Fire Emblem VS Xcom 2's RNG system

[Mr.Person]

So I know how the game calculates whether you hit and miss by percentages and an RNG system, but I don't know the details on the tech level on how it works.

However, what I do know is that in Fire Emblem (fates and awakening) (games slightly similar to how Xcom plays, both rely on hit chance to even do damage to an opponent) I hit a LOT more lower percentage hits than I do in Xcom. Here I basically don't take a shot unless I have a 75% chance or above to hit, and then it still misses a lot. On the flip side, in Fire Emblem I can take 50/50 hit chances and usually hit more often than miss, a LOT more.

So my question is why? I am playing both games on their respective normal difficulties, so do each game use a different RNG system in them, and if so does anyone know the difference?

Tl;dr
example, I hit 60% hit chances in Fire Emblem almost every time, where in Xcom 2 I miss WAY more often than hit a 60% chance. Why is that?

[yuri simp]

Oh, I love Awakening!

Side note aside, it's because Fire Emblem's RNG exhibits a phenomenon called True Hit[old.serenesforest.net]. In FE, this makes low % very prone to failing and high % very prone to succeeding. It skews the %, but since the way FE's RNG panders to our own fallacies on "randomness", it works out. The distortions generally are divided at the half-way point, 50%.

XCOM's RNG is generally more even, allowing more low % but also allowing less high %.

So, for a 60% shot, FE would roll that as essentially, a 68%, while XCOM rolls it as a 60% shot. It's slightly higher. 60% is more likely on FE than XCOM.

As for missing low % shots often, have you tried shooting 25% chances on FE and XCOM? You might find the opposite effect happening.

[Sigmar's Faithful]

Because you are basing your conclusion on the anecdotal evidence you derived from a small sample size, which can yield any possibly results.

As for how FIre Emble RNG works, depending on which games you've been playing, the displayed percentage-to-hit may not be correct:

http://old.serenesforest.net/general/truehit.html

If you are playing any of these games that uses the "True Hit" mechanics, you are more likely to hit on high-odds and much more likely to miss on low-odds. As AIs tends to have low-to-hit-rate, they will miss more, and players tend to attack on high display hit chance, players actually hit more often (than the game tells the players should be).

[Mr.Person]

Ah I figured there was something skewing FE's actual hit percentage, and you are right, I usually don't tell them to attack unless I have a high chance to hit to begin with, whereas Xcom there are situations I HAVE to take a shot to prevent deaths or to complete the mission.

Thanks for explaining, I knew there was something different about the two's RNG system

[sheep from hell]

sid meier said in a panel about game mechanics, when you want people not complain about the chances of an rng system, you have to lie or cheat for them or both. pretty sure thats happening in fire emblem

[Tenshin51]

I am gonna go w/ Xcom Firaxis due it got better mechanic.

Fire emblem totally felt like a chess or rock,paper and scissor. Also the new Fire Emblem felt like a cash cow they should just release the revelation and the rest as DLC.

I already got Fire Emblem Fate Conquest and totally felt more as a DLC than a full game. Gameplay of that game is hard and truly stayed on the original but the story is just weak and never bother to finish it due chapter is so damn short so it totally hard to develop some sort relationship w/ other character.

Having a relationship w/ character is important in that game. Unless i grind and invade other castle which is dull and boring due i am not receiving any exp and gold. Except for some points i needed to upgrade my store.

If it is Valkyrie Chronicles hands down i go with that game even the story is a meh.

[Mr.Person]

I wasn't asking for a review, I was just asking about how the % based RNG system worked for each game lol