One-hit knockout moves: Should they be legal?

I usually don't post unless I feel I have something new to add, but in this case I'd just like to say that I agree with X-Act 100% on all of his points. You can't expect to win every match and single-elimination tournaments are not appropriate for Pokémon. I couldn't put it better than he has, so I won't attempt to.

X-Act said:

Here in Smogon, we have two different people.

On one side, there are the people where losing is a big deal to them. These people try to minimize luck as much as possible, as they need to win as many games as possible, and they don't want something that's out of their control decide their game fate.

On the other side, there are the people where they don't care whether they win or lose, as long as they play well and have fun playing. Like the others, they try their utmost to win, but, in the end, if they lose due to being unlucky, it's no big deal.

Personally, I used to be among the first group. But when I started losing due to bad luck, I decided that I cannot remain among them, so I left that group and joined the second one. I've also seen first-hand what happens to people who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that you cannot win every game even if you're the best player. This is not a criticism to jrrrrrrr, but his initial outburst was just because, according to him, he was the unluckiest Pokemon player ever... and look what happened to him.

Pokemon is a game like Poker, where skill tells in the long run, and not in a single game. That is why I would ban OHKO moves and possibly also evasion in single-elimination Pokemon tournaments. But actually, I would actually ban single-elimination Pokemon tournaments in the first place. Since skill tells in the long run, the tournaments that make sense in Pokemon are Swiss system ones. And, as I said in the OU list thread, I would treat the ladder as a continuous tournament, where the player on top is not that who wins all games, but the most consistent one. (Unfortunately, right now it isn't like that.)

So I'd reiterate that I'd allow OHKO moves in Pokemon, but, to do so, we'll first need to change our mentality that a single Pokemon game is make-or-break, since that is horribly untrue.

Click to expand...

To be blunt: If I want to have a carefree time with an emphasis on fun, I play random battles.

I play pokemon with smogon's ruleset for the competitive aspect of the game. Sure, if it wasn't fun to some degree, I wouldn't be playing in the first place, as there are competitions I find incredibly boring and would never participate in. However, I believe the overall emphasis should be on competition. If our stance is that OHKO moves are okay simply because if you lose to them it doesn't say anything about your skill as a player, I feel that we're going down the wrong path.

The problem I'm having with the phrasing of this argument is that it seems like people believe we should give potential suspects the benefit of the doubt in all areas. The issue there is that it doesn't take into consideration the fact that we test subjects one-by-one based off of the current, static metagame. We're not starting out with a blank slate here. Technically the question is not about 'allowing OHKO moves in the beginning' - it's about 'allowing OHKO moves into the current metagame'. We're being dishonest if we phrase it in any other way.

Because of this, I really dislike the argument based on fun specifically. If I'm a person who gets upset when I lose (and make no mistake, this is what drives competition in the first place), I already have a plethora of factors which are beyond my control. I'm not sure how adding another is going to help things in any way, honestly. Our metagame is not so uncompetitive that allowing OHKOs wouldn't lower the chance of the skilled player winning, either. Currently, I'm willing to (reluctantly) accept that I will lose when I 'should have won based on skill' a certain small % of the time. Substantially increasing that % is not something a competition-based ruleset should consider.


As for Hip's suggestion that we only ban Sheer Cold - just as in a recent thread suggesting we compromise OHKO moves with Lock On, I have to ask what purpose that would serve. I can understand wanting to ban as little as possible, but does a half-clause not confuse newer players even moreso than a blanket one does, even if the logic ends up being absolutely solid?

I dont think there would be any confusion about a "Dont use the move Sheer Cold" clause..

I guess the reason I brought it up because in Pokemon we have never banned a single move before, only groups of moves. Its always been Evasion not DT and Minimise. I was wondering how this would relate to the discussion of banning moves.

Have a nice day.

Also agreeing with what X-act said, particularly his points on tournaments which, incidentally, I've always preferred to ladder play and think should be greater emphasized.


As for banning Sheer Cold alone, I'm not convinced that it would be a good idea (because we haven't tested any of them yet) but would not be opposed to doing so as long as test results lead us in that direction. I don't see anything confusing about a "Sheer Cold clause," except for the "clause" part because I really don't see why any OHKOs or Evasion moves are claused rather than banned (the only real difference being that they are also banned in Ubers).

The idea was that it's more reasonable to explain a blanket clause for all OHKO moves than it is to explain why only a single one should be banned. However, I guess my objection does come more based on the clause - ban disagreement, and it was probably not the most valid comparison that I made as a result. You're right that it brings up an interesting question in regards to banning singular moves, though. I plan on chiming in on that thread, and if we eventually come to a conclusion perhaps we can use it here.

This brings up something I really wanted to discuss, best phrased by a statement Obi made back on the Evasion thread:

Obi said:

I don't think we should "test everything" in this sense. I know a lot of people are going to try to call my a hypocrite for this and quote me out of context, so let me say right now that people who do so are not understanding my position. We should test anything we want to ban if we're banning it because it's too powerful.

My opposition to Double Team, Minimize, and several other things is not because I think they are too powerful, but because they maximize the effect of luck, thus minimizing the effect of 'skill'. We don't need to test anything to convince me because my position isn't one of something being overpowered. I am opposed to the idea of evasion even in the abstract.

Click to expand...

I'm going to, at first, disregard the stance that OHKO moves don't promote luck, because I feel that we have a somewhat unresolved question to deal with.

That question is:

If an aspect of the game promotes luck over skill, should it be banned on that principle alone?

I believe we currently answer yes to this question, with a stipulation that we don't directly change the game mechanics in order to reach that goal (the argument for which is another topic altogether). However, there's a distinct counter-point that should be considered - should 'power', or actual effect on the top tier of the metagame, come into play?

For instance, if the metagame is heavily offensive you could definitely make the case that OHKO or Evasion moves were worthless - say, if any 2 of your 4 moves could potentially OHKO any threat which switched into you anyhow. This is a bit of a drastic scenario, but you could certainly argue that evasion moves are better 'countered' by actually attacking as normal just in today's metagame than by actually using 'counters' (one bit of reasoning which goes along with why I feel that while OHKO moves are out of the question, Evasion moves are worth serious discussion). It follows that if something can be dealt with using means that are reliable and non-centralizing, it may not really be luck in the first place. I think Hipmonlee's Sheer Cold idea is mostly based off of this principle - that other OHKO moves have more 'reasonable' counters and therefore don't actually promote luck.

The idea is that as long as long as the more skilled player wins more often, we have a metagame that is acceptable. I disagree. It's not enough that the most skilled player wins more often than not - the most skilled player should win as often as possible. (You could add to that 'within reasonable means', as banning OHKOs/Evasion moves is reasonable, whereas banning crits may not be.) As I said before, I think that adding another means in which luck can play a factor is inherently unhealthy for a competitive metagame. Let's make no mistake here - luck can and will play a factor every time OHKO/Evasion moves are used unless they are powerful enough to cause centralization toward Sturdy pokemon and moves that cannot miss.


There's an interesting parallel to be made here regarding why Shaymin-S is potentially Uber while Togekiss is not even close to being suspect, but that's probably left to another thread. Or at least we should clear the air on how move banning differentiates from pokemon banning first.

I guess I'll make the obligatory argument that if we were really trying to create a ruleset under which the skilled players win as often as possible, we'd be banning a lot more than we already ban. You invoke a 'within reasonable means' clause, but this is a purely subjective, meaningless qualifier. My definition of 'reasonable' could differ considerably from yours.

Since we're not changing game mechanics, we can't ban critical hits, but maybe it's reasonable to ban all attacks with a high crit rate? Perhaps all moves and items that boost the crit rate should be banned?

Likewise, perhaps we should ban all moves below a certain accuracy threshold, say 85%? After all, the people who use them are depending on luck to a certain degree. Do they really deserve to win when they take a chance on Hydro Pump and it hits? How about twice in a row (a 64% chance)? Three times (a 51.2% chance)? At what point are they winning due to hax?

I believe that if you're looking to play a game where skill always (or nearly always) triumphs over luck, Pokémon is not the game for you. I've heard it said (and maybe said it myself a few times) that people who are looking for a game like that should go play chess instead. Realistically, though, I can't say that with any real conviction because chess is nothing like Pokémon, and therein lies the issue. In all seriousness, the real problem here is that there is no game with all of Pokémon's merits but without the luck factor. Such a game could easily exist, and it could be very enjoyable, but as far as I know nobody has invented it yet. I wish they would. I'd play it and probably really enjoy it. In the meantime, we have Pokémon.

Randomness is so integral to Pokémon that to attempt to surgically remove all the probability-based elements is to create a whole new game. So if you want to keep OHKOs banned because you honestly believe they're too powerful, or even because they frustrate you, go ahead and make your argument. But if you tell me that you want make the game as skill-based as possible, I'd like to either hear you advocate removing other luck-based factors or to tell me why you don't advocate removing them. In other words, I'd genuinely like to hear what your definition of 'within reasonable means' is and why you believe it to be the best definition.

TheMaskedNitpicker said:

I guess I'll make the obligatory argument that if we were really trying to create a ruleset under which the skilled players win as often as possible, we'd be banning a lot more than we already ban. You invoke a 'within reasonable means' clause, but this is a purely subjective, meaningless qualifier. My definition of 'reasonable' could differ considerably from yours.

Since we're not changing game mechanics, we can't ban critical hits, but maybe it's reasonable to ban all attacks with a high crit rate? Perhaps all moves and items that boost the crit rate should be banned?

Likewise, perhaps we should ban all moves below a certain accuracy threshold, say 85%? After all, the people who use them are depending on luck to a certain degree. Do they really deserve to win when they take a chance on Hydro Pump and it hits? How about twice in a row (a 64% chance)? Three times (a 51.2% chance)? At what point are they winning due to hax?

I believe that if you're looking to play a game where skill always (or nearly always) triumphs over luck, Pokémon is not the game for you. I've heard it said (and maybe said it myself a few times) that people who are looking for a game like that should go play chess instead. Realistically, though, I can't say that with any real conviction because chess is nothing like Pokémon, and therein lies the issue. In all seriousness, the real problem here is that there is no game with all of Pokémon's merits but without the luck factor. Such a game could easily exist, and it could be very enjoyable, but as far as I know nobody has invented it yet. I wish they would. I'd play it and probably really enjoy it. In the meantime, we have Pokémon.

Randomness is so integral to Pokémon that to attempt to surgically remove all the probability-based elements is to create a whole new game. So if you want to keep OHKOs banned because you honestly believe they're too powerful, or even because they frustrate you, go ahead and make your argument. But if you tell me that you want make the game as skill-based as possible, I'd like to either hear you advocate removing other luck-based factors or to tell me why you don't advocate removing them. In other words, I'd genuinely like to hear what your definition of 'within reasonable means' is and why you believe it to be the best definition.

Click to expand...

'Without altering game mechanics' is a valid definition for reasonable means, considering that altering game mechanics is argued to be counterintuitive to the idea of a simulator in the first place. Just as that was easily defined, it's not impossible to further expand it to include other things which constitute as 'reasonable means'.

The moves you've described as a counter-argument have a tradeoff in which the user considers while choosing which to use. If I choose Hydro Pump over Surf on Swampert, I know I'm trading accuracy for power. If I choose Crunch over Night Slash on Ursaring, I know I'm trading the extra crit chance away for a higher base attack and chance at -Def. The moves were balanced in that fashion.

However, what makes this truly skill based is that there are checks for each move in question. Choose Hydro Pump or Surf - lots of pokemon wall you the same either way. This is why I mentioned the Togekiss - Skymin situation. Togekiss is more or less completely laughed at by certain pokemon. You would need to flinch them so many times that the probability of you actually coming out ahead is well below that of a critical hit (If it's acceptable that a critical hit can beat a counter, it should be acceptable that Togekiss beats something it 'shouldn't' .05% of the time). Meanwhile, Skymin is much more sketchy, which is why it's a Suspect and Togekiss isn't.

Having said that, OHKO moves break the idea of balanced moves in every aspect. They ignore typing except when immunities exist - you can switch Heatran into Ice Beams all day, but Sheer Cold is another story (and if that was the only problem with OHKOs, banning just Sheer Cold would be more reasonable). They also are the only attacking moves that can take out competitive pokemon in one hit which render defensive stats null and void. In this case they completely ignore the sense of balance which is obvious in Hydro Pump - Surf, Fire Blast - Flamethrower, and Seismic Toss/Night Shade as well. Most importantly, though, every one of these other balanced moves has a reasonable response. What is the response toward OHKOs - switch in and pray? Switch in one of the couple viable Sturdy Pokemon, which aren't necessarily able to switch in against OHKOers in the first place?

Does that suffice as an explanation?

I never said that the emphasis should be on fun. I said the emphasis should be on playing well - having fun is a bonus (which, I hope, everyone gets!).

So, if I play well - which, to me, means I do the utmost to win provided I stay within the rules of the game - and I still lose, whose fault is it? It's clearly not my fault.

The reason why I still lost is one of the following two: one, the opponent played even better than me, and two, I was unlucky. If one is the case, then I cannot but congratulate my opponent for his win and try to learn from his method of play so that I improve mine. If two is the case, however, you just shrug it off and say "you win some, you lose some" - meaning that sometimes I lose games that I'm supposed to win, but I also keep in mind that sometimes I win games that I'm supposed to lose as well. (It's amazing how people conveniently forget the italics part!)

With this in mind, it is obvious that a single Pokemon game does not tell the true story of who is the more skilled player. This only becomes apparent in the long run.

Now if you tell me "we ban OHKO moves for the competitive aspect of the game" I'll tell you this. A long time ago, I had a battle where I played horribly, but somehow, I managed to keep my Scarf Gengar alive and ended up with it as the last Pokemon against my opponent's last Pokemon. I couldn't OHKO the Pokemon with any attack, so I chose Thunderbolt resignedly. Guess what? Thunderbolt was a CH and I won. Hooray to the competitive aspect of the game!

I cannot underline enough the point of X-act's recent posts and have posted it myself several times before—pokemon, like poker, is a game where skill is decided in the long run and not the short run. Doug credited his experience with the Battle Tower with giving him insight about how OHKOs really affect a sound strategy and thus one's winning percentage. When you think about these two phenomena, you should start to think about pokemon the right way, in that there shouldn't be much of any emphasis on winning or losing one or two battles since skill in pokemon is/should be determined by winning percentage, not whenever you were able to string together six or seven battles in a row at the right time (any given tournament).

It was also pointed out that pokemon is inherently a game with a lot of luck no matter how you consider it. Some of that luck matters, some of it doesn't. The fact that that luck mattered almost a decade ago is the reason that "we" banned OHKOs in the first place. It may not matter now, which is why it is being reconsidered along with Evasion. But it wasn't banned because it hinges 100% on luck, or else we'd ban moves like Acupressure and Metronome. OHKOs and Evasion were banned because they promoted "luck that mattered".

If you don't like the notion alone that OHKOs are "100% luck dependent", then maybe you're playing the wrong game, or you at least need to change your mindset about losing one pokemon battle, or at least the notion of that, since as Doug pointed out I am sure many of you don't have much or any experience with OHKOs in any capacity. I don't think I have to remind any of you where I play most of my pokemon, and therefore have probably more experience with OHKOs and evasion than pretty much everyone even including the few people who have played the BT more than I have. This is because I am also basing that on the fact that I never, ever refused a challenge on NetBattle in 2004 where my opponent would break out DT Umbreon or Sheer Cold Lapras, something that was possible since people could sneakily uncheck the Evasion and OHKO clauses though a lot of times these challenges would come from people who just didn't know how to check off the clause boxes and just wanted to play.

chaos can attest to this most since we watched each others battles all the time back then but he won't post in this thread (or forum) so whatever. He and others would tell me "dude just DC", since this was before intentionally disconnecting actually wasn't prevented against on the server side by making it impossible to not rejoin the battle if you signed back on within three minutes. But I never even considered DCing even though the battles were rated because I felt that I would be able to beat my opponent anyway, which is why I accepted "random" rated challenges in the first place. And many, many times, I did—I probably only lost like 6-8% of those battles anyway, which is in line with my actual winning percentage. But that isn't even the point, since I didn't really care that much if I lost a battle to OHKOs or evasion, because not only was it was one battle, but I never lost a battle due entirely to either of those anyway, meaning that sure ok you took out my Blissey and therefore, 30 turns later, won the battle, but seriously, whatever.

Now if I didn't have any actual competitive experience in Platinum then my claims that OHKOs are probably not as powerful or hard to beat could be regarded as ignorant, but I do. I don't know how many of you were even playing pokemon back in 2004, let alone willing to accept battles from people who didn't adhere to Evasion or OHKOs clause, or play them out when the offending moves were used against you. I am aware that many of those challenging me intending to (ab)use OHKOs and/or evasion to beat me were largely not top-tier battlers, but I am as aware of this likelihood as I am of the one that OHKOs are a lot harder to (ab)use than they could have been in Advance or GSC. The only thing that matters is whether OHKOs (and Evasion though that's technically outside the scope of this thread), in Platinum, are luck that matters.

As an aside, I'm also kind of amused at those of you who are so remarkably quick to condemn OHKOs in Platinum as a powerful, low-risk-high-reward move that doesn't take any skill to use, but then would counterargue my suspicion that Stealth Rock is by that definition the exactly same thing by stating "the game isn't broken with Stealth Rock". Newsflash—we don't know whether the game is broken with OHKOs either. This isn't GSC anymore, where FishTauros would murder entire teams with "252 EVs in every stat". Those of you who argue OHKOs would definitely break the game but who also think Stealth Rock isn't breaking the game are therefore being kind of hypocritical. We don't know anything worthwhile about OHKOs in Platinum until we test them in Platinum.

The reason people think SR is "broken" in Platinum is because, after almost two years of having the move at our disposal, there is now and/or still suspicion that it may be a "powerful, low-risk-high-reward move that doesn't take any skill to use". At the very least they are basing this claim on actual experience with the move, whereas many of you, as stated above and before, have hardly if ever experienced OHKOs and are therefore unfairly condemning them. So either admit that SR is comparable to OHKOs in the "powerful, low-risk-high-reward move that doesn't take any skill to use" regard (since I've shown that OHKOs aren't banned because they are luck but because they are "luck that matters"), or admit that OHKOs may not be as bad as you think because you are lacking the necessary information to be able to say that about them in Platinum.

In all fairness, I don't feel the Stealth Rock comparison is a valid one. My options for 'dealing with' SR when considering team building are exponentially larger than the ones for OHKO moves. I can EV specifically for it, I can run a Spinner, or I can pick from the plethora of pokemon which do not are not weak to rock to add to my team. On the other hand, there are so few viable switch-ins for OHKO moves that you're forced to run a select few pokemon if you want to come in without risk. Let's make no mistake - switching in either an immunity or a Sturdy pokemon are the only responses in which you can actually not cause OHKO moves to 'force luck'.

Also, I was one of those people in Advance who did not accept battles from Wobbuffet users or from players who did not clause OHKOs/Evasion. Though, I didn't choose that path until I actually faced those things (in Advance) and decided that they were undesirable effects of a game I felt was sufficiently balanced and competitive otherwise. The reason why I'm adverse toward an actual re-test in this gen it that I feel the logic, or 'theorymon' if we want to use such a loaded word, is strong enough by itself. It's quite similar to my belief that 'Shadow Tag + Encore + Tickle + enough speed' is broken regardless of the remaining variables. In the next pokemon generation, in order for me to reconsider that position there would have to be some substantial changes. Currently I don't think that, even with a more offensive metagame, things have changed enough to make OHKOs worth testing.

And it is my suspicion that *because* it is a more offensive metagame, things have definitely changed enough to make OHKOs worth testing. Again, you are just not going to get away with tanking and spamming OHKOs on your opponents' entire team like was possible in GSC, and OHKOs have been banned/frowned upon from even before that time. Fish, for whatever reason and in whatever scenario, made that set, and it was actually played with for some part of GSC. The fact that the Platinum game is much more offensive than the one in which OHKOs last saw any use lends less credence to the notion that OHKOs will be easier to (ab)use in Platinum. While Lapras has gained one new OHKO move every generation since GSC, there are literally no other changes to efficacy of a "Rest/Sleep Talk/OHKO/OHKO set" than the nerfing of defensive stats by way of the 510-EV cap, the addition of Sturdy Pokemon, and the addition of offense-encouraging moves like Choice Band, Choice Specs, Life Orb and Stealth Rock to name a few. While I won't and will never argue that "but Sturdy" is a good argument on paper or in practice, the other phenomena are ones that cannot be ignored regardless of one's experience with OHKOs.

While I will say that I can't say for sure how many more, your options with dealing with OHKOs are greater than you let on. Your assumption is that you will always always have to switch to a "counter", when it stands to reason that "evasion moves are better 'countered' by actually attacking as normal just in today's metagame than by actually using 'counters'" (your words of course) and such a strategy is immediately applicable to OHKOs as well. Isn't it better to, if possible, stay in and deal significant damage to a OHKO user, or Sub, or use whatever status move instead of risking your actual better OHKO counter/revenge killer? If you actually feel that the OHKO user is going to pose that much of a threat to your team, why would you take the 30% chance that it will take out your best answer to them when you can largely negate their efficacy by dealing with the OHKO user straight up with whatever pokemon you have out?

This is largely theorymon of course and I am aware that "Articuno vs. Salamence" puts the Articuno user in a good position to pose a threat to the rest of the team with the "will I IB or Sheer Cold" fork, but besides the fact that coincidentally all users of Sheer Cold (unarguably the best OHKO move) either are part Ice-type and thus weak to SR or banned (Kyogre), and besides the fact that the hyper-offensive style of DPPT compared to GSC or Advance at once makes OHKOs less effective than they were in GSC, this is the entire reason that we need to test OHKOs. We don't know much of anything about how OHKOs will fare in Platinum outside of theorymonning. I'm just stating that my experience with these moves actually leads me to believe that they aren't as broken as they were in GSC or Advance.

Also, the "theorymon" behind "Shadow Tag + Encore + Tickle + enough speed" isn't actually theorymon, since experience is the only reason we know exactly what that strategy is capable of in Platinum (or at least DP if you want to be really anal). This is kind of the reason that OHKOs are a question mark until actually tested in Plat, because Tickle's efficacy had to be discovered through actual play, not untested theorymon, since Tickle has been available since Advance. It is very safe to say that had we never tested Wobbuffet, we may not know how broken it really still is, even if it would likely have been banned anyway. (It is also mentioning again that the fact that Tickle's brokenness had to be broadcast by yours truly is indicative of the fact that even when broken strategies are available for everyone to use and figure out they may not even then be realized by the community.) By the same token, we need to let OHKOs walk the walk first, because not only is talk cheap in this regard since OHKOs haven't really been used in standard play in about a decade, they may have to walk for a while like Wobbuffet did to really show that they're broken.

Before I get started: no, this post has nothing in it pertaining to the 100% OHKO Clause. I've given up my position on that argument because, despite it probably being the best alternative, it would be against standards to "change the mechanics of the game", as RB Golbat quickly pointed out.

But onto business:

OHKOs get an average of 2.4 kills per match!

The above number was determined by the following assumptions:

1) The pokemon with the OHKO move had eight free turns to fire them off.
2) The person whom the OHKO move is being used against hasn't killed the pokemon using the OHKO move before it uses up all eight uses.
3) The person whom the OHKO move is being used against didn't waste a single PP by bringing in a Sturdy/ Pressure pokemon, by Focus Sash/ Band, or by pokemon using Substitute/ Protect.

There are a lot of things you can do with eight free turns: any competitive player will tell you that eight free turns allows for:
1) 6 one-hit-kills(not the moves, like using a move that does 100% damage to a pokemon) along with two free switches.
2) Allows you to set up every kind of Spikes and Rapid Spin their's away, with one extra switchin to boot.

Really, if person A gives person B free turns like candy, I think person A should lose those 2.4 pokemon, if not more. In fact, you can force them to lose more by investing in other moves that overall will give you a higher damage output.

More numbers that correspond with the above assumptions:

Chance to get no kills: 5.764801%
Chance to get one kill: 19.765032%
Chance to get two kills: 29.647548%
Chance to get three kills: 25.412184%
Chance to get four kills: 13.61367%
Chance to get five kills: 4.667544%
Chance to get six kills: 1.129221%

Again, this above is with eight completely free turns: you can have much better chances with many of the highly overpowered moves of DPPt. Do we not keep Brightpowder legal because "there are better options"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After this point I am going to attempt to go X-Act mode and explain how I got all of the above numbers. I post it for two reasons: main reason is to prove that I got the right numbers, and the other reason is so that people can "correct" me in case I made a mistake(I'm only human, let me reassure you).

First I had to find the chance for a "designated path" to happen, for example getting 3 kills out of 8 uses. That would be found using this equation:

0.7^(8-x)*0.3^x

"x" in this equation being the number of kills your looking for. This was the easy part, but for it to be correct the numbers would have to add up to 1. After a little thinking, it became obvious that the order in which the kills could happen had a big impact on the probability of them occurring. In short, I just had to find how many ways I could rearrange the 0.3's and 0.7's in the equation when I write them out. For example, when calculating one kill:

0.3*0.7*0.7*0.7*0.7*0.7*0.7*0.7

It's obvious that you can move the 0.3 into 8 different locations between the 0.7's, which means that there are 8 different ways to get one kill. So after solving the equation 0.7^(8-1)*0.3, I just multiplied it by a new variable, "y", which equals the number of ways that the one kill could occur out of eight attempts, which in this case was eight. So now the actual equation was:

0.7^(8-x)*0.3^(x)*y

Finding out how to get two, three, and four kills was a lot harder. So, since I had free time in class, I did it like this: made all 0.7's X's and all 0.3 O's, and worked it like this:

OOXXXXXX,OXOXXXXX,OXXOXXXX,OXXXOXXX,OXXXXOXX,OXXXXXOX,OXXXXXXO,XOOXXXXX,XOXOXXXX.....etc

So this is what I got:

When "x" equals 1, "y" equals 8.
When "x" equals 2, "y" equals 28.
When "x" equals 3 or 5, "y" equals 56.
When "x" equals 4, "y" equals 70.

And yes, I physically wrote out every combination and counted them afterwards: took about half an hour of nonstop X's and O's. Anyway, I ran into a problem after that cause you can't get seven or eight kills in a match and even with six calculated I didn't get the full 100%. But then I realized that everything in seven+eight was just to be calculated as six, so after finding all the other percentages I just added them together and subtracted them from 1 to get the final percentage.

How did I exactly get the 2.4? I just multiplied the number of kills by the percentage chance of them happening and adding them all together.

Articanus said:

0.7^(8-x)*0.3^(x)*y

Finding out how to get two, three, and four kills was a lot harder. So, since I had free time in class, I did it like this: made all 0.7's X's and all 0.3 O's, and worked it like this:

OOXXXXXX,OXOXXXXX,OXXOXXXX,OXXXOXXX,OXXXXOXX,OXXXXXOX,OXXXXXXO,XOOXXXXX,XOXOXXXX.....etc

So this is what I got:

When "x" equals 1, "y" equals 8.
When "x" equals 2, "y" equals 28.
When "x" equals 3 or 5, "y" equals 56.
When "x" equals 4, "y" equals 70.

And yes, I physically wrote out every combination and counted them afterwards: took about half an hour of nonstop X's and O's. Anyway, I ran into a problem after that cause you can't get seven or eight kills in a match and even with six calculated I didn't get the full 100%. But then I realized that everything in seven+eight was just to be calculated as six, so after finding all the other percentages I just added them together and subtracted them from 1 to get the final percentage.

How did I exactly get the 2.4? I just multiplied the number of kills by the percentage chance of them happening and adding them all together.

Click to expand...

Good work. Just so you know, the numbers 8, 28, 56, 70, etc. could have been found much, much more easily by the formula

8! / [(8-x)! x!]

where x is what you defined it to be, and n!, read as 'n factorial', is equal to 1 * 2 * 3 * ... * n.

It can also be written without factorials as

[8 * 7 * ... * (8-x)] / [1 * 2 * ... * x]

For example,

When x = 1: 8 / 1 = 8
When x = 2: (8 * 7) / (1 * 2) = 56 / 2 = 28
When x = 3: (8 * 7 * 6) / (1 * 2 * 3) = 336 / 6 = 56
When x = 4: (8 * 7 * 6 * 5) / (1 * 2 * 3 * 4) = 1680 / 24 = 70

etc.