Damage Stats - An easier way to calculate damage

[X-Act]

Originally Posted by Fat Flying Machine

This is so cool I finally made a one which includes EVs... btw, could someone tell me how to calculate 1-2HKOs? (% chance)
like, whats % of OHKO when taking 84-102% damage from 1 atk.
ty again xact :D

It is approximately:

%Probability to OHKO = 2000 x (1 - 100/Dam) / 3

where Dam is the maximum percentage damage.

For example, in your example dealing 84% to 102%, the approximate probability to OHKO is 2000 x (1 - 100/102)/3 = 13.07%.

[X-Act]

These stats can also be used to know the actual [S]Atk stat you need to OHKO a Pokemon when you use a move with move power P:

Actual [S]Atk stat needed to OHKO a Pokemon = C x DHP x D[S]Def
 
where C = 525 / P

Alternatively, C may be found from the following table:

Move Power        C
--------------------
    40       13.125
    50         10.5
    60         8.75
    70          7.5
    75            7
    80       6.5625
    85        6.176
    90        5.833
    95        5.526
   100         5.25
   102        5.147
   120        4.375
   150          3.5

A final curiosity: if the opposing Pokemon has no EVs in neither HP nor [S]Def and you put C = 0.7875 in the formula above and add 1 to the answer, you will get a very good approximation of the Tankiness of that Pokemon, as defined in my Base Stats Ratings applet. The 'add 1' part shows that Normalized Base Stats (on which the BSR is defined) are even less accurate than these Damage stats!

[pokeboss9]

I thought off making an extra thread for this but i decide to write it here because i can t find a better title for this.

No question, your calculations are very accurate, more accurate than my method to calculate damage of an attack. Very nice work X-Act**.


Now i wanna introduce my way to calculate damage. Its easy enough to use it during a battle.
In math it would sound so:

[(Attack Power x Stab x effectivity) -20%] x [(SpA x Boost)/SpD x Boost)]= Damage

The first factor has an + aberration of ca. 0,1-3% for the most used moves. It depends on the damage, more damage , more aberration.
The second factor is in theory perfect but during the battles you always have to appraise the result. Try to come as close to the exact result.
The damage is in HP, not in %.
But it shouldnt be a problem to randomize.

I take X-Act**s first example;

Modest Spec Kyogre with 252 SpA EVs used Thunder on a 321 Hp Palkia with 276SpD.

Now we have:
[( 120 x 1 x 1 ) -20%] x [(657 x 1 )/(276 x 1)] =
96 x ~2,33 ~ 225 ~ 70%


The exact average damage is 223,92.
For the min/max Damage i subtract/add 7,5% from/to my result.
Here i get 64,25-75,25 %. A little bit to high. Ofden its not necessary to be so exact, because you cannot influence it. You just know the damage would be a little more or less.


You dont believe me?
Here Act** 2nd example
110Atk with 252 Atk EVs and + Attack nature uses Thunderpunch against a 124Hp Bold Milotic with 252 Def EVs.
Now we see the next important point, we have to know the stats, i m honestly when i say i don t know Milotic stats.
After a simple look on its stats:

[(75 x 1 x 2) -20%] x ( 350/282 ) =
120 x 1,25 = 150 ~ 42%

148,23 (41,44) is the exact result.
Very close, isn t it? Of course you dont have use it every round, just when you think it will help you.

You may critisize this way is not exact and i have to round up/ down a lot. . This is right, but with a little feeling for numbers and basic math knowledge you can come close to the exact damage of every attack. Without help of any calculation software.

I hope you will enjoy my way of damage calculation, i use this way sucessfully for some months.



mfg pokeboss9

[X-Act]

Originally Posted by Fat pokeboss9

I thought off making an extra thread for this but i decide to write it here because i can t find a better title for this.

No question, your calculations are very accurate, more accurate than my method to calculate damage of an attack. Very nice work X-Act**.


Now i wanna introduce my way to calculate damage. Its easy enough to use it during a battle.
In math it would sound so:

[(Attack Power x Stab x effectivity) -20%] x [(SpA x Boost)/SpD x Boost)]= Damage

The first factor has an + aberration of ca. 0,1-3% for the most used moves. It depends on the damage, more damage , more aberration.
The second factor is in theory perfect but during the battles you always have to appraise the result. Try to come as close to the exact result.
The damage is in HP, not in %.
But it shouldnt be a problem to randomize.

I take X-Act**s first example;

Modest Spec Kyogre with 252 SpA EVs used Thunder on a 321 Hp Palkia with 276SpD.

Now we have:
[( 120 x 1 x 1 ) -20%] x [(657 x 1 )/(276 x 1)] =
96 x ~2,33 ~ 225 ~ 70%


The exact average damage is 223,92.
For the min/max Damage i subtract/add 7,5% from/to my result.
Here i get 64,25-75,25 %. A little bit to high. Ofden its not necessary to be so exact, because you cannot influence it. You just know the damage would be a little more or less.


You dont believe me?
Here Act** 2nd example
110Atk with 252 Atk EVs and + Attack nature uses Thunderpunch against a 124Hp Bold Milotic with 252 Def EVs.
Now we see the next important point, we have to know the stats, i m honestly when i say i don t know Milotic stats.
After a simple look on its stats:

[(75 x 1 x 2) -20%] x ( 350/282 ) =
120 x 1,25 = 150 ~ 42%

148,23 (41,44) is the exact result.
Very close, isn t it? Of course you dont have use it every round, just when you think it will help you.

You may critisize this way is not exact and i have to round up/ down a lot. . This is right, but with a little feeling for numbers and basic math knowledge you can come close to the exact damage of every attack. Without help of any calculation software.

I hope you will enjoy my way of damage calculation, i use this way sucessfully for some months.



mfg pokeboss9

I looked into your method and I understand why your method works... in fact, I can give you a way of improving its accuracy.

Simply replace the 20% in your formula by 16%.

(A quick way of approximating 16% is by dividing the number by 6. For 20% you divide it by 5.)

I assure you that this would result in better accuracy!

[Farmer]

Great work as always x-act this will be a great help.

[Riddler]

This is definately handy thanks for the info, it's annoying how long certain damage calcs can take and this will save people time.

[_Goose_]

Originally Posted by Fat X-Act

I looked into your method and I understand why your method works... in fact, I can give you a way of improving its accuracy.

Simply replace the 20% in your formula by 16%.

(A quick way of approximating 16% is by dividing the number by 6. For 20% you divide it by 5.)

I assure you that this would result in better accuracy!

I realize it's not that big of a deal, but instead of subtracting 16% why not just simply multiply the result x .84 (or to be seemingly more accurate compared to metalkids calc multiply x.85)

so you're left with the easy and efficient formula:

[( MOVE POWER x STAB x EFFECTIVITY) x .84] x [(ATK x BOOST) / (DEF x BOOST)] = ~ Max Damage

then you can go on to find minimum damage easily with this formula:

Max Damage x .85 = ~ Min Damage
______________________________________________

Lets test this theory using MetalKids Calc to help our results

We'll use a Adamant Salamence 405 ATK > Outrage (Dragon type) 120 Move Power ...no stat boosts

For Defense we'll use Bold Milotic 282 DEF ...no stat boosts
______________________________________________

[(120 x 1.5 x 1) x .84] x [(405 x 1) / (282 x 1)] =

151.2 x 1.436 = 217.12 or ~217 Max Damage

~217 x .85 = 184.45 or ~184 Min Damage
______________________________________________

Input this information into MetalKids Calc and you get these results

187 - 220

now I've heard people say that MetalKids Calc overshoots the damage a bit and when you take a look at what I post above in the parenthases about multiplying by .85 you can understand the minimal differentiate between the damages. So to prove this I did the same calc above using .85 instead of .84 and the damage came out to be


186.75 - 219.708 or rounded up 187-220. Hopefully this helps somewhat.