Hey there. I was reading the

"Hax In Pokemon Battles" thread in the Policy Reivew section, and after reading it, I really wanted to reply to it. I don't have PR posting privileges, however, so I was hoping that you could post it for me. I can understand if you don't don't really think that would be proper, though.

Here's what I want to say:

"I'm very opposed to such a formula being used to determine the actual winner of a match. In it's current form, the formula is essentially just calculating the likeliness of a certain player having won a match without hax being involved. However, that's all it is; the likeliness. Even if the formula says its extremely unlikely for a player to have won without it having been hax, it's still possible. Thus, the formula could screw some people out of some wins that were in fact legit and that, in my opinion, is far worse than having to accept the fact that I'll occasionally loose a few matches due to hax. I'd much rather have the RNG cost me a few matches than have Shoddy be telling me my win wasn't a win, just because it was unlikely for me to pull it off.

Next, there's the fact that no matter how much you strive to make this formula objective, it won't be (at least using the criteria it currently is), and will be costing some people some matches, based on an arbitrarily set parameter. What is this parameter? The role of the Prob_Win value in the formula developed for determining whether or not the player should be given the win.

In order for the amount of hax in a match to be used to determine if a player should be given a win or not, you have to pick a value for Prob_Win that below which will resort in the player who won the match not actually being given the win. This cut-off point will end up being arbitrary, and as a result, it's really no better than the hax it's supposed to counteracting. No matter what the value is that is chosen, there will be matches that, if the value had just been a few points higher or lower, could have been awarded to the other player. Thus, who wins the future matches is dependent upon the value that is chosen now; if you're lucky, it could end up winning you those close matches, and if not, you'll loose them.

Thus, assuming I'm understanding the formula correctly and what I'm saying is true, I cannot support such factors being used to determine the winner of a match. However, if there really is a strong movement for such a thing to be implemented, I'd be willing to accept a bit of a compromise, and have it affect the points gained/lost from such a match instead; basically, if the formula turns out a result that it was extremely unlikely for Player A to beat Player B without a very large amount of hax being a factor, than Player A won't gain as many points and Player B won't loose as many than as if the value generated had been lower. Since it's the actual net point gain that matters when attempting to ladder, and not the amount of matches won/loss, I feel that would be a reasonable compromise. Still not sure if I really even like that idea, but it's still definitely better than it determining the actual winner of a match, in my opinion."

Thanks either way.

Click to expand...