72
edits
Talk:Protect (move): Difference between revisions
→Question about the erratic success table after the fourth consecutive use
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
This could perhaps be verified by having someone load up a Gen III game in an emulator, spam savestates until Protect succeeds four times in a row, and then reload to see approximately how often the fifth Protect succeeds. If the X-value theory is correct, then Protect should work 1 in 8 times. If the table is correct, then Protect should only work 1 in ~555 times. [[User:Blueapple128|Blueapple128]] ([[User talk:Blueapple128|talk]]) 22:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | This could perhaps be verified by having someone load up a Gen III game in an emulator, spam savestates until Protect succeeds four times in a row, and then reload to see approximately how often the fifth Protect succeeds. If the X-value theory is correct, then Protect should work 1 in 8 times. If the table is correct, then Protect should only work 1 in ~555 times. [[User:Blueapple128|Blueapple128]] ([[User talk:Blueapple128|talk]]) 22:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
:Apologies for the delay, and yes, it's basically a relation between success rate and X. The glitch is presumably that X is not capped when it should be, causing the game to start reading garbage data (you can see the Low Kick data in there). As it happens, http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm19862416 is the video that induced me to copy in the table, where the glitched table is exhibited in full detail (there are many long pauses in there). [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 00:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Description of the effect may be slightly wrong. == | == Description of the effect may be slightly wrong. == | ||