Replay Last Turn Button (If both players agree) To get rid of hax

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26
Oh boy, I love this kind of stuff. Maybe I'll learn a few things. :3

Zarel's post
Why it's bad to mess with probability in turn-based games
(This is basically just a summary of my arguments on Battle for Wesnoth forums over the same thing)

In games with luck, it's common for users to complain about situations where they have bad luck, and it's also common for users to suggest ways to compensate for bad luck by screwing with the RNG to "prevent" streaks of bad luck. This is generally a horrible idea.

1. The first problem is that probability is no longer constant. Instead of Hydro Pump being 80% accurate, its accuracy now depends on how good your luck was up until that point. Instead of thinking "I'll win unless he crits, so I have a 94% chance of winning", you now have to think "He hasn't critted in a while... should I be worried?"

I once compared the hit probability calculation for one proposed "luck compensation" system in Wesnoth. It was something like:

Let D be a unit's terrain defense, let K() be the karma function, and let H[n] be a unit's previous hits.
In the old system, the unit's accuracy (barring marksman/magical) would be:
1-D
In the new system, the unit's accuracy would be:
1-D+K(H[-1])+K(H[-2])+K(H[-3])+K(H[-4])+...

You shouldn't have to spend an hour doing calculus to figure out Hydro Pump's accuracy.

2. The second problem is that luck compensation doesn't deal with why hax is a problem in the first place.

Hax is localized extremal rolls, but luck compensation systems only compensate for global extremal rolls, which aren't ever a problem. Problematic situations are things like: Dugtrio misses Stone Edge and Volc OHKOs with Bug Buzz. A luck compensation that would have made the second Stone Edge hit is pointless since Dugtrio's already dead before the second Stone Edge. If this sort of thing happens enough times in one game, we complain about it.

Hax isn't having bad rolls on average. Everyone has average rolls on average, that's just the way luck works. Hax is having bad rolls when it matters and good rolls when it doesn't, and no luck compensation system can account for that.

3. The third problem is that luck compensation comes with its own metagame. A good analogy is poker. In poker, the deck is sort of like a luck compensator: each time an ace comes out, the probability of getting an ace goes down, until there are no more aces. Players who want to take advantage of that are called card counters, and card counting is generally considered a bad thing for the game, since it replaces strategy with a mathematical formula.

Online games have an even worse problem: They're played on a computer, and computers also happen to be good at using mathematical formulas. A lot of online poker systems actually remove the luck compensator by removing the idea of a deck, to prevent people from using card counting programs to gain an advantage.

And you want to add a luck compensator?

4. The fourth problem is that luck compensation actually makes luck a worse problem. Remember when I said: "Instead of Hydro Pump being 80% accurate, its accuracy now depends on how good your luck was up until that point"? Think about that for a moment: Now your luck affects your luck. That's more luck, not less.
I hope this isn't bad, but I LIKE the sound of that. In fact, it's the result I'd be hoping for. In my world, I'd like if the following situations arrose:
"Oh, I missed. Next one will hit for sure."
"Uh oh, he used Scald. Next one will probably burn."
"Two flinches in a row. My next move will get through."
As I said, I prefer to lean to the side of determinism. This way, your opponent is the primary unpredictable factor. In other words, making more predictable elements allows for strategy instead of gambling. (Though Pokemon isn't that unpredictable.)
The other day a friend sat me down to play dominoes with his new girlfriend (who I dislike.) It took me a few minutes to understand the rules through her accent, but after a while I got the idea of things. After the first confusing round, we started playing a sort of handicap mode for teaching purposes with hands shown up so she could point out possible moves. I started to realize that as things were, I could see the opponent's options as well as mine, much like in chess. No longer was I blindly applying pieces, but also taking into account whether I left openings for the other players, or just straight up blocking them when I had no better moves.

As for the calculation, that's why we have computers. When I do pen and paper Rps, every value is single digit (double for really strong stuff), and all calculations are simple arithmetic. When I have something doing the job for me, (and quickly at that) I have no problem letting there be a bit of convolution.
Damage Formula = (((((((Level × 2 ÷ 5) + 2) × BasePower × [Sp]Atk ÷ 50) ÷ [Sp]Def) × Mod1) + 2) ×
CH × Mod2 × R ÷ 100) × STAB × Type1 × Type2 × Mod3)
Apparantly it's nothing new to pokemon, and I'd say the damage a move does is about as important as whether it even hits at all.

On your second point though, I've got nothing. Pokemon is what is. If I were planning it from the ground up, I'd lower the damage of criticals to 1.5x, and change misses to grazes of 0.5x so as to minimize the rewards and punishments of luck. Not my game though, so the most I can do is complain.

I once sat down and planned out a fishing system in such a way that every one of the 100 fish that was spawned was kept track of until the end of the day so that while they were spawned randomly they would still exist where you found them if you returned to the areas. Every type of fish had a maximum number of times they can spawn depending on rarity. In this way, you still had the experience of looking for fish, and trying to find that really difficult one, but it was impossible to check every areas and just not find it due to sheer rarity. Of course one could make the fish less rare, but then it is easier to find. My point? I like to find ways around randomness when the player's success or enjoyment ride on it. I can't say luck is bad, because it's actually a hugely enjoyable factor in many games. It's just that I feel luck is a "casual" element, and the more competitive something gets the less I like it. The luck in board games allows for sudden, hilarious upsets, which is great when playing with my little sisters or goofing off with friends, but not so much when things get serious.

I think I argued for the sake of arguing. Like I said, I just like this stuff. I'd never seriously suggest to change Pokemon's luck system (especially in a simulator) but I spend a good deal of my day theorizing how one thing or another might work differently.
 
#27
I see this making more fights then it will fix

like lets say player 1 got a crit that really mattered

player1: Yess! a crit!!!

player2: can we please use the replay turn button?

Player1: nope, I wanna win

and then player2 will get mad and stall curse and be annoying

there is the problem
 
#28
It's another excuse for people to bitch and moan and talk to me. I wish I could turn the in-battle chat off; I don't want to add another reason for people to rage at me.

At least when hax happens you can just be like, "That's the game, sorry." With this your opponent can target you as an asshole for not replaying the turn. We get enough flaming and poor sportsmanship and "______ user is an asshole" on PS as is - we don't need to give people another reason to bitch.

Also, if something good happened for me, I would not replay the turn. Ever. As such I can't expect other people to do so for me, so I cannot support this idea anyway.
 

tehy

Banned deucer.
#29
I've heard this argument before;my best solution is either the button itself threatening Mute/ban for massive rage and explaining that it's not your right but your opp's generosity.

Or you can only do it every, say, 5 ladder matches, so players would have an excuse, and that would alo prevent a lot of cheap stuff.

I think a good amount of people would let you redo the turn, personally. I might, depending on the circumstances.
 
#30
It's another excuse for people to bitch and moan and talk to me. I wish I could turn the in-battle chat off; I don't want to add another reason for people to rage at me.

At least when hax happens you can just be like, "That's the game, sorry." With this your opponent can target you as an asshole for not replaying the turn. We get enough flaming and poor sportsmanship and "______ user is an asshole" on PS as is - we don't need to give people another reason to bitch.

Also, if something good happened for me, I would not replay the turn. Ever. As such I can't expect other people to do so for me, so I cannot support this idea anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.