Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 20, 2013 3:19:42 GMT -8
The term hax is thrown around a lot when talking about RBY. People often use it as an excuse for losing. I'd like to know what people consider genuine hax.
I think there are two general definitions:
When an event occurs an above average amount of times eg. a pokemon being FPd 5/6 times, missing lovely kiss 4/5 times, doing 6 psychics without getting a spc drop etc.
I think the second definition is when something that has low probability in an individual occurrence like a crit/freeze/FP happens at a very crucial moment in the battle. For example if a paralysed starmie and tauros are both in KO range of each other, and the starmie FPs and loses the battle because of it. The player may claim hax because although the starmie was paralysed for 8 other turns without getting FPd, that was the most crucial turn to get FPd.
I think a player can genuinely claim they were haxed out of the win if they held the statistical advantage for the majority of the battle. For example if you have an electabuzz in on kingler, you have statistical advantage. So if you constantly predict everything they do and attempt tp punish accordingly, you probably have statistical advantage.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lutra on Mar 20, 2013 3:59:18 GMT -8
Whether it happens once, twice, three times or more, probability is probability. I'd say for any probability detrimental to you - the lower the likelihood, the more or worse hax it is.
If the opponent succeeds in something that has a low probability that decreases your chance of success, that is hax for you. It is hax for them if that low probability results in increasing your chance of success.
Low probability would probably mean something less than 50% chance of happening for most people (i.e. in your favour or the opponent's).
The more crucial something is, the more risk you are taking. People have a right to think it's hax if it's a low probability that their failure will come on that turn as opposed to others. I think you should blame your team/pokemon match-ups for the fact it tends to be crucial though - it isn't worse hax because it's more crucial. Their anger with 'hax' in a crucial situation would more be that they just depended on it for success.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Mar 20, 2013 4:08:25 GMT -8
I agree with most of what you said.
I think a lot of the anger comes from the fact that in many cases setting up the scenarios where you have statistical advantage but have a lot to lose if it doesn't go your way is the right thing to do. The person who forced the situation with the advantage has been the better player. It's frustrating when you do all the right things but get screwed by low probability events.
I had a battle today where I completely outplayed my opponent. I predicted basically everything he did, and was a step ahead of him all the time. It was one of my best 'performances' in RBY, yet I lost due to a lot of hax. That's the most frustrating thing, not so much losing specifically, but not getting what you deserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Mar 20, 2013 7:36:48 GMT -8
I had a battle today where I completely outplayed my opponent. I predicted basically everything he did, and was a step ahead of him all the time. It was one of my best 'performances' in RBY, yet I lost due to a lot of hax. That's the most frustrating thing, not so much losing specifically, but not getting what you deserved. One of my best games ended in a coin flip. It ended in a Tauros ditto that I lost. =( Anyway, people can give reasons for their loss all they want, and it could be a good reason or not, but they are really missing the point. RBY is a lot like Poker. There's a lot of predicting involved, but at the end of the day there's a certain element of luck involved which makes it impossible to win every game even against lower skilled opponents. I would go further too and say that it's impossible to have a very high win rate (above say 70-80%), but this generally isn't true since there have never really been enough players who actually played this game well to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by t3h Icy on Mar 20, 2013 7:55:56 GMT -8
Anything that has a 5% chance or less of occuring (with all factors considered like X move(s) across multiple turns, etc) where such an event is extremely disadvantaging for one of the players makes a decent measure point.
Play with expectations of any such thing happening at any time, laugh it off, and go forward. It's RBY. Otherwise, avoid playing in situations where something like that is likely and find an alternative approach, such as Chansey Freeze dittos and Tauros dittos if viably possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Mar 20, 2013 13:41:29 GMT -8
If you're experiencing a lot of (bad) hax, it not not be totally random. For instance, people who switch a ton are opening themselves up to more and more crits and freezes. People who let their team get a ton of paralysis are going to FP more often.
A good player will try to minimize their own chances of getting haxed, and maximize the chances for the foe to be haxed. This involves forcing as many switches as possible, using moves with secondary effects, spreading paralysis, etc. It's about controlling the match.
And I would agree with the comments in this thread, but I would add that there is "hax" in every gen. Critical hits are arguably more game changing in later gens where they are less foreseen. Further, players who bring paralysis (a large component of RBY) into later gens can increase the opportunities to hax the opponent. But that again supports the fact that hax is just probability. For instance, I often use a LOT of paralysis in GSC, which is considered unorthodox and can lead to complaints of "hax." But it isn't random. I chose to make a team that sets me up to potentially hax the opponent It's everywhere in pokemon, in all gens.
We can try to minimize our chances of getting haxed, but at the end of the day it can happen to anyone, and it can ruin games. If you find yourself getting haxed a lot, though, you're probably doing something wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by GGFan on Mar 20, 2013 14:38:25 GMT -8
I had a battle today where I completely outplayed my opponent. I predicted basically everything he did, and was a step ahead of him all the time. It was one of my best 'performances' in RBY, yet I lost due to a lot of hax. That's the most frustrating thing, not so much losing specifically, but not getting what you deserved. One of my best games ended in a coin flip. It ended in a Tauros ditto that I lost. =( Anyway, people can give reasons for their loss all they want, and it could be a good reason or not, but they are really missing the point. RBY is a lot like Poker. There's a lot of predicting involved, but at the end of the day there's a certain element of luck involved which makes it impossible to win every game even against lower skilled opponents. I would go further too and say that it's impossible to have a very high win rate (above say 70-80%), but this generally isn't true since there have never really been enough players who actually played this game well to begin with. I'm currently 56-12 in my last 68 games, but I'm one of the greatest ever so it's not a surprise. But of course a scrub like you would say it's impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by lilith on Mar 20, 2013 15:00:06 GMT -8
GGFan confirmed for hacker
|
|
|
|
Post by GGFan on May 24, 2013 20:36:17 GMT -8
84-21 now, including a tournament victory.
Overcoming the odds for 11 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Jul 23, 2013 17:52:29 GMT -8
One of my best games ended in a coin flip. It ended in a Tauros ditto that I lost. =( Anyway, people can give reasons for their loss all they want, and it could be a good reason or not, but they are really missing the point. RBY is a lot like Poker. There's a lot of predicting involved, but at the end of the day there's a certain element of luck involved which makes it impossible to win every game even against lower skilled opponents. I would go further too and say that it's impossible to have a very high win rate (above say 70-80%), but this generally isn't true since there have never really been enough players who actually played this game well to begin with. I'm currently 56-12 in my last 68 games, but I'm one of the greatest ever so it's not a surprise. But of course a scrub like you would say it's impossible. I haven't lost to you in years bro. What do you have to say about that? |
|
|
|
Post by GGFan on Aug 3, 2013 11:00:01 GMT -8
I have never lost to you. Every time I won it was either a 6-0 or a 5-0 because you got three freezes.
TOPIC OVER.
|
|
|
|
Post by LC|Drake on Aug 18, 2013 11:00:38 GMT -8
A good player will try to minimize their own chances of getting haxed, and maximize the chances for the foe to be haxed. This involves forcing as many switches as possible, using moves with secondary effects, spreading paralysis, etc. It's about controlling the match
The other day I had a match that I had a full HP sleeping exeggutor, then snorlax came in. I didnt want to get anyother poke paralized (because BS was obvious), so I decided to stay with exe, waiting to wake up and then, try to sleep lax. What happened? that I resisted a couple of hits (1 normal dmg, then critical hit) and exe woke up in the same turn that lax finished it off. I didnt complain "hax" because I knew that I took the risk of being haxed. |
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Aug 18, 2013 19:07:03 GMT -8
But most people wouldn't call that hax, because it's likely that egg wouldn't get to wake up on lax anyway.
What most people define as hax is when a -50% event occurs, particularly when it has significant implications on the battle.
Also, depending on the situation, leaving a sleeping eggy in on lax is not the smartest play. If they still have a healthy sleeper, it's probably better to switch and risk paralysis. Saccing a sleeping pokemon when they still have a sleeper is almost sacrificing two pokemon when you factor in what on what on your team is going to take the next sleep.
Of course, in your situation they may not have had another sleeper, I'm just saying that as a general rule that wasn't the best play to make.
|
|
