Approved "Power rating" and "bulk rating" tooltips

[Zarel]

I've been thinking about displaying pokemon/attacks in terms of "Power rating" and "Bulk rating".

"Power rating" would be the percentage damage against a neutral enemy with 100/100 defenses, 31/31 IVs, 0/0 EVs, and neutral Nature, in the tooltips for attacks (for most attacks, it would be a range for the 85-100 modifier).

And then "bulk rating" would be how bulky you are, as a percentage relative to a pokemon with 100/100 defenses (etc), in tooltips for pokemon (your opponents' bulk would be a range). You'd have separate "physical bulk rating" and "special bulk rating".

So if your power rating was higher than your opponent's bulk rating, it would be a 1HKO. Otherwise it wouldn't. At the edges, there might be rounding issues, but for the most part, it would be simple and easy to understand. It'd also be useful to have a combined number so you don't have to worry about attack boosts vs base power boosts vs damage boosts (which are currently represented somewhat confusingly).

Before we move forward, though, I'd like to see what everyone else thinks.

 

[phosphor]

I like this a lot, because sometimes it's difficult to rate just exactly how bulky a mon is or how to compare the bulk of two mons when, for example, one of them has HP much higher than a defense (like Excadrill) or vice versa (like Tyranitar)

 

[Adeleine]

I like this!

(your opponents' bulk would be a range)

I especially like this, but like with the Speed tooltips, there's the question of what range values we show. 31/31/252/252+ will obviously be accounted for because it is the maximum. 31/31/252/252 should only be needed for Hackmons formats, so it isn't as important. That leaves 31/31/252/0 (full HP, no Def/SpD) and 31/31/0/0 (no EVs) as the most useful values to show that aren't already an absolute minimum or maximum.

Will a power rating half as high as the opponent's true bulk rating lead to a 2HKO? One third as high as the bulk rating meaning a 3HKO? Etc.

(Physical/Special) Bulk Rating (Invest/No Invest) could make useful /ds parameters. There's no intuitive way to search for total "physical bulk", you just have to throw out HP and Defense values and hope the mons you find will do the job.

 

[Zarel]

I especially like this, but like with the Speed tooltips, there's the question of what range values we show. 31/31/252/252+ will obviously be accounted for because it is the maximum. 31/31/252/252 should only be needed for Hackmons formats, so it isn't as important. That leaves 31/31/252/0 (full HP, no Def/SpD) and 31/31/0/0 (no EVs) as the most useful values to show that aren't already an absolute minimum or maximum.

I think min-/default/max+ is probably fine? This is all still a lot of info to fit into a tooltip...

Will a power rating half as high as the opponent's true bulk rating lead to a 2HKO? One third as high as the bulk rating meaning a 3HKO? Etc.

Yep, of course. Although because of the 85-100 factor, a lot of attacks might be "chance of 2hko" rather than "2hko".

 

[DrPumpkinz]

I think it might be nice to display the ratings somewhere in the teambuilder or some other non-battle place. I can totally see myself and others using this to answer questions like "is Pokemon X stronger/bulkier than Pokemon Y" or, more practically, use the bulk rating to optimize EV spreads. Currently the easiest way to do these things (that I know of) is in the calc, which isn't built for such comparisons and is thus really clunky.

 

[Adeleine]

I think min-/default/max+ is probably fine? This is all still a lot of info to fit into a tooltip...

Honestly, do we need to show min-? For Speed, min- is relevant for Trick Room Pokemon and setters. But I don't know what Pokemon would ever run 0 HP/Def/SpD IVs. Even when Stakataka actively tanked its Defense to make Beast Boost raise its Attack, it still ran 15 Defense IVs (and 31 HP IVs). Min- would be a slightly better approximation than default, but still not decisively accurate. Defense spreads practically usually have a floor at neutral, with the exception of Naive/Hasty/etc mixed attackers.

 

[Geysers]

But I don't know what Pokemon would ever run 0 HP/Def/SpD IVs.

For what it’s worth, endeavor suicide leads in AG will occasionally have 0s in hp, def, and spdef ivs in order to get their sashes activated quicker. Notable examples that spring to mind are lycanroc in natdex and slurpuff in gen7.

 

[Tmi489]

Might make the tool tip too cluttered. If there was a good design go ahead.
An ancient version was defense/attack tier where you used logarithms, idk if you would want to use that instead?

Personally I think power ratings should stay (you know your own evs) but bulk ratings shouldnt. Maybe defense tiers could be calculated but i would like it as a command/teambuilder thing

also if both power rating + bulk rating were combined so that if power>bulk then it would be an ohko, would it be a straight ohko all the time, a chance to ohko, or ohko after rocks?
I feel like an onhand calculator battle tool is more efficient then using power/bulk ratings, either through extension or PS implementation

I think it might be nice to display the ratings somewhere in the teambuilder or some other non-battle place. I can totally see myself and others using this to answer questions like "is Pokemon X stronger/bulkier than Pokemon Y" or, more practically, use the bulk rating to optimize EV spreads. Currently the easiest way to do these things (that I know of) is in the calc, which isn't built for such comparisons and is thus really clunky.

it might be important/easy to get a percent quickly during battle
like if i did 14% with uturn then you could multiply power rating to find how much you do with your switch in

 

[Coconut]

If something like this is implemented, is there a way that it could be augmented? Such as for LC/level 50 metas/tiers with Pokemon that have low BST

 

[Zarel]

If something like this is implemented, is there a way that it could be augmented? Such as for LC/level 50 metas/tiers with Pokemon that have low BST

How would you want it changed?

I think setting it relative to a 100/100 pokemon at the format's level cap would probably help prevent it from being too crazy in other metas. But low BST? That's probably not worth adjusting for, I think?

 

[Coconut]

I just wanted to make sure this wasn't purely a level 100 thing. If it shifts for level cap then that's fine.

 

[Zarel]

Gonna approve this; reactions seem largely positive.

 

[Plague von Karma]

I don't know how relevant this is, but a thing that's historically been used in the RBY Community is a "defensiveness" calculation, multiplying the HP by the defensive stat. It actually dates back to 2010. The number that's spat out looks awful, but it's pretty alright as a metric, it gets the job done I guess? Thought I'd put it here in case it gives any ideas.

 

[cherryb0ng]

I don't know how relevant this is, but a thing that's historically been used in the RBY Community is a "defensiveness" calculation, multiplying the HP by the defensive stat. It actually dates back to 2010. The number that's spat out looks awful, but it's pretty alright as a metric, it gets the job done I guess? Thought I'd put it here in case it gives any ideas.

Interesting. I know I'm not really knowledgeable on this topic but why not add health+defense as an index of how bulky something is instead of multiplying? For my own personal reasons I used to do that.

 

[Mathy]

Interesting. I know I'm not really knowledgeable on this topic but why not add health+defense as an index of how bulky something is instead of multiplying? For my own personal reasons I used to do that.

multiplying, while giving an uglier number, is actually a better metric. because HP*defense, roughly speaking, is inversely proportional to the % of HP something will take in damage from a given attack.