Why I think the WR is bogus

Viskiv
Bug Catcher
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 6:39 pm

Re: Why I think the WR is bogus

Post by Viskiv » Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:08 am

what you people are essentially saying to me is that once one establishes a reputation, all runs are accepted without question, no matter the circumstances, unless there is physical proof
Yes, actually, this is what is being said (minus your added exaggeration). Once you have established a reputation, you are innocent until proven guilty, and given the benefit of doubt. Is there a reason why this should be different? Is your ideal community one which bans anyone with a very good time, with no actual proof of wrongdoing? Vulajin provided multiple examples of ways cheating could be detected; don't conflate this argument with a separate one I made earlier. My argument about anything capable of being cheated without being detected isn't even related to RNG-based games (hence anything), but rather that any particular run can be cheated without it being detectable, and so without concrete proof, it's pointless to worry yourself about something based on suspicion alone.

User avatar
G_heinz
Pokémon Trainer
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Why I think the WR is bogus

Post by G_heinz » Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:18 am

you just acknowledged both arguments without acknowledging their blinding circularity.

...you just acknowledged BOTH arguments without acknowledging their BLINDING circularity.

believe you me, i ain't worried. just a little peeved no one read the whole paste.

i'm done arguing with you guys if you're done arguing with me. i love flame wars as much as the next guy, but i've contacted mbm myself so there's no need for this.

especially since none of you read the whole paste.

Vulajin
Schoolkid
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:47 am

Re: Why I think the WR is bogus

Post by Vulajin » Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:45 am

Your arguments are shit and literally all you're doing now is falling back on "no one read the whole paste." Your whole paste (which I did read, fat lot of good it did) contained zero concrete evidence of wrongdoing, was rife with blind speculation about how MBM could have nefariously concocted "bad" RNG for himself, and does not address the ongoing point you seem to be eliding about why the community should disregard a longstanding member's reputation simply because some random (you) comes around claiming the run is questionable.

This thread has been overly kind to you, so let's just come out with it. No one gives any shits whether or not you were around to know who MBM was back when he was more active. The fact that you don't know a runner's history in the community does not mean you get to disregard his reputation and call him a cheater. Posting a thread like this, which "suggests" wrongdoing without outright accusing (since you have no actual evidence), is known as "shit-stirring" and is generally regarded as a shitty thing to do.

You continually fall back on this argument:
G_heinz wrote:what you people are essentially saying to me is that once one establishes a reputation, all runs are accepted without question, no matter the circumstances, unless there is physical proof (such as video tampering)
Which is a terrible strawman. Reputation and respect yields a presumption of innocence, not immunity. Believe it or not, this is a positive feature of the community. Presumably you think that some day you're going to actually get a good run of Sapphire, and by that time you will probably have been around the community for a while. Do you want us to do this same thing to you when you get that run? Sure, there won't be any proof you cheated, but we'll all be pretty sure because no one could get that good RNG. All those instances where you don't get good RNG? Those must just be your attempts to throw us off the scent.

If you want that kind of community, where even runners who have been around for years and contributed positively to the community are assumed guilty just by virtue of winning the RNG lottery, then you'll have to go somewhere else to find it. In this community, we won't put up with idly tossing cheating accusations around without proof as though it's no big deal. Calling someone a cheater is a big fucking deal, and if you're going to do that you'd better have real fucking proof.

(edit) I pledge not to post in this thread anymore, as I have nothing further to contribute.

Viskiv
Bug Catcher
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 6:39 pm

Re: Why I think the WR is bogus

Post by Viskiv » Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:01 am

I'm also done posting in this thread, and please completely ignore anything I've said. I put my argument into words poorly, leaving gaps for you to misunderstand and try to use as leverage, but really Vulajin has said everything that needs to be said much better than I ever could. I see no point in trying to clear up your misunderstanding of my argument after Vulajin's point, consider it retracted and just listen to him.

User avatar
G_heinz
Pokémon Trainer
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Why I think the WR is bogus

Post by G_heinz » Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:16 am

lol this astounds me.

i would just curse up a shitstorm here arguing the finer points of shit-stirring and shit-eating and shit-fucking, but i'll just say

1) thanks for reading it.

2) what escapes me is that i'm told on the one hand that there's no proving cheating in an RNG-based run (precisely why i tried to present a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, the ONLY OTHER kind of evidence that anyone could gather if it's true that it's impossible to find any other "real" proof in the event of real cheating), but told on the other hand that i should be looking for the types of visual and audio tells that you're referring to. again, my question stands:
G_heinz wrote:if the run was completed with say, a ROM hack, it would leave no tangible evidence on the recording, because the game would run as normal but with manipulated properties underlyingly--that is, completely unseen. this type of hack is undoubtedly possible. if this were the case, what would you have a suspicious party such as myself do?
if you know, please speak up! and you can answer or not, but this is just sad to me man. i know i've made a veritable douchehole of myself here at times, but it just splits my sides that people care more about reputation, no matter how justified it may be, than the knowledge someone has to offer who actually knows the game.

and i assure you, no one will ever get a run like MBM's WR. if i do i'll shave my head and call you daddy.

EDIT: understood viskiv. my question still stands.

starcrytas
Bug Catcher
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:32 am

Re: Why I think the WR is bogus

Post by starcrytas » Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:29 am

Ok guys, I may not know Sapphire well enough to start running it (I played through it a couple times), but I do have some sort of idea from Emerald since they are similar games.

I was in Heinz's chat during his new PB run where the discussion took place.
MBM has improbable luck in many areas that G_heinz mentions. While I have just skimmed the run, it does seem improbable to have a time that is a mile past Werster's 2:13:32 run. Taking some risky strats while you are already on WR pace? Wouldn't you take safer strats to ensure that you finish the run? DansGame
While you cannot prove luck, unfortunately BibleThump, it would be hard to counter MBM's argument if he says he's legit.

Now about the community in general:
Viskiv wrote:
what you people are essentially saying to me is that once one establishes a reputation, all runs are accepted without question, no matter the circumstances, unless there is physical proof
Here's the problem. Once a runner gets credibility, they are automatically legit unless some rock solid proof says otherwise. That means "Oh, Werster (no calling him out) set a new record. It's legit." For all we know, legit runners could have cheated. Not saying they did. Cheating can go unnoticed like MBM's run until now, where it is questioned. DansGame

The thing about RNG speed runs is that you cannot prove luck. You can prove your knowledge, movement, menuing, etc, but not 2nd encounter Abra or the magic crit.

That's why I can explain Emerald, but cannot actually prove my run. Getting around my 2:48:13 Emerald time requires good RNG with the current route. I cannot prove that. What I can prove is the movement, route, etc.

Mountebank
Bug Catcher
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 5:32 pm

Re: Why I think the WR is bogus

Post by Mountebank » Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:44 am

I honestly have no idea why I'm wasting my time posting on this thread but here goes

First, you base much of your argument on the assumption that your damage calculator tool can calculate damage range probabilities accurately and that we know all there is to know about gen 3 battle mechanics, and I think this is a flawed argument. For example, in gen 2, did you know that the gym leaders give you an additional badge boost which boosts moves of their type? How do you know that something like this isn't in gen 3 as well? In competitive battles, these boosts are ignored, so of course the competitive pokemon community would not take them into account. This game was routed by trial and error and not a range calculator, and I will not accept your argument until you test the probabilities of these damage ranges yourself.

Second, you continually ignore his bad luck and say it is to avoid suspicion. While his run did have good RNG, it is not as lucky as you think, and of course for him to complete the run he must have had good RNG. If I flip 10 coins and 7 of them come up heads, if you only look at those 7 coins that came up heads and ignore the bad results on the other 3 then you would conclude that the chance of that happening is (0.5)^7 = 1/128, extremely lucky right? On the other hand, if you actually calculate the true probability that exactly 7 coins out of those 10 turn up heads, you would find that the probability is about 12% ≈ 1/8, lucky but actually quite reasonable. The reason for the huge difference is that you are choosing after the fact which events mattered and which did not, when in fact you must consider everything.

In addition, we are assuming that all of these different lucky events are independent, when in fact this may not be the case. For example, ExtraTricky told me once that in gen 1, the DVs of the nidoran (or any pokemon caught in the wild) are not independent, and in fact it is more likely that a nidoran will have both good speed and attack than we thought. In the context of sapphire, we know very little about the AI works, but we know that it is somewhat dependent on your pokemon's stats and current HP. Can we really say for certain that he was lucky in these fights without knowing the true calculation done by the AI? Perhaps he was able to get such good luck because of his IVs, and while it is definitely lucky to get good IVs, the point is that maybe it was possible that his getting good luck on one battle slightly increased the chance of good luck on the next.

Finally, I have personal experience, having been accused of cheating myself while on my alt, SpeedyLion Kappa. Though the arguments against me were not quite the same as yours (hacked text speed, no game knowledge, menus were "too good"), what I see in common is that no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, once someone is convinced that cheating is involved then it is impossible to change their mind. Combined with the above points, I do not think you have any real evidence that MBM is cheating.

User avatar
G_heinz
Pokémon Trainer
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Why I think the WR is bogus

Post by G_heinz » Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:34 am

Mountebank wrote:First, you base much of your argument on the assumption that your damage calculator tool can calculate damage range probabilities accurately and that we know all there is to know about gen 3 battle mechanics, and I think this is a flawed argument. For example, in gen 2, did you know that the gym leaders give you an additional badge boost which boosts moves of their type? How do you know that something like this isn't in gen 3 as well? In competitive battles, these boosts are ignored, so of course the competitive pokemon community would not take them into account. This game was routed by trial and error and not a range calculator, and I will not accept your argument until you test the probabilities of these damage ranges yourself."
i actually agree with a lot of your post but this part's meaningless to me. yes, i knew that about gen 2 badges, and yes i know that such boosts are ignored in p2p fights. for the record i factored in all badge boosts myself (at least the x1.1 boost that we're aware of in gen 3) when doing all these calculations by manually changing the stat. as for other things that we might not know about, such as type boosts...i don't know that something like that isn't in gen 3? it's like saying how do you know the earth isn't 4,000 years old. i don't KNOW...but i'm pretty damn sure, and i think that if something existed like that in gen 3 we would have noticed already. after norman strength would suddenly become super OP late game.

to clarify, all the damage ranges i tested are known damage ranges that i have experienced myself, except for a few very peculiar ones that admittedly i can't speak to, mostly because they're not using standard strats (e.g. the surf range on the doduo). if by "test" you mean "do the fight a bunch of different times with a bunch of different IV spreads and do the math yourself", well no, i haven't done that, and i'm not going to do that. but based on the number of different times i've done the relevant fights, i have a pretty good idea of how likely certain damage ranges are. to take another example, sydney's sharpedo is a damage range with shock wave on middling spatk, but almost never seems to be with good enough spatk. MBM's kyogre's spatk was 149 at lv. 45, which is really pretty good, so i didn't question it when he OHKO'd. on the flipside, the zangoose can be a difficult 2HKO even with soft sand equipped, so there is no possible way he would have hit the range. i know this from experience, not from the damage calc. in almost every case that i present in the paste, the damage range is one i've tested and gone through many many times on many many different IV spreads, so the damage calc is just meant to provide a more "hard" sense of the numbers at play if anything.
Mountebank wrote:Second, you continually ignore his bad luck and say it is to avoid suspicion. While his run did have good RNG, it is not as lucky as you think, and of course for him to complete the run he must have had good RNG. If I flip 10 coins and 7 of them come up heads, if you only look at those 7 coins that came up heads and ignore the bad results on the other 3 then you would conclude that the chance of that happening is (0.5)^7 = 1/128, extremely lucky right? On the other hand, if you actually calculate the true probability that exactly 7 coins out of those 10 turn up heads, you would find that the probability is about 12% ≈ 1/8, lucky but actually quite reasonable. The reason for the huge difference is that you are choosing after the fact which events mattered and which did not, when in fact you must consider everything.
i really wish i hadn't made that goddamn comment about the roxanne fight. that's not even "bad" luck, and i don't see why it should dismantle the body of my entire argument. that's the only time i directly state that "ungodlike" luck is potentially to avoid suspicion, and i don't even state it. i suggest it, openly saying that it is pure speculation. maybe everyone wants to call my entire paste "pure speculation", but that shouldn't equate my entire commentary with ONE comment about him not getting a magic crit. christ.

also, i don't know if this wasn't clear, but...he doesn't GET bad luck in this run. there is none. if you can find an example i encourage you to. so no, there was nothing i ignored. he gets what i would call "mildly suboptimal" luck a few times. first turn calm mind from the lunatone instead of hypnosis miss. that kind of thing.

i am interested in what you said about non-independent random events that otherwise would seem to be independent. i agree that that can't be ruled out and have long wondered if there are random events in the game that are actually tied to the same variable and so will always happen the same way because they are linked together, or something along those lines. i can't speak to that because of course that involves a lot about the game that yes, we don't know.

this is my mistake. i should have been more straightforward when i posted this thread about what my goal is here. it's by no means my aim just to get mbm's time taken down. that doesn't really matter. it is true that i would like to see a bit more scrutiny leveled at WR times, as there seems to be very little scrutiny across the board except in cases where the runner is relatively unknown (maybe understandable), but all i really wanted was to see if this sort of behind-the-scenes look at the run would arouse any level of suspicion in anyone else so that it was not just me going to mbm and saying, "hey, i'm not convinced your run is legit." no, i don't KNOW his run is illegitimate, but i don't KNOW anything, and neither does anyone else. i know all my "evidence" is circumstantial, and i agree that you can't convict a man of murder if you can't produce the bloody dagger. i don't need to convict him, but i would like to hear his side of things. i debated whether to contact him first and realize that i should have just done that rather than exchanging pleasantries with a whole lot of people who don't run the game.

as far as your probability goes, yeah, i understand basic statistics. the first number comes from the fact that you're calculating the probability that 7 heads will come up CONSECUTIVELY, not just 7 out of 10 flips. that's a valid point. but keep in mind that with a lot of these situations in-game, the probabilities i calculated are accurate because they REQUIRE that the two "heads" be consecutive, else death. but your point is well taken.

also, you're right that i'm pretty convinced it's cheated. rather, i'm pretty unconvinced that it's legitimate. but that doesn't mean i can't be convinced. pretty much all anyone here has done to try and "convince" me of anything is by saying i should either stfu and get over it because i can't prove dick, or by saying it doesn't matter, or by saying all my evidence is crap, etc. etc. admittedly i shouldn't have argued at such length with everyone because it just naturally seems like what i'm begging for is to be "convinced" of the run by someone else's words, when in truth all that could convince me would be a pretty legit story from mbm himself, notably also the only thing that could also prove my point. should have been more clear about that, and i'm sorry. i'm also sorry if everyone thinks my stance is stupid or premature or IMmature or what have you, but if you ran this game, i have a feeling you would be more inclined towards suspicion, as a lot of us are in the sapphire community (all four of us Kappa), even if you wouldn't outright think it was cheated.

User avatar
Amoeba
Cooltrainer
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:26 am
Contact:

Re: Why I think the WR is bogus

Post by Amoeba » Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:16 am

Any chance a mod/admin could just close this thread? People have made their points and now its becoming a circular shitstorm, not to mention that the pokemon speedrunning community is small enough that it really doesn't need the divide that this discussion is creating. This isn't me saying that the discussion should never have happened, as discussing anything like this is important, but I feel its become pointless now, and people are taking personal insult instead of just arguing the original point made.

Also is someone could go and beat the sapphire world record that would be lovely kthnxbai Keepo .
~

User avatar
Dabomstew
Site Admin
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:26 am

Re: Why I think the WR is bogus

Post by Dabomstew » Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:43 am

This seems unlikely to come to any kind of peaceful solution on its own, and heinz has already said he's mainly interested in what MBM alone has to say, so I'm locking this topic as recommended.

Locked

Return to “Pokémon Ruby/Sapphire”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest