Does the CPU cheat?

[OWell]

jvgfanatic said:

On a side note: Itadaki Street Portable seems to pre-generate its rolls. I'm not sure how far in advance. If you save a game and load it and then check the rolls. Re-load that save and you'll find the rolls are the same for at least two turns (I've not checked further).

Humm.
Culdcept 1(SS) or 1Ex(PS), execution of the saved continuation was changing spots of die each time.
That is, when saved each time, the player was able to obtain the satisfactory game result.
However, it is more efficient to increase the number of times of a game in the viewpoint of card collection, rather than it redoes a game.

After Culdcept 2(DC), execution of the saved continuation erases the save data itself.
About Story-mode, this specification can be considered to be mysterious.
However, about Human to Human match-up, it is appropriate specification. It is because it is not necessary to suspect cheating to others.

[jvgfanatic]

owell said:

jvgfanatic said:

On a side note: Itadaki Street Portable seems to pre-generate its rolls. I'm not sure how far in advance. If you save a game and load it and then check the rolls. Re-load that save and you'll find the rolls are the same for at least two turns (I've not checked further).

Humm.
Culdcept 1(SS) or 1Ex(PS), execution of the saved continuation was changing spots of die each time.
That is, when saved each time, the player was able to obtain the satisfactory game result.
However, it is more efficient to increase the number of times of a game in the viewpoint of card collection, rather than it redoes a game.

After Culdcept 2(DC), execution of the saved continuation erases the save data itself.
About Story-mode, this specification can be considered to be mysterious.
However, about Human to Human match-up, it is appropriate specification. It is because it is not necessary to suspect cheating to others.

Indeed, that is the way most games that allow a mid-whatever save function. The act of saving a board game mid-way to obtain better results by re-loading is considered cheating by some and thus I imagine Itadaki Street was trying to avoid this.

[shaowebb]

Itll rig your rolls and keep you off land and on forts, temples, bridges, teleporters and THERE LAND.

[cr4ck3rj4k]

I beleive the computer knows what the die result will be. I played a game today where 3 times in a row the NPC cast a weakening spell on the next creature he would land on, then had just enough to defeat the creature because of it. And the worst display of this was as follows:

It was a three way free for all against 2 NPCs. I was one square in front of NPC 1's biggest threat and highest toll. On NPC 1's turn, he draws Holy Word 1, I'm thinking, CHEATING COMPUTER!!!!!, but not seriously, it could be "luck." Then the most fascinating thing happens, he casts it on NPC 2, which holds no strategic value (except to delay him of course, but he wasn't even relatively close to winning). Now I'm thinking STUPID COMPUTER, but a voice in the back of my head says "The Computer AI has to be smarter than that, if he had cast it on me he would be almost guaranteed to win. " Then my turn comes around, and I roll a 1.

Tell me that the computer didn't know I would roll a 1, and therefore didn't waste the spell on me. Its far more believable than thinking the AI is that retarded.