You have to be extremely careful when commuting division though, because doing it wrong can potentially mess up your answer.Yeah. A series of mutiplication and division operations are commutative. So the order of operations are mathematically irrelevant. On a subjective level, I prefer to think in the terms I described, but everyone will have their own "natural" interpretation.
In a purely mathematical sense, they are commutative. But, in reality, with computing devices and the inherent inability to properly represent fractions with floating point numbers -- you can screw up the results of a series of multiplication/division operations very, very easily. Basically, if you are using a calculator or a computer, you can't count on getting the exact same results if you switch the order of operations. For the types of numbers and the number of operations being discussed here, the variance is likely irrelevant in practical terms. But, your point about "being careful", is absolutely true.You have to be extremely careful when commuting division though, because doing it wrong can potentially mess up your answer.
In fact, the only way to reliably commute multiplication is to treat it as multiplication of the reciprocal.
I like this concept. It's just the kind of thing my mind might have devised if I considered this problem.
Actually, in a purely mathematical sense division is not commutative. For it to be commutative, x / y = y / x must be true, and it is not.In a purely mathematical sense, they are commutative. But, in reality, with computing devices and the inherent inability to properly represent fractions with floating point numbers -- you can screw up the results of a series of multiplication/division operations very, very easily. Basically, if you are using a calculator or a computer, you can't count on getting the exact same results if you switch the order of operations. For the types of numbers and the number of operations being discussed here, the variance is likely irrelevant in practical terms. But, your point about "being careful", is absolutely true.
Lol, Earthquake on a Skarmory would do 0% damage.Divide the Skarm/BlissPoints by 10.
It would mean a pokemon with 15 SkarmPoints using EQ on Skarm would do 15% damage.
Multiply by 0.85, and maximum damage turns into minimum damage.Is finding the max damage really as useful as these charts would make it seem? I know it's cool to see if something will OHKO, but these seem like they would not be very useful for in-battle calculations. Ex: My +1 Gyarados @ 10%HP is facing my opponent's Skarmory@ 38%HP....do I risk losing Gyarados because I rolled lower than max damage for a chance to sweep? This system would not be a reliable way to determine that =\
This data looks useful for EVing, but with the response that this has gotten you would think that it is a revolution in damage calculating.
Multiply the final value with .85 if you want to calculate the minimum damage. Multiply the final value with 1 (obviously) if you want the maximum damage.Is finding the max damage really as useful as these charts would make it seem? I know it's cool to see if something will OHKO, but these seem like they would not be very useful for in-battle calculations. Ex: My +1 Gyarados @ 10%HP is facing my opponent's Skarmory@ 38%HP....do I risk losing Gyarados because I rolled lower than max damage for a chance to sweep? This system would not be a reliable way to determine that =\
This data looks useful for EVing, but with the response that this has gotten you would think that it is a revolution in damage calculating.
That is true. However, one of the primary purposes of BlissCents / SkarmCents is to fill a void where Defense Tiers (and their complement Attack Tiers) are difficult to use. If you wish to compare that sort of information, Defense Tiers work perfectly fine already. There, you can compare say... SpecsMence DracoMeteor vs BandHeracross Close Combat. (118.19 vs 117.51 on the Attack Tier scale if you're curious)Lol, Earthquake on a Skarmory would do 0% damage.
One thing that I have qualms about is that the Special side and Physical side are based on two different scales. Special attacks and Physical ones are treated exactly the same in the damage formula, so there is no reason why both scales can't be based off of the same standard, such as Skarmory's physical defense. It might seem odd basing the effectiveness of a Special attack off of another Pokemon's Physical defense, but it makes sense when you consider that both Physcial and Special attacks use the same damage formula.
Normalizing the two scales like this would allow easier comparisons between a Pokemon's Special and Physical capabilities. For example, a standard Bliss has 67 SkarmCents and 100 BlissCents, but trying to use these numbers to determine how much more effective Blissey is at tanking Special hits than Physical ones is pointless unless you have a way to convert SkarmCents to the equivalent amount of BlissCents or vice versa. Normalizing the scales would remove the need for this intermediate step.
Lol, beaten in your own thread.Multiply the final value with .85 if you want to calculate the minimum damage. Multiply the final value with 1 (obviously) if you want the maximum damage.
To find the average damage, multiply with .925.
EDIT: beaten >_>
That is true. However, one of the primary purposes of BlissCents / SkarmCents is to fill a void where Defense Tiers (and their complement Attack Tiers) are difficult to use. If you wish to compare that sort of information, Defense Tiers work perfectly fine already. There, you can compare say... SpecsMence DracoMeteor vs BandHeracross Close Combat. (118.19 vs 117.51 on the Attack Tier scale if you're curious)
Defense Tiers are not obsolete by SkarmCents / BlissCents, instead, these two systems complement each other.
Actually, for small values it is quite close. Watch.118.19 to 117.51, it's not immediately easy to see that Draco Metoer is 6.7% stronger than Close Combat in this case.
Initially, yes. However, a logarithmic scale is far more similar to humans and is actually far more natural than most think. Psychologically speaking, sight (brightness specifically), hearing (both frequency and loudness), and feel/strength are all in a logarithmic scale to the human brain. And as such, these things tend to be measured logarithmically in practice (octaves, decibels, richter scale, and even pH are all logarithmic based).The issue I'm getting at is that when comparing things, it is easiest for people to think proportionally rather than logarithmically. 100 is twice as great as 50. 220 is 10% greater than 200. It's easy to compare the two numbers and envision just how big of a difference it is between them when you can think in terms of a proportion.
Logarithms are a different story. Taken from the Sp.Def tiers, Blissey is in tier 128 and Magikarp is in tier 99. The initial reaction of someone first seeing that data is that that difference isn't that big. It isn't until you work out the math and change the logarithms into proportions that you can find that Blissey has 16 times the walling power of Magikarp.
-snip-
I see the benefit. However, re-normalizing the scales would get rid of a very specific advantage of these scales. All pokemon currently are compared to the most popular Special Wall in the game (and who arguably takes the most special hits in all of Shoddy), and all pokemon are compared to the most popular Physical Wall in the game (who arguably takes the most physical hits). Well... at least at the time I made them, Skarm was slightly more popular than Cresselia on the Shoddybattle statistics... I dunno about now.As already mentioned, the only thing I see wrong with this system is that the physical and special scales are based off of different standards. Alakazam is roughly as powerful at special attacking as Tyranitar is at physical attacking (Alakazam is actually just a bit stronger), but Alakazam only has 156 BlissPoints max while Tyranitar has 244 SkarmPoints. The difference between these two numbers makes it hard to envision the difference in damage that these two Pokemon would deal to similar targets, such as a mixed Bronzong. Normalizing the two scales to be based on one standard means that Alakazam's and Tyranitar's Point values would be about the same, accurately reflecting the closeness they have in power.
Another benefit to normalizing the two scales is that you would be able to accurately gauge the difference in how well a Pokemon could tank a certain class of attack over another. For example, a standard Blissey - having a Defense stat of 130 and a Sp.Def stat of 306 - is approximately 2.35 times as effective at tanking special hits than physical ones. This difference is not accurately reflected in Blissey's Skarm- and BlissPoints scores (67 and 100, respectively).
Items like Pikachu's Light Ball and abilities like Medicham's Pure Power are not factored in. The stats shown are the ones assuming there is no item like the aforementioned Light Ball, or ability like the aforementioned Pure Power, in play.Cool! You forgot to double Medicham's Attack stat though, so it looks shitty.
Lol, never thought of them in that way. I ought to put that into the first post somewhere. Thanks.Blisscents = Skarmcents x ~1.57