-
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!
Pokemon Philosophy: Is abusing the RNG cheating?
- Thread starter Blitzkreig Harmonic
- Start date
- Status
to be quite honest i never expected anyone would really do this when i analyzed that mechanism (way back when pac was not hacked) or when i posted about the emerald rng bug. but thats besides the point i would not expected this to go as just another accepted trick either but i was wrong again.
no what if i build a robot that can time with a much better precision to do that task for me? is this finally cheating?
no what if i build a robot that can time with a much better precision to do that task for me? is this finally cheating?
Ok, thanks.
It's still completely within the coding of the game, which seems to be the accepted standard of legitimacy around here. AR modifies this coding directly, while your "robot" would only manipulate the input in the same way people using emloop already do, just a lot more precisely.
I unfortunatly don't have time to write a huge paragraph on this, so i'll just say this.
In my opinion 'cheating' is meant to simplify something, like an easy route or short cut for a result. Therefore assuming the RNG abuse is cheating it could theoretically be done within minutes thus taking very little effort and time to execute (alot like the AR).
Although from personal experience and others i know about that dabble within abusing the RNG, it takes a lot of time just to understand the system not to mention the hours spent from start to finish actually obtaining the pokemon your aiming for, which in respect is a lot like chain breeding just a different method of execution.
I know this has been said many times throughout this topic but it is a means to end, perfect pokemon were obtainable before the RNG came about its not like the RNG is doing the impossible. So some people don't agree with this, wow, that was always going to happen, the majority of competitive players use this method and for good reason, in nintendo's eyes this is legit (as seen at the VGC's) and being the best player means taking advantage of all the facilities available to you. This is available to everyone who owns a copy of DPP anyone can do it this is an ingame mechanic just like IV's EV's ect. So i suggest, before people start jumping on the 'band wagon' and immediatly preaching that the RNG is 'cheating' to actually try it or research it properly, see how much effort and time it takes and has gone into the research behind it, its not easy and its definatly not cheating and unfortunatly for all those aginst the RNG abuse, until Gamefreak or Nintendo state otherwise everyone complaing is going to just have to put up with it.
In my opinion 'cheating' is meant to simplify something, like an easy route or short cut for a result. Therefore assuming the RNG abuse is cheating it could theoretically be done within minutes thus taking very little effort and time to execute (alot like the AR).
Although from personal experience and others i know about that dabble within abusing the RNG, it takes a lot of time just to understand the system not to mention the hours spent from start to finish actually obtaining the pokemon your aiming for, which in respect is a lot like chain breeding just a different method of execution.
I know this has been said many times throughout this topic but it is a means to end, perfect pokemon were obtainable before the RNG came about its not like the RNG is doing the impossible. So some people don't agree with this, wow, that was always going to happen, the majority of competitive players use this method and for good reason, in nintendo's eyes this is legit (as seen at the VGC's) and being the best player means taking advantage of all the facilities available to you. This is available to everyone who owns a copy of DPP anyone can do it this is an ingame mechanic just like IV's EV's ect. So i suggest, before people start jumping on the 'band wagon' and immediatly preaching that the RNG is 'cheating' to actually try it or research it properly, see how much effort and time it takes and has gone into the research behind it, its not easy and its definatly not cheating and unfortunatly for all those aginst the RNG abuse, until Gamefreak or Nintendo state otherwise everyone complaing is going to just have to put up with it.
Being abusive towards the RNG for pokemon? I been out of the loop for a while can someone explain this to me, or direct me towards the explanation?
Honestly when you get to this point, I'd feel like just saying fuck it and using pokesav to just make pokemon with legit IV's
Anyway, I would care for more information on this regardless. Thanks in advance to anyone who shows me wtf this is all about
Honestly when you get to this point, I'd feel like just saying fuck it and using pokesav to just make pokemon with legit IV's
Anyway, I would care for more information on this regardless. Thanks in advance to anyone who shows me wtf this is all about
What if the code was modified with the AR in such a way that it was impossible to tell if it had been modified?
There's a philosophical argument here akin to Copenhagen philosophies of quantum mechanics (if you can't determine the difference WAS IT REALLY DIFFERENT AT ALL OOOOO), but I want to avoid that in favour of the far more pragmatic one, which is just to question the purpose of affixing particular value to the methods if all that's relevant to the actual battling is outcome.
The actual RNG reporter itself is an outside device, unless you're all getting at what frames have what Pokemon via pen and paper. Plus you need to find your secret ID somehow too, which is often by someone with an AR or, again, using outside devices. It's not just an IV calculator.
I'm not against RNG abuse, that said, I'm not against using an AR to get Pokemon with perfect IVs and the right EV spread, as long as you're not cheating and making a Wondertomb or otherwise stretching what is possible within the framework of the game. As long as the Pokemon COULD exist in the game, how you end up getting it doesn't matter one bit to me, and I don't see why people still insist that it matters.
I'm not against RNG abuse, that said, I'm not against using an AR to get Pokemon with perfect IVs and the right EV spread, as long as you're not cheating and making a Wondertomb or otherwise stretching what is possible within the framework of the game. As long as the Pokemon COULD exist in the game, how you end up getting it doesn't matter one bit to me, and I don't see why people still insist that it matters.
^^ As above, it also holds true.
Both are technically going against how the game is meant to be played.
But then again rules are meant to be broken.
What would be more fun? Imperfect pokemon battles?
That's for you to decide.
I admit, I'm tempted to learn RNG abuse because I am a power gamer. I love big numbers, and making my team as disgustingly powerful as they can be. I get a kick out of getting the "most hax, IMBA" stuff there can be.
Your mileage may vary.
Both are technically going against how the game is meant to be played.
But then again rules are meant to be broken.
What would be more fun? Imperfect pokemon battles?
That's for you to decide.
I admit, I'm tempted to learn RNG abuse because I am a power gamer. I love big numbers, and making my team as disgustingly powerful as they can be. I get a kick out of getting the "most hax, IMBA" stuff there can be.
Your mileage may vary.
I'm going to say no, it is not. In my opinion, it is actually more legit than cloning, since it is (ab)using programming that was intentionally placed into the game. For several years now, I have opposed hacking devices on the following basis: If two players are equally skilled, it is absolutely unfair for the following scenario to go down in an official high-stakes Nintendo tournament:
Player A cares strongly about legitimacy and has spent months breeding (or non-RNG SRing in the case of legends) and raising their team to get good, but not perfect (i.e. a 25/x/17/31/22/31 special sweeper) Pokémon. Player B discretely hacks their game, making as much of an effort as possible to not leave any evidence on their cart (since hacking is expressly forbidden by the tournament rules) and creates a team with perfect (or near-perfect) Pokémon in less than 10 minutes. Both players are at roughly the same skill level. They battle. The battle is relatively hax-free, both players make intelligent moves and predict well, but player A loses to player B and is eliminated from the tournament on account of just not having as good of stats on their Pokémon (obviously, stats are not the sole, or even the main, deciding factor of a match, but I'm creating a scenario in which all other factors are equal and put aside).
In my opinion, player B did cheat; he violated the rules of the tournament. If he instead created the same team using the aid of RNG abuse, in my opinion, he would NOT have cheated. There is nothing in the rules of the tournament about RNG abuse, and to be honest, there really isn't any sensible clause that they could put in the rules regarding this. The worst they could do is ban Pokémon whose capture dates are illegit (from before the game's release date or after the date of the tournament), but I don't see them doing that.
Of course, not everyone plays in official Nintendo tournaments, so my scenario is not always valid. Long story short: If you break the rules of the tournament/match that you are participating in, you have cheated. If you have not done so, you have not cheated. For that matter, should RNG'd Pokémon be banned from tournaments? I think not, since nothing has directly manipulated an RNG'd Pokémon other than the game, the system (i.e. DS date/time), and human action (i.e. timing, Journal flips), all of which are components of standard gameplay.
Player A cares strongly about legitimacy and has spent months breeding (or non-RNG SRing in the case of legends) and raising their team to get good, but not perfect (i.e. a 25/x/17/31/22/31 special sweeper) Pokémon. Player B discretely hacks their game, making as much of an effort as possible to not leave any evidence on their cart (since hacking is expressly forbidden by the tournament rules) and creates a team with perfect (or near-perfect) Pokémon in less than 10 minutes. Both players are at roughly the same skill level. They battle. The battle is relatively hax-free, both players make intelligent moves and predict well, but player A loses to player B and is eliminated from the tournament on account of just not having as good of stats on their Pokémon (obviously, stats are not the sole, or even the main, deciding factor of a match, but I'm creating a scenario in which all other factors are equal and put aside).
In my opinion, player B did cheat; he violated the rules of the tournament. If he instead created the same team using the aid of RNG abuse, in my opinion, he would NOT have cheated. There is nothing in the rules of the tournament about RNG abuse, and to be honest, there really isn't any sensible clause that they could put in the rules regarding this. The worst they could do is ban Pokémon whose capture dates are illegit (from before the game's release date or after the date of the tournament), but I don't see them doing that.
Of course, not everyone plays in official Nintendo tournaments, so my scenario is not always valid. Long story short: If you break the rules of the tournament/match that you are participating in, you have cheated. If you have not done so, you have not cheated. For that matter, should RNG'd Pokémon be banned from tournaments? I think not, since nothing has directly manipulated an RNG'd Pokémon other than the game, the system (i.e. DS date/time), and human action (i.e. timing, Journal flips), all of which are components of standard gameplay.
In that case, you're correct, because the rules of the tournament expressly forbid the use of AR devices (although the detection of well-made hacks and the question of why the AR devices should be banned if RNG is allowed are separate issues).
However, in general, e.g. Wifi battling and the like, the issue is not so clear cut because you don't have an authoritarian figure arbitrarily defining rules (including arbitrary choices about legal pokemon; Smogon does this better by actually testing their banlists).
Is it not normally assumed in competitive battle that IVs should not be the deciding factor of the battle in any case; it should only be prediction/team building?
However, in general, e.g. Wifi battling and the like, the issue is not so clear cut because you don't have an authoritarian figure arbitrarily defining rules (including arbitrary choices about legal pokemon; Smogon does this better by actually testing their banlists).
Is it not normally assumed in competitive battle that IVs should not be the deciding factor of the battle in any case; it should only be prediction/team building?
Thoughts on RNG, "cheating"
I think this is one of the most interesting discussions on Pokemon I've ever read...and I think I agree largely with Ascalon and perhaps Honch King.
DrLunatic's "Casual" and "Competitive": this is largely a difference between people who say "Anything that can be done, should be done" and those who think differently (for whatever reason).
While the aforementioned interview snippet (thanks for posting the original review, Naxte) clearly indicates that competitive play is intended by GameFreak, I don't think this was always the case. Back in the RBY days, I don't think they were putting that much thought into species and type balance as they do now - e.g., Venusaur's uselessness vs. other starters, the absence of the Dark and Steel types, and so forth. They clearly do now - the intricate balance between the Sinnoh starters (their vulnerability trifecta almost evens out / reverses once the three hit their third evolutions!) is a testament to this.
There is an interesting book called "The Art of Intrusion: The Real Stories Behind the Exploits of Hackers, Intruders and Deceivers" by Kevin Mitnick. Kevin Mitnick went to jail for "hacking" in to computer systems.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Intrusion...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251480390&sr=8-3
I've read it, and it is a great read - VERY enjoyable. Most of the stories behind the people in this book are about people who take the former view of "cheating" - that is, if it's possible, it should be allowed.
The first story regards a couple of programmers hacking a casino. They found a computerized blackjack game. They bought a copy of the game for themselves. They tore it apart and analyzed the EEPROMs. Then, they decoded the random number generator (which had a flaw that kept it from being completely random) and designed a pocket-sized device that would allow them to predict which cards were coming up. They took this device into the casinos and won thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of dollars. Of course, when one of them gets caught with the device (by being somewhat foolish about how / when / how often he uses it), they stop using it altogether.
Clearly, this COULD happen, but it was never intended to be allowed, and any casino would throw you out for it. The fact that Nintendo doesn't do this for competitive play in its tournaments is probably because there's relatively little money involved. Is this sort of thing "cheating?" Is it "wrong" because they are "stealing" money from a casino? Surely, if the casinos wanted you not to do this, they would be more diligent and fix the RNGs on their electronic machines, wouldn't they - if that's what they really intended? Weren't these guys just "powergaming?"
It's interesting to note (at least, from that story) that it IS possible to create a truly random number with a computer, but that hardware / software specifically designed for the process seems to be required. The Nintendo DS is a pretty simple machine, and might simply not be capable of producing a "truly" random number each time one is required in the Pokemon games. So it may be completely possible that GameFreak wants the number to be random and just can't make it so. Of course, on the flip side (pun intended), why do they have the coin flip Poketch game that affects the RNG?
Really, I do think that it's somewhat silly to, on one hand, allow manipulation of the RNG as "legal" and then to disallow something like Double Team or freezing an entire team in competitive play. GameFreak certainly allows those things to happen - and even provides counters to evasiveness in terms of abilities / moves / items. So why make them "illegal" but allow RNG manipulation? Some might argue that those rules make competitive play more fun, but who's to say that others find competitive play more fun without RNG manipulation?
I also see very little difference between AR/Gamesharking and RNG manipulation. It's coming down to splitting hairs at that point, because it's true - RNG manipulation requires outside devices just as much as AR/Gamesharking. The fact that it's not actually connected to the Nintendo DS itself and changing bytes in the game is immaterial - it's still allowing you to change bytes in the game. It's the difference between using a manual lock-pick to pick a lock and using a drill bit to just force it open...either way, you're not using the key that was made for it, regardless of whether manually moving tumblers with a pick requires more "skill" to figure out. The fact is that the door is locked - if GameFreak REALLY wanted to make RNG manipulation an integral part of competitive play, they'd just give you the key, and provide a method for specifying particular species / EVs / IVs / moves a la Shoddy.
It's a completely arbitrary standard, really, which is fine - as long as it's acknowledged as such. "Cheating," therefore, is also arbitrary, and is based on whatever rules-assumption one operates with. If anything, it would be interesting to make a few sets of meta-rules - an "authorial intent" ruleset, and the "designed for competitive fun" ruleset, as two different approaches to the game, and let people play as they would.
There are loads of other ways to look at Pokemon apart from min/maxing stats...exploration, collection, or the battle-tower-competition that puts a whole new twist on movesets and whatnot. People should be allowed to play and compete with the rules that are fun for them. If some people don't find RNG manipulation fun, it seems rather callous to simply say: "Then you should never battle competitively, or just use Shoddy." Maybe they should just have their own set of tournament rules...although how one would enforce it would be tough; would need to operate on the honor system in some regard. But that's a whole different discussion.
I think this is one of the most interesting discussions on Pokemon I've ever read...and I think I agree largely with Ascalon and perhaps Honch King.
DrLunatic's "Casual" and "Competitive": this is largely a difference between people who say "Anything that can be done, should be done" and those who think differently (for whatever reason).
While the aforementioned interview snippet (thanks for posting the original review, Naxte) clearly indicates that competitive play is intended by GameFreak, I don't think this was always the case. Back in the RBY days, I don't think they were putting that much thought into species and type balance as they do now - e.g., Venusaur's uselessness vs. other starters, the absence of the Dark and Steel types, and so forth. They clearly do now - the intricate balance between the Sinnoh starters (their vulnerability trifecta almost evens out / reverses once the three hit their third evolutions!) is a testament to this.
There is an interesting book called "The Art of Intrusion: The Real Stories Behind the Exploits of Hackers, Intruders and Deceivers" by Kevin Mitnick. Kevin Mitnick went to jail for "hacking" in to computer systems.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Intrusion...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251480390&sr=8-3
I've read it, and it is a great read - VERY enjoyable. Most of the stories behind the people in this book are about people who take the former view of "cheating" - that is, if it's possible, it should be allowed.
The first story regards a couple of programmers hacking a casino. They found a computerized blackjack game. They bought a copy of the game for themselves. They tore it apart and analyzed the EEPROMs. Then, they decoded the random number generator (which had a flaw that kept it from being completely random) and designed a pocket-sized device that would allow them to predict which cards were coming up. They took this device into the casinos and won thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of dollars. Of course, when one of them gets caught with the device (by being somewhat foolish about how / when / how often he uses it), they stop using it altogether.
Clearly, this COULD happen, but it was never intended to be allowed, and any casino would throw you out for it. The fact that Nintendo doesn't do this for competitive play in its tournaments is probably because there's relatively little money involved. Is this sort of thing "cheating?" Is it "wrong" because they are "stealing" money from a casino? Surely, if the casinos wanted you not to do this, they would be more diligent and fix the RNGs on their electronic machines, wouldn't they - if that's what they really intended? Weren't these guys just "powergaming?"
It's interesting to note (at least, from that story) that it IS possible to create a truly random number with a computer, but that hardware / software specifically designed for the process seems to be required. The Nintendo DS is a pretty simple machine, and might simply not be capable of producing a "truly" random number each time one is required in the Pokemon games. So it may be completely possible that GameFreak wants the number to be random and just can't make it so. Of course, on the flip side (pun intended), why do they have the coin flip Poketch game that affects the RNG?
Really, I do think that it's somewhat silly to, on one hand, allow manipulation of the RNG as "legal" and then to disallow something like Double Team or freezing an entire team in competitive play. GameFreak certainly allows those things to happen - and even provides counters to evasiveness in terms of abilities / moves / items. So why make them "illegal" but allow RNG manipulation? Some might argue that those rules make competitive play more fun, but who's to say that others find competitive play more fun without RNG manipulation?
I also see very little difference between AR/Gamesharking and RNG manipulation. It's coming down to splitting hairs at that point, because it's true - RNG manipulation requires outside devices just as much as AR/Gamesharking. The fact that it's not actually connected to the Nintendo DS itself and changing bytes in the game is immaterial - it's still allowing you to change bytes in the game. It's the difference between using a manual lock-pick to pick a lock and using a drill bit to just force it open...either way, you're not using the key that was made for it, regardless of whether manually moving tumblers with a pick requires more "skill" to figure out. The fact is that the door is locked - if GameFreak REALLY wanted to make RNG manipulation an integral part of competitive play, they'd just give you the key, and provide a method for specifying particular species / EVs / IVs / moves a la Shoddy.
It's a completely arbitrary standard, really, which is fine - as long as it's acknowledged as such. "Cheating," therefore, is also arbitrary, and is based on whatever rules-assumption one operates with. If anything, it would be interesting to make a few sets of meta-rules - an "authorial intent" ruleset, and the "designed for competitive fun" ruleset, as two different approaches to the game, and let people play as they would.
There are loads of other ways to look at Pokemon apart from min/maxing stats...exploration, collection, or the battle-tower-competition that puts a whole new twist on movesets and whatnot. People should be allowed to play and compete with the rules that are fun for them. If some people don't find RNG manipulation fun, it seems rather callous to simply say: "Then you should never battle competitively, or just use Shoddy." Maybe they should just have their own set of tournament rules...although how one would enforce it would be tough; would need to operate on the honor system in some regard. But that's a whole different discussion.
I was about to post something but then fully read the post above me and it summed up all of my arguments and points :O
What an amazing first post!
What an amazing first post!
People claim that RNG abusing is the same as using action replay/gameshark because they both use external devices. This is of no relevance, as the AR/gameshark uses external devices to directly modify the game and its coding, while RNG abuse just uses an external device as a guide. Would you say that, if you were coming to a new town, you modified the new town to look like a town you knew, would that be fair? No, it would be self-centered and cheating. But, if you used an external device that didn't modify the town and the way other people seed it, (in this case a map) would you call that "cheating" NO, you wouldn't. Because of that, I consider AR/gameshark "cheating", and RNG abuse "not cheating".
Edit: Completing my analogy, figuring out the layout of the town through trial and err (Which would involve getting lost, etc.), would be the "normal" "ok" method. Would I be cheating if I used the map?
In one sentence:
AR/gameshark use an external device to directly modify the game, while RNG abuse doesn't modify I it. When using RNG abuse, you're modifying it, as gamefreak intended (normal gameplay).
Also, do people really need to differentiate between cheating and not cheating? I haven't a clue why anyone would care.
Edit: Completing my analogy, figuring out the layout of the town through trial and err (Which would involve getting lost, etc.), would be the "normal" "ok" method. Would I be cheating if I used the map?
In one sentence:
AR/gameshark use an external device to directly modify the game, while RNG abuse doesn't modify I it. When using RNG abuse, you're modifying it, as gamefreak intended (normal gameplay).
Also, do people really need to differentiate between cheating and not cheating? I haven't a clue why anyone would care.
Again, like most posts in this thread, you're making analogies without actually showing how they're comparable. Your analogy doesn't work in this context, imaginative though it may be. It's not at all related to the issue at hand; some kind of magical town-reshaping device instead of a map is substantially and qualitatively different to this context; for instance, in your example, reshaping the town to suit you is achieving something that noone else could. (Perhaps analagous to hacking 'illegal' stats or movesets?). Furthermore, if everyone had access to the same outcomes, the town-reshaper would become much less useful (since everyone would be reshaping the town as they required. Which would be awesome).
As explained before in this thread, "As Gamefreak Intended" is devoid of real meaning; it's typically just a throwaway phrase that people use to justify their arbitrary a priori decisions about where they think the 'cheating' line should be drawn.
Nothing can be said of GameFreak's intentions (outside of officially sanctioned events, which is a separate issue because rules are specified there and so cheating is easily defined as breach of those rules), without them specifically releasing a press statement saying so. In reality, they probably intended nothing other than having a fun game that people would buy so they could make profits.
The question typically comes up after someone is defeated by a player in a Wifi battle (or otherwise) by someone who uses a method that they don't want (or can't) use themselves, and then they appeal to an audience to see if their beliefs are justified.
In it's most simple terms, cheating is breach of established rules in a game or competition. The -real- question of this thread, I think, is whether RNG-abuse, AR-use, or whatever are implicitly against the rules in Wifi, and only by explicit exception can they be used, or the other way round.
As far as I'm aware, there is nothing illegal about the use of calculators to aid you in card-counting, for instance, even sophisticated computerised ones that count so well it predicts individual cards. However, most casinos reserve the right to remove you from their premises on any basis they choose, and so if they can identify card counters they tend to have them escorted out (and there are many stories about violent bouncers in the process) because otherwise they'll just lose all their money.
I think the only way you can make something truly random is using quantum mechanical effects, like Nyquist or Shot Noise thermometers (which measure randomised fluctuations in the current through a short-circuited resistor due to the thermal motion of the electrons within it) or some kind of scatter detector with some radioactive material in it. At room temperature, these devices are extremely difficult to use well (the thermal ones get flooded out by just how much heat there is in the resistor, they can't detect single events) and the radioactive one is obviously dangerous and unfeasible.
The banning of certain moves (or pokemon) to create a metagame is on a different basis to the reason people usually consider RNG/AR 'cheating'. Banning overly powerful pokemon and moves like Double Team is to keep the game 'balanced' in the sense that you don't have one pokemon or strategy that is clearly so much more powerful that it forces a disproportionate amount of players to use it, making the metagame stale.
Those bannings are to balance the game in terms of choices you can make.
On the other hand, RNG/AR are usually banned (or called to be) because they create a functional unbalance; one player just has outright better stats than the other.
Exactly. As I said, what this thread is really asking is what the implicit rules are for competitive battling.
I stand corrected.
And again I stand corrected, though, admittadly, they did intend for us play the game, which is what I said. I would like to see you try to argue against that.
Yes. My (rhetorical) question was more or less directed at those people, who want the people with more time on their hands, as opposed to the one with more skill (and, inevitably, hax) to win. I more or less wanted to state that, as a competitive community, they're all ends to a mean (in this case, competitive play), and we shouldn't trouble ourselves with it.
I myself don't consider it cheating. I feel that the RNG reporter doesn't count as an "external" device because it doesn't create the Pokemon persay like AR or Pokesav. You still have to go through the hard work. It's basically extracted game data, and pretty much everything we know about the game comes from peering directly into the game. Be it Pokemon data, EVs, IVs, etc, foreknowledge of all that stuff is basically extracted game data.
But you know what? I'm so sick of all of this hacking and debate and shit going around so I just play Shoddy. Everything you could possibly want is there so I just play on Wi-Fi for tournaments.
But you know what? I'm so sick of all of this hacking and debate and shit going around so I just play Shoddy. Everything you could possibly want is there so I just play on Wi-Fi for tournaments.
Yes, hence calling the random "true."
But there are ways to make a random-number-generator indecipherable to its users, which makes it seem much more random. The casino machines were doing something along the lines of using one RNG to provide the seed for a second RNG, or something along those lines.
And yes - RNG manipulations being "banned" are because of the functional imbalance...this theoretically makes the metagame more fun because most people arguably would want to play the game instead of endlessly fiddle with a RNG.
And I also wholeheartedly agree that GameFreak probably doesn't have a lot higher aims than making "a fun game that people will buy." The whole splitting of a game between two versions has, agruably, been a gimmicky ploy clearly designed to get people to buy their game twice. Pokemon is a cash cow, and I don't get the idea that they really care all that much about the fine details of RNG exploitation, as long as it doesn't stop people from buying.
But there are ways to make a random-number-generator indecipherable to its users, which makes it seem much more random. The casino machines were doing something along the lines of using one RNG to provide the seed for a second RNG, or something along those lines.
And yes - RNG manipulations being "banned" are because of the functional imbalance...this theoretically makes the metagame more fun because most people arguably would want to play the game instead of endlessly fiddle with a RNG.
And I also wholeheartedly agree that GameFreak probably doesn't have a lot higher aims than making "a fun game that people will buy." The whole splitting of a game between two versions has, agruably, been a gimmicky ploy clearly designed to get people to buy their game twice. Pokemon is a cash cow, and I don't get the idea that they really care all that much about the fine details of RNG exploitation, as long as it doesn't stop people from buying.
I still raise the following question.
Why is repeatedly resetting until you happen to hit the right seed more acceptable than having the RNG reporter tell you when that seed will occur? Both are forms of RNG manipulation, and both will yield exactly identical results. One just takes more time.
On a different note, this does bring up an interesting idea, though. If one has an AR, instead of making "legal hacks", why not just set the RNG seed to the desired value? In principle, the Pokemon should have nothing illegal detectable about it, as it was generated by the game's PRNG perfectly well. Or is that the standard method of making "legal hacks"? Even in this case, though, it can be distinguished from using the RNG reporter. At no point while using the RNG reporter method does the game do something that its coding does not normally allow, while in this case, the game's RNG would make an impossible transition.
Why is repeatedly resetting until you happen to hit the right seed more acceptable than having the RNG reporter tell you when that seed will occur? Both are forms of RNG manipulation, and both will yield exactly identical results. One just takes more time.
On a different note, this does bring up an interesting idea, though. If one has an AR, instead of making "legal hacks", why not just set the RNG seed to the desired value? In principle, the Pokemon should have nothing illegal detectable about it, as it was generated by the game's PRNG perfectly well. Or is that the standard method of making "legal hacks"? Even in this case, though, it can be distinguished from using the RNG reporter. At no point while using the RNG reporter method does the game do something that its coding does not normally allow, while in this case, the game's RNG would make an impossible transition.
- Status