Critical Hits Change discussion

Firstly, lemme point out where I'm aiming at.

The Announcement.

In a nutshell, high critical hit ratio moves have had their crit chance dropped from 25% to 12.5%, in a vote with senior referees. This thread is to discuss/cry about/raeg about/ponder the change.

My initial thoughts are that it severely hurts pokemon who rely on critical hits to deal damage because their offensive power is less than optimal, or their ability is based off scoring crits. Pokemon I am thinking of include the Murkrow and Skorupi families (the latter is not because I have one) whose offensive abilities rely on crit chances.

As far as critical hit moves are concerned, what I'd like to know is what the chance of a critical hit is for someone running Focus Energy and using a high CH ratio move, say Blaziken with Blaze Kick. Would it be the new 25%, or is it too being dropped (nerfed is a rough term to use) by a notable factor? I find it early days, but the idea of a d8 roll defining whether something lives or not is not completely enjoyable. 1 in 4 wasn't completely the same as 25 in 100, as 1 in 8 is similar but not completely equal to, say, 25 in 200.

This, of course, is the opinion of an idiot, and is open to certain degrees of interpretation.

 

If it really mattered that much to be game-breaking, tell me why does the game use that rate?

Seriously, people these days. :|

 

I'd just like to note that I agree with Trilobyte in this. While the nerf might be considered good for balance, Pokémon with critical hit moves almost invariably rely on them as their main attack, whose low power is offset by the (previously) 1/4 chance to do massive damage.
Granted, lowering the crit-move critrate to 1/8 doesn't completely remove the usefulness of these moves, but it does hurt their usefulness significantly. I have not only my own Weavile and Gallade, but others such as Absol and Honchkrow that use Night Slash or other high-crit-rate moves as a primary attack, lacking more high-powered moves in return for crit chance.

All in all, maybe a nerf of a different sort is in order if balance is what you seek.

 

I'd like to applaud you for easing down from yesterday's hell-thread.

Anyway, Ataro, you should clarify Super Luck and Focus Energy since that's probably where most members are "confused" about. As far as I'm concerned, nothing else has changed other than CH and high-crit moves being 12.5% to be more like the games.

 

The game uses that rate spontaneously and ignores it in the Battle Tower, where it applies to every single move the foe's pokemon use. Their HCH moves then become 25%.

I'm not complaining about it, it just seems that 1 in 8 seems harder to land on due to the much decreased limit. Hell, a 5 in 40 chance would seem a tiny bit fairer while still keeping the same relative ratio. It just makes things look a little bit less precise.

Crits will still happen, just not as often, and I'm not complaining about it. If you needed to make battles here closer to the games, then it'd be nice to have the rest of the moves with a chance of something happening be reduced to similar rates, like Flamethrower's burn chance being 1 in 10.

 

So this means Super Luck only brings it up to 25% on an increased CH move now...? -.-

EDIT: Btw, Trilo, I congratulate you for having the chutzpah to not ask someone else to post this for you after yesterday... God knows I wouldn't...

 

I didn't say I was the confused one, so I don't know why you're acting like I'm the one asking.

 

This was my thought exactly.

Still, if someone like Honchkrow was BPed a Focus Energy boost from something like Blaziken and used Night Slash, would said chance be 50% or 33%?

 

Flamethrower's burn chance alreay is 1 in 10.

Please stop making threads so much.

 

I don't know about you but when I select attacks in a battle, I tend to calculate if it KOs or not and stuff like that, before sending out my move. That said, I wouldn't calculate Night Slash as a Critical Hit because the chances of the original 25% is already quite low. Meaning, if I'm basing my chances off a Critical Hit or not, it'd have to be a decision where if I didn't, I'd lose. idk if you get what i mean ^_^;

That's in RefPedia iirc, updating atm.

@ Trilobyte: Flamethrower is 1 in 10 already, 10% is 1 in 10 iirc.

 

I'm pretty sure it'd be 33%... thats where your handy-dandy scope lens helps ^_^

 

I know that Flamer's 1 in 10, but most refs use a d100 and burn if a 10 or below is rolled. As it stands, this rolling d8 and critting on a 1 just seems a bit more precise. I know it's probably not, but it merely seems that way. I'll wait until the whole thing has been in place for a week or two before making my judgment on the affair.

To elaborate and to give our hippy mushroom fellow an idea of what I'm on about, I'm saying that if the CH ratio is now a definitive d8 roll with a 1 being a crit, then why not make the other attacks with X0% chances from d100 and X0 below acting to d10 and X and below being the activation?

 

The reason it's an 8 sided die, is obviously because you can't roll a 12.5, with an 100 Sided Die. :/

 

^

Most people stick with the 100 sided die because they just copy the command and paste it when they need it.

 

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

I laugh at you , Trilobyte. Your last thread was supposed to be an attempt at trolling. Yet you dare make another one the day afterwards. Is this one going to be deleted as soon as we finish you?

 

*sigh*

I'm merely trying to engage some discussion on the recent change to critical hits. Must you regard me as your ultimate nemesis?

I'll not bother arguing, as that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is discussion on the crit change and the effect it could have on the battling side of URPG.

 

Weren't we banning this kid?

On topic, I still say, if you're going to do this, then make all moves have a chance at CH, but w/e. You're the head...
Do whatever you want.

 

While he may have done something that you didn't like in the past, I fail to see how this thread is at all not serious and in any way worthy of a ban. Sure, it's controversial, but he's not flaming this time.
If you were going to ban him for the earlier thread, you'd have done so by now. This thread shouldn't change your decision either way, so please lay off unless he actually does something.

Yes, I'm defending Trilobyte, and my reason is the best reason one could have for defending someone: Logic. If you're going to ban him, please have a reason.

 

He admitted to trolling. Idc whether it's true or false, but him admitting to trolling means serious business. URPG takes trolling very seriously!