Simple facts that you may not know...

[felipe_9595]

So StillStud is the new Smasherx74 ?

 

[Madao]

I obviously didn't know the exact odds for item dropping, otherwise I would've said what it was when I was responding to Kimimaru. Kimimaru asked what causes item drops, and I told him: RNG. That's literally what determines whether the item drops or not. I really don't know what you expect me to say and I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that.

It's obvious Studstill just doesn't know what he's talking about. It's totally fine to say RNG, especially when you don't even know the exact percentage. Knowing him, I thought he'd suggest using the term PRNG, but the fact that he didn't proves he doesn't even know what he is talking about.

So StillStud is the new Smasherx74 ?

LOL! This post made my day .

@ Madao I didn`t bring it up because it has nothing to do with my point, but thanks for "explaining" RNG. The chances of an item being dropped, Kirby losing his power, the tornado location, whether or not a box will explode, what pokemon will fly by or what pokemon will come out, all of these and many more have fixed percentage chances of occurring.
Words and concepts that are not interchangeable but similar and therefore should be avoided:
Random, Random Generated Number, Random Number Generator (formal), Random Number Generator, psuedo-random number, etc etc.
Where the tornado is:
Goofus: "RNG, slobber rawrr"
Gallant: In one of four locations.

Since you love getting technical, I'd argue the percentage is not "fixed" because the RNG is not perfect. Yes let's avoid using terms possibly even used by the creators of the game . Newsflash, a "randomly" generated number determines whether these things happen.

 

[Shears]

PRNG is the correct technical term, RNG is acceptable as well. Simulating dice roll, or coin flip, or whatever is done using RNG/PRNG in computers, having a different statistical probability or different number of outcomes doesn't make any difference. If there are X spawn locations for the tornado and each one has an equal percent chance of appearing as the other one, the game uses PRNG to determine which location happens where the random number is including and between 1 and X such that each integer represents a spawn location. Once the integer is determined the game then spawns a tornado in the location that the programmers mapped to it. The way PRNG works means assuming the seed is unknown, then its effectively RNG and the probability of any integer between 1 and X being selected is the same for every integer within those bounds. For items, or anything where the probability of its appearance is not the same as the other elements available for selection, then ranges of numbers returned by RNG are used (I'm assuming item drop % isn't the same, if I'm wrong assume it to be true for sake of example). For example, lets say there is a 1/8 chance for a heart, 1/4 chance for a tomato, 1/8 chance for star, 1/4 chance for pokeball, and 1/4 chance for bomb then we find the LCD and find that in this example, the RNG selects a number including and between 1 and 8. When the integer is selected it represents an item spawn such that 1=heart, 2=star, 3&4=tomato, 5&6=pokeball, 7&8=bomb. The probability of the items spawning is correct and they are determined by use of RNG.

Not only is RNG used to colloquially explain events in the game that are not defined by user input, it is the precise technical term used to explain and perform these events.

People really should stop saying RNG. Everything has a percent chance of happening; that doesn`t mean a coin flip is the same as a dice roll, nor should you describe 'things that have a chance of happening' as "RNG". It`s intellectually abhorrent.

The chance of something happening is secured by RNG which is the functional means of how these events happen. There is a 1/6 chance a number is face up on a six sided dice. How a computer simulates the roll and picks a number to be face up is by means of RNG where only an integer between 1 and 6 can be selected and the probability of any integer is equal to any other integer that is available for selection.

To say RNG is wrong, or that it doesn't accurately explain what is happening is actually incorrect, the formal and technical explanation is RNG. There is no argument against its use, its like arguing how many protons are in a Hydrogen atom, its a fact, its science, its not available for argument or discussion.

 

[BananaBolts]

Where the tornado is:
Goofus: "RNG, slobber rawrr"
Gallant: In one of four locations.

To expound upon Sir Gallant's point, he should have said, "In one of four locations as selected by a PRNG."

I'm not extremely deep into programming but PRNGs are definitely used on a regular basis in games. Saying, "It's probably because of RNG" is a poor response but it can be further explained. Technically it's correct but it's lacking information.

Edit: What's wrong with the word "tumble"? It simply describes the animation that a character enters for a period of time (until landing or dying). It subsequently makes it impossible to land on your feet unless you use a move or tech roll. I don't see the problem with "tumble". There really isn't any other term more intuitive for the animation, seeing as your character literally tumbles through the air after significant hit stun and it's a visual representation of tumbling through the air. (very similar to tumbling while skydiving)

Edit 2: I mis-attributed the tumble animation in a previous comment. I refer to tumble as an animation AFTER the helpless flight through the air. You can in fact act out of tumble. (at least what I'm referring to)

 

[Studstill]

Shears, I understand how computers determine 'random numbers.'
We aren`t debating what RNG means, I`m sayign that when someone says when will the tornado spawn, or what are the chances of me losing my Kirby power, that saying "RNG dude" is a pretend answer that yields no value. That was/is my beef.
This creeps over into the tumble debate, defining it as "when you are in that animation" for the sentence "Kirby never loses his power on non-tumble causing hits" renders that almost useless strategically unless you are aware of specifically what causes tumble versus not, which at this moment escapes my memory.

 

[Studstill]

Simulating dice roll, or coin flip, or whatever is done using RNG/PRNG in computers, having a different statistical probability or different number of outcomes doesn't make any difference.

Of course not to the process, Shears, I was, I thought obviously, stating that 1/2 or 1/6 or 1/343 are not equal, and to someone asking what determines how something happens: "RNG, dude," falls painfully (to me) short. I have been informed I shouldn`t care so much about useless forum posts, but I detest sprawl.

Not only is RNG used to colloquially explain events in the game that are not defined by user input, it is the precise technical term used to explain and perform this event:
The chance of something happening is secured by RNG which is the functional means of how these events happen. There is a 1/6 chance a number is face up on a six sided dice. How a computer simulates the roll and picks a number to be face up is by means of RNG where only an integer between 1 and 6 can be selected and the probability of any integer is equal to any other integer that is available for selection.To say RNG is wrong, or that it doesn't accurately explain what is happening is actually incorrect, the formal and technical explanation is RNG.

Yes, exactly, my problem isn`t the truth of this explanation of fact, my problem is when this explanation is shortened to 'RNG, dude' and then used as a response to "whatare the chances of dropping an item if I get hit?", where I`d call it lazy, vague, and approaching inaccuracy, rather than colloquial.
Like those people who think the chance of the Earth exploding at any given moment is 50/50 because, well it can either happen or it won`t.

There is no argument against its use, its like arguing how many protons are in a Hydrogen atom, its a fact, its science, its not available for argument or discussion.

I`m not arguing the fact that there isn`t a little man inside the computer with a variable sided die he rolls REALLY FAST.
Yes, this is how RNG works. As a computer analog to 'pick a random number' function that we can somewhat do as humans.
I`m saying this is irrelevant to any strategic analysis.

 

[The Star King]

Shears, I understand how computers determine 'random numbers.'
We aren`t debating what RNG means, I`m sayign that when someone says when will the tornado spawn, or what are the chances of me losing my Kirby power, that saying "RNG dude" is a pretend answer that yields no value. That was/is my beef.
This creeps over into the tumble debate, defining it as "when you are in that animation" for the sentence "Kirby never loses his power on non-tumble causing hits" renders that almost useless strategically unless you are aware of specifically what causes tumble versus not, which at this moment escapes my memory.

Except that wasn't what Kimimaru's question was like

"Speaking of dropping items, does anyone know the logic involved in determining that? Sometimes I pick up an item and it drops on the first hit, and other times I keep it in my hand and take multiple hits before it goes away."

He didn't know that it was random and was asking what the cause is. So yeah, I told him it's RNG, and somehow you objected to that. Your examples are irrelevent, because RNG would not be the answer to those questions. If Kimimaru asked "what are the chances" then your beef would be valid, but this is not the case.

 

[Cobrevolution]

no sk you're wrong because you have rob fanboy disease

 

[caneut]

like, im with you guys when it comes to arguing with stud, i just dont see how you guys put so much EFFORT into it.

god damn reading this is like reading a ****ing book

and you guys still argue with stud about **** like hitboxes and priority, and haven't learned that stud will not, and can not learn.

i am kero

 

[LunarWingCloud]

I think it's pretty funny how literally everyone except DK has a sex kick as their nair.

 

[Studstill]

If Kimimaru asked "what are the chances" then your beef would be valid, but this is not the case.

He didn't know that it was random

"Speaking of dropping items, does anyone know the logic involved in determining [dropping items]?
Sometimes I pick up an item and it drops on the first [9ish percent chance], and other times I keep it in my hand and take multiple [9ish percent chances] before it goes away."

The correct answer to the question is: About 9% chance of dropping the item. More if the item is exhausted (last bit is theory)

The incorrect answer is:

Think it's just RNG, same as Kirby losing copied abilities

Which is my point, your answer says nothing to answer his question correctly, and in fact states that it (and Kirby`s loss chance) are "random"; which can mean any myriad of percent chances instead of simply defining the actual chance. It seems to me he knows it is "random" and would like to more specifically understand the chances then the objected to "RNG". His question is clearly about what odds of it dropping am I dealing with, despite the fact that he used 'logic' colloquially. This is conjecture, sure, Kimi is best to say what he meant.

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

if you play fire emblem 6, you'll understand RNG real fast

 

[caneut]

Earthbounds rng is kewl

 

[The Star King]

I think you are misinterpreting Kimimaru, studdy, but okay

 

[Studstill]

Perhaps, as I said. Lots of pressure to clarify, now, lol.

 

[Kimimaru]

I simply asked what determines items to be dropped. If it's based on RNG, that's a good enough answer for me. Having the actual odds and some other conditions that may influence the RNG would be better, but if we don't have that many details about it yet I'm fine with a simple answer.

 

[Studstill]

The phrase 'influence the RNG' makes no sense to me. The actual odds are what it is.
Maybe I`m being dense, but I don`t really understand what you just said. Either way whatevs, thanks for clearing that up!

 

[Cobrevolution]

example of how to influence the rng:

statement: there's a 12.5% chance that the item container will explode on impact

steps:
1. items on very high
2. all items OFF except maxim tomatoes
3. select hyrule
4. throw 100 spawned containers
5. 100% of these spawned containers will be explosive

rng influenced to 100% from 12.5%

 

[Kahnu]

the spawn rate is still 12.5%
its just that MAXIMUM TOMATOES DONT SPAWN ON HYRULE

 

[Cobrevolution]

so the explosion rate goes from 12.5 to 100

 

[Kahnu]

ehhh not really


its still 12.5%

your treating the outside outcome as the real value

outside outcome = 100%

rng value: 12.5%

 

[Cobrevolution]

so the rng is being "influenced"

 

[Kahnu]

whatever rob

i'm just happy you dont have rob fanboy diasese

 

[Cobrevolution]

my fanboy disease has an rng value of 67.5

 

[Kahnu]

if you go to apex that RNG value increases from 67.5 to 100%

 

[Cobrevolution]

fact: maxim tomatoes do not spawn at apex

 

[thegreginator]

Can't RNG be manipulated by inputs? I remember seeing Smash TASes where the TASer specifically manipulates a certain item, Pokemon, etc.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

fact: maxim tomatoes do not spawn at apex

Neither does a certain smash game but we don't mention that in this forum

 

[Kimimaru]

The phrase 'influence the RNG' makes no sense to me. The actual odds are what it is.
Maybe I`m being dense, but I don`t really understand what you just said. Either way whatevs, thanks for clearing that up!

No problem! What I mean is it's possible the odds can change based on certain conditions. These can include player percentage, number of current items on the screen, or more. In my experience, I've encountered explosive barrels on Dreamland more often when I have a higher percentage than when I have a lower percentage. We're just not 100% sure if the percentages truly are fixed or not.

 

[firo]

A bit about RNG if anyone is curious, since I'm seeing some misunderstandings:

When people talk about "randomness" with computers, they really mean "pseudo-random," that is - computers are deterministic machines, you can always map an input to some output, so things really aren't random. However, the goal of an RNG is to make it appear that each number has an equal probability of appearing. This is not an easy thing to do quickly and is always an open area of research.

There are many techniques that programmers use to make it appear that a computer is choosing a random number. A common and fairly simple way to do this is to have a complex polynomial, and each time the computer needs to get a random number, it substitutes the previous number in the polynomial to get a new one. Then, if you need a number from 1 -10, for example, the computer will mod it to get a value in that range. This method has been replaced (especially if random numbers are needed for cryptography) by better and less predictable RNG.

In the situation above, a question is - how do we get the first number to substitute into the equation? The answer is what is called a "seed" value. If the seed is always the same, then we'd get the same numbers every time, which is bad. Our computers will usually do this by looking at the current time (in milliseconds or less) and using that as a seed - this guarantees that every time you ask for a RNG, it'll have different values.

N64, and other consoles, have no internal clock, so all the calculation it does to get its random values must exist within the game and be independent of time. I don't know how smash's RNG works, but often it is a combination of a lot of values (that are changing often) in the game that are added together. This is why when you watch TAS videos they can manipulate the RNG - if they know what values the game uses as inputs to the random number generator, they will know the result of the RNG ahead of time. Since this most likely depends heavily on a frame-by-frame analysis, it's unlikely that we'd be able to influence the RNG unassisted. It all depends, however, on how biased the RNG is - if the odds of something happening is (1/10), but the RNG more likely produces 1 than any other number, it will skew the actual odds.

There's a lot more math and stuff involved that is interesting to me but not really relevant for the sake of the discussion but I'm happy to discuss it more

 

[Shears]

Nintendo is so stupid. They should have just put a Geiger counter on it and read values from the nuclear radioactive decay of some uranium and then we wouldn't need to explain PRNG to noobs.

 

[Beesy]

I rebuilt my 64 with a precise thermometer to replace the RNG. We could use it at apex if anyone hates RNG or something...haven't really read this whole thread. Probably should have used a geiger counter though...hindsight's always 20/20.

 

[Annex]

This is headed back to metaphysical uncertainty and high-school philosophy soon isn't it

 

[Studstill]

Interesting Kimi, although I`ve had the same percentage based suspicions about frame lag on moves/shields, but I believe that`s all in my/your head, at least there is no data to back that up in the least.
So yeah, then, unless you are aware of/able to manipulate the seed values, then it`s just 1/12 or so.

 

[Cobrevolution]

percentage has nothing to do with shields, hitboxes, priority, or moves in general.

 

[Studstill]

So in conclusion, I`m totally right and the correct answer is "1/12 or so, and unassisted influencing of the seed values for the RNG is not possible, and shouldn`t even have been mentioned. The 'logic' is equivalent then, to 1/12 chance."

 

[Madao]

"Speaking of dropping items, does anyone know the logic involved in determining [dropping items]?
Sometimes I pick up an item and it drops on the first [9ish percent chance], and other times I keep it in my hand and take multiple [9ish percent chances] before it goes away."

The correct answer to the question is: About 9% chance of dropping the item. More if the item is exhausted (last bit is theory)

The incorrect answer is:


Which is my point, your answer says nothing to answer his question correctly, and in fact states that it (and Kirby`s loss chance) are "random"; which can mean any myriad of percent chances instead of simply defining the actual chance. It seems to me he knows it is "random" and would like to more specifically understand the chances then the objected to "RNG". His question is clearly about what odds of it dropping am I dealing with, despite the fact that he used 'logic' colloquially. This is conjecture, sure, Kimi is best to say what he meant.

Lets not try and make up numbers and call it correct...

Think about it. Before I figured out the Z cancelling frame window, people claimed it was 20 frames. It's better to just admit you don't know something, than to pull numbers out of a hat.

So in conclusion, I`m totally right and the correct answer is "1/12 or so, and unassisted influencing of the seed values for the RNG is not possible, and shouldn`t even have been mentioned. The 'logic' is equivalent then, to 1/12 chance."

Mind = blown. RNG isn't perfect, so it's not exact!

That whole "I'm always right" attitude is just wrong.. Anyway, I think you need to go back and re-read other people's posts.

 

[Studstill]

In the most polite way possible: No, I don`t. You need to work on your reading comprehension and stop bothering me with your inane replies. I`m tired of humoring fools with my time and posts, I am usually right, as I tend to have discipline about talking out of my ass. At multiple times I stated that the item drop rate is probably the same as the Kirby power loss rate, which I stated I had trouble remembering if it was (to quote Sakurai) "1/12 or 1/11" a difference of 9.1 percent and 8.3 percent, which I feel was accurately summed up either way, for all non-negligible purposes, at "about 9%".
So again, not sure where you are even accusing me of being wrong at, or over-stating anything? Get it together, it`s annoying to be called stupid or dense by someone who can`t even follow the basic conversation points. The only information present in this series of posts besides what I`ve stated is that whatever "non-tumble causing hits" will not cause Kirby power loss and thus probably not item/bomb drop either.
Again, the next person that tries to insinuate or flat out accuses me of being wrong while failing to grasp basic concepts will get the same treatment. I`ve tried being nice, I`m just trying to share knowledge about this game, not get called stupid by people not paying attention.

 

[caneut]

If you guys don't agree with my FACTS about a video game then you will be sorry.

 

[Madao]

In the most polite way possible: No, I don`t. You need to work on your reading comprehension and stop bothering me with your inane replies. I`m tired of humoring fools with my time and posts, I am usually right, as I tend to have discipline about talking out of my ***.

Lol ok. Keep thinking you're usually right..

The original question was

Speaking of dropping items, does anyone know the logic involved in determining that? Sometimes I pick up an item and it drops on the first hit, and other times I keep it in my hand and take multiple hits before it goes away.

Here's the reply

Think it's just RNG, same as Kirby losing copied abilities

Star King's answer is good enough and even Kimimaru was satisfied with the answer. Yet you started arguing for no good reason.

Reading comprehension not even once .

At multiple times I stated that the item drop rate is probably the same as the Kirby power loss rate, which I stated I had trouble remembering if it was (to quote Sakurai) "1/12 or 1/11" a difference of 9.1 percent and 8.3 percent, which I feel was accurately summed up either way, for all non-negligible purposes, at "about 9%".
So again, not sure where you are even accusing me of being wrong at, or over-stating anything?

Quite ironic you consider "RNG dude" a lazy response, yet you can't bother to check the drop rate, so you make some estimation, based on your foggy memory lol.

Get it together, it`s annoying to be called stupid or dense by someone who can`t even follow the basic conversation points. The only information present in this series of posts besides what I`ve stated is that whatever "non-tumble causing hits" will not cause Kirby power loss and thus probably not item/bomb drop either.

This never happened . Nice job making false claims about me.

Again, the next person that tries to insinuate or flat out accuses me of being wrong while failing to grasp basic concepts will get the same treatment. I`ve tried being nice, I`m just trying to share knowledge about this game, not get called stupid by people not paying attention.

You're the one who failed to grasp basic concepts. Just try reading the original question and answer again...

You tried being nice? Totally bogus. You insulted the whole community by saying nobody did anything in 15 years for this game, yet you got offended when I cracked a joke about how I'd be more motivated if you actually did something. The irony is, you had the nerve to call me sensitive in a previous argument. You fail to see your own flaws, and that is a big problem.