Spyda
Smash Journeyman
I thought it was random.... because I have otten 3 goldeens before in the same match and my roommate got one too...
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Then who was controlling which slot as what character?It was Brawl. CDs, trophies, and stickers don't spawn in training.
Those aren't exactly rare, you know...I thought it was random.... because I have otten 3 goldeens before in the same match and my roommate got one too...
You kidding me? That's a tremendous contribution! Mew is one of the 4 pokemon I never thought could be spawned in anything but group modes. The position sounds about right for Mew, albeit odd that it wasn't on the base platform. If you could just provide proof this would be a wonderful addition. But, since you say you're only "pretty sure", you probably did snapshot it, but it's okay. Thanks for the info!Hm, well, this is interesting. I never really thought that Pokéballs had a pattern.
Well, this isn't contributing much, but I'm pretty sure I got a Mew once on the middle-left platform in Battlefield. Well, I didn't, but a computer did in Endless Brawl. (Not an alloy)
Look buddy, if you read enough you would find that I said one idea over and over: "I'm abstaining from drawing conclusions until I do at least 50 tests!"You're basing this all off of 5 or 6 tests? Really?
Statistical accuracy, anyone? Please?
With the number of "invisible conditions" listed you'd need orders of magnitute more tests; also, things like "here's a rule but oh whoops it doesn't work all the time" (in regards to when Manaphy spawns) is totally bogus.
If I can throw the logic card in there, there's no real reason to have some sort of convoluted algorithm for what is essentially going to be viewed as an arbitrary event.
Great to hear that you've got some idea of accuracy in mind, but it still begs the question: Why post about it? Ok, maybe you've got an idea that what you're posting could be completely off-the-wall, but reading through these posts you've got some people taking these as pseudo-legitimate. Even "theories" should have some basis, not just "I saw X happen after Y ergo Y leads to X."Look buddy, if you read enough you would find that I said one idea over and over: "I'm abstaining from drawing conclusions until I do at least 50 tests!"
Honestly, I don't mind you saying that if they were conclusions or even assumptions, but I've stated over and over that they are theories. Please do your homework before you accuse me of inaccurate publication.
About the algorithm thing: I totally agree that there was no reason for the programmers to set the frequencies of pokemon outside of "this is rare". However, I'm not researching what the programmers programmed. Rather, I'm studying how the pokemon ID generator works. theres no such thing as an absolutely random generation for computers, and it is even less random when they give the pokemon their rareness. So to sum it up, this is about the program, not the programmer.
I'm sorry it took so long to reply. I had just finish typing up the orginal reply and got booted from the network and I didn't say it. Ugh. Also, I'm sorry, but I have to do this:Great to hear that you've got some idea of accuracy in mind, but it still begs the question: Why post about it? Ok, maybe you've got an idea that what you're posting could be completely off-the-wall, but reading through these posts you've got some people taking these as pseudo-legitimate. Even "theories" should have some basis, not just "I saw X happen after Y ergo Y leads to X."
It might be different, as would my tone, if you took the approach, "I think condition A causes Pokemon X to appear," in which case that's a single testable statement upon which you could base testing. Right now, though, what you've got going on is a variety of conditions with little rhyme or reason in terms of organization - in short you're testing too much at once and drawing potentially flimsy ideas from highly insufficient data.
What I might suggest is selecting a narrow group of conditions - maybe you think a certain thing causes Mew to appear. Test that. If you can prove, statistically, that your assumption was valid, then continue testing a new condition. However, if your tests disprove the "Mew condition," then you can by-and-large toss your overarching "theory," by virtue of disproving one of its components.
P.S. Random number generators are mathematical algorithms that usually use some sort of hardware variable (like a system clock) to get a base number to work through an equation. They don't take into account whatever the number's being generated for, so it's a pretty silly thought to think that a random generator cares whether you're computing for numbers 1-10 or whether it's choosing how often a Pokemon appears.
(If you are still reading, Ampleforth, this is a coincidence like I said)So there may be a reason that I got Munchlax 6 times in a row?
Honestly, the Latios and Latias thing made me drop my jaw. Do you have any ideas on what triggered it?I see, so it is that way... (manadtory extremely vague generic comment, sorry)
Anyway, thanks for the data. I'd still like a little more to support or disprove my theory, which I will disclose to you guys when I feel less lazy.
Yes, actually, I do. If I tell you, you won't hold me to it if I tell you though, right? I'm still only about 19% done with my research, so I don't want to say anything for certain.Honestly, the Latios and Latias thing made me drop my jaw. Do you have any ideas on what triggered it?
Ah, okay, take your time, and good luck.Yes, actually, I do. If I tell you, you won't hold me to it if I tell you though, right? I'm still only about 19% done with my research, so I don't want to say anything for certain.
Don't worry about it, thread makers do it all the time.Ugh, i'm such an idiot. How do I delete the 3 spam posts by myself with editing (because when I just delete all the text it says it's too short of a message and there isn't a delete button) or can I ask a moderator that isn't a moderator on this board (since the ones that are currently are all offline) to delete them for me? Mock me if you must while you answer my question.
Given all this time, i've never seen a Manaphy. I completely forgot the thing exists until now.
I'll say it does! Nice work! I just a have a question or two about the test, because I may just include it in my data compilation which I will use in my analysis.[a lot of data]
I hope this helps.
1) I was using Mario and the second player was Bowser(The second player wasn't controlled)I'll say it does! Nice work! I just a have a question or two about the test, because I may just include it in my data compilation which I will use in my analysis.
1) What characters were used, and what outfits did they have on(original=1)?
2) Where there any computer-controlled characters and if there were, which slot did they control and what level were they?
3) What mode where you in (Standard Brawl, Special Brawl, or Training)?
4) What was the rule (time, stock, coin) and what was it set to (starting stock/time)?
5) What items were on and what was the item spawn frequency?