The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

[LimitCrown]

There are a few poisons whose effects are increased because water causes the poison to spread.

@The_Doctor Think about it this way. You are poisoning the plant itself instead of the ground that it grows in. The plant can't really filter poisons if that happened.

Flying types are usually in the air, while Grass-types are usually in the ground.

About Rock's weakness to Grass: there was a reason for that, but I don't remember.

 

[FaerieStar]

All damage was in multiples of four, matching Smogon's speculations. However, the damage spread (outside critical hits) was 4 and 16 only (no 8 or 12!), which does not match either of the damage calculators linked by Smogon.

This is too early to draw conclusions from, but it does look like (a) rounding errors do exist somewhere prior to the final damage report, and (b) Smogon's calculators are not 100% accurate.

According to Smogon's formula for BW, a move that damages for 4 shouldn't even be able to damage the same pokémon for 16. If your data is correct, smogon's random number in the formula must be incorrect.
I repeated your experiment with a lvl 23 Swadloon vs a lvl 8 Pidove. 2 critical gusts made 28 damage; 2 normal gusts damaged for 16; 25 gusts damaged for 12. My results were as expected by the formulas. I might try tomorrow with a weaker Sewaddle to see if I get a mostly 16 but some 24 pattern.

There are a few poisons whose effects are increased because water causes the poison to spread.

@The_Doctor Think about it this way. You are poisoning the plant itself instead of the ground that it grows in. The plant can't really filter poisons if that happened.

Flying types are usually in the air, while Grass-types are usually in the ground.

About Rock's weakness to Grass: there was a reason for that, but I don't remember.

Plants can break rocks while growing. I think that's the reason.
I think grass should be neutral to poison... Plants just are affected by different kind of poisons (althought I think most substances that would kill a plant would kill an animal too).

 

[Gaga]

About Rock's weakness to Grass: there was a reason for that, but I don't remember.

Also, I don't think that Rock should be weak to Grass. I think if Grass lost one weakness (either to Poison or Flying, but if Poison then Poison should gain another advantage) then losing its advantage to Rock would be fine. Personally, I think Grass's advantage against Rock is one of the worst.

Plants can grow through rocks, breaking them apart over years.
Who seriously hasn't seen plants growing out of concrete/rocks? :V

I think Grass' weakness against Poison is also fair. It doesn't have to be specific; just that pollution and waste destroys plants and ecosystems.

 

[Stratelier]

According to Smogon's formula for BW, a move that damages for 4 shouldn't even be able to damage the same pokémon for 16. If your data is correct, smogon's random number in the formula must be incorrect.

Sure, I'll give it another go. Unlike previous gens, in G5 the critical-hit message appears after the type-effectiveness message, so I need to double-check that those hits for 16 points damage actually were not critical hits. It's too bad Swadloon can't use Taunt ... all those Leers and Growls really draw the battle out....

- Okay, done: After 35 Gusts from a Lv.8 Pidove, 33 of them did 4 points damage, one did 12, one did 16.

 

[DoctorWhy]

Plants can grow through rocks, breaking them apart over years.
Who seriously hasn't seen plants growing out of concrete/rocks? :V

I think a Grass advantage against Ground is good enough for that RL comparison. Rock/Ground types don't need 2 4x weaknesses.

 

[Gaga]

I think a Grass advantage against Ground is good enough for that RL comparison. Rock/Ground types don't need 2 4x weaknesses.

I disagree
Plants grow through both ground and rocks fine, breaking them apart. But I think the justification for Grass being SE against ground could also be as simple as the fact that plants grow in dirt. And its not like Grass is a super threatening type.

 

[GreatLiver]

I feel like if grass is super effective against rock, so should ice. Plants grow through and crack rocks the same way water gets into rocks, freezes and cracks them apart. But ice doesn't need another type it's strong against offensively. Makes a lot more sense to just get rid of grass on rock. Leave it be with only ground.

 

[Envoy]

Can I just say.....No.

Grass is strong against only three types as it is. And it's resisted by SEVEN!!! And you want to take away one of the only good things it's got going for it? Really?

 

[Gnomowladny]

Maybe native is the wrong term. I mean Fairy-types "originating" from Sinnoh or Unova.

I see. Then, Happiny, Togekiss, Manaphy/Phione, Victini and maybe Audino seem to be strong candidates~

I don't think any of the Johto Pokemon found in HGSS can be considered Kanto natives.

Houndour and Murkrow in GSC/HGSS appears only at Route 7, which belongs to Kanto; how they are Johto Pokemon, and how they cannot be considered Kanto natives?

I noticed that people tend to call Pokemon Z-native when they are introduced in a new game along with this Z-region, which is not necessarily true. In RGB, Lapras and Jynx were nowhere to be seen in wild in Kanto, as opposite to GSC's Johto locations. So, are they Kanto, or Johto-native? Or the other way around: Zubat appears in all Japanese-based regions, so is it only Kanto-native?

 

[The Outrage]

Technically Jynx was found on Seafoam in Japanese Blue and HgSs.

The whole concept of Native region becomes weird with things like Beldum who are supposedly Gen III Pokemon but cannot be found in the wild except in future generation games that added a lot of gimmicks like Swarms in order to help fill the National Dex.

 

[Jeff]

Don't forget about Houndour. Despite being called a "Johto Pokemon" like the other Gen 2 Pokemon back in the day, it was only found outside of Celadon City, so was technically Kanto-native.

 

[MAZZ0Murder]

I think mixing and matching older types isn't really necessary...even if some changes would make sense...

as for Fairy, I'd find it hilarious if it was weak to Normal...since normal people don't believe in fairies

But Normal is pretty much the most neutral type in the game. So IDK what to think for weaknesses.

 

[YamiiDenryuu]

Can I just say.....No.

Grass is strong against only three types as it is. And it's resisted by SEVEN!!! And you want to take away one of the only good things it's got going for it? Really?

True. If you want to help ground/rock types with their weaknesses, make water neutral on rock. It's only SE because of a very slow process of erosion, anyway.

 

[Stratelier]

I agree that water hitting solid rock has much less effect than water hitting soft earth, so removing Water's usefulness against Rock could be a good move (Grass has enough problems already, it doesn't need to lose one of its three offensive strengths), but I don't particularly see it happening because it leaves Water with only two types to be effective against.

 

[FaerieStar]

According to Smogon's formula for BW, a move that damages for 4 shouldn't even be able to damage the same pokémon for 16. If your data is correct, smogon's random number in the formula must be incorrect.

Sure, I'll give it another go. Unlike previous gens, in G5 the critical-hit message appears after the type-effectiveness message, so I need to double-check that those hits for 16 points damage actually were not critical hits. It's too bad Swadloon can't use Taunt ... all those Leers and Growls really draw the battle out....

- Okay, done: After 35 Gusts from a Lv.8 Pidove, 33 of them did 4 points damage, one did 12, one did 16.

Sure the 16 one was not critical? Anyway, I did some more tests during my train rides:
-Leavanny (lvl 41, sp.def 71) vs lvl 8 Pidove. 5 critical gusts for 16 hp damage, 3 regular gust for 12 hp and 27 gusts for 4 hp.
-Swadloon (lvl 23, sp.def 43) vs lvl 14 Pidove. 31 gusts damaged for 16 HP, 3 gusts damaged for 24 HP and 1 critical gusts damaged for 40.
-Maractus (lvl 20, sp.def 36) vs lvl 12 Pidove. 2 critical gust for 20 HP, 2 normal gusts for 12, 31 normal gusts for 8.
-Petilil (lvl 40, sp.def 40) vs lvl 13 Pidove. 3 crits for 14 HP, 2 gusts 8HP, rest 6 HP.

My results seem to agree with Smogon's formula for BW and with the calculator you linked (which is for DP, I think), for sp.atk values that Pidove is supposed to have at those levels. If your 16 was not a critical, then the formula is wrong somewhere. Anyway, it seems the rounding system does result in the damage being multiple of 4 (for 4x) or 2 (for 2x) but skipping each 3 values (8 and 20 for 4x, 10 for 2x at least).

So Gardevoir's damages against Hydreigon would probably be impossible in gen V unless Faerie is SE against Dark. They could be changing the rounding system in gen VI, though. We'll have to wait, I guess.

Can I just say.....No.

Grass is strong against only three types as it is. And it's resisted by SEVEN!!! And you want to take away one of the only good things it's got going for it? Really?

Indeed! And to make things worse, grass pokémon usually don't get many good moves from other types. :/

as for Fairy, I'd find it hilarious if it was weak to Normal...since normal people don't believe in fairies

Faeries dying because of humans' disbelief is obviously just a myth. I mean, if it were true, the Faeries would all be dead by now.

I don't particularly see it happening because it leaves Water with only two types to be effective against.

Mmm... Water would still be pretty good defensively, so it wouldn't be that bad for them, I guess.

 

[Bolt Strike]

Houndour and Murkrow in GSC/HGSS appears only at Route 7, which belongs to Kanto; how they are Johto Pokemon, and how they cannot be considered Kanto natives?

I noticed that people tend to call Pokemon Z-native when they are introduced in a new game along with this Z-region, which is not necessarily true. In RGB, Lapras and Jynx were nowhere to be seen in wild in Kanto, as opposite to GSC's Johto locations. So, are they Kanto, or Johto-native? Or the other way around: Zubat appears in all Japanese-based regions, so is it only Kanto-native?

Look at the Pokedex, not the location. The location is primarily a design decision made to keep the game balanced. For instance, you don't normally see stuff like Togepi and Riolu catchable through normal means because those are rare, powerful Pokemon and it cheapens the game if you can get those Pokemon so easily. The Pokedex is a better indication of which Pokemon are catchable in the region, those are the Pokemon that the professor expects us to find there. So until they add Houndour to the Kanto Dex in a future game, I can't really consider Houndour to be a Kanto native. So with that logic, the only Dark type that could be considered Kanto native is Umbreon. From a realistic perspective, maybe that Pokemon is catchable in an area that we just can't access in that game? Or maybe that Pokemon is typically passed around through breeding and trading?

I'm not worried about Fairy types in older Pokedexes, we'll have Marill and Sylveon in most of them, they'd just need to add another 2 or 3 on top of those.

 

[FaerieStar]

I'm confused. Everyone seems to think "native to X region" means something different.
I thought the original poster meant "pokémon that were introduced in the generation which main games happen in X region AND are not related to older generations' pokémon by evolution".

 

[Stratelier]

Sure the 16 one was not critical?

Unfortunately no, not sure.

Anyway, it seems the rounding system does result in the damage being multiple of 4 (for 4x) or 2 (for 2x) but skipping each 3 values (8 and 20 for 4x, 10 for 2x at least).

The "skipping each third value" part is apparently due to STAB. According to Smogon, damage modifiers like STAB are actually expressed in multiples of 0x1000 (due to the DS reportedly using integer-based math calculations; integers just don't allow fractions). So including STAB actually means multiplying by 0x1800 then dividing by 0x1000, and it's the division step that creates rounding errrors. E.g. if the current (before STAB) value is (1,2,3,4,5 ...), then after STAB it is (1,3,4,6,7 ...), skipping every third value (2,5,8...) If type effectiveness (2x or 4x SE) is applied after that, the rounding error gets magnified (2,6,8,12,16...) (4,12,16,24,28...). Of course at higher damage values the rounding error is proportionally smaller, but the pattern is present at all points.

So Gardevoir's damages against Hydreigon would probably be impossible in gen V unless Faerie is SE against Dark. They could be changing the rounding system in gen VI, though. We'll have to wait, I guess.

Yup, that is exactly the claim leveraged by the GameSpot forum thread -- skipping every third value means Gardevoir could inflict 96 or 98 damage at 2x SE + STAB, but not 100. At 4x SE + STAB, Gardevoir could do either 96 or 100 damage, but not 92 or 104.

GF could eliminate the STAB rounding errors just by changing up the internal order of operations a little. E.g. Instead of doing a * (STAB) / 0x1000 * (SE bonus), it could instead be * (SE bonus) * (STAB) / 0x1000, where (STAB) is either 0x1800 (yes) or 0x1000 (no), and (SE bonus) is internally a bitshift (the same effect as multiply/divide by powers of two). This would increase the level of precision in the calculations because the divide steps (and associated rounding) are performed absolutely last.

One thing is for sure, though, the current calculations are not done in floating-point.

I don't particularly see it happening because it leaves Water with only two types to be effective against.

Mmm... Water would still be pretty good defensively, so it wouldn't be that bad for them, I guess.

And it's not like Electric really minds being strong against only two types on the chart....

 

[FaerieStar]

The "skipping each third value" part is apparently due to STAB.

Yes, I should have said "STAB damage". My mistake xD

So Gardevoir's damages against Hydreigon would probably be impossible in gen V unless Faerie is SE against Dark. They could be changing the rounding system in gen VI, though. We'll have to wait, I guess.

Yup, that is exactly the claim leveraged by the GameSpot forum thread -- skipping every third value means Gardevoir could inflict 96 or 98 damage at 2x SE + STAB, but not 100. At 4x SE + STAB, Gardevoir could do either 96 or 100 damage, but not 92 or 104.

Yeah, I meant our tests would support these claims.

GF could eliminate the STAB rounding errors just by changing up the internal order of operations a little. E.g. Instead of doing a * (STAB) / 0x1000 * (SE bonus), it could instead be * (SE bonus) * (STAB) / 0x1000, where (STAB) is either 0x1800 (yes) or 0x1000 (no), and (SE bonus) is internally a bitshift (the same effect as multiply/divide by powers of two). This would increase the level of precision in the calculations because the divide steps (and associated rounding) are performed absolutely last.

They could find a way, yes. I don't think they will, though. 96 and 100 seems too similar to values expected by BW formulas. Too suspicious :lol:
We can know they are not using your example, since we would need a value of 67 to get 100 (67*1.5=100.5), so no SE attack would deal 100. Actually, this one would leave a pattern like 1-3-4-6-7...97-99-100-102 for neutral STAB moves... 4-12-16-24... for 4x STAB moves. Not really fixing the thing... (I know you're not saying they're using this particular one, anyway, just felt like mathing).

They could just use a pseudo fixed-point value... Just multiplying the Base Power by X (say 100), then aplying the formula as usual, and lastly dividing the damage by X again.

 

[Stratelier]

I actually don't understand why they can't do the calculation in floating point to begin with -- there must be a floating point coprocessor in the hardware somewhere, and there's no time crunch trying to calculate how much damage an attack will do.

I do, however, understand why it would not be easy to change up the order of operations so that all multiplication comes first and all division last (which would eliminate the rounding errors) -- too much multiplication in a row could cause overflow errors, and the fixed-point multiply operation is probably defined in the source code as an inline function (so it can't be split apart as is).

I also actually kinda like that the minimum damage dealt by a SE attack is 2 (or 4) instead of 1.