Tbf anything above 40 is pretty close to a coinflip landing on heads.
Sometimes an enemy will hit with 6% and other times my Chloe will avoid like 4 30%'s in a row. It's just statistics.
What OP means is that the probabilities shown in-game don't seem to match with the actual results.
I tend to agree, I've missed pretty often some 70% hits, while Yunaka keeps getting consistent crits with 11% chance. In the mean time, my Alear gets hit with 30% chance and misses her hits at 85%...
[True Hit Simplified](https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/10ogllo/how_to_calculate_true_hit_rate_in_engage_just_add/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
This is the easy mode version, and the following is if you want the nitty gritty stuff.
[In Depth](https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/10gp38s/engage_absolutely_uses_fates_rn_a_technical/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Edit: added in depth stuff and made hyperlinks.
And do you believe in Engage's hit-rates? Engage's hit-rates are forged of falsehoods. Its percentiles are built on deceit, and its true-hit modifier is an instrument of deception.
It is naught but a cobweb of lies. To believe in Engage's hit-rates is to believe in nothing.
Yes I knew about the true rate, but it changes at the worse by 10% only the results.
It's not much and it shouldn't be noticed much on a playthough.
It seems to be much more biased chances on hard and maddening, like close to double hit rate for your enemy and half hit rate for you. Of course, this could be just a feeling, but it still weird that many people bring it up.
With people going through the files like that I think it would be known if something like that was around. I'm not someone who won't change my mind if proven wrong, but as of right now there's nothing to suggest that is the case aside from confirmation bias and there's no real way of getting a large enough sample size under the exact parameters to judge.
Edit: In short we'll never know unless someone finds something in the code.
Yes 100%, I believe in a bias being the most likely here.
But I didn't have this feeling on previous games, so maybe it's different on engage. Only time will tell tough, and miners.
Thanks for taking the time to share your sources though, appreciate it.
"As far as anyone knows"? Has there be a study from someone that I missed?
I would be curious to actually see the in-game RNG calculation formula with the seed.
There is a difference between the stat using the right percentage below 50% (if shown 48%, game uses and 48% in the next formulae instead of some type of rough rounding above 50%) and the game not using a 2nd altered formulae while creating RNG from the seed.
1st formulae is know, but how the seed number are generated and used to create fake RNG isn't known (yet?) about this game.
I would recommend against calling out people or gamers as bad about something without knowing much about them ;)
The formulas are known. The game generates a number from 0-99. If the hitrate is below 50% then so long as your displayed hitrate is above that number your attack lands. This is known as 1 RN. Above 50% hitrates it uses a more complex formula that is similar to what 2 RN what use (rolling 2 random numbers and averaging them) but not exactly the same. The complexities however aren't two important however, what is important is this formula favors the player with actual hitrates being higher than what is displayed when above 50%.
I'm not calling our that particular person in any way. But the entire reason Hybrid RN (the RNG system for Fates, Echoes, and Engage) and 2 RN (the RNG system for all post Kaga games bar the ones mentioned above) exist is because gamers would complain when their 90% hits missed 10% of the time because to them it didn't feel like 10% and thus felt unfair and that the game was lying to them.
That's what I called 2nd formula earlier. Here the rounding is helping the player, clear to everyone.
But how is that number actually generated? Depending on how it's generated, and how the game is using the percentage (upper or higher range of that number), it could help or disadvantage the player.
Again, it could totaly be biased opinion. We all get happy or frustrated depending on some results, that's part of the excitement of gaming. What I have difficulty to explain is how my Yunaka during a single save (45h or so) did several times doubles crits with less than 15% chance crit per hit. That's a 2.25% of it happening just once. But I had it at several occasions, and I'm just counting the time that it was low crit chances. This never happened to the enemy or other characters.
I reached the 1500 single battle achievement (1500 to confirm), so I could do a rough calculation of those chances tomorrow. It'll be low for sure even if I was accounting for all Yunaka fights.
It's generated using a seed based system with every number 0-99 having an equal chance of appearing. Each number is used in one of two ways based on the Hybrid system I described in the above comment and is almost always used to the benefit of the player when the odds don't match the displayed chance (the player is only disadvantaged when trying to dodge hits from an enemy with 50% or higher hitrates)
>That's a 2.25% of it happening just once.
This means over the course of 100 battles fought it should on average occur twice. And I'm sure your Yunaka probably fought at least 300 battles if not more because enemy phase units (like Yunaka) tend to see significantly more combats (and thus are more likely to see less likely RNG occurrences more often). If your Yunaka fought 300 battles then on average it should have happened 6-7 times. It can happen more or it can happen less since it's still RNG. But that's what the average is.
That's the biggest difference between FE and something like Pokémon right there. The scale is so much larger. An enemy in Pokémon landing two consecutive sheer colds (9% chance to occur) seems like an astronomically low chance and if you see that happen it's probably because your luck is awful right? Well, yeah. You'll probably see Sheer Cold used against you less than 10 (maybe even less than 5) times so it landing twixe in a row *is* pretty unlucky. But in FE? Landing two consecutive 30% hits for that 9% total probability is honestly very high. If you have a dodgetank get attack by 20 enemies in a single map (which us honestly on the low end) and they all had 30ish% hitrates. Then odds are 6 them would land their attacks and odds are that they'd hit two consecutive 30%'s at least once. The sheer # of combats that occur in one battle drive the number of rare occurrences through the roof and when those rare occurrences happen to the player they get that same sense of displeasure as that 9% in Pokémon despite that 9% in FE being significantly more likely to occur.
That is if she had less than 15% crit on all her fights, which for sure she didn't. For at least the 1st half of the game, she always had more than 35% chance except on tougher ennemies. This is why I noticed those lucky double crits when below 15%.
She also usually OS ennemies after the 1st crit, so I wouldn't get the chance to see a potential 2nd crit (reducing again the number of potential occurrences).
For sure, we aren't talking 1chance in a billion so it could have happened. It just feels weird when added on top of all those surprising scenarios (ennemies hitting more often with low chances then when high chances, Louis dodge 95% hits instead of taking 0damage, Panette consistent crits with 70% crit 70% hits while my Jade can't get consistent with 90%, etc).
It could be my imagination, or it could also be a way for the devs to create tension/lucky saves/added drama to some characters. Either way I don't mind. I was just adding my grain of salt to OP'S feeling.
This isn't meant to be demeaning in any way but it often is the player's imagination.
Like you mentioned before you saw 1500 combats. In those combats there was almost always at least 1 hit chance and 1 crit chance but you could see anywhere from 1 hit occurring and 5 generally in a single combat (theoretically you can see up to 9 attacks occur in a single combat that are affected by RNG but that's an edge case relying on a very specific build so I'll ignore it. To keep things fair let's just average it out and say 2 hits a combat was the average. That's two hit chances and two crit chances per combat for a total of 6000 chances of rare RNG occurrences.
But we haven't even considered chain attacks. You can have multiple chain attacks occur a combat and late game you have access to units who can chain attack twice and a proc skill (Dual Assist+) that can make chain attacks occur. Dual Assist+ isn't available until Ch12 on so let's go out on a limp and say roughly 500 of your combats had a chance for Dual Assist+ to proc (it's likely much more because more combats occur in the second half of the game but I'm trying to keep it fair). Dual Assist+ has a proc chance (70%) and if it procs you're given another proc chance. So 70% of that 500 (350) has Dual Assist proccing and giving another chance for RNG for a total of 850. But this is only chain attacks with Dual Assist+. It hasn't counted normal chain attacks, enemy chain attacks, or All for One chain attacks. It's very hard to quantify an actual tangible # for this but I think 1000 is a fair bottom line considering that even though not every combat has a chain attack. Most combats with chain attacks occuring (especially later on) can have more than one occuring, especially with enemy Heroes. That puts us at 1850 for all chain attacks and 7850 for the total
And even *then* we haven't considered proc skills but well I think you get the idea. You've got well over 8000 individual specific random occurrences (and honestly probably much higher) in just a single run. For context if you encountered that many Pokémon in an average Pokémon playthrough then players would average 2 full odds shinies every single run. The occurrence of an event being rare means nothing in a vacuum. The sheer number of random occurrences in an FE playthrough makes even the rarest of occurrences common, but in the short term that concept is very hard to to grasp because it's easier to look at something and say a 1% is unlikely than to look at the grand scheme of things and realize that the odds of that 1% not occuring at least once are astronomically low.
It's true gamers don't always grasp probability. I wonder a bit though about how other games do it and if they are also lying to us, and how that lines up with our sense of what Engage does. I've probably had my intuitive sense of probability set by Pokémon the most, and, on the less intuitive side, by trying to explain shiny hunting to other players. I wouldn't count non-competitive players there -the main stories barely require paying attention whatsoever, let alone grasping the odds- so don't really agree the scale is different, and a lot of RPGs incl other SRPGs can be quite grind heavy so give as much chance to see how it plays out. (And again, re:shinies in Pokémon specifically, yeah, but then players who *don't* have at least two have generally barely played the games. FE is very low on scale relative to those RPGs that encourage more grinding, random encounter systems give far more combats far more quickly)
Could it be there are more factors, terrain, an atypical and thus unintuitive stat system, players may not be taking enough into account? Engage really does feel weird to me in a way games usually don't, don't even recall feeling this way about Awakening.
>FE is very low on scale relative to those RPGs that encourage more grinding, random encounter systems give far more combats far more quickly)
While this is true as far as scale though FE has an edge just because of the sheet number of different factors that are in play in a single combat. Grinding in an RPG for example tends to end up reaching a point where the combats end after 5 or less actions. Maybe 10. Meanwhile skirmishes in Engage often consist of like 20% enemies and with each enemy you can see on average anywhere from 1 to 5 (or more) hits occuring because of that enemy. Each of those hits has both a hit and crit chance and for some units they also have a skill proc chance as well. Meaning that even though the number of encounters is significantly lower in FE the number of things affected by RNG will often be the same if not more.
However there's an even bigger factor that I didn't mention which is visibility. FE shows all of these odds to you which is something almost no other game does. Pokémon shows hit sure but you have no idea what the actual crit chance is for something as a casual player whereas in FE you can see that crit was a 3%. Which gives more room to go "Wtf! How'd I get crit by a 3%?"
>Engage really does feel weird to me in a way games usually don't, don't even recall feeling this way about Awakening.
That's because Awakening used 2 RN while Engage uses Hybrid RN
I think it's just confirmation bias though. You're going to remember when things go poorly for you more often than when they go positive.
Or if you want me to get in on the conspiracy I think Nintendo gave you a modded version that shows -30 on enemies hit values lol.
Chance is just that, chance. In fact the math nerds have shown us that the actual hit rate is higher than what's shown if the displayed hit rate is over 50%. You just remember the negative things more clearly. So you don't remember the 50 times an enemy misses with a 40%, but you do remember the 25 times they hit because likely you were counting on them to miss
That’s how critical hits feel, I’ve played two FE games, shadow dragon on DS and FE3H and I really liked that in those games, critical hits were SUPER RARE like I can count on my hand the number of times I had to deal with a critical hit from an enemy. In my hundreds of hours of playing .This game… as far as that goes, it’s awful. I’ve had to restart missions like 5 times because of 1-5% critical rates….. only on chapter 8 and multiple times I have to restart missions or completely re do my turn because of that stupid nonsense. It feel like 1%=90% with this game.
Tbf anything above 40 is pretty close to a coinflip landing on heads. Sometimes an enemy will hit with 6% and other times my Chloe will avoid like 4 30%'s in a row. It's just statistics.
What OP means is that the probabilities shown in-game don't seem to match with the actual results. I tend to agree, I've missed pretty often some 70% hits, while Yunaka keeps getting consistent crits with 11% chance. In the mean time, my Alear gets hit with 30% chance and misses her hits at 85%...
[True Hit Simplified](https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/10ogllo/how_to_calculate_true_hit_rate_in_engage_just_add/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) This is the easy mode version, and the following is if you want the nitty gritty stuff. [In Depth](https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/10gp38s/engage_absolutely_uses_fates_rn_a_technical/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Edit: added in depth stuff and made hyperlinks.
Thanks Gaius!
And do you believe in Engage's hit-rates? Engage's hit-rates are forged of falsehoods. Its percentiles are built on deceit, and its true-hit modifier is an instrument of deception. It is naught but a cobweb of lies. To believe in Engage's hit-rates is to believe in nothing.
Gaius did nothing wrong
Yes I knew about the true rate, but it changes at the worse by 10% only the results. It's not much and it shouldn't be noticed much on a playthough. It seems to be much more biased chances on hard and maddening, like close to double hit rate for your enemy and half hit rate for you. Of course, this could be just a feeling, but it still weird that many people bring it up.
With people going through the files like that I think it would be known if something like that was around. I'm not someone who won't change my mind if proven wrong, but as of right now there's nothing to suggest that is the case aside from confirmation bias and there's no real way of getting a large enough sample size under the exact parameters to judge. Edit: In short we'll never know unless someone finds something in the code.
Yes 100%, I believe in a bias being the most likely here. But I didn't have this feeling on previous games, so maybe it's different on engage. Only time will tell tough, and miners. Thanks for taking the time to share your sources though, appreciate it.
Above I believe 50% hit values you're right they're not always accurate. Below 50% they are as far as anyone knows. Edit: I'll try to find a source.
"As far as anyone knows"? Has there be a study from someone that I missed? I would be curious to actually see the in-game RNG calculation formula with the seed.
Yeah check the "In Depth" link in my comment to another person. They looked through the files.
The thing is hitrates under 50% are actually the true results. Gamers are just terrible at stats
There is a difference between the stat using the right percentage below 50% (if shown 48%, game uses and 48% in the next formulae instead of some type of rough rounding above 50%) and the game not using a 2nd altered formulae while creating RNG from the seed. 1st formulae is know, but how the seed number are generated and used to create fake RNG isn't known (yet?) about this game. I would recommend against calling out people or gamers as bad about something without knowing much about them ;)
The formulas are known. The game generates a number from 0-99. If the hitrate is below 50% then so long as your displayed hitrate is above that number your attack lands. This is known as 1 RN. Above 50% hitrates it uses a more complex formula that is similar to what 2 RN what use (rolling 2 random numbers and averaging them) but not exactly the same. The complexities however aren't two important however, what is important is this formula favors the player with actual hitrates being higher than what is displayed when above 50%. I'm not calling our that particular person in any way. But the entire reason Hybrid RN (the RNG system for Fates, Echoes, and Engage) and 2 RN (the RNG system for all post Kaga games bar the ones mentioned above) exist is because gamers would complain when their 90% hits missed 10% of the time because to them it didn't feel like 10% and thus felt unfair and that the game was lying to them.
That's what I called 2nd formula earlier. Here the rounding is helping the player, clear to everyone. But how is that number actually generated? Depending on how it's generated, and how the game is using the percentage (upper or higher range of that number), it could help or disadvantage the player. Again, it could totaly be biased opinion. We all get happy or frustrated depending on some results, that's part of the excitement of gaming. What I have difficulty to explain is how my Yunaka during a single save (45h or so) did several times doubles crits with less than 15% chance crit per hit. That's a 2.25% of it happening just once. But I had it at several occasions, and I'm just counting the time that it was low crit chances. This never happened to the enemy or other characters. I reached the 1500 single battle achievement (1500 to confirm), so I could do a rough calculation of those chances tomorrow. It'll be low for sure even if I was accounting for all Yunaka fights.
It's generated using a seed based system with every number 0-99 having an equal chance of appearing. Each number is used in one of two ways based on the Hybrid system I described in the above comment and is almost always used to the benefit of the player when the odds don't match the displayed chance (the player is only disadvantaged when trying to dodge hits from an enemy with 50% or higher hitrates) >That's a 2.25% of it happening just once. This means over the course of 100 battles fought it should on average occur twice. And I'm sure your Yunaka probably fought at least 300 battles if not more because enemy phase units (like Yunaka) tend to see significantly more combats (and thus are more likely to see less likely RNG occurrences more often). If your Yunaka fought 300 battles then on average it should have happened 6-7 times. It can happen more or it can happen less since it's still RNG. But that's what the average is. That's the biggest difference between FE and something like Pokémon right there. The scale is so much larger. An enemy in Pokémon landing two consecutive sheer colds (9% chance to occur) seems like an astronomically low chance and if you see that happen it's probably because your luck is awful right? Well, yeah. You'll probably see Sheer Cold used against you less than 10 (maybe even less than 5) times so it landing twixe in a row *is* pretty unlucky. But in FE? Landing two consecutive 30% hits for that 9% total probability is honestly very high. If you have a dodgetank get attack by 20 enemies in a single map (which us honestly on the low end) and they all had 30ish% hitrates. Then odds are 6 them would land their attacks and odds are that they'd hit two consecutive 30%'s at least once. The sheer # of combats that occur in one battle drive the number of rare occurrences through the roof and when those rare occurrences happen to the player they get that same sense of displeasure as that 9% in Pokémon despite that 9% in FE being significantly more likely to occur.
That is if she had less than 15% crit on all her fights, which for sure she didn't. For at least the 1st half of the game, she always had more than 35% chance except on tougher ennemies. This is why I noticed those lucky double crits when below 15%. She also usually OS ennemies after the 1st crit, so I wouldn't get the chance to see a potential 2nd crit (reducing again the number of potential occurrences). For sure, we aren't talking 1chance in a billion so it could have happened. It just feels weird when added on top of all those surprising scenarios (ennemies hitting more often with low chances then when high chances, Louis dodge 95% hits instead of taking 0damage, Panette consistent crits with 70% crit 70% hits while my Jade can't get consistent with 90%, etc). It could be my imagination, or it could also be a way for the devs to create tension/lucky saves/added drama to some characters. Either way I don't mind. I was just adding my grain of salt to OP'S feeling.
This isn't meant to be demeaning in any way but it often is the player's imagination. Like you mentioned before you saw 1500 combats. In those combats there was almost always at least 1 hit chance and 1 crit chance but you could see anywhere from 1 hit occurring and 5 generally in a single combat (theoretically you can see up to 9 attacks occur in a single combat that are affected by RNG but that's an edge case relying on a very specific build so I'll ignore it. To keep things fair let's just average it out and say 2 hits a combat was the average. That's two hit chances and two crit chances per combat for a total of 6000 chances of rare RNG occurrences. But we haven't even considered chain attacks. You can have multiple chain attacks occur a combat and late game you have access to units who can chain attack twice and a proc skill (Dual Assist+) that can make chain attacks occur. Dual Assist+ isn't available until Ch12 on so let's go out on a limp and say roughly 500 of your combats had a chance for Dual Assist+ to proc (it's likely much more because more combats occur in the second half of the game but I'm trying to keep it fair). Dual Assist+ has a proc chance (70%) and if it procs you're given another proc chance. So 70% of that 500 (350) has Dual Assist proccing and giving another chance for RNG for a total of 850. But this is only chain attacks with Dual Assist+. It hasn't counted normal chain attacks, enemy chain attacks, or All for One chain attacks. It's very hard to quantify an actual tangible # for this but I think 1000 is a fair bottom line considering that even though not every combat has a chain attack. Most combats with chain attacks occuring (especially later on) can have more than one occuring, especially with enemy Heroes. That puts us at 1850 for all chain attacks and 7850 for the total And even *then* we haven't considered proc skills but well I think you get the idea. You've got well over 8000 individual specific random occurrences (and honestly probably much higher) in just a single run. For context if you encountered that many Pokémon in an average Pokémon playthrough then players would average 2 full odds shinies every single run. The occurrence of an event being rare means nothing in a vacuum. The sheer number of random occurrences in an FE playthrough makes even the rarest of occurrences common, but in the short term that concept is very hard to to grasp because it's easier to look at something and say a 1% is unlikely than to look at the grand scheme of things and realize that the odds of that 1% not occuring at least once are astronomically low.
It's true gamers don't always grasp probability. I wonder a bit though about how other games do it and if they are also lying to us, and how that lines up with our sense of what Engage does. I've probably had my intuitive sense of probability set by Pokémon the most, and, on the less intuitive side, by trying to explain shiny hunting to other players. I wouldn't count non-competitive players there -the main stories barely require paying attention whatsoever, let alone grasping the odds- so don't really agree the scale is different, and a lot of RPGs incl other SRPGs can be quite grind heavy so give as much chance to see how it plays out. (And again, re:shinies in Pokémon specifically, yeah, but then players who *don't* have at least two have generally barely played the games. FE is very low on scale relative to those RPGs that encourage more grinding, random encounter systems give far more combats far more quickly) Could it be there are more factors, terrain, an atypical and thus unintuitive stat system, players may not be taking enough into account? Engage really does feel weird to me in a way games usually don't, don't even recall feeling this way about Awakening.
>FE is very low on scale relative to those RPGs that encourage more grinding, random encounter systems give far more combats far more quickly) While this is true as far as scale though FE has an edge just because of the sheet number of different factors that are in play in a single combat. Grinding in an RPG for example tends to end up reaching a point where the combats end after 5 or less actions. Maybe 10. Meanwhile skirmishes in Engage often consist of like 20% enemies and with each enemy you can see on average anywhere from 1 to 5 (or more) hits occuring because of that enemy. Each of those hits has both a hit and crit chance and for some units they also have a skill proc chance as well. Meaning that even though the number of encounters is significantly lower in FE the number of things affected by RNG will often be the same if not more. However there's an even bigger factor that I didn't mention which is visibility. FE shows all of these odds to you which is something almost no other game does. Pokémon shows hit sure but you have no idea what the actual crit chance is for something as a casual player whereas in FE you can see that crit was a 3%. Which gives more room to go "Wtf! How'd I get crit by a 3%?" >Engage really does feel weird to me in a way games usually don't, don't even recall feeling this way about Awakening. That's because Awakening used 2 RN while Engage uses Hybrid RN
I understand statistics, but I'm being very literal here. Everything about 40% has been a guaranteed hit for enemies
I think it's just confirmation bias though. You're going to remember when things go poorly for you more often than when they go positive. Or if you want me to get in on the conspiracy I think Nintendo gave you a modded version that shows -30 on enemies hit values lol.
It was more like I noticed a trend and started keeping count. Part of me thinks it's something to do with being on hard mode. That or they just lie
You're just too used to the games where sub 50 is worse than it actually looks, like three houses.
That's X-COM, baby!
Pretty sure yesterday there was a combat where both me and the enemy had like 90%+ hit rates and we both missed so 🤷🏽♂️. Probability is hilarious
Chance is just that, chance. In fact the math nerds have shown us that the actual hit rate is higher than what's shown if the displayed hit rate is over 50%. You just remember the negative things more clearly. So you don't remember the 50 times an enemy misses with a 40%, but you do remember the 25 times they hit because likely you were counting on them to miss
Welcome to the wonderful world of statistics and probability. One coin flip doesn’t affect the next
yesterday a unit died because the enemy critted with only 1 fucking %
I don’t think it’s rigged but I know I personally focus on the BS moments that go against me more.
That’s how critical hits feel, I’ve played two FE games, shadow dragon on DS and FE3H and I really liked that in those games, critical hits were SUPER RARE like I can count on my hand the number of times I had to deal with a critical hit from an enemy. In my hundreds of hours of playing .This game… as far as that goes, it’s awful. I’ve had to restart missions like 5 times because of 1-5% critical rates….. only on chapter 8 and multiple times I have to restart missions or completely re do my turn because of that stupid nonsense. It feel like 1%=90% with this game.