seeking feedback on Randomosity docs change

Talk about all aspects of the gameplay of Final Fantasy 3us/6j.

Moderators: General Moderator, Game Moderator

seeking feedback on Randomosity docs change

Postby Assassin » Mon May 09, 2016 4:17 am

in October 2014, while looking at Variable $3A76 in Bank C2, it dawned on me that there are cases missed by my Randomosity documents (http://assassin17.brinkster.net/guides.htm). i was going to address it by adding this warning passage after the Back Guard paragraph in the detailed version's intro:

-------

Also note that this document and the simpler one won't be accurate in
situations where you have 3 or more total characters in your party, but 2 or
less of them alive. That's because Side attacks are prohibited (and thus the
probabilities of remaining encounter types increased) if you have <= 2 present
and living characters, but functions that increment the RNG index before the
encounter type is chosen do not skip doing so for dead characters.

That distinction is lost on these documents, which assume all party members
are alive. Trying to include all possible variances in the files would be a
pain to code, and bloat them significantly.

-------

but i've since written the needed code. here's a sample of what the new detailed output would look like:
http://assassin17.brinkster.net/forum-p ... ererat.txt
(the distinction is more pertinent here than in the average formation, but nearly everything is affected by it somehow.)

the issues are: it adds 310KB to an already-hefty 670 KB (though the web server and any decent browser will compress this a TON; the existing one is reduced to under 19KB), it's more for the reader to wade through, and it's possible i got the new code wrong. also, the addition would stand in contrast to Back Guard's continued omission, as budging on that would get a bit ridiculous.

what are your thoughts? is it worth the bloat to include this? do enough people tote around dead party members, and would they keep them that way just to avoid certain encounter types (there can't be any net benefit to such a strategy...)?
User avatar
Assassin
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:10 am

Re: seeking feedback on Randomosity docs change

Postby Imzogelmo » Mon May 09, 2016 12:40 pm

It seems that the added info in certainly pertinent enough. Perhaps it could be better shown as a series of tables?

Code: Select all
 
Type   | 1 Member | 2 Members | 3 Alive | 3 Members, 2- Alive | 4 Members, 3+ Alive | 4 Members, 2- Alive |
Front  | 55 / 60  |
Side   |  0 / 60  |
Back   |  4 / 60  |
Pincer |  1 / 60  |

Preempitve   | 1 Member
Front, No GH |  4 / 55
Front, GH    | 12 / 55
Side, No GH  |
Side, GH     |

* Randomosity interferes


Not going to finish that by hand, but the key thing is noting that randomosity is the culprit when it is the case.
User avatar
Imzogelmo
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:07 pm
Location: On the spirtual plane

Re: seeking feedback on Randomosity docs change

Postby Assassin » Tue May 10, 2016 6:04 am

thanks for the reply. that'd definitely look better and take less space.

the thing is, my program pretty much prints out results and analysis as soon as they're determined. so having a separate Preemptive table and keeping "RANDOMOSITY will prevent a [specific encounter formation]" warnings (rather than a generic "* RANDOMOSITY will prevent something" footnote) will both require retaining data and putting off output some. doable, but it'd make my program even more complex.
User avatar
Assassin
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:10 am

Re: seeking feedback on Randomosity docs change

Postby Imzogelmo » Tue May 10, 2016 10:55 am

The tables could be merged into one and done in the order you provide the statements. You'd just need a bit longer description space on the leftmost column. Even so, if the table were merely text, the relevant information could get lost in the sea of data. Better than a footnote would be a distinct shading of the boxes where randomosity caused the 0% chance, but you'd have to go to an html or doc or something a bit more complex to do that, and bye bye any savings in the file size.
User avatar
Imzogelmo
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:07 pm
Location: On the spirtual plane

Re: seeking feedback on Randomosity docs change

Postby Assassin » Tue May 10, 2016 3:24 pm

my dead body will be dragged kicking and screaming into fancy formatting! plain text or bust!

i forgot to mention in my last post that "RANDOMOSITY will prevent a [specific encounter formation]" has the advantage of being Ctrl+F-able, e.g. for people who want to find certain categories of Randomosity victims, perhaps to tally them. you can't search by box colors just yet, unless Jeff Goldblum's bred a new variety of snail that i'm not aware of. (btw, who else could pull off those commercials?)
User avatar
Assassin
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:10 am

Re: seeking feedback on Randomosity docs change

Postby Imzogelmo » Fri May 13, 2016 2:16 am

...OK, fine...

But if it were an excel spreadsheet, I can filter by color of the box.

In fact, I think I may just write some kind of script to shoehorn your data into an excel file, just to see if I can do it. Meanwhile... Back Guard? :twisted:
User avatar
Imzogelmo
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:07 pm
Location: On the spirtual plane


Return to FF3 Gameplay Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron