hit
         *
         */
        for (int i = 0; i < 100000; ++i) {
            /**
             * Obtain the next random number.
             */
            char x = next();
            if (x < 4096) {
               /**
                * next() was in the critical hit range so increment the counter.
                */
               ++criticalHits;
            }
        }

        /**
         * Output the number of critical hits.
         */
        System.out.println(criticalHits + " critical hits.");
    }

}

The output is:

Code:

6245 critical hits.

6245/100000 = 0.06245
1/16 = 0.0625

Wow, they are pretty ****ing close, and in fact the DS game is slightly below in this case, but for other seeds it would be slightly above; it will always be extremely close though.

Now, Shoddy Battle doesn't use any fancy random number generator. It just uses Java's Random class. Let's take a look at the exact same program, but using Java's random class. The only difference is that the top part is replaced by this:

Code:

private static Random m_rand = new Random(31415);

public static char next() {
    return (char)m_rand.nextInt(65536);
}

Output:

Code:

6200 critical hits.

6200 / 100000 = 0.062
1 / 16 = 0.0625

Wow, pretty **** close again, and Shoddy Battle in this case would have actually given you fewer critical hits than the theoretical probability.

It looks like you need to do more research on:
- Shoddy Battle
- how random numbers are generated in pokemon DPP
- pseudo random number generators.

Good luck in your studies.

c3gill · Apr 1, 2009

ColinJF said:
No ****. I like to think I know a thing or two about pokemon mechanics considering I implemented a pokemon simulator.

ColinJF said:
The truth is we designed Shoddy Battle to have a 70% critical hit rate.

Hmmm where to start? contradictory much?

Just because you created a simulator doesnt mean you know **** about pokemon mechanics- if so, why are we even discussing an "anti hax" clause for "your" system? obviously it is flawed, or this topic wouldnt even be worthy of discussion.

your bringing up the code is what we like to call Ignoratio elenchi- your stating something that while may be correct, doesnt pertain to the arguement at hand, and as such, is a logical fallicy. If you have any input on the clause that is suggested, feel free to post it. You posting code that you have written is worthless- and generally so are these number generators. Play the game some, it doesnt take long to realize that these "hax" are not an uncommon occurence.

for the record, in the DS game- no one manages to get 10 flinches in a row. and no one 6-0s a team with a scarfed serene grace togekiss spamming air slash.

Shoddy is a very flawed system- I dont know anyone who plays often that is going to disagree with that. The main reason it sees use is because it is the most efficient. Again, just because you wrote some lines doesnt mean your writings are correct. as you stated, your close- but your numbers are never correct, even in your own simulations. I would suggest:

Correcting your mistakes in the system. Yea, rewrite it.
Sticking to the topic at hand- feel free to post a thread on Shoddy, but this one is for the new clause.
Learning some people skills. First step would probably be to get some fresh air, or a life.
Take a statistics class- or maybe 2 or 3. ****, take a few classes from the best public university in the US (UVA)- in applied mathematics. if you need help, im already on campus....hell ill probabaly be your TA. feel free to PM me.

ColinJF · Apr 1, 2009

c3gill said:
Colin said:

No ****. I like to think I know a thing or two about pokemon mechanics considering I implemented a pokemon simulator.

Click to expand...

Colin said:

The truth is we designed Shoddy Battle to have a 70% critical hit rate.

Click to expand...

Hmmm where to start? contradictory much?

Just because you created a simulator doesnt mean you know **** about pokemon mechanics- if so, why are we even discussing an "anti hax" clause for "your" system? obviously it is flawed, or this topic wouldnt even be worthy of discussion.

your bringing up the code is what we like to call Ignoratio elenchi- your stating something that while may be correct, doesnt pertain to the arguement at hand, and as such, is a logical fallicy. If you have any input on the clause that is suggested, feel free to post it. You posting code that you have written is worthless- and generally so are these number generators. Play the game some, it doesnt take long to realize that these "hax" are not an uncommon occurence.

for the record, in the DS game- no one manages to get 10 flinches in a row. and no one 6-0s a team with a scarfed serene grace togekiss spamming air slash.

Shoddy is a very flawed system- I dont know anyone who plays often that is going to disagree with that. The main reason it sees use is because it is the most efficient. Again, just because you wrote some lines doesnt mean your writings are correct. as you stated, your close- but your numbers are never correct, even in your own simulations. I would suggest:

Correcting your mistakes in the system. Yea, rewrite it.

Sticking to the topic at hand- feel free to post a thread on Shoddy, but this one is for the new clause.

Learning some people skills. First step would probably be to get some fresh air, or a life.

Take a statistics class- or maybe 2 or 3. ****, take a few classes from the best public university in the US (UVA)- in applied mathematics. if you need help, im already on campus....hell ill probabaly be your TA. feel free to PM me.

Oh my god I need to quote this gem so you can't delete it later.

Jolteon · Apr 1, 2009

I should hope Smogon hasn't seriously adopted the "I should have won" attitude...

edit: A disturbing amount of respectable battlers think this is a good idea... lol

Niiro · Apr 1, 2009

This is obviously a fake lol. never take anything seriously like this plz.

Espy Rose · Apr 1, 2009

Niiro said:
This is obviously a fake lol. never take anything seriously like this plz.

This.

It's already been proven to be an elaborate April Fools joke anyways.
Ugh, I hate this day...

choknater · Apr 1, 2009

lol. They had a lot of people fooled.

Heck, I was fooled.

Good stuff Smogon. Pretty clever to be like "We are scrubs; we hate hax" and have respected members play along.. and then have a bunch of scrubs actually like the clause. Then reveal that it's a joke... haha too good! My favorite prank today so far.

Jolteon · Apr 1, 2009

March the 10th is... early. People already squabble over timezones.

Circa · Apr 1, 2009

choknater said:
lol. They had a lot of people fooled.

Heck, I was fooled.

Good stuff Smogon. Pretty clever to be like "We are scrubs; we hate hax" and have respected members play along.. and then have a bunch of scrubs actually like the clause. Then reveal that it's a joke... haha too good! My favorite prank today so far.

WHAT!?

That was seriously all fake? Now I wish I would have actually looked at Smogon some time today...

I'll agree though; that was a pretty good prank. Had a lot of people fooled, it seems. :laugh:

Cease Tick · Apr 1, 2009

Lol. Their april fools makes ours look like crap.

Circa · Apr 1, 2009

Cease Tick said:
Lol. Their april fools makes ours look like crap.

I don't know...I have a feeling like theirs didn't really break out into some sort of chaos that's making everyone act like raving lunatics.

Because to me, that makes SWF > Smogon. I'd take utter chaos over an epically good April Fool's prank any day.

choknater · Apr 1, 2009

Haha. Well our community is much bigger and *ahem* smash is a much deeper game...?

Yes, I'll say that.

Cease Tick · Apr 1, 2009

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52737

choknater · Apr 1, 2009

And there you have it smashboards

Circa · Apr 1, 2009

Cease Tick said:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52737

Whoa...I think I may have just realized something rather miraculous within my infinite forum knowledge (lolsarcasm).

You see...I used to spend a lot of my time in a Final Fantasy Tactics forum a couple of years back, and while there I came to grow quite a fond memory of the main mods and admins that ruled over these forums, along with the memory of who the creator of said forum was.

The creator's username was Noah. <.<

And in that link you provided, I noticed the mention of the name Noah, and from there I discovered that he was a mod in Shoddy that kept the regulation over the chat aspect (or so it seemed to say) of the Smogon Shoddy server.

Is it possible that they are both one and the same? I remembered Noah in the FFTRealm to once mention a job as a mod of some type on other forums, but I never would have expected such a connection...

Oh, and yes; I do feel stupid to not have remembered where I had heard the name Noah before now, even though I consistently saw it at the top of the Smogon Shoddy server. And sorry if my link to a post made by the Noah I knew leads to a private sector...just tell me and I'll make sure to fix it.

Espy Rose · Apr 2, 2009

timssu said:
I don't know...I have a feeling like theirs didn't really break out into some sort of chaos that's making everyone act like raving lunatics.

Because to me, that makes SWF > Smogon. I'd take utter chaos over an epically good April Fool's prank any day.

There's another thread in addition to the link posted a few posts before this in which the entire script was posted for the joke.

Smogon had been planning and setting this up in the forums since March began.

SWF kinda just half-***** everything yesterday, what with just messing around with things here and there...

Smogon gets more points for actually trying, but SWF gets points for being irritating.

zrky · Apr 2, 2009

Cease Tick said:
Lol. Their april fools makes ours look like crap.

Smashboards had an April fools joke? I must have missed something 0_o

/sarcasm

SWFs 'joke' SUCKED!!!!!!

Niiro · Apr 2, 2009

c3gill said:
for the record, in the DS game- no one manages to get 10 flinches in a row. and no one 6-0s a team with a scarfed serene grace togekiss spamming air slash.
Also for the record, no one manages to get 10 flinches in a row or 6-0 a team with a scarfed S.G. Togekiss spamming air slash on shoddy either. Please don't be an idiot by pulling out fake statistics out of your *** please. I should know. I'm a Pokemon Researcher.

Shoddy is a very flawed system- I dont know anyone who plays often that is going to disagree with that. The main reason it sees use is because it is the most efficient. Again, just because you wrote some lines doesnt mean your writings are correct. as you stated, your close- but your numbers are never correct, even in your own simulations. I would suggest:

Correcting your mistakes in the system. Yea, rewrite it.

Sticking to the topic at hand- feel free to post a thread on Shoddy, but this one is for the new clause.

Learning some people skills. First step would probably be to get some fresh air, or a life.

Take a statistics class- or maybe 2 or 3. ****, take a few classes from the best public university in the US (UVA)- in applied mathematics. if you need help, im already on campus....hell ill probabaly be your TA. feel free to PM me.

I lol'd at the above. Good ****.

I seriously had to respond to this.

choknater · Apr 2, 2009

Haha. Shoddybattle is great.

Anti- Hax Clause- Happy April Fools Day!

Smash Ace

Smash Lol'd

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Smash Ace

Smash Champion

Red

Smash Lol'd

Smash Champion

Real Name No Gimmicks

Smash Lol'd

Level 55

Smash Ace

Smash Lol'd

Smash Ace

Smash Lol'd

Smash Ace

Smash Ace

Smash Ace

I'm sharpening my knife, kupo.

Smash Ace

Dumb horse.

Smash Obsessed

I'm sharpening my knife, kupo.

Smash Champion

Smash Ace

Smash Champion

Smash Obsessed

Smash Ace

Smash Obsessed

Smash Champion

Dumb horse.

Smash Lol'd

Smash Ace

Smash Obsessed

Information

Network