-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
np: Anti-Hax - It's your lucky day...
- Thread starter Jumpman16
- Start date
- Status
It's great to finally have an opportunity to try this out and discuss it; I've been following the PR thread quite closely and was hoping for such a chance.
I had originally sent Darkie a PM to try and see if he could post this in the PR thread for me (which, based on his lack of posting it, I'm assuming could not):
I am still personally opposed to such a clause (at least in it's current form, where it decides the winner of the match in cases of extreme match), as the fundamental idea behind the formula is flawed, at least from my understanding of it. The idea is, from my understanding, if Player A and B have a match, and Player A wins the actual battle, but had a whole lot of hax going on in favor of him, then the win will be awarded to player B, as "if there wasn't so much hax in the battle, then, based on the ratings and other such factors, Player B should have won and thus gets the win."
The problem is (besides factors such as a very skilled player from NetBattle coming over and making an account on Shoddy for the first time, and facing a player who's just as skilled as he is, but being at a disadvantage in such a scenario because of his low rating and thus being more affected by the clause), you can't know who would have actually won the match, especially considering scenarios such as the one in parenthesis; you can make assumptions about who would have likely won without the hax based on factors such as rating, but you can't actually know. No matter how good the formula for determining who should have been the winner is, it can't actually know how the battle would have gone without the hax.
This is a problem. The formula is attempting to determine who would have won in a certain scenario, when it's actually impossible to know how it would have gone. The only real information that Shoddy has are the ratings, which as I've pointed out, aren't necessarily an accurate representation of a player's skill, and how the match played out both before and after the hax. It can't know how skilled the player actually is or how the match would have played out without the hax though, which are vital for an accurate determination of who would have won with it removed.
As a result of this inability, if my understanding is indeed correct, then the formula has no business actually determining the winner of the match, as that cannot be positively known, which means there will be errors and mistakes, in turn meaning that it will cause the same situations as hax: a player being cost a match that he or she should have rightfully won, due to factors outside of his or her control. The occurrence of such a scenario may be much less frequent than without the formula, but it will inevitably still happen due to the flaw and thus is not the most ideal solution.
Instead, I'd rather propose a slightly different solution, which I felt addresses the situation much more adequately addresses the situation: Instead of the formula deciding who wins, have it simply make the battle result in a draw, with no loss or gain of points on the ladder on either side.
As already mentioned, the formula cannot, no matter how good it is, positively know who should have won the battle in the case of it occurring without the hax. However, what it can tell is whether or not a large enough amount of hax has occurred that could have significantly affected the course of the battle. It doesn't know how the battle would have gone for sure without the hax, but it does know that it could have quite possibly gone differently. Thus, a draw being given out, which is in effect of a negation of the winner's win, since it can't be known for sure that they would have won without the hax and thus it can't be said that they truly deserve the points, and a negation of the loser's loss, since it can't be known for sure that the would have lost without and hax and thus it can't be said that they truly deserve to lose the points.
This situation too isn't exactly ideal, as it means that the person who would have actually won on the ladder can't gain the points for having played and been the better player in the player. But, it is the best solution in my opinion, as it's the only one that ensures that neither player, the winner or loser of the match, is losing actual points on the ladder, due to factors outside of their control or an assumption on things that can't actually for sure be known.
I had originally sent Darkie a PM to try and see if he could post this in the PR thread for me (which, based on his lack of posting it, I'm assuming could not):
My thoughts on the issue have shifted a bit since then, at least in terms of my reasoning for being opposed and what I feel should be done.Naxte said:
I am still personally opposed to such a clause (at least in it's current form, where it decides the winner of the match in cases of extreme match), as the fundamental idea behind the formula is flawed, at least from my understanding of it. The idea is, from my understanding, if Player A and B have a match, and Player A wins the actual battle, but had a whole lot of hax going on in favor of him, then the win will be awarded to player B, as "if there wasn't so much hax in the battle, then, based on the ratings and other such factors, Player B should have won and thus gets the win."
The problem is (besides factors such as a very skilled player from NetBattle coming over and making an account on Shoddy for the first time, and facing a player who's just as skilled as he is, but being at a disadvantage in such a scenario because of his low rating and thus being more affected by the clause), you can't know who would have actually won the match, especially considering scenarios such as the one in parenthesis; you can make assumptions about who would have likely won without the hax based on factors such as rating, but you can't actually know. No matter how good the formula for determining who should have been the winner is, it can't actually know how the battle would have gone without the hax.
This is a problem. The formula is attempting to determine who would have won in a certain scenario, when it's actually impossible to know how it would have gone. The only real information that Shoddy has are the ratings, which as I've pointed out, aren't necessarily an accurate representation of a player's skill, and how the match played out both before and after the hax. It can't know how skilled the player actually is or how the match would have played out without the hax though, which are vital for an accurate determination of who would have won with it removed.
As a result of this inability, if my understanding is indeed correct, then the formula has no business actually determining the winner of the match, as that cannot be positively known, which means there will be errors and mistakes, in turn meaning that it will cause the same situations as hax: a player being cost a match that he or she should have rightfully won, due to factors outside of his or her control. The occurrence of such a scenario may be much less frequent than without the formula, but it will inevitably still happen due to the flaw and thus is not the most ideal solution.
Instead, I'd rather propose a slightly different solution, which I felt addresses the situation much more adequately addresses the situation: Instead of the formula deciding who wins, have it simply make the battle result in a draw, with no loss or gain of points on the ladder on either side.
As already mentioned, the formula cannot, no matter how good it is, positively know who should have won the battle in the case of it occurring without the hax. However, what it can tell is whether or not a large enough amount of hax has occurred that could have significantly affected the course of the battle. It doesn't know how the battle would have gone for sure without the hax, but it does know that it could have quite possibly gone differently. Thus, a draw being given out, which is in effect of a negation of the winner's win, since it can't be known for sure that they would have won without the hax and thus it can't be said that they truly deserve the points, and a negation of the loser's loss, since it can't be known for sure that the would have lost without and hax and thus it can't be said that they truly deserve to lose the points.
This situation too isn't exactly ideal, as it means that the person who would have actually won on the ladder can't gain the points for having played and been the better player in the player. But, it is the best solution in my opinion, as it's the only one that ensures that neither player, the winner or loser of the match, is losing actual points on the ladder, due to factors outside of their control or an assumption on things that can't actually for sure be known.
Yeah. I don't know if the Hax Clause only gives the person who lost the game if there is an absolute insane amount of hax (like, Ice Fang critting, freezing, [Pokemon unfreezes] then flinches) multiple times or something. I don't want to sound like I'm whining that I lost, but some of that stuff was really gamebreaking (mainly the early-game crits, confusion-attacks, and an important speed tie).
I don't know how the system differentiates a "fair" or "haxxy" battle, but I'm interested in seeing how often this repeats itself.
Edit: I heard some people talking about how the ratings do matter, but obviously I don't know if this is true. My rating was ~200 points higher.
Edit2: I have the log, but obviously wont give it to anybody without checking with Jimbo first.
I don't know how the system differentiates a "fair" or "haxxy" battle, but I'm interested in seeing how often this repeats itself.
Edit: I heard some people talking about how the ratings do matter, but obviously I don't know if this is true. My rating was ~200 points higher.
Edit2: I have the log, but obviously wont give it to anybody without checking with Jimbo first.
im wondering if those FP actually did that much towards the hax total if it was celebi v. celebi since weather it was FP or not the damage output and overall effect on the battle would have been very minimal, unless im missing a certin factor of it, like one of the celebi was CM pass or another had HP[bug] or something along those lines.
I still think the threshold for a "haxxy" battle needs to be lowered a little. I just had this battle with Jimbo, with the clause on, where he had about 1 crit on me, and I haxxed him to death, yet I still got the win. (not that I'm complaining :p)
excerpts:
excerpts:
Code:
Jimbo: crits!
DARKIE switched in Flash (lvl 100 Jolteon ?).
Pointed stones dug into Flash.
Flash lost 12% of its health.
Jimbo switched in Swampert (lvl 100 Swampert ?).
Pointed stones dug into Swampert.
Swampert lost 6% of its health.
Flash used Shadow Ball.
Swampert lost 37% of its health.
Swampert's special defence was lowered.
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
Code:
Jericho used Calm Mind.
Jericho's special attack was raised.
Jericho's special defence was raised.
Magnezone is paralysed! It can't move!
Jericho's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jericho restored 6% of its health.
Magnezone's leftovers restored its health a little!
Magnezone restored 6% of its health.
Code:
.blech: antihax clause go
Jimbo switched in Tyranitar (lvl 100 Tyranitar ?).
Tyranitar's Sand Stream whipped up a sandstorm!
A sandstorm brewed!
Pointed stones dug into Tyranitar.
Tyranitar lost 12% of its health.
Jericho used Signal Beam.
It's super effective!
Tyranitar lost 47% of its health.
Tyranitar became confused!
Tyranitar is confused!
It hurt itself in its confusion!
Tyranitar lost 15% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Jericho's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jericho restored 6% of its health.
---
Jimbo: oh my god
DARKIE: fufu
Jimbo: ugh
Jericho used Signal Beam.
It's super effective!
Tyranitar lost 25% of its health.
Jimbo's Tyranitar fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Jericho's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jericho restored 6% of its health.
---
Jimbo switched in Scizor (lvl 100 Scizor ?).
Pointed stones dug into Scizor.
Scizor lost 12% of its health.
Jericho used Psychic.
It's not very effective...
Scizor lost 51% of its health.
Scizor used X-Scissor.
The substitute took damage for Jericho!
Jericho's substitute faded!
The sandstorm rages.
Jericho's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jericho restored 6% of its health.
---
Jericho used Psychic.
It's not very effective...
Scizor lost 37% of its health.
Jimbo's Scizor fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Jericho's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jericho restored 6% of its health.
---
DARKIE: superdarkie
Jimbo switched in Gyarados (lvl 100 Gyarados ?).
Gyarados's intimidate cut Jericho's attack!
Pointed stones dug into Gyarados.
Gyarados lost 25% of its health.
Jericho used Psychic.
A critical hit!
Gyarados lost 50% of its health.
Jimbo's Gyarados fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Jericho's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jericho restored 6% of its health.
---
Jimbo: s;dfj;sdfs
DARKIE: fufufufu
Code:
The battle has ended.
Analyzing battle data for luck factors...
Jimbo: I won this
DARKIE wins!
Jimbo: what
Brian McCann: lol
DARKIE: we'll see
DARKIE: hahahahaha
Jimbo: spdifsjps
Kristoph: lol
.blech: ahahahaha
DARKIE: you got those crits
Jimbo: AAA
DARKIE: at the beginning
Jimbo: I got 1!
.blech: this goes along with the match vs. wakalord
Brian McCann: This idea is just stupid
Brian McCann: lol
Jimbo: I like the idea when it gives me wins!
.blech: where jimbo won a loss
Jimbo: fuck you darkie
Brian McCann: <_<
Jimbo: fuck you are your bronzong
Jimbo has left the room.
.blech: oh snap
This, although I'm also just wondering how much rating affects it. Either way I don't see the harm in posting the formula. If it actually is too complex for the majority to understand, than there's little chance of it being abused to any point anyway.
Darkie, remember that the formula takes into account all the damage rolls in the entire battle. So it's very possible that was the reason for the formula outcome. High or low damage calcs are not immediately obvious in the battle log, but they are a big part of the total luck in a match.
Everyone needs to remember this when reviewing their battle logs.
Everyone needs to remember this when reviewing their battle logs.
I'm Shanoa in this battle
besides the Aqua Tail miss on my side, how the hell did I win this (also do not mind the itemless Blissey, I made the team in like 3 minutes just to test)
edit: bolded the important parts
Code:
Rules: Ladder Match, Sleep Clause, Freeze Clause, OHKO Clause, Evasion Clause, Species Clause, Strict Damage Clause, Soul Dew Clause, Anti-Hax Clause
BlueDerivative sent out Tentacruel (lvl 100 Tentacruel ?).
Shanoa sent out Jirachi (lvl 100 Jirachi).
Jirachi used Stealth Rock.
Pointed stones float in the air around the foe's team!
Tentacruel used Toxic Spikes.
Toxic Spikes were scattered around the foe's team!
---
[B]Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Tentacruel lost 22% of its health.
Tentacruel flinched!
Tentacruel's leftovers restored its health a little!
Tentacruel restored 6% of its health.[/B]
---
Shanoa switched in Togekiss (lvl 100 Togekiss ?).
Tentacruel used Toxic Spikes.
Toxic Spikes were scattered around the foe's team!
Tentacruel's leftovers restored its health a little!
Tentacruel restored 6% of its health.
---
Tentacruel used Rapid Spin.
Tentacruel blew away the pointed stones!
Togekiss lost 3% of its health.
Togekiss used Thunder Wave.
Tentacruel is paralysed! It may be unable to move!
Togekiss's leftovers restored its health a little!
Togekiss restored 3% of its health.
Tentacruel's leftovers restored its health a little!
Tentacruel restored 6% of its health.
---
BlueDerivative switched in Blissey (lvl 100 Blissey ?).
Togekiss used Nasty Plot.
Togekiss's special attack was sharply raised.
---
[B]Togekiss used Air Slash.
Blissey lost 23% of its health.
Blissey flinched!
Blissey's leftovers restored its health a little!
Blissey restored 6% of its health.[/B]
---
Togekiss used Nasty Plot.
Togekiss's special attack was sharply raised.
Blissey used Toxic.
Togekiss was badly poisoned!
Togekiss is hurt by poison!
Togekiss lost 6% of its health.
Blissey's leftovers restored its health a little!
Blissey restored 6% of its health.
---
Shanoa switched in Jirachi (lvl 100 Jirachi).
Blissey used Flamethrower.
It's super effective!
Jirachi lost 35% of its health.
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
Blissey's leftovers restored its health a little!
Blissey restored 6% of its health.
---
BlueDerivative switched in Skarmory (lvl 100 Skarmory ?).
Jirachi used Stealth Rock.
Pointed stones float in the air around the foe's team!
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
---
[B]Jirachi used Body Slam.
It's not very effective...
Skarmory lost 8% of its health.
Skarmory is paralysed! It may be unable to move!
Skarmory used Spikes.
Spikes were scattered around the foe's team!
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
A critical hit!
Skarmory lost 22% of its health.
Skarmory used Spikes.
Spikes were scattered around the foe's team!
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Skarmory lost 12% of its health.
Skarmory flinched!
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Skarmory lost 10% of its health.
Skarmory flinched!
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 5% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Skarmory lost 10% of its health.
Skarmory is paralysed! It can't move!
---
Jirachi used Fire Punch.
It's super effective!
Skarmory lost 29% of its health.
Skarmory is paralysed! It can't move!
---
Jirachi used Fire Punch.
It's super effective!
Skarmory lost 8% of its health.
BlueDerivative's Skarmory fainted.
---
BlueDerivative: wow
BlueDerivative: ridiculous luck[/B]
BlueDerivative switched in Swampert (lvl 100 Swampert ?).
Pointed stones dug into Swampert.
Swampert lost 6% of its health.
Shanoa: I'm testing the hax clause if you haven't noticed
Jirachi used Body Slam.
Swampert lost 20% of its health.
Swampert is paralysed! It may be unable to move!
Swampert used Stealth Rock.
Pointed stones float in the air around the foe's team!
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
Shanoa switched in Gyarados (lvl 100 Gyarados ?).
Gyarados's intimidate cut Swampert's attack!
Pointed stones dug into Gyarados.
Gyarados lost 25% of its health.
Swampert is paralysed! It can't move!
Gyarados's leftovers restored its health a little!
Gyarados restored 6% of its health.
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
Gyarados used Waterfall.
Swampert lost 24% of its health.
Swampert used Roar.
Shanoa switched in Machamp (lvl 100 Machamp ?).
Pointed stones dug into Machamp.
Machamp lost 6% of its health.
Machamp was badly poisoned!
Machamp was badly poisoned by the Toxic Spikes!
Machamp was hurt by Spikes!
Machamp lost 19% of its health.
Machamp's leftovers restored its health a little!
Machamp restored 6% of its health.
Machamp is hurt by poison!
Machamp lost 6% of its health.
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
Machamp used Payback.
Swampert lost 14% of its health.
Swampert used Roar.
Shanoa switched in Jirachi (lvl 100 Jirachi).
Pointed stones dug into Jirachi.
Jirachi lost 6% of its health.
Jirachi was hurt by Spikes!
Jirachi lost 19% of its health.
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
[B]Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Swampert lost 13% of its health.
Swampert flinched!
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Swampert lost 14% of its health.
Swampert flinched!
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Swampert lost 13% of its health.
Swampert is paralysed! It can't move!
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Swampert lost 15% of its health.
Swampert flinched!
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Swampert lost 15% of its health.
Swampert flinched!
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Swampert lost 13% of its health.
Swampert flinched!
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Swampert lost 13% of its health.
Swampert flinched!
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
BlueDerivative: wow
BlueDerivative: what the FUCK you've got some nooby luck
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Swampert lost 8% of its health.
BlueDerivative's Swampert fainted.[/B]
---
Shanoa: I've already said
BlueDerivative switched in Rotom-c (lvl 100 Rotom-c).
Pointed stones dug into Rotom-c.
Rotom-c lost 12% of its health.
Shanoa: haven't you seen my team?
Shanoa: Togekiss, Machamp, Jirachi
Shanoa: full of paralysis
Shanoa switched in Blissey (lvl 100 Blissey ?).
Pointed stones dug into Blissey.
Blissey lost 12% of its health.
Blissey was badly poisoned!
Blissey was badly poisoned by the Toxic Spikes!
Blissey was hurt by Spikes!
Blissey lost 19% of its health.
Rotom-c used Will-o-wisp.
But it failed!
Rotom-c's leftovers restored its health a little!
Rotom-c restored 6% of its health.
Blissey is hurt by poison!
Blissey lost 6% of its health.
---
BlueDerivative: yeah and it's paid off with some ridiculous fucking hax
Shanoa: that's the point
BlueDerivative switched in Tentacruel (lvl 100 Tentacruel ?).
Pointed stones dug into Tentacruel.
Tentacruel lost 12% of its health.
Blissey used Wish.
Blissey made a wish!
Blissey is hurt by poison!
Blissey lost 12% of its health.
Tentacruel's leftovers restored its health a little!
Tentacruel restored 6% of its health.
---
Shanoa: you're going to probably win this
Blissey used Seismic Toss.
Tentacruel lost 27% of its health.
Tentacruel used Rapid Spin.
Tentacruel blew away the pointed stones!
Blissey lost 3% of its health.
The wish came true!
Blissey restored 50% of its health.
Blissey is hurt by poison!
Blissey lost 19% of its health.
Tentacruel's leftovers restored its health a little!
Tentacruel restored 6% of its health.
---
BlueDerivative switched in Tyranitar (lvl 100 Tyranitar ?).
Tyranitar's Sand Stream whipped up a sandstorm!
A sandstorm brewed!
Blissey used Wish.
Blissey made a wish!
The sandstorm rages.
Blissey is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Blissey lost 6% of its health.
Blissey is hurt by poison!
Blissey lost 25% of its health.
---
Shanoa switched in Machamp (lvl 100 Machamp ?).
Pointed stones dug into Machamp.
Machamp lost 6% of its health.
Machamp was hurt by Spikes!
Machamp lost 19% of its health.
Tyranitar used Dragon Dance.
Tyranitar's attack was raised.
Tyranitar's speed was raised.
The wish came true!
Machamp restored 50% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Machamp is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Machamp lost 6% of its health.
Machamp's leftovers restored its health a little!
Machamp restored 6% of its health.
Machamp is hurt by poison!
Machamp lost 6% of its health.
---
BlueDerivative switched in Rotom-c (lvl 100 Rotom-c).
Machamp used Dynamicpunch.
It doesn't affect Rotom-c...
The sandstorm rages.
Rotom-c is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Rotom-c lost 6% of its health.
Machamp is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Machamp lost 6% of its health.
Rotom-c's leftovers restored its health a little!
Rotom-c restored 6% of its health.
Machamp's leftovers restored its health a little!
Machamp restored 6% of its health.
Machamp is hurt by poison!
Machamp lost 12% of its health.
---
Rotom-c used Light Screen.
A barrier was formed!
Machamp used Payback.
It's super effective!
Rotom-c lost 63% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Rotom-c is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Rotom-c lost 6% of its health.
Machamp is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Machamp lost 6% of its health.
Rotom-c's leftovers restored its health a little!
Rotom-c restored 6% of its health.
Machamp's leftovers restored its health a little!
Machamp restored 6% of its health.
Machamp is hurt by poison!
Machamp lost 19% of its health.
---
Rotom-c used Shadow Ball.
Machamp lost 30% of its health.
Machamp's special defence was lowered.
Machamp used Rest.
Machamp fell asleep!
Machamp restored 68% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Rotom-c is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Rotom-c lost 6% of its health.
Machamp is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Machamp lost 6% of its health.
Rotom-c's leftovers restored its health a little!
Rotom-c restored 6% of its health.
Machamp's leftovers restored its health a little!
Machamp restored 6% of its health.
---
Shanoa switched in Tyranitar (lvl 100 Tyranitar ?).
Tyranitar's Sand Stream whipped up a sandstorm!
Pointed stones dug into Tyranitar.
Tyranitar lost 12% of its health.
Tyranitar was badly poisoned!
Tyranitar was badly poisoned by the Toxic Spikes!
Tyranitar was hurt by Spikes!
Tyranitar lost 19% of its health.
Rotom-c used Shadow Ball.
It's not very effective...
Tyranitar lost 9% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Rotom-c is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Rotom-c lost 6% of its health.
Rotom-c's leftovers restored its health a little!
Rotom-c restored 6% of its health.
Tyranitar is hurt by poison!
Tyranitar lost 6% of its health.
---
Rotom-c used Discharge.
Tyranitar lost 20% of its health.
Tyranitar used Aqua Tail.
Rotom-c lost 31% of its health.
BlueDerivative's Rotom-c fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Tyranitar is hurt by poison!
Tyranitar lost 12% of its health.
---
[B]BlueDerivative switched in Tyranitar (lvl 100 Tyranitar ?).
Tyranitar's Sand Stream whipped up a sandstorm!
Tyranitar used Dragon Dance.
Tyranitar's attack was raised.
Tyranitar's speed was raised.
Tyranitar used Aqua Tail.
Tyranitar's attack missed!
Tyranitar's light screen wore off!
The sandstorm rages.
Tyranitar is hurt by poison!
Tyranitar lost 19% of its health.[/B]
---
Tyranitar used Dragon Dance.
Tyranitar's attack was raised.
Tyranitar's speed was raised.
Tyranitar used Aqua Tail.
It's super effective!
Tyranitar lost 100% of its health.
BlueDerivative's Tyranitar fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Tyranitar is hurt by poison!
Tyranitar lost 2% of its health.
Shanoa's Tyranitar fainted.
---
BlueDerivative switched in Blissey (lvl 100 Blissey ?).
Shanoa switched in Jirachi (lvl 100 Jirachi).
Pointed stones dug into Jirachi.
Jirachi lost 6% of its health.
Jirachi was hurt by Spikes!
Jirachi lost 19% of its health.
Jirachi used Iron Head.
Blissey lost 35% of its health.
Blissey used Flamethrower.
It's super effective!
Jirachi lost 34% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Blissey is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Blissey lost 6% of its health.
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
Blissey's leftovers restored its health a little!
Blissey restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
Blissey lost 33% of its health.
Blissey used Flamethrower.
It's super effective!
Jirachi lost 34% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Blissey is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Blissey lost 6% of its health.
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
Blissey's leftovers restored its health a little!
Blissey restored 6% of its health.
---
Blissey used Protect.
Blissey protected itself!
Jirachi used Iron Head.
Blissey protected itself!
The sandstorm rages.
Blissey is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Blissey lost 6% of its health.
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
Blissey's leftovers restored its health a little!
Blissey restored 6% of its health.
---
BlueDerivative switched in Tentacruel (lvl 100 Tentacruel ?).
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Tentacruel lost 22% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Tentacruel is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Tentacruel lost 6% of its health.
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
Tentacruel's leftovers restored its health a little!
Tentacruel restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Tentacruel lost 23% of its health.
Tentacruel flinched!
The sandstorm rages.
Tentacruel is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Tentacruel lost 6% of its health.
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
Tentacruel's leftovers restored its health a little!
Tentacruel restored 6% of its health.
---
Jirachi used Iron Head.
It's not very effective...
Tentacruel lost 20% of its health.
Tentacruel used Surf.
Jirachi lost 26% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Tentacruel is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Tentacruel lost 4% of its health.
BlueDerivative's Tentacruel fainted.
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
---
BlueDerivative switched in Blissey (lvl 100 Blissey ?).
Jirachi used Iron Head.
Blissey lost 28% of its health.
BlueDerivative's Blissey fainted.
The battle has ended.
Analyzing battle data for luck factors...
Shanoa wins!
Shanoa: what
BlueDerivative: yeah the hax clause doesn't do fucking shit
BlueDerivative has left the room.edit: bolded the important parts
One, I don't exactly understand why the variation in damage rolls, which have the very real potential to not affect a battle, have a higher priority than Crits (which stop very specific and undeniable counters) and repeated bouts of Paralysis Hax.
Two: Is this not implemented on the UU ladder? If not, I don't really care how the formula goes either way, since it doesn't affect me. I do believe a lot of the "oh my gosh changing game mechanics" terror that was displayed in the PR thread was possibly unwarranted (since a lot of battle are handled fairly), and I'll admit to having that same foundation-less anger at the clause. As far as I am concerned, however, the formula seems to be working well for its first public test.
Two: Is this not implemented on the UU ladder? If not, I don't really care how the formula goes either way, since it doesn't affect me. I do believe a lot of the "oh my gosh changing game mechanics" terror that was displayed in the PR thread was possibly unwarranted (since a lot of battle are handled fairly), and I'll admit to having that same foundation-less anger at the clause. As far as I am concerned, however, the formula seems to be working well for its first public test.
I saw the end of the Darkie/Jimbo match and I'm pretty sure it was a 4-0 in Darkie's favor (if not then sorry, I'm really retarded and misremembered) so I'm not sure why anyone was surprised.
If the voters say it's here to stay, it'll be implimented in all tiers.
This is stupid. The goal of any competitive game ever made is to win in any way possible; but how can you win if you don't know how to?
Specifically tailoring a team to abuse the formula! That's exactly what someone is supposed to do, tailor a team to winning. I tailor 100% of my teams to knocking out my opponent's 6 Pokémon before they knock out my 6.
I agree with Chris completely. The point of playing a game is to win within the bounds of the rules whenever possible. If I switch Blissey into Gengar's Hypnosis on Wi-Fi, and my Blissey has Serene Grace, so he Hypnosises thinking I have Natural Cure, and he violates Sleep Clause, I have won by the law of the rules. It may seem iffy, but the formula can always be tweaked to prevent abuse.
If you want the formula, then we're doing nothing to stop you guys from discovering it... Why don't you start testing things and analyze battles and figure out how the formula calculates it? It's not like nintendo helped us at all when XAct and Peterko discovered the damage formula.
Reading through this thread, I'm becoming really curious about something: I had simply assumed that it is at first, but just to make sure, does the formula rule out irrelevant hax?
For example, say I have a move that can do 60-65% damage on my opponent's Pokemon. I manage to use that move on it twice successfully, doing 65% damage each time. Even assuming that the opponent's Pokemon had Leftovers and there were no entry hazards on the field, that move would still have gotten a 2HKO on it, no matter what the RNG rolled. Or better yet, I have a move that has a chance of doing 120-131% to my opponent, so even if I rolled a 131% there, it's totally irrelevant. So, in either of these scenarios, is it still considered "hax" as a formula? If so, that's something that needs to be worked on, not being permanently implemented until it is, as something that's irrelevant to who would have won is actually affecting it. Of course, a retort for these situations might be that they're too small to matter by themselves anyway. So then, if that's the case, how about the situation of a stall match, where one player is constantly doing less than 50% to an opponent, not being able to do more, and the opponent constantly heals the damage off as a result (the opponent though, is slower, so they have to use Recover and thus don't get in an attack of their own)? Even if the attacker constantly gets max damage, since it won't go over 50%, it's irrelevant. But, due to the nature of a stall match, if that player racks up a large number of max damages, it would be used against him if it's not ruled out by the formula, since the simple fact is that the exact damage output in that scenario is irrelevant and thus is not actually hax.
Also, for the same reasoning, are irrelevant crits (e.x. Getting a crit on an opponent when the move would have still gotten a OHKO even without the crit) still considered as "hax"?
For example, say I have a move that can do 60-65% damage on my opponent's Pokemon. I manage to use that move on it twice successfully, doing 65% damage each time. Even assuming that the opponent's Pokemon had Leftovers and there were no entry hazards on the field, that move would still have gotten a 2HKO on it, no matter what the RNG rolled. Or better yet, I have a move that has a chance of doing 120-131% to my opponent, so even if I rolled a 131% there, it's totally irrelevant. So, in either of these scenarios, is it still considered "hax" as a formula? If so, that's something that needs to be worked on, not being permanently implemented until it is, as something that's irrelevant to who would have won is actually affecting it. Of course, a retort for these situations might be that they're too small to matter by themselves anyway. So then, if that's the case, how about the situation of a stall match, where one player is constantly doing less than 50% to an opponent, not being able to do more, and the opponent constantly heals the damage off as a result (the opponent though, is slower, so they have to use Recover and thus don't get in an attack of their own)? Even if the attacker constantly gets max damage, since it won't go over 50%, it's irrelevant. But, due to the nature of a stall match, if that player racks up a large number of max damages, it would be used against him if it's not ruled out by the formula, since the simple fact is that the exact damage output in that scenario is irrelevant and thus is not actually hax.
Also, for the same reasoning, are irrelevant crits (e.x. Getting a crit on an opponent when the move would have still gotten a OHKO even without the crit) still considered as "hax"?
If you guys read through the PR thread you would know a gist of what is and isn't in the formula.
But seriously, trust our math whiz's enough to account for things like meaningless crits lol.
But seriously, trust our math whiz's enough to account for things like meaningless crits lol.
Just trusting in something is always the wrong option. There is no reason not to probe and question.
I would still like to know if the formula is able to determine how crucial a critical hit is. I highly doubt that the formula gives a CH from a Gyarados that KOs your only Gyarados counter more weight than a CH from a Gyarados that KOs one of 4 Gyarados counters on a team.
Certain game-breaking luck events hinge on a matter of each individual Pokemon and what it is designed to do, something that a formula can't account for.
What about extreme situations? Is a win overturned if a low level Jirachi executes multiple flinch haxes to eventually KO an upper level Magikarp? Sure, it would have KOed it eventually but can the formula recognize a Pokemon's capacity to KO another Pokemon?
Note that I can't playtest this at this time. This has been concerning me since the PR thread. I'd just like some info and it'll give people something to look at testing-wise.
Can people start viewing their ratings and keeping track of how they progress on BOTH players? What happens (to both players) if a match is reversed when fighting a higher ranked opponent and a lower ranked opponent? This info would be incredibly useful and will really influence opinions of all participants depending on what the effects are. If anything, it should be viewed more than how many matches are reversed.
If a match is reversed and the real winner isn't punished (or even better, if he still gains), while the "decided" winner isn't punished at all (despite really losing), I see no reason not to support this. Afterall, this is largely related to the ladder and ratings themselves, not to the actual battles (that's my understanding of the X-Act's posts anyways).
My primary concern is how this will effect tournament matches (nobody will want any fucking formula telling them their opponent advances when they win), but that should be discussed later.
Can people start viewing their ratings and keeping track of how they progress on BOTH players? What happens (to both players) if a match is reversed when fighting a higher ranked opponent and a lower ranked opponent? This info would be incredibly useful and will really influence opinions of all participants depending on what the effects are. If anything, it should be viewed more than how many matches are reversed.
If a match is reversed and the real winner isn't punished (or even better, if he still gains), while the "decided" winner isn't punished at all (despite really losing), I see no reason not to support this. Afterall, this is largely related to the ladder and ratings themselves, not to the actual battles (that's my understanding of the X-Act's posts anyways).
My primary concern is how this will effect tournament matches (nobody will want any fucking formula telling them their opponent advances when they win), but that should be discussed later.
"The only reason anyone else would need to know the exact formula, is if they plan to specifically tailor their battle strategy to take advantage of the formula. That is not the purpose of the formula. It is not a new game mechanic, in and of itself. And, I really don't want to hear any pedantic complaints about the definition of "game mechanic"."
Yet the current claim i heard someone say was that we would need a phd in statistics to understand it. So which is it do we need a PhD to understand it or do you not want us to tailor our battle strategy to abuse it. How do we even know if its working properly if we do not know the full details?
Yet the current claim i heard someone say was that we would need a phd in statistics to understand it. So which is it do we need a PhD to understand it or do you not want us to tailor our battle strategy to abuse it. How do we even know if its working properly if we do not know the full details?
For those of you interested in the functional components of the formula -- you should read the descriptive posts in the PR thread where we discussed and developed the formula. If you have not read that material, then please don't bother asking basic questions here. That information has been posted in PR for quite some time now, so it's hardly new.
I had assumed so, but I was just being cautious and making sure after some of the posts I had seen in this thread. When a questionable match is brought up, the people like Doug who know the formula continuously reply with "you might have done max damage to your opponent numerous times." I don't know what the luck threshold is, or how many times doing the max damage combined with other factors would activate it, so as a result, I don't know what rolls must have been counted to cause the decision.
Again, I was assuming you guys had indeed accounted for that, but with the large number of times the power of getting max-damage was brought up, I had justed wanted to make certain, as I don't want to be playing on a ladder with such a formula just supposing the formula is doing what it should be doing and not being certain that it is.
Well, first we're told that unless we were the people who made it we aren't smart enough anyway, but then we've also been told that the only reason anyone who wasn't involved in creating it could even want to know it is if they were trying to abuse it, so shouldn't you not be telling us to figure it since knowing it apparently is only useful for abusive purposes?
- Status